(CNN) -- [Updated at 1:13 p.m. ET] U.S. President Barack Obama, announcing Friday that "the rest of our troops will come home by the end of the year," said: "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over."
The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring" after U.S. troops leave the country, Obama said in the White House briefing room. The United States will continue its interest in a strong, stable Iraq after U.S. troops leave, the president said.
"Today I can say that our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays," Obama said.
About 39,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, and the U.S. had wanted to keep from 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq past 2011 to aid in training and security. But the current Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq dictates the U.S. troops leave by year's end, and the United States and Iraq had been unable to come to an agreement on key issues regarding legal immunity for U.S. troops who would remain in Iraq, effectively ending discussion of maintaining a significant American force presence beyond 2011.
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, only about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks' release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as initially reported by the U.S. military.
U.S. troops have already started the drawdown - a brigade from Fort Bliss, Texas, that was originally scheduled to be among the very last to leave Iraq was being pulled out of the country months ahead of its planned departure, military officials told CNN last week.
Not much really to discuss though aside from...CELEBRATION!!! We're going to be out (mostly) of Iraq!
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
I agree to the sentiment. Just rephrase the word a little. Like the majority (read: most) of American citizens, we did not want our government (read: not the citizens) occupying another country. Proxy hate speech gtfo.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
Finally! It's been far to long. Maybe we can finally use the air conditioning budget that's bigger than NASA's budget on something like getting our economy back on track. This BETTER come with a reduction of military spending.
I really hope this isn't just preparing for Iran.. -.- Though I sorta have a feeling we might "find critical information about possible weapons of mass destruction" shortly after 2012.
Good news for the soldiers, bad news for iraq. A real democracy wont survive in the middle-east. Soon enough you'll have another dictator up there and shit just gets real... again
On October 22 2011 02:06 VALERO_ wrote: we're preparing 4 iran LOL
Hahahaha sigh.
I'm pretty sure if Obama wants any chance of winning the election, he won't talk about invading any other countries for a while.
Well... he did just put advisers in Uganda, and not too long ago deployed forces to Libya. Those are very minor compared to Iraq / Afghanistan, of course, but the man is not completely avoiding using US military assets in new places.
Edit: Changed "troops" to "advisers" after re-reading the news articles.
couple questions 1. does this include all the corporate/private owned mercenaries? 2. who would have actually made this decision? since iraq didnt want the US to have so many troops there, who would we reasonably give the merit?
On October 22 2011 02:10 Galaxy613 wrote: Finally! It's been far to long. Maybe we can finally use the air conditioning budget that's bigger than NASA's budget on something like getting our economy back on track. This BETTER come with a reduction of military spending.
lOLOLLOL reduction in military spending HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh wait, you are you serious? I don't see that happening until economic collapse forces it. Unfortunately.
We went in there to halt the production of WMDs, but I just had a thought... it would probably be smarter to have waited it out, and if some WMDs did get exploded it might have just been cheaper to never go to war and spend that money on cleaning up the mess
I can only shake my head at everyone hoping for a sudden shift in spending from military to domestic infrastructure. The United States has been fighting wars somewhere in the world for about two hundred years, that's not going to change any time soon.
lol, get ready for iraq to be taken over by a dictator again. And it's going to cost more to pull out the troops than to keep them there. But we won't have to pay for it after that.
This will have a big impact on the next presidential election, Obama was looking weak until they got Bin Laden and now this. No doubt he will want to take credit for all of it.
Should never have been started but that is another topic, i am happy its over.
Do they have a stable foundation? I feel like there's just going to be another Uncle Saddam in the next few years who will bring the country back where it started. And then the US will have to go back in for Round 3.
Another surge of approval for Obama no doubt, but it'll die off by the next election
But I'm still happy for the news. Now just Afghanistan left.
I think that one of the big legitimate criticisms of Obama has been that he really hasn't followed through on the commitments made to his base during the last campaign. This would go a long way to fix that.
ohh and btw good for iraq not allowing US troops with fucking immunity! That should stop.
No one should have immunity for rape, murder etc.. US tropps or any other army, people!
It offends me to think that the US "help" would be up to that simple detail and that you would go away because of that.. it's kinda bad and it shows what USA thinks of other countrys.
Oh and btw if it was up to me the 150 arms "sellers" could go away to, lots of people sell weapons..
On October 22 2011 02:32 a176 wrote: Wondering what will happen to defense budget?
Will be increased OFC. Because we don't have to pay to ship equipment, food, and other resources across the ocean we can now afford to invest that extra money in new military technologies while keeping the same amount of armed personnel at home though we still won't protect our ports or boarders with said military personnel.
On October 22 2011 02:44 RoosterSamurai wrote: Alright, we're gone from 1 country. Now how many more to go? I think we should be gone from all of them that aren't U.S. soil
lololol
some of you are so ignorant it makes my head spin.
Didn't he also say he'd close down Gitmo within a year? He's had trouble keeping his promises, so I'm pessimistic that it'll happen. Would be awesome if it did though!
Edit: I just realized that more people are gonna be jobless now -_- oh boy
On October 22 2011 02:48 mastergriggy wrote: Didn't he also say he'd close down Gitmo within a year? He's had trouble keeping his promises, so I'm pessimistic that it'll happen. Would be awesome if it did though!
It already happened, unless agreements are broken.
On October 22 2011 02:36 Frankon wrote: Looks like there is no more oil....
On the serious note. Would the american economy survive without the war? Weapon industry had been keeping the economy alive for the past few years.
Heh, since Canada exports 5x more oil to the US than Iraq, I'm ever dilligent in watching our borders... only a matter of time before Stephen Harper gets declared a "regime facist leader" and America invades to take out weapons of mass destruction that they've put there in the first place.
And though it's been said war is good for an economy, I suspect with the way US business is outsourced that all they were doing was lining China's pockets...
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
well no thats all they had there which is what the problem is.
Im not sure peopl etruly understand what damage people have done to iraq ... compare the literacy figures and university figures to before the war and now.
'What we sacrificed to create' is soemthing I don't understand. I don't think we have created all that much in comparison to what was destroyed.
to talk of creation out of war is a bit contradictory. All youve created is a generation of people who know the west killed their families. In 20 years time when they are blowing the fuck out of us ... remember why.
I don't think its been said that war is GOOD for an economy ... sure it drives it. The only thing war is good for is the people who make weapons.
But you are literally burning money on really expensive fireworks.
On October 22 2011 02:44 RoosterSamurai wrote: Alright, we're gone from 1 country. Now how many more to go? I think we should be gone from all of them that aren't U.S. soil
lololol
some of you are so ignorant it makes my head spin.
My my, it is true that the sight of Liquidian commoners leaves me with the most displeasant feeling. Not even aware of the complex links generated by Kissinger's realpolitik... shameful!
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
well no thats all they had there which is what the problem is.
You do realize that the war in Iraq, while not 100% about finding WMD, was for more than "business" and "oil" right? If it was about oil we sure as hell wouldn't be sitting on $3+ oil prices. The war with Iraq technically never ended from when it was started in the 1990s when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had to go in to not only kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but also to keep the Saudi's, our allies, from getting taken over by a crazy dictator. The Gulf War never actually solved the problem that was Saddam Hussein since the coalition, mostly made up of the US, left before taking over Baghdad and chose to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power instead of pushing for his capture. They figured he would get overthrown but instead he cracked down hard and stayed in power.
The Iraq war about putting an end to a problem that was never finished (Saddam) while using the vast political and social capita that was afforded to the Bush Administration due to the 9/11 attacks. Did they lie to everyone for the real reason we went to Iraq? Mostly yes. Did they go for mainly monetary reasons? No.
This is kind of interesting. I mean you have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's talks of "the threat of Iran" and then you pull out. In starcraft terms:why break a solid contain. Although I'm happy about it (still not sure what this war was all about), I'm having hard time imaging U.S.A changing it's political focus from "taking over the world" to taking care of it's own business, economy and people. Anytime soon at least, and there's still plenty of time until election time...
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see what the next international crisis will be.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
well no thats all they had there which is what the problem is.
You do realize that the war in Iraq, while not 100% about finding WMD, was for more than "business" and "oil" right? If it was about oil we sure as hell wouldn't be sitting on $3+ oil prices. The war with Iraq technically never ended from when it was started in the 1990s when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had to go in to not only kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but also to keep the Saudi's, our allies, from getting taken over by a crazy dictator. The Gulf War never actually solved the problem that was Saddam Hussein since the coalition, mostly made up of the US, left before taking over Baghdad and chose to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power instead of pushing for his capture. They figured he would get overthrown but instead he cracked down hard and stayed in power.
The Iraq war about putting an end to a problem that was never finished (Saddam) while using the vast political and social capita that was afforded to the Bush Administration due to the 9/11 attacks. Did they lie to everyone for the real reason we went to Iraq? Mostly yes. Did they go for mainly monetary reasons? No.
Ohhh, the poor saudis. Even Saddam looks like a "bleeding heart" in comparison to the saudi monarchy.
On October 22 2011 03:09 HwangjaeTerran wrote: I mean you have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's talks of "the threat of Iran" and then you pull out. In starcraft terms:why break a solid contain.
Who needs a contain when troops can be deployed in any location on the globe within one day, leave alone missile/bomb/nuclear strikes?
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
well no thats all they had there which is what the problem is.
You do realize that the war in Iraq, while not 100% about finding WMD, was for more than "business" and "oil" right? If it was about oil we sure as hell wouldn't be sitting on $3+ oil prices. The war with Iraq technically never ended from when it was started in the 1990s when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had to go in to not only kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but also to keep the Saudi's, our allies, from getting taken over by a crazy dictator. The Gulf War never actually solved the problem that was Saddam Hussein since the coalition, mostly made up of the US, left before taking over Baghdad and chose to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power instead of pushing for his capture. They figured he would get overthrown but instead he cracked down hard and stayed in power.
The Iraq war about putting an end to a problem that was never finished (Saddam) while using the vast political and social capita that was afforded to the Bush Administration due to the 9/11 attacks. Did they lie to everyone for the real reason we went to Iraq? Mostly yes. Did they go for mainly monetary reasons? No.
Ohhh, the poor saudis. Even Saddam looks like a "bleeding heart" in comparison to the saudi monarchy.
Saddam propagated the genocide of an estimated 500,000 Kurds. Such a bleeding heart, yeah?
On October 22 2011 03:11 BlackFlag wrote: Ohhh, the poor saudis. Even Saddam looks like a "bleeding heart" in comparison to the saudi monarchy.
..What? Even if you disagree with the Saudi's you must admit that letting Saddam take over not only Kuwait but then also threaten the Saudi oil fields would be a huge problem for the rest of the world. Pretty much everyone was in agreement that the Gulf War was fought for a good cause.
Who was in that coalition? "Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.
Germany and Japan provided financial assistance and donated military hardware, but did not send direct military assistance."
I wish we could have rebuilt the country like what happened with the war-ravaged countries after World War 2. I know it's a totally different environment....But think about it, what could Iraq accomplish if it was like post war Germany, Japan, or Italy? Mouz sports Iraq?
Glad this business is over. However, its not over for the Iraqi civilians.
Awesome! My cousin is stationed in Iraq right now and he plays SC2 custom games with me whenever he's offduty! Now we'll be able to lan again like we were in highschool.
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
100% true he has deployed more troops then he has brought home. The men fed us lies since day one
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
100% true he has deployed more troops then he has brought home. The men fed us lies since day one
???
After Bin Laden's death Obama already issued orders to pull back all the troops that were deployed in the surge to Afganistan. Now he's pulling almost everyone out of Iraq. So I don't see how he deployed more troops than he's going to bring home.
And to AcuWill. Yes he made a campaign promise to bring our military people back as quickly as possible but obviously that was made without all the knowledge about the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan that he gained as soon as he became president. Last time we went into a fight and then left too quickly Bin Laden was the result. Obama made a promise that he'd bring our boys home and now he's done that. It took a while but it's finally done. How is he a liar?
On October 22 2011 03:26 Sanitarium14 wrote: I wish we could have rebuilt the country like what happened with the war-ravaged countries after World War 2. I know it's a totally different environment....But think about it, what could Iraq accomplish if it was like post war Germany, Japan, or Italy? Mouz sports Iraq?
Glad this business is over. However, its not over for the Iraqi civilians.
What a terrible idea. Almost no one thinks the Iraqis were the aggressors, and that's even considering people in the United States. Even the half-built government Iraq has is considered to be a US puppet government by the majority of people outside the United States. Any sort of government we built there would be considered tainted; the more we "helped", the more illegitimate it would be.
Reconstruction of Germany and Japan after the Second World War was under completely different circumstances against countries that everyone agreed were the belligerents. Pretty much the only thing similar is that Germany, Japan, and Iraq were not very nice people, to put it euphemistically. Not that some of the Allies were any better but hey, we won.
It would appear the US is leaving without taking all the oil with them.
Could it be the people that think the entire universe revolves around oil were wrong? No...no that can't be. If we did that we would have to admit we have nearly no understanding of the complex world, we need to be able to reduce complex geo political problems to a single word.
We must hurry to the tin cave, there is no time we have to make up some fantasy scenario where the US is still taking all the oil without actually taking a single drop of oil. Imagine if we don't this, we might have to...say we were wrong...dear god, anything but that.
On October 22 2011 03:46 zalz wrote: Well how strange is this?
It would appear the US is leaving without taking all the oil with them.
Could it be the people that think the entire universe revolves around oil were wrong? No...no that can't be. If we did that we would have to admit we have nearly no understanding of the complex world, we need to be able to reduce complex geo political problems to a single word.
We must hurry to the tin cave, there is no time we have to make up some fantasy scenario where the US is still taking all the oil without actually taking a single drop of oil. Imagine if we don't this, we might have to...say we were wrong...dear god, anything but that.
You thought we meant that the army would go there and physically take barrels of oil back with them? That's not how the world works. You replace the regime that hates you with a regime that likes you. That's how you get oil.
On October 22 2011 03:46 zalz wrote: Well how strange is this?
It would appear the US is leaving without taking all the oil with them.
Could it be the people that think the entire universe revolves around oil were wrong? No...no that can't be. If we did that we would have to admit we have nearly no understanding of the complex world, we need to be able to reduce complex geo political problems to a single word.
We must hurry to the tin cave, there is no time we have to make up some fantasy scenario where the US is still taking all the oil without actually taking a single drop of oil. Imagine if we don't this, we might have to...say we were wrong...dear god, anything but that.
You thought we meant that the army would go there and physically take barrels of oil back with them? That's not how the world works. You replace the regime that hates you with a regime that likes you. That's how you get oil.
One of these days I want to raise an army and take oil too. It sounds fun.
On October 22 2011 03:46 zalz wrote: Well how strange is this?
It would appear the US is leaving without taking all the oil with them.
Could it be the people that think the entire universe revolves around oil were wrong? No...no that can't be. If we did that we would have to admit we have nearly no understanding of the complex world, we need to be able to reduce complex geo political problems to a single word.
We must hurry to the tin cave, there is no time we have to make up some fantasy scenario where the US is still taking all the oil without actually taking a single drop of oil. Imagine if we don't this, we might have to...say we were wrong...dear god, anything but that.
You thought we meant that the army would go there and physically take barrels of oil back with them? That's not how the world works. You replace the regime that hates you with a regime that likes you. That's how you get oil.
Where have we replaced a regime that hates us with a regime that likes us? At most we have an uneasy ally. Like I said, if we really did get "oil" out of this somehow, gas prices would not be shooting out the roof. Republicans would not be complaining about federal restrictions preventing them from drilling for oil wherever they want. "Drill Baby Drill" would not be Palin's campaign chant. So realy, where in all of that did we get oil? The real reason we're still in Iraq till now was because the Bush administration decided to throw out all the lessons we learned in all the previous wars and decided as long as we got rid of the bad leader (Saddam) the rest of the country would celebrate and call us heroes. Then we could just hand over the country to them and leave. Obviously that is not how the world worked. Go read "How Wars End" by Gideon Rose and get yourself some knowledge.
Hell its about time, and whats all you thinking this was about oil you should realize this was just war profiteering the US military spends outrageous amount of money.
On October 22 2011 03:26 MattO1337 wrote: Awesome! My cousin is stationed in Iraq right now and he plays SC2 custom games with me whenever he's offduty! Now we'll be able to lan again like we were in highschool.
I'm concerned for the well-being of Iraq after we withdraw, but if any country is to have true autonomy they'll have to make it work on their own, without another country's direct involvement.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
I agree to the sentiment. Just rephrase the word a little. Like the majority (read: most) of American citizens, we did not want our government (read: not the citizens) occupying another country. Proxy hate speech gtfo.
i also agree to the sentiment, remember that one of the key reasons obama is in office was because he "promised"(tm) to pull our troops out of a war we never even wanted
americans were for revenge, and killing terrorists. not forcing our agenda and ideals on other countries
one of the greatest crimes you can do in a free society imo is to force something down someone's throat
On October 22 2011 02:36 Frankon wrote: Looks like there is no more oil....
On the serious note. Would the american economy survive without the war? Weapon industry had been keeping the economy alive for the past few years.
Actually, the United States gets roughly 50% of it's oil from north america, and another 25-30% from south america and central america. So, your oil comment is not only invalid but extremely ignorant
On October 22 2011 03:59 Kamais_Ookin wrote: So... Has anything good come out of the 9 years of U.S. troops in Iraq soil!?
We won't know for a few more decades at least until historians are able to look back and see everything in the bigger picture and link all the events up. I'd say we've gained a lot but also lost a lot as well. Only time will tell.
Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
It's not early. The war has been effectively over since 2009.
Good news for American Soldiers. I hope its also good news for Iraq, but I think only time will tell on that one. Whole thing was a mess imo, probably never was an easy/clean way to end it.
But yah, gratz to anybody with friends/family serving.
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was going better then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran. ofc i could have that backwards imma go check...
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was better off then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran.
I meant it was better in Iraq compared to some years ago in Iraq (concerning what was in the media since I'm not that informed about the Iraq-war)
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was better off then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran.
Iraq and afghanistan both border Iran, and Iraq is FAR better off than Afghanistan.
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was better off then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran.
Iraq and afghanistan both border Iran, and Iraq is FAR better off than Afghanistan.
ah so i did have it backwards which seems to confirm my suspicion after reading more XD i remember there are tribal nuances between how the iraq and afgah wars have been waged and i remember one was going better then the other. My point of afgan being close with iran/Pakistan is simply because it's the buffer zone they use for attacks on india. My point on Afghanistan probably should be reworded that iran has more influence there then in iraq closer in that sense, i suppose i should be more literal XD
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
It's not early. The war has been effectively over since 2009.
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was going better then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran. ofc i could have that backwards imma go check...
I'm sorry but this is just so far from the truth. It seems to me a lot of people's thoughts about the Middle East have stagnated since 2008. I've even heard people claiming the US is losing the war in Iraq.
as much as its good that we won't be in iraq, he'll just send those troops to Iran or Afghanistan by February. obama is just another puppet doing what the "advisors" tell him to. same as the last dozen presidents. the u.s. needs a leader that isn't interested in empire building and is interested in fixing real issues instead of creating them.
On October 22 2011 04:08 wBsKillian wrote: Seemed to me that the situation got better in Iraq, but leaving this early? I don't have a good feeling about this, it could become worse if they leave...
my impression is that Afghanistan was going better then Iraq. To me seems like cutting losses in iraq and still focusing on Afghanistan the one close to iran. ofc i could have that backwards imma go check...
I'm sorry but this is just so far from the truth. It seems to me a lot of people's thoughts about the Middle East have stagnated since 2008. I've even heard people claiming the US is losing the war in Iraq.
Haha yup about 2008 was the last time i listened to reports on a regular basis which is also why my memory is fuzzy on it. Sad truth is outside of small segments the news doesn't cover it much,
Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
On October 22 2011 04:28 Dbla08 wrote: as much as its good that we won't be in iraq, he'll just send those troops to Iran or Afghanistan by February. obama is just another puppet doing what the "advisors" tell him to. same as the last dozen presidents. the u.s. needs a leader that isn't interested in empire building and is interested in fixing real issues instead of creating them.
Iran is a real issue. In my opinion, the US never should have meddled with Iraq and attacked it's real enemies, Iran and/or Saudi Arabia.
Well we kind of overstayed, I feel like we wasted a good 6-7 years doing nothing. I mean i don't agree with the initial invasion, and not clear on all the details of what we have done, and honestly i don't care, but this is really late. It's good that it's finally done though.
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
My god, some of you are so pessimistic it makes me hope we never have to meet in person. I'd probably commit suicide from all of the negativity.
Yay for this....too bad Obama wasn't up for election this year or the year prior...
Hate to say it, but this is part of Obama's bid to get re-elected. I'm not saying that the troops should be there and this is a bad thing, but its political. I'm truly happy they are coming home.
Obama getting troops home = happy homeland = votes...
On October 22 2011 02:04 Newbistic wrote: Hmm, time will tell what kind of nation Iraq will become.
A Sunni muslim dicatorship (edit: with sharia law theocracy).
jus' sayin'.
GL HF
A sunni muslim dictatorship with ties to the US, which makes it completely alright!
Supporting the US by buying their obsolete fighters for absurd prices (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15083193) and likely by outsourcing the reconstruction of basic infrastructure and oil exploration of their country to US companies.
On October 22 2011 04:56 Mortality wrote: Funny. 2012 was the date Bush gave for a complete withdrawal to begin with.
Bush only signed a status of forces agreement that said the US would withdraw by 2011 with no real plan for how it would be done. The general expectation with the signing among officials in both countries was that some way would be found to extend the presence of American forces, as the Iraqi military was not yet developed enough to defend its borders and because levels of violence and turmoil within Iraq remained high. It was basically signed with a wink and a nod.
Now, the Iraqi government wanted the US to stand past that date since they still had the same general expectation as during the signing. Obama and the military, however, didn't want to stay past the agreed upon deadline since they had already had a plan for how to get out of there. The only way they would agree to stay is if the soldiers were given legal immunity. This led to lengthy negotiations that broke down as expected. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
On October 22 2011 02:04 Newbistic wrote: Hmm, time will tell what kind of nation Iraq will become.
A Sunni muslim dicatorship (edit: with sharia law theocracy).
jus' sayin'.
GL HF
Huh? They announced pulling out of Iraq with the number of troops seen in the OP. Maybe you just brushed by the numbers and thought it was going to be complete withdrawal the last time they announced something.
On October 22 2011 04:28 Dbla08 wrote: as much as its good that we won't be in iraq, he'll just send those troops to Iran or Afghanistan by February. obama is just another puppet doing what the "advisors" tell him to. same as the last dozen presidents. the u.s. needs a leader that isn't interested in empire building and is interested in fixing real issues instead of creating them.
Iran is a real issue. In my opinion, the US never should have meddled with Iraq and attacked it's real enemies, Iran and/or Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. is very close allies with Saudi Arabia...
On October 22 2011 02:04 Newbistic wrote: Hmm, time will tell what kind of nation Iraq will become.
A Sunni muslim dicatorship (edit: with sharia law theocracy).
jus' sayin'.
GL HF
How is this the third time? The only other time when he said we were to pull out a signification amount of troops from Iraq was like in August of 2010 I think. And that was done. Stop trying to imply Obama said something and then didn't do it.
"On February 27, 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced a deadline for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. According to the president, by August 31, 2010, after nearly seven and a half years of United States military engagement in Iraq, all but a "transitional force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be withdrawn from the Middle Eastern nation."
"On August 19, 2010, the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last US combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq. About 50,000 US troops will remain in the country in an advisory capacity. According to the US, they will help to train Iraqi forces in a new mission dubbed by the US as "Operation New Dawn," which will run until the end of 2011."
You're pulling out just as much as you did with Korea and just about the rest of your 116 army bases in 60+ different countries.
You're not pulling out. Iraq is not safe, Iraq is not stable enough to save itself, And it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't collapse into civil war lest we get even more hatred towards the rest and more islamofobic idiocy from westerners...
So this is not "thank god". This is retarded.
EDIT: According to my opinion that is, based of what facts I know as a person whose father comes from the area and constantly update myself with news and facts from less than shitty news outlets and pure facts, statistics and numbers.
I've been anticipating this moment for years now - if this actually goes through, it is a monumental step in the right direction forward for America. Unfortunately, it seems like more of a political move with the elections coming up than him (Obama) actually wanting to help the country. Out of all the things he promised to change, this seems to be the only one in his power - I just hope no foolish politician finds a loophole to make us stay in Iraq.
On October 22 2011 02:36 Frankon wrote: Looks like there is no more oil....
On the serious note. Would the american economy survive without the war? Weapon industry had been keeping the economy alive for the past few years.
Actually, the United States gets roughly 50% of it's oil from north america, and another 25-30% from south america and central america. So, your oil comment is not only invalid but extremely ignorant
Oh, no need to point it out, it's more fun to read their conspiracy theories .....A little research would show that the U.S. gets at most 10-11% of it's oil from the middle east, majority of the oil is imported from the different countries in the America's.
On October 22 2011 04:41 AutomatonOmega wrote: I'm expecting us to maintain a base in Iraq tho as we've done in the past with other potential threat governments.
Well, we did build a new embassy in the capital, well it's more like a $1b fortress than an embassy ....Also article did state that there will be an additional 4-5k "hired" help to protect the embassy/workers there in addition to whatever the current contagion is for the security.
On October 22 2011 05:21 Krehlmar wrote: You're pulling out just as much as you did with Korea and just about the rest of your 116 army bases in 60+ different countries.
You're not pulling out. Iraq is not safe, Iraq is not stable enough to save itself, And it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't collapse into civil war lest we get even more hatred towards the rest and more islamofobic idiocy from westerners...
So this is not "thank god". This is retarded.
EDIT: According to my opinion that is, based of what facts I know as a person whose father comes from the area and constantly update myself with news and facts from less than shitty news outlets and pure facts, statistics and numbers.
Sup buddy, having 116 bases all over the world comes with being the top dog, just like the British dominated the world for so long, America will dominate it for a while until it's down fall or something happens where it cannot maintain it's power projection. With that will come the same type of hatred and what not the British enjoyed from their colonies, except in the perspective of the U.S. it will be the countries the U.S. meddled in.
Also why are you comparing Korea to Iraq when it's a completely different situation. The troops in Korea are there because the U.S. has a defense pact with Korea against N.K., the minute N.K. says we don't want you here, those troops are gone, but they will never say that because the 40-50k U.S. troops there act as a deterant to N.K. not because the 40-50k is a large number compared to N.K.s 1-2 million troops, but because it means the U.S. will deploy its full forces there if need arises.
The U.S. has no obligation to stay in Iraq, they have far over-stayed their welcome there. The people who loved them initially for over-throwing Saddam, now hate them because the saviors have become the occupiers. Any support given to the government makes the Iraq government look like puppets and creates even more hatred for the U.S. Also, of course Iraq is not stable, It never has been since its creation. Why? Because you have 3 completely different ethnic groups that hate each other more than they hate the U.S. at the moment. The only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam and his terror, see the Kurd gassing and countless other atrocities he has committed to keep the country together, even during his own rule the ethnic groups hated each other, them hating each other will not dissapear over night because that hatred has existed for centuries.
Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
On October 22 2011 05:21 Krehlmar wrote: You're pulling out just as much as you did with Korea and just about the rest of your 116 army bases in 60+ different countries.
You're not pulling out. Iraq is not safe, Iraq is not stable enough to save itself, And it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't collapse into civil war lest we get even more hatred towards the rest and more islamofobic idiocy from westerners...
So this is not "thank god". This is retarded.
EDIT: According to my opinion that is, based of what facts I know as a person whose father comes from the area and constantly update myself with news and facts from less than shitty news outlets and pure facts, statistics and numbers.
I have lived on several military bases, I was even born on one, and I can say that out of every base I've been to, I've never met a single local that didn't like the base's presence there.
And to address your statement about "responsibility", how is it America's sole responsibility to 'save' a country that is half way around the world?
Edit: to clarify, the only bases I've been to are those in Japan, so take that into account.
The US was also very close with persia (later iran) years back (during the cold war) and put some nice young dictator onto duty. Well, rest is history and in the end the iran as it is today is the result. I remember Saddam being also a nice buddy for the US as the stuff in Iran failed. They promised Saddam that he can keep the oil fields he can conquer and the Iraq attacked Iran and over several years many many ppl lost their lives but in fact Saddam wasnt able to conquer anything, so he just turned around and occupied Kuwait. Wups, he didnt do what the US wanted him to do...and what happened afterwards? 1st Gulf war =) The whole afghanistan terror stuff is also in fact a result of US meddling with other countries during the cold war. I mean...everytime they meddle with countries, nothin good comes around.
Sry guys =( As much as I like some of my american buddies, the government is really really a messed up group of ppl, throughout decades
On October 22 2011 05:28 Eisregen wrote: The US was also very close with persia (later iran) years back (during the cold war) and put some nice young dictator onto duty. Well, rest is history and in the end the iran as it is today is the result. I remember Saddam being also a nice buddy for the US as the stuff in Iran failed. They promised Saddam that he can keep the oil fields he can conquer and the Iraq attacked Iran and over several years many many ppl lost their lives but in fact Saddam wasnt able to conquer anything, so he just turned around and occupied Kuwait. Wups, he didnt do what the US wanted him to do...and what happened afterwards? 1st Gulf war =) The whole afghanistan terror stuff is also in fact a result of US meddling with other countries during the cold war. I mean...everytime they meddle with countries, nothin good comes around.
Sry guys =( As much as I like some of my american buddies, the government is really really a messed up group of ppl, throughout decades
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
On October 22 2011 05:21 Krehlmar wrote: You're pulling out just as much as you did with Korea and just about the rest of your 116 army bases in 60+ different countries.
You're not pulling out. Iraq is not safe, Iraq is not stable enough to save itself, And it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't collapse into civil war lest we get even more hatred towards the rest and more islamofobic idiocy from westerners...
So this is not "thank god". This is retarded.
EDIT: According to my opinion that is, based of what facts I know as a person whose father comes from the area and constantly update myself with news and facts from less than shitty news outlets and pure facts, statistics and numbers.
I have lived on several military bases, I was even born on one, and I can say that out of every base I've been to, I've never met a single local that didn't like the base's presence there.
And to address your statement about "responsibility", how is it America's sole responsibility to 'save' a country that is half way around the world?
Edit: to clarify, the only bases I've been to are those in Japan, so take that into account.
Well thanks for not dealing in ultimatums but America isn't welcome wherever it is and most of the time it is out of necessitous not because they wan't to sell out local power to gain some military protection.
How it is your responsibility? I don't know... invading a country and letting near a million civilians die because of a revenge-war seems like a good reason to why you shouldn't let it all be in vain; If it collapses we'll have a even worse situation than we have now. So ofcourse it is your responsibility. It wasn't your responsibility to go to war with them, it is your responsibility to rebuild them.
@Krehlmar, actually that's pretty over-generalized statement when you say "American isn't welcome wherever it is". Being that I am one of the people who has been helped by the American military. For as many people that hate America, you will find an equally if not larger number of people that love it for all the help they have been given by the American's.
I don't think that America has any responsibility to Iraq. Like I have said in another post above, America has done all it could in Iraq, any more will just generate more hate. The people who helped liberate Iraq from Saddam, were treated as heroes, but those liberators have now become the occupiers in the eyes of the people. No amount of help will change that in their eyes. Any help the U.S. gives to Iraq government will make their government look weak and a puppet of the U.S., the best thing the U.S. can do is withdraw and extend a hand of help if they want it.
The three ethnic groups in Iraq have hated each other for centuries, the country never has been stable, even Saddam struggled to keep the country stable and often resorted to violence to keep it together.
As for the civilian casualties, it's war. It's what all future wars will look like, because combat will be done in urban areas, avoiding civilian casualties will be impossible, especially if your opponent has no remorse in using civilians as cover while shooting at you.
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
How is life survival and nothing more? I would say that life is about much more than survival, namely happiness. In order to best achieve happiness, you have to live your life by a code that will make you as happy as possible, i.e. a code of ethics and morals. How is the West a bubble just because it is better off than other places? It seems to me that it is just different and better.
I would not say that the "west" is better to be honest. I am sure there are enough people living much more "poorer" lives and being much more happier than we are =)
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
How is life survival and nothing more? I would say that life is about much more than survival, namely happiness. In order to best achieve happiness, you have to live your life by a code that will make you as happy as possible, i.e. a code of ethics and morals. How is the West a bubble just because it is better off than other places? It seems to me that it is just different and better.
It's as he says, at the bottom life is about survival. It's only when you're not worried about living to see the next day that you worry about if your life is making you happy or not.
They've been ignoring public opinion on the topic for a decade, they went in under false pretenses in the first place.
I'm just kinda surprised that they would give up one of their colonies. I am left to wonder if perhaps the necessary people and systems have been put in place so that iraq will remain a "ally" of the U.S.
( I know the american PEOPLE are not directly responsible, as your politicians did some serious lying after 9/11. But don't try to discard all of the blame, the idiocies that led to the iraq invasion came to light way before 2011. )
I love my neighbors to the south, with all my heart I do. But these wars, all wars to be frank, are just relics of the past. It's time for a little progress.
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
How is life survival and nothing more? I would say that life is about much more than survival, namely happiness. In order to best achieve happiness, you have to live your life by a code that will make you as happy as possible, i.e. a code of ethics and morals. How is the West a bubble just because it is better off than other places? It seems to me that it is just different and better.
Yes, it is different and in many ways better. But people think that a life that's filled with safety and comfort and wealth and plenty of time for entertainment is the normal state of life. They think war and struggle and poverty is the unnatural state, when in fact the opposite is true. A code to live by is a luxury when survival is a given.
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
How is life survival and nothing more? I would say that life is about much more than survival, namely happiness. In order to best achieve happiness, you have to live your life by a code that will make you as happy as possible, i.e. a code of ethics and morals. How is the West a bubble just because it is better off than other places? It seems to me that it is just different and better.
Yes, it is different and in many ways better. But people think that a life that's filled with safety and comfort and wealth and plenty of time for entertainment is the normal state of life. They think war and struggle and poverty is the unnatural state, when in fact the opposite is true. A code to live by is a luxury when survival is a given.
War, poverty and strugle are the signs of flawed ideologies on massive scale. Only few parts of the world have began to realize that our tribal ways of dealing with things cannot solve our problems. What you can see in midle east is only small part of the misery on our planet. Im not saying that we are there yet: we are still arguing about religions, gays, etc... but we dont want war amongst our selves, we are less superstitious and slavery is almost completely gone. That is great cultural achievement.
On October 22 2011 04:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: Before departing we were treated to the excessive hospitality of the USO crew. Tables of items free for the taking were set up; snacks and food, cards, toothpaste, and various assorted novelties to appease the occasionally suspended fear and reluctance of soldiers preparing for war. We were given a quick briefing. They collected all lighters and knives before allowing us to board the plane with our semi-automatic rifles in hand. On the way to the plane we were ambushed by eagerly patriotic Americans handing out and waving American flags, and chanting the feel-good cliché mantras of "Thank you, Good luck, Thank you for serving, Take care..." As though the enlistment bonus were not sufficient compensation.
Life on a cot in a large tent with three inches of personal space in every direction is surprisingly palatable contrasted with the vicious heat outside. Some soldiers even quit smoking to avoid standing in the heat. What for years tobacco cessation campaigns, classes, and laws failed to do, the Kuwaiti sun accomplished in less than a week. While in the grasp of the heat, all desires are leveled and replaced with a singular purpose: to escape it.
We flew over the Iraqi desert. Upon first sight, a landscape devoid of mountains or trees, only plumes of black smoke rising from a barren, yellow wasteland. This is a land forsaken by God. An inhospitable and tortured land, who returns the suffering it has received upon its inhabitants. Upon first sight of this wasteland, extremism did not appear so extreme. Here, extremes are the norm. Extreme temperatures, disparity between worthless dust and black gold, religious and political civil war.
The FOB was a world of dust, concrete, and machinery, a constant hum of generators and the percussion of rotor blades chopping through the air. My only connection to the past was the cloudless blue sky. I walked into the first portable toilet I found and saw graffiti and words scrawled across the walls. “I hate this place!” It was a warm welcome. As I walked back to the tent, a soldier spoke to me.
“Welcome to Kalsu. Hey, it could be worse man. Just keep lying to yourself everyday and tell yourself you are doing great things.”
Who the hell is this guy talking to me? I just ignored him and walked on.
The next day we rested in the tent. One of the air conditioners was broken, and we lay on our bunks sweating, the noon sun beating down on the heavy tarps above us. Finally, the stereotypically recourseful Gutierrez managed to get the air working again, and we had a few minutes of cool air, until the power went out and we had to sweat it out again.
This is going to be rough, I thought. This is going to be a very long deployment. We walked to chow and counted the craters in the ground where mortars had struck. Back in the tent, the silence of the night was periodically broken by the loud crack of artillery. Bright red flares lit up the sky and slowly floated down, faded away and returned the darkness for only a moment.
You didn't admit things were bad. You were an inferior person if you ever complained. If you were macho-tough, nothing bothered you, and you never thought bad thoughts. It was a brilliant system of self-deception. It was a cliché to repeat over and over again; “When something needs to be done, I don’t complain, I just do it. Because complaining doesn’t change anything.”
The first time I was shot at, it was by British soldiers. As their convoy rode by in the distance, someone on the FOB did a test fire. Apparently they didn't know the FOB was there, so they fired back. The military was like any other goverment institution: it exemplified incompetence.
The Iraqis hit us at noon every day. It was like clockwork. They were trying to hit the dining facility at lunch time, killing as many of us as they could. Luckily, they were a horrible shot. And still, we lined up every day and crowded into the building, playing russian roulette in exchange for a meal. It wasn't like we could go to McDonalds instead. You hear the whistling crescendo, and wait for the dart to hit the board. We know when and where they plan to attack every day, and yet we can't stop them? What the fuck is this?
Finally they succeeded. You walk into the DFAC, and a huge gaping hole sits where the wall and roof used to be. Sunlight pours in, the flourescent lights flicker, and the tiles on the ceiling hang down in disarray. The mirrors in the gym next door were all shattered. But of course, it wasn't the loss of infrastructure we cared about.
The West lives in a bubble. A stable, calm, bubble, green with well-watered lawns. A convenient bubble, where they can be free to make laws and rules and worry themselves with moral indignation at all they see wrong with the world. All values and morals and ethics had been drilled into me since birth, but in truth such things were nothing more than wishful thinking, human delusions to contrast reality. At bottom, life is survival, and nothing more. That is part of growing up, in a way, parting with all of the well intentioned bullshit that society stuffs into the youth. They all want their children to believe in Santa Claus. But here, I was seeing life and the world as it truly was outside of the bubbles: imperfect, messy, violent, ruthless, dirty, poor. It was almost liberating.
How is life survival and nothing more? I would say that life is about much more than survival, namely happiness. In order to best achieve happiness, you have to live your life by a code that will make you as happy as possible, i.e. a code of ethics and morals. How is the West a bubble just because it is better off than other places? It seems to me that it is just different and better.
Yes, it is different and in many ways better. But people think that a life that's filled with safety and comfort and wealth and plenty of time for entertainment is the normal state of life. They think war and struggle and poverty is the unnatural state, when in fact the opposite is true. A code to live by is a luxury when survival is a given.
Survival is never a given, not in this universe. "Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life" (1.). "It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live" (2.). "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living" (3.). It is when survival is precarious that this code of values is most important.
1. “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13 2. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 123 3. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 128
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
I love how people interpret "pulling out of Iraq" as something that can be done over the weekend. It may have taken 4 years but they are leaving Iraq in a much more stable, safer state than if they had left earlier.
Starting the war unnecessarily was wrong, leaving it in a state of ruin and chaos would have been even worse.
On October 22 2011 08:18 Engore wrote: Now if only it was Afghanistan too. Don't want my friend going over there in March
But he probably does considering he volunteered to join the military. To wish that him not to go is to wish against his own will. I understand people who are against the war for humanitarian reasons or who think it's not a good use of tax payer dollars but to be against it for the sake of our soldiers is to say that they know better for our soldiers than our soldiers know for themselves. Every single one of them is a volunteer and a lot of people would be surprised by the amount of people who really do want to fight.
It's easy to criticize and blame Obama without knowing Washington bureaucracy and corporate interest, it's an uphill battle. I'm just glad its winding down and finally Obama is getting control of his presidency.
That's great that they're coming back.... however, this should've happened a long time ago. The only reason they are coming back end of year is so that this act will stay fresh in your mind when it comes time to vote early next year. Kind of BS that it took so long.
Meh, when he said we should get out in 2008, everybody was all "we can't just leave immediately! It'll be chaos! We need a structured, organized withdrawal. We can't cut and run because that'll make us look like pussies!" Now we finally leave and it's all "it's 3 years too late; he's doing it for reelection!"
On October 22 2011 09:54 IrOnKaL wrote: We will still be in Afghanistan and Obama is doing this to get re-elected. So obvious.
On October 22 2011 08:38 KimJongFail wrote: That's great that they're coming back.... however, this should've happened a long time ago. The only reason they are coming back end of year is so that this act will stay fresh in your mind when it comes time to vote early next year. Kind of BS that it took so long.
On October 22 2011 09:54 IrOnKaL wrote: We will still be in Afghanistan and Obama is doing this to get re-elected. So obvious.
Like the assassination plot and the release of the oil. Its like he is just doing this stuff for the publicity.
How is this for re-election? If it was for re-election he would do it sometime next year, mostly likely near the end of the summer. As can be seen with the Bin Laden situation, approval rating bumps only last a few weeks, a month and a half at the most. Any advantage he would get from this in terms of approval rating is going to be gone by next year, probably be gone by the middle of November. People need to think a little more and talk/post a little less.
On October 22 2011 08:38 KimJongFail wrote: That's great that they're coming back.... however, this should've happened a long time ago. The only reason they are coming back end of year is so that this act will stay fresh in your mind when it comes time to vote early next year. Kind of BS that it took so long.
How is this for re-election? If it was for re-election he would do it sometime next year, mostly likely near the end of the summer. As can be seen with the Bin Laden situation, approval rating bumps only last a few weeks, a month and a half at the most. Any advantage he would get from this in terms of approval rating is going to be gone by next year, probably be gone by the middle of November. People need to think a little more and talk/post a little less.
On October 22 2011 08:12 QurtStarcraft wrote: Not good. Another failure from Obama. He is going from hero to zero.
he was a hero at some point? when was that pray tell?
When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, obv.
Can someone explain to my why? Cause i'm pretty sure the only thing he accomplished then was being black and a president.
No, he promised 'change' too
I guess you should believe your future president, but really there has been zero change. Don't blame it on the Republicans cause we all see how the "Obama's Economy" failed
On October 22 2011 08:12 QurtStarcraft wrote: Not good. Another failure from Obama. He is going from hero to zero.
he was a hero at some point? when was that pray tell?
When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, obv.
Can someone explain to my why? Cause i'm pretty sure the only thing he accomplished then was being black and a president.
No, he promised 'change' too
I guess you should believe your future president, but really there has been zero change. Don't blame it on the Republicans cause we all see how the "Obama's Economy" failed
They share the blame. They both fully embraced Keynesian economics.
On October 22 2011 08:12 QurtStarcraft wrote: Not good. Another failure from Obama. He is going from hero to zero.
he was a hero at some point? when was that pray tell?
When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, obv.
Can someone explain to my why? Cause i'm pretty sure the only thing he accomplished then was being black and a president.
Sadly Sweden and Norway was in a union in Alfred Nobels time, so the Norwegians are taking care of the peace prizes and so far they've managed to hand out the peace prize to a number of war criminals. Kissinger for one. It's basically a standing joke.
I'm not really sure what the criterias are, but there's a lot of fun information at + Show Spoiler +
Is Obama the President we were promised and hoped for? No. Did he end up fundamentally changing how the government worked like he promised? No, he fell way short of that
But has he accomplished much during his first term? Yes (Healthcare reform which has been pushed for since the 60s, Bin Laden, Trying to regulate corruption in business via the Dodd-Frank Act (Which is currently being gutted by repubs), Ending the war in Iraq)
Do I think he has been a better President than McCain with Palin as his VP would have been? Hell to the fucking yes. Anyone willing to argue this point is not going to have an easy time.
I don't get it Obama get 0 credit and 100% blame for everything. Yes he fell sort on doing a lot but to say he lied is wrong. He tried and attempted to do everything he promised but was cock blocked a lot of times by political bs.
Back on topic good for Iraq. I hope and wish the best for the country and its citizens.
Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
On October 22 2011 10:58 lizzard_warish wrote: Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy
On October 22 2011 10:58 lizzard_warish wrote: Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy
Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about.
On October 22 2011 10:58 lizzard_warish wrote: Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy
Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about.
When lizzard_warish says he pays "consistent" attention to the news he actually means right-leaning news. Also thanks for generalizing that no one else in this thread follows current events/knows their history/has valid opinions.
On October 14 2011 13:25 lizzard_warish wrote: I really cant stand the news, or for that matter, the left. It boggles my mind that anyone votes for them. They consistently call republicans racist and then when we- without any fanfare unlike the democrats a couple years ago- seem to genuinely like a black candidate, they respond to it by shitting on him and calling him an uncle tom. I honestly do view the democrats as an extremely racist party. They're so god damn condescending.
How can you not stand the news but also pay constant (I think this is the word you're looking for instead of consistent) attention to it?
On October 22 2011 10:58 lizzard_warish wrote: Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy
Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about.
Wow, you follow the news? No wonder you're so qualified to pin the blame so squarely on one man. I completely forgot that Obama's running a dictatorship and has complete control of the US government.
Oh wait...I guess internal US politics and international diplomacy can be kind of complex.
On October 22 2011 10:58 lizzard_warish wrote: Pulling out of iraq is good...not managing to negotiate the terms necessary to keep a training regiment, in order to ensure the continued security of Iraq, is beyond fucking pitiful. Once again Obama fails in even the most basic of tasks.
Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy
Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D
You did? Because it was actually a war crime and a huge violation of international law, and as icing on the cake condemned by the UN. See if any other country would've done something like this, they'd be under blockade by the rest of the world and there'd be intensive debates whether there was a global intervention needed. Aggression wars in general are illegal, and when it comes to aggression wars without motive, apart from shady, and ultimately false information about nuclear weapons.. It's no better than Hitler's invasion of Poland basically. Yes I know I just Godwinned myself, I'm just saying, because there seems to be people who think the war in Iraq actually can be justified.
On October 22 2011 08:34 svi wrote: time to send them to iran...
same old crap.
Except that would actually be a self-interested and wise action unlike the war in Iraq.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one would hold their breath if we wiped Iran off the face of the Earth.
I'm pretty sure the 75,000,000 people living there would care. The country has been around for thousands of years; how about you don't think about "wiping out" one of the most influential nations to have ever existed because you currently dislike the leadership, which is only in place because the previous leadership, a US puppet regime replacing the democratically elected, far more moderate legitimate government, was finally ousted.
Iran has been treated far, far worse by the West over history than the West has by Iran. Don't pretend we're somehow the "good guys" and they're the baddies. That's stupid and shows zero understanding of the history of the the world.
Anyway, good that it's finally over for America. Hopefully Iraq can somehow stabilise, though I really doubt it. Poor ordinary Iraqis is all I can say.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D
Sorry, what business precisely? Unless you think it's the business of the US to remove any evil regime, which means it's the US's business to invade about 50 countries right about now.
You do realize in terms of changing general policy the president has little power compared to congress. The president can say whatever he/she wants or try and accomplish whatever s/he wants but if congress isn't backing him/her then good luck. That's one of the reasons things aren't getting done now. It is also funny that in every campaign a presidential nominee promises that they will do x,y, and z when they get elected, when they don't have the power to change anything, congress does.
On October 22 2011 08:34 svi wrote: time to send them to iran...
same old crap.
Except that would actually be a self-interested and wise action unlike the war in Iraq.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one would hold their breath if we wiped Iran off the face of the Earth.
ofc.. the Iranians will be glad to know that..
yeah. also say that to people who hav family and friends who live in Iran. I think if iran were to be nuked or something. I would cry for days. I have to many friends there to imagine losing them is heartbreaking
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D
Sorry, what business precisely? Unless you think it's the business of the US to remove any evil regime, which means it's the US's business to invade about 50 countries right about now.
Dood..... they were invading an allied country and threatening our oil supply. herp.
Whenever someone says you should wipe out an entire population of people just consider them at worst a fanatical racist and at best a nationalist who views members of another nation as subhuman. And then you ignore them.
I always find it interesting that when Presidents are coming up and election year "suddenly" the promies they made 2-3 years ago come true. Look at Obama's speech half of it is " Well i promised you and i delivered (3 years later) wer are pulling out of Iraq yay democrays!"
On October 22 2011 11:17 TheLaw wrote: Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D
Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the US government in order to fight a pointless war against the Iranians who after being terrorized by another Dictator (aka the Shah of Persia), who was also brought to power by the US, finally got rid of him.
the US are not the "good" guys here. The US government is trying to clean up 50 years of failed middle eastern foreign policies. But in the end it's just getting worse
On October 22 2011 11:14 Kickstart wrote: You do realize in terms of changing general policy the president has little power compared to congress. The president can say whatever he/she wants or try and accomplish whatever s/he wants but if congress isn't backing him/her then good luck. That's one of the reasons things aren't getting done now. It is also funny that in every campaign a presidential nominee promises that they will do x,y, and z when they get elected, when they don't have the power to change anything, congress does.
Off Topic: Actually, not to take away from the fact that Congress has been severely hampering Obama from putting in place a lot of good policies, a savvy President is able to work around an antagonistic Congress. Look no further than Bill Clinton's first and second terms. In many ways Obama's presidency's first term has been very similar to Clinton's presidency (Passed a bill pertaining to healthcare, got low approval ratings (40%), Repubs take over not only the house but also senate, was given a shitty economy, ran/running a hard re-election campaign) And yet Clinton was able to figure out how to use his bully pulpit efficiently and in his second term "made everyone rich" as well as push a lot of his policies to be passed. He ended up leaving office with a 68%+ approval rating.
Let's hope Obama can pull this transformation off as well.
Sorry, what business precisely? Unless you think it's the business of the US to remove any evil regime, which means it's the US's business to invade about 50 countries right about now.
Dood..... they were invading an allied country and threatening our oil supply. herp.
Seriously? I can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely just know nothing about the world or history or really anything.
I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it.
On October 22 2011 11:14 Kickstart wrote: You do realize in terms of changing general policy the president has little power compared to congress. The president can say whatever he/she wants or try and accomplish whatever s/he wants but if congress isn't backing him/her then good luck. That's one of the reasons things aren't getting done now. It is also funny that in every campaign a presidential nominee promises that they will do x,y, and z when they get elected, when they don't have the power to change anything, congress does.
Off Topic: Actually, not to take away from the fact that Congress has been severely hampering Obama from putting in place a lot of good policies, a savvy President is able to work around an antagonistic Congress. Look no further than Bill Clinton's first and second terms. In many ways Obama's presidency's first term has been very similar to Clinton's presidency (Passed a bill pertaining to healthcare, got low approval ratings (40%), Repubs take over not only the house but also senate, was given a shitty economy, ran/running a hard re-election campaign) And yet Clinton was able to figure out how to use his bully pulpit efficiently and in his second term "made everyone rich" as well as push a lot of his policies to be passed. He ended up leaving office with a 68%+ approval rating.
Let's hope Obama can pull this transformation off as well.
True, but I don't think being savvy should be a trait that our elected officials need in order to get things done. Point is that the president doesn't have the power to simply push through policies that they all too often promise, they must rely on a congress that agrees with him/her or try and persuade them. And I would say the republican party looks a lot different now than it did when Clinton was president, they aren't too keen on working with Obama at all.
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it.
well the german government was against the Iraq war. So can I keep writing now sir?
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it.
Why are you bringing up 11th September when that had literally nothing to do with the Iraq War?
Furthermore, every country I know of had a majority against invading Iraq. Even the UK, America's biggest ally in it, had about a million people protesting against it (and I was there) with the majority against the invasion according to every poll I saw.
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it.
The 9/11 war was in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with that, and was condemned by most countries from the get go, and also by the UN. It was technically the same war crime that Hitler commited when he invaded Poland.
I don't know where you got the idea that you were backed up. The UK isn't all other nations, even though that might be your world view. There are 196~ countries in the world. The US and the UK are two of them.
Do you watch Fox News?
Obviously a couple more supported it. Denmark for instance, but all in all it was condemned.
I'm pretty sure Bush could be summoned to the court in Haag for war crimes?
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it.
Why are you bringing up 11th September when that had literally nothing to do with the Iraq War?
Probably because we've been in Iraq so long that there are people who are now 18-19 and don't have any memory of the debate/invasions that happened in 2001 and 2003.
There are plenty of people 15-17 on the internet/playing SC2 as well, they would have been 5-8 years old when we invaded Afganistan and Iraq. I feel old.....
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.
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.
Wasn't Saddam places there by the US though? I just hope they don't invade Sweden. We do have high taxes, so at a glance we might be considered a communism, and we all know communisms cause problems since the 50's.
As long as Iraq remains stable and free of corruption and violence, okay, but wisdom dictates that President Obama probably did it for political reasons.
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?
On October 22 2011 12:00 0neder wrote: As long as Iraq remains stable and free of corruption and violence, okay, but wisdom dictates that President Obama probably did it for political reasons.
You can spin it one of two ways: 1) He finally managed to get the troops home. Well done. 2) He tried to keep troops there to stabilize the nation, but was too inept to actually manage to get a deal so he fucked up and is trying to sell it as a victory. Pathetic.
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?
Him supporting suicide bombers is something I really don't think is any sort of WMD.
And the old chemical weapons were useless and known about, and was not what Bush referred to when he said WMD. He fucked up - he pretty much admitted it too. In that he shouldn't have said 'known' but 'sources indicate' which was the truth - and the sources was wrong.
That 'we found some old chemical weapons' is an excuse only used by die hard republicans that can't admit that - at times - both sides can be wrong.
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.
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.
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?
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 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!
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 12:09 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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
Only one of those two nations have existed in one way or another for around 1000 years. What's amusing is that the numbers of that nation are quite comparable to those of a 200 year old country.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
Going in there in the first place was what was going to hurt is on the long run, staying only makes it worse.
On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote: With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
It'll look like a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis.
When England chose not to waste money fighting America anymore, it didn't change the fact that England was the premier world power (that didn't come until WWII). It just meant that they saved money and lives better spent elsewhere.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
No. Wasting money while our economy is crumbling hurts the US in the long run. Creating terrorists hurts the US in the long run. Invading sovereign countries for NO REASON hurts the US in the long run. Getting American soldiers killed for NO REASON hurts the US in the long run. Killing innocent civilians anywhere hurts the US in the long run. Perpetuating pointless occupations because of some childish insecurities about our "image" hurts the US in the long run. Did I miss anything?
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
Why are people so focused on the oil? We get the vast majority of our Oil from sources in the America's
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
On October 22 2011 14:39 hp.Shell wrote: After Obama gets re-elected he'll call the pullout a mistake and send them all back. This is an election year move, not a real policy change.
They have been planning the end of 2011 as the point for pull out for a while now. Stop making this about the election.
On October 22 2011 14:37 Slaughter wrote:I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
Well I don't think anybody is saying to do nothing, but pick the battles better. Having troops in South Korea makes sense since the North already tried to invade once and lord knows old Kimmy up there is itching to do it again. But going gung-ho "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" isn't needed. Be peacekeepers instead of war starters. Don't take shit, but also don't cause it either. You know.
We are literally living at a point in human history where we could kill ourselves with the press of some buttons and a fucking phone call. We need to watch what we do instead of spilling blood like we're in the Crusades.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
Why are people so focused on the oil? We get the vast majority of our Oil from sources in the America's
Sadam had announced shortly before the war that he was gonna start charging for oil in euros instead of dollars so that the country could get a better deal, i.e. he would have essentially lowered the value of the USD which is kinda reliant on oil prices, it could have put the US in economic turmoil depending on wether or not others decided to do the same, something that america has been hoping to avoid for a while now. The war probably wasn't for oil per say, it was probably to ensure that the american economy didnt crash (fat load of good that did).
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
It's not "a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself)", it's a force of self-interest that will often help others in the process. Any misguided war or action, is so, not because the actions were not morally justified, but because they turned out not to be self-interested.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
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.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of political science or philosophy. Every country (actually every person) has their own version of what 'good' is, and all the US is doing is imposing their view upon the rest of the world, and declearing wars upon countries, and in doing so commiting straight up war crimes, and condemned by the rest of the world and the UN.
If Hitler would've won WW2, we would have a huge Nazi empire, and when they attack and conquer the US 2003 for no reason whatsoever, and occupy it for 9 years without any reason whatsoever - people are going to get mad at them.
And then some nazi posts in a thread in this alternate version on TL "I wonder what would happen if the Nazi Empire went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the Nazi Empire has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the Nazi Empire doing nothing then."
What is good and what is not is not up to the president of the united states to decide, just as little as it is for this fictional dictator of this nazi empire-
It's funny that my comparison is fairly accurate as what's allowed to do to a suspect 'terrorist' (which by the way is a very wide concept) in the US, is very similar to what the nazis allowed themselves to do to jews, however admittedly in a much greater scale. Throwing people in prison and openly torturing with horrific methods for years without a trial. All in the name of good. That's a strong sign of fascism if you ask me.
I don't share that view of what good is, and therefor I wouldn't mind if the US stopped interfering in other countries to show them what good is. I'm more than happy with the geneva convention and the international law to be honest. I'm also more than happy with the laws in my country, where torture and obdoctions to prison camps without trial is completely illegal.
Maybe me and my country are one of the evil ones though, and deserve an invasion some day soon? Why not?
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
I have lived on several military bases, I was even born on one, and I can say that out of every base I've been to, I've never met a single local that didn't like the base's presence there.
And to address your statement about "responsibility", how is it America's sole responsibility to 'save' a country that is half way around the world?
Edit: to clarify, the only bases I've been to are those in Japan, so take that into account.[/QUOTE]
Well thanks for not dealing in ultimatums but America isn't welcome wherever it is and most of the time it is out of necessitous not because they wan't to sell out local power to gain some military protection.
How it is your responsibility? I don't know... invading a country and letting near a million civilians die because of a revenge-war seems like a good reason to why you shouldn't let it all be in vain; If it collapses we'll have a even worse situation than we have now. So ofcourse it is your responsibility. It wasn't your responsibility to go to war with them, it is your responsibility to rebuild them. [/QUOTE] So true
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Oh good. Nothing is wrong as long as you decide that it's right. Property rights sure are important, I guess...unless you decide they aren't? After all, what court can disagree with you?
You really believe that we have the right to overthrow whomever we want and install dictators while pandering about democracy, killing, torturing, subjecting as many people as it takes in the name of U.S. interests. Are you actually Dick Cheney trolling a Starcraft forum?
edit: actually, it could get fun to extrapolate your position some more. The U.S. denied Britain of its "property" when it declared independence. Abraham Lincoln stole the property of the South when he abolished slavery. Maybe Ghandi was a terrorist?
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was the initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Sorry? Iraq was the initiator of force? Did I miss something?
Edit. Your ninja edit still is invalid as every country has to respect eachothers autonomy and sovereignity within the country. For instance the tjetjenias in Russia who wants their own country, and brutally was forced down by the Russian government. Another country may not intervene in such circumstances, as it'd be a violation of Russian sovereignity. Have you actually passed high school?
The US commited a war crime when attacking Iraq, and it was condemned by the UN. It is Impossible to justify. George W. Bush is a war criminal.
Edit2: As appearantly everything self interested is morally justified, I am to understand that in whatever hick state you live in you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as it's to your own benefit? Murder, theft, robbery? I'm starting to understand the grounds on the US foreign policy in the middle east lmao.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Sorry? Iraq was the initiator of force? Did I miss something?
Read my edit. Determining who is the initiator of force isn't so simple as seeing who declares outright war first. It would have been just as morally justifiable to invade Nazi Germany in 1938 as it was to fight back in 1939.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
Sadly, George Bush and his lackeys were so stupid I don't think America even got anything out of Iraq. Who the hell lies to start a war then doesn't have a clearly attainable goal of self interest!? Why aren't my gas prices lower? GEORGE!?!
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is unfair depending on what you consider self-interested. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
To be completely fair, anything truly rationally self interested is morally justified but I refrain from saying so because self interest is more complicated than most people believe. Any violation of rights is a self destructive action. Most people don't realize this but if you do, then it would be fair to say that anything truly rationally selfish is morally justified.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
So far nothing of what you've posted has made any bit of sence... Are you honestly saying that if you gain on it, it's morally justifiable? That's the biggest load of horseshit I've heard yet, and I have to say that you have some fucked up moral values.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
One thing's for sertain, an invasion is NEVER justifiable, as it's a violation of international law. Aggression wars are always illegal. I dunno what you're trying to tell yourself, and I don't know where you get your moral values, but honestly I recommend you to take an extra look at them.
"The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.". Wow.. just wow...
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is unfair depending on what you consider self-interested. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
To be completely fair, anything truly rationally self interested is morally justified but I refrain from saying so because self interest is more complicated than most people believe. Any violation of rights is a self destructive action. Most people don't realize this but if you do, then it would be fair to say that anything truly rationally selfish is morally justified.
Why so? What makes you say that it's morally right because it's motivated out of self interest, also why is it morally objectionable because it's self destructive? I really don't follow this line of thought
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
So painful and joyful at the same time. It is great for the troops and their families, but that decade long war for what? Through these mixed emotions however, I do feel happiness for all of the troops and their families, congratulations
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
So far nothing of what you've posted has made any bit of sence... Are you honestly saying that if you gain on it, it's morally justifiable? That's the biggest load of horseshit I've heard yet, and I have to say that you have some fucked up moral values.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
One thing's for sertain, an invasion is NEVER justifiable, as it's a violation of international law. Aggression wars are always illegal. I dunno what you're trying to tell yourself, and I don't know where you get your moral values, but honestly I recommend you to take an extra look at them.
"The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.". Wow.. just wow...
I actually just said the exact opposite of that. You've misunderstood me again and that is your fault, not mine. I've been clear but you've failed to demonstrate any reasonable level of reading comprehension. It saddens me that I have to do this but let me break down my pre-edit post, piece by piece.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe.
In my first sentence I am saying that your post is unfair and that it took a huge leap of logic for you to come to the conclusion that I believe that "Anything self-interested is morally justified". In my second sentence I am confirming that what you posted is not what I believe. You seem to fail to understand this as your response to my post continues on assuming that that is, in fact, what I believe.
The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not.
I think the reason that you are misunderstand this sentence is that you've failed to realize that it's not that I deem all other moral objections to the Iraq war to never apply anywhere, I'm saying that those moral objections don't apply to the Iraq war. For example, I do believe that it is immoral to initiate force but I don't believe attacking Iraq was an initiation of force. Also, I do believe it is sometimes immoral to kill children but I don't believe this applies to the US in the Iraq invasion because those innocent children were the responsibility of the force initiating state, i.e. Saddam's regime. Again it's not that the only moral objection that can possibly exist is that something is self destructive. Many others exist, it's just that they don't apply to the US in the case of the Iraq war.
It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Third time I've posted this but it seems you just fucking ignored it or something. Read it then re read your response and you'll realize that your response makes no sense.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
No, I've been consistently and radically for the protection of individual rights. I believe that individual rights should be protected and that people should take rationally selfish actions which will never include the violation of rights.
As for you saying an invasion is never justifiable, you're wrong. The initiation of force is never justifiable but an invasion is not necessarily an initiation of force. For example, it would have been justified to invade Nazi Germany in 1938. As for international legality, you're even wrong about this. An invasion is not ALWAYS internationally illegal. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of North Korea. Even if it hypothetically was, it would mean nothing. There is nothing wrong with violating a bad law. The simple fact that you're tying moral justification to legality shows what an immature view of morality you have.
Edit: Sorry, I actually was unclear in the first part of my analysis. I've fixed it now.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
The responsibility of the force initiating state. The Western casualties are part of it being self destructive.
Plus, you know, all the torture.
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
ya we're just gonna leave a massive base that is basically a small city inside of a city. No dude we may "stop" having a combat role but we will never leave until we are forced.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the any legitimate government justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country but you should only do it if it is self interested.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma. It's a completely unfair and unsubstantiated conclusion.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
edit: I would also argue that none of those things are consistent with individual rationality because they help terrorists recruit and breed hatred toward the U.S. Torturing gives our enemies the moral justification to torture our soldiers, and killing their civilians gives them moral justification to kill our civilians. Ignoring international law, well, I don't have to dive too deep into what the world would look like if we all ignored laws that we thought were "wrong".
There's no point in replying to OsoVega. No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him. Nothing he has said has followed a rational line. He's probably trolling. If he isn't, he's an idiot. Don't respond to him. -_-
On October 22 2011 15:52 DannyJ wrote: Sadly, George Bush and his lackeys were so stupid I don't think America even got anything out of Iraq. Who the hell lies to start a war then doesn't have a clearly attainable goal of self interest!? Why aren't my gas prices lower? GEORGE!?!
I think the benefit was to various private companies in rebuilding contracts. Sadly not for the US as a country.
On October 22 2011 16:47 Subversive wrote: There's no point in replying to OsoVega. No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions of removing him. Nothing he had said has followed a rational line. He's probably trolling. If he isn't, he's an idiot. Don't respond to him. -_-
Okay, good point. Thank you for pulling me out of the troll pit. It's time for bed anyway
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote: [quote] So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote: [quote] It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote: [quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
So if you say something is wrong, and I say it isn't - it obviously means one of us doesn't know what these "objective truths" are. How do we determine who that person is - objectively?
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote: [quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Well, I'm going to take Subversive's advice and stop responding. Your arguments have become very hollow and I don't even need to pick at them anymore to discredit them. They speak for themselves. Your values are obviously quite unique, and I won't try to convince you to change them. I'm off to bed
On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote] The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
So if you say something is wrong, and I say it isn't - it obviously means one of us doesn't know what these "objective truths" are. How do we determine who that person is - objectively?
Rational thought, the checking of premises, searching for contradictions, etc.
US troops out. Private security forces in. Maybe just my cynical outlook on the situation. Seems like another political maneuver by an administration appropriately timed for elections.
On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote] The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Well, I'm going to take Subversive's advice and stop responding. Your arguments have become very hollow and I don't even need to pick at them anymore to discredit them. They speak for themselves. Your values are obviously quite unique, and I won't try to convince you to change them. I'm off to bed
My arguments haven't changed. Tell me how my arguments are hollow.
My values are that of a man who desires a happy life on earth, reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason as my only tool for knowledge. Purpose, as my choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self-esteem, as my certainty that my mind is competent and that I am worthy of happiness on earth.
____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them?
On October 22 2011 17:18 Subversive wrote: ____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them?
I thought you weren't going to respond to me? Instead you've made another substance-less post in direct response to me. Any argument deduced from true premises, rational thought with zero contradictions is an argument any rational and informed human being will accept and all human beings should accept. Do you really deny this?
If anyone had shown me a rational flaw in my thinking, a contradiction I had made or a false premise I was acting upon, I would have been receptive but all arguments against me have been either based on a terrible misunderstanding of my post, irrational or based on false premises or simply stating things along the lines of "nobody could believe this" and "your arguments speak for themselves", etc. Good night.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote: [quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Could you tell me why the US didn't finish the job in 1991 instead of starving the country for ten years with an embargo? It's not like he was any less a dictator back then, and there was even more of a justification -- he had invaded Koweit. It seems like wasting twelve years to to the exact same thing is a waste... Or, more likely, Bush the son wanted to avenge Bush the father. I mean, considering dictatorships wrong is all fine and dandy, but it's hard to pretend that western countries don't have double standards concerning this. History is written by the victors, after all.
All in all, I'm happy they're finally pulling out at last from Irak. Let's just hope the country manages to pull itself out of the economic wreck that it's in at the moment. Sadly, it's the cue for foreign companies to take over the infrastructure; I'm not very hopeful that the Iraki people will have any say in what happens to their country for a while now.
On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote] The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Could you tell me why the US didn't finish the job in 1991 instead of starving the country for ten years with an embargo? It's not like he was any less a dictator back then, and there was even more of a justification -- he had invaded Koweit. It seems like wasting twelve years to to the exact same thing is a waste... Or, more likely, Bush the son wanted to avenge Bush the father. I mean, considering dictatorships wrong is all fine and dandy, but it's hard to pretend that western countries don't have double standards concerning this. History is written by the victors, after all.
All in all, I'm happy they're finally pulling out at last from Irak. Let's just hope the country manages to pull itself out of the economic wreck that it's in at the moment. Sadly, it's the cue for foreign companies to take over the infrastructure; I'm not very hopeful that the Iraki people will have any say in what happens to their country for a while now.
I personally can't as I don't have an intimate knowledge with that history or the rationale of the US government at that point. You're right that western countries have a double standard concerning this. It's because they are often dishonest about the reasons for deposing dictators.
The Coalitions main goal in the Gulf War was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, which they did. The reason they didnt really go any further arguably stems from the horrific "highway of death" where hundreds of iraqi soldiers, or at least vehicles, were squashed like bugs as they were retreating. Kinda put a bad taste in peoples mouths and it basically all stopped shortly after since popularity of the war plummeted. Who knows how far they wanted to go into iraq anyway.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
Are you actually fucking serious? Incredibly unfair agreements made with the pressure of force and clearly at the disadvantage of the vastly weaker party, whereby a government is not acting in the interests of the state, aren't actually seen as legally binding in any jurisdiction. Hence, the fact that the nationalisation was ruled as entirely legal. This is basic international law and to have it any other way would be unbelievably evil.
If you think agreements where a figurative gun is pointed to the head should be legally binding then you're actually ridiculous. Thank goodness nobody with any sense agrees and the courts most certainly don't.
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.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
Are you actually fucking serious? Incredibly unfair agreements made with the pressure of force and clearly at the disadvantage of the vastly weaker party, whereby a government is not acting in the interests of the state, aren't actually seen as legally binding in any jurisdiction. Hence, the fact that the nationalisation was ruled as entirely legal. This is basic international law and to have it any other way would be unbelievably evil.
If you think agreements where a figurative gun is pointed to the head should be legally binding then you're actually ridiculous. Thank goodness nobody with any sense agrees and the courts most certainly don't.
This was (or is) the US foreign policy since the second world war. Look at South America and the middle east. Is there any South American country that hadn't a US intervention because they didn't do business like the USA wanted it? I am not surprised. This policy must have at least some support in the American Population.
every word from obama sounds like a lie... "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." what does that suppose to mean? The war ended itself? Why the war ended itself? "The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring" after U.S. troops leave the country" So logicaly there is no need for war after all.. because partnership doesnt have to do anything with the war itself..
And the most important thing is that noone even knows why the war started.. after f... 9 years noone doesnt give a damn about why the war started... You know, when something important goes, people remember the past and say, yes, its over and we did what we came for. Havent read anywhere that kind of information...
On October 22 2011 17:18 Subversive wrote: ____ only use the finest premises, the most prime rational thought and less than 2% contradictions. That's why I buy ____ arguments and you should too!
Mmm canned arguments. How can you disagree with them?
I thought you weren't going to respond to me? Instead you've made another substance-less post in direct response to me. Any argument deduced from true premises, rational thought with zero contradictions is an argument any rational and informed human being will accept and all human beings should accept. Do you really deny this?
If anyone had shown me a rational flaw in my thinking, a contradiction I had made or a false premise I was acting upon, I would have been receptive but all arguments against me have been either based on a terrible misunderstanding of my post, irrational or based on false premises or simply stating things along the lines of "nobody could believe this" and "your arguments speak for themselves", etc. Good night.
I was mocking you, which is different to responding. I like how you never respond to any of the reasonable arguments that are put to you, like my post. You just cherry pick arguments, make outrageous statements and then dress it all up as rational, well-reasoned, all because you said so.
Respond to:
No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him.
This is why nothing you said about Iraq made sense. What you said about Iran made even less sense.
On October 22 2011 19:41 ambient_orange wrote: every word from obama sounds like a lie... "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." what does that suppose to mean? The war ended itself? Why the war ended itself?
What do you mean "what does that suppose to mean"? Do you not understand "America's war in Iraq will be over"? It doesn't mean the war ended itself, it means the war will be over. If you don't speak English well enough to understand basic sentences like this one please refrain from calling Obama a liar without opening a dictionary.
On October 22 2011 19:41 ambient_orange wrote: "The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring" after U.S. troops leave the country" So logicaly there is no need for war after all.. because partnership doesnt have to do anything with the war itself..
You do understand that they weren't still fighting the Iraqi government, right? I don't think you understand the situation at all, because your comment makes no sense. And those two statements aren't even remotely close to being lies so I don't know what you're on about.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
except for removing a dictator and installing democracy.
Does Iraq have a democracy yet?
As to the removing dictators, the world has plenty of them. Have you ever considered asking yourself why the "good" guys don't see fit to remove them from power? It's oil. The other dictators don't matter because they aren't sitting on it.
You write a whole tin can spoof but your own answers are about as shallow as a bottletop with that much content to boot.
On October 22 2011 23:47 Chanted wrote: Well, I think if the situation in Iraq is stable enough, then pulling out might be a good idea. I just hope that the new government is strong enough.
Usa has more then enough problems to fix at home, so if they could cut down some on military spendings, they could fix some of those.
I (and probably most europeans) hope that the democrats stay in power.
There are no democrats and there is no democracy. Just a corrupt US puppet regime. The only people that profited in any way are the kurds, who have relativly much autonomy and a relativly stable (local) government. But the government of the Iraqi Nation is shit and corrupt to the bone.
On October 22 2011 15:51 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
[quote]
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Well, I'm going to take Subversive's advice and stop responding. Your arguments have become very hollow and I don't even need to pick at them anymore to discredit them. They speak for themselves. Your values are obviously quite unique, and I won't try to convince you to change them. I'm off to bed
My arguments haven't changed. Tell me how my arguments are hollow.
My values are that of a man who desires a happy life on earth, reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason as my only tool for knowledge. Purpose, as my choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self-esteem, as my certainty that my mind is competent and that I am worthy of happiness on earth.
You're basically going no where because you set yourself up as the main character in the story of life and all of us are mere extras and side characters that are always wrong if you say otherwise.
You have this really weird self righteous attitude that makes you a complete pseudo intellectual because you present your arguments as unfalsifiable to begin with.
I'm an American and you make me fucking sick. You act as if our country did nothing wrong when invading and destroying a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and was never a threat to us to begin with.
Look up America's decisions to go into countries after WWII.
Everything from operation ajax (over throwing the legitimate leader of Iran) to the CIA operations in Latin and South American from the 80s to the 90s.
You know what you'll learn after reading about some of this? It's that America likes dictators, we didn't go into Iraq because he was a dictator or because he was this, "Initiator of force". If this were the case America would've invaded North Korea and various 3rd world states already.
By your own retarded definition of "Initiator of force" we actually would've been in North Korea by now considering he oppresses his people, starts random fights along the DMZ (There was a major bombardment that killed South Korean Marines on an island near the DMZ as well as an alleged naval attack by submarine)
We go to war with countries when ideal political and economic interests line up not because of some arbitrary moral standard that when crossed causes Americans to go full Merikan and declare war.
Get over yourself, your historical view on the Iraq war and this country is one that even Fox news doesn't endorse anymore because of how many times it has been refuted and how flat out inaccurate it is.
I've been in Iraq since February, I am pretty stoked that I will be home before the holidays to hang out with my families and friends.
It's good that U.S. American troops are leaving Iraq, but in a couple of years Iraq will be like Germany, Korea and other countries the US has been in.
Even though we are leaving Iraq, there are still private contractors hired by the department of state to assist them with there work to "advise" and "assist" with the Iraqi government and army. So hopefully their government is going to be stabled.
Since I'm a U.S. Soldier, I can't really openly say anything else.
Also the cool thing is, my company is the last to leave Iraq :D! Gonna be the highlight of my life.
On October 23 2011 04:35 FraCuS wrote: I've been in Iraq since February, I am pretty stoked that I will be home before the holidays to hang out with my families and friends.
It's good that U.S. American troops are leaving Iraq, but in a couple of years Iraq will be like Germany, Korea and other countries the US has been in.
Even though we are leaving Iraq, there are still private contractors hired by the department of state to assist them with there work to "advise" and "assist" with the Iraqi government and army. So hopefully their government is going to be stabled.
Since I'm a U.S. Soldier, I can't really openly say anything else.
Also the cool thing is, my company is the last to leave Iraq :D! Gonna be the highlight of my life.
I'm excited to see a blog with pictures showcasing the excitement =]
On October 23 2011 04:35 FraCuS wrote: I've been in Iraq since February, I am pretty stoked that I will be home before the holidays to hang out with my families and friends.
It's good that U.S. American troops are leaving Iraq, but in a couple of years Iraq will be like Germany, Korea and other countries the US has been in.
Even though we are leaving Iraq, there are still private contractors hired by the department of state to assist them with there work to "advise" and "assist" with the Iraqi government and army. So hopefully their government is going to be stabled.
Since I'm a U.S. Soldier, I can't really openly say anything else.
Also the cool thing is, my company is the last to leave Iraq :D! Gonna be the highlight of my life.
I'm excited to see a blog with pictures showcasing the excitement =]
On October 23 2011 14:40 Bibdy wrote: I love how everyone here is a godamned expert on the current status of the Iraqi government and security forces.
You don't have to be an expert.
I have friends in Iraq and I watch the news. The place is largely as dangerous today as it was last year, the year before, the year before that, the year before that. When America pulls out, the chances of huge sectarian violence are pretty high by all accounts, and I see no reason why the groups which have continued to oppose the new Iraqi government and governance system would not continue to do so.
In terms of democracy, a huge amount of candidates were banned from the 2010 election, including major party leaders. If you think it's just people who have a vested interest in saying it's not a real democracy lying to you, consider the fact that even US Ambassador stated that the elections weren't credible. Couple that with the violence on election day with hundreds dying and huge amounts of threats and you don't have a genuine democracy even with the huge American military presence and pressure they can place on the Iraqi government.
If you think that a democracy will somehow start to flourish and become genuine after America has left then you're far more optimistic than I am or than history would suggest is remotely sensible. There really is no reason to view Iraq's future positively - it may settle down into a relatively stable pseudo-democracy, but to think it's going to be a great place noticeably improved is just refusing to look at facts.
On October 23 2011 04:35 FraCuS wrote: I've been in Iraq since February, I am pretty stoked that I will be home before the holidays to hang out with my families and friends.
It's good that U.S. American troops are leaving Iraq, but in a couple of years Iraq will be like Germany, Korea and other countries the US has been in.
Even though we are leaving Iraq, there are still private contractors hired by the department of state to assist them with there work to "advise" and "assist" with the Iraqi government and army. So hopefully their government is going to be stabled.
Since I'm a U.S. Soldier, I can't really openly say anything else.
Also the cool thing is, my company is the last to leave Iraq :D! Gonna be the highlight of my life.
Have a nice trip back. Hopefully you're not sent off to any more damned wars during the remainder of your service.
On October 23 2011 14:40 Bibdy wrote: I love how everyone here is a godamned expert on the current status of the Iraqi government and security forces.
You don't have to be an expert.
I have friends in Iraq and I watch the news. The place is largely as dangerous today as it was last year, the year before, the year before that, the year before that. When America pulls out, the chances of huge sectarian violence are pretty high by all accounts, and I see no reason why the groups which have continued to oppose the new Iraqi government and governance system would not continue to do so.
Well I just had to point out how wrong you are. Iraq is much safer than it used to be a few years ago, and though there are still frequent bombings, its no where near as bad as it was around 2006. And I'm not saying this cause I have "Iraqi friends", but because I'm an Iraqi myself and my father has recently started working in Iraq. In the all time he spent in Iraq, near the Al-Basra area, he never once heard a bomb go off AND never heard gunshots. That's not to say it doesn't happen anymore, on the contrary he visted a place that was bombed 1 hour after he left, but it shows its no were as frequent as it was before.
What many people don't understand about Iraq is how much business there is there. Any Iraqi engineer who wants a job will be picked up in a heart beat. The Iraqi government won't issue easy visas to foreigners so the jobs stay mainly for the Iraqi people. Its not like the Iraqis need the Americans anymore, we are (almost) self-sufficient. Many people who think that Iraq will pick up Sharia law (lol) honestly have no clue at what is really happening in Iraq, and don't understand the current state of the government.
On the topic of the Americans leaving, I know not one single Iraqi who has ever welcomed the American presence in Iraq (to put it lightly). If you ask people in Arabic what they think about the Americans leaving, they will tell you its about time the OCCUPATION is over. Even people who's relatives have been killed/tortured by Saddam are happy to see the Americans go.
Sorry if my points have been mentioned before, I didn't read the whole thread just skimmed through it and wanted to give my point of view.
On October 23 2011 14:40 Bibdy wrote: I love how everyone here is a godamned expert on the current status of the Iraqi government and security forces.
You don't have to be an expert.
I have friends in Iraq and I watch the news. The place is largely as dangerous today as it was last year, the year before, the year before that, the year before that. When America pulls out, the chances of huge sectarian violence are pretty high by all accounts, and I see no reason why the groups which have continued to oppose the new Iraqi government and governance system would not continue to do so.
Well I just had to point out how wrong you are. Iraq is much safer than it used to be a few years ago, and though there are still frequent bombings, its no where near as bad as it was around 2006. And I'm not saying this cause I have "Iraqi friends", but because I'm an Iraqi myself and my father has recently started working in Iraq. In the all time he spent in Iraq, near the Al-Basra area, he never once heard a bomb go off AND never heard gunshots. That's not to say it doesn't happen anymore, on the contrary he visted a place that was bombed 1 hour after he left, but it shows its no were as frequent as it was before.
You're right. It was about 2006-2007ish that the violence reached its peak and after cooling down it's stayed roughly the same since, which is exactly what I said. I think it's something like 5 deaths/day and 4 terrorist attacks/day now, though I could be a little off on that. Obviously the country is big so the level of violence you'll be exposed to depends on the area you're in, but I'd say that number of terrorist attacks and deaths is pretty high and, with 30,000 troops leaving, I think it's highly likely that it will get worse.
On October 23 2011 04:35 FraCuS wrote: I've been in Iraq since February, I am pretty stoked that I will be home before the holidays to hang out with my families and friends.
It's good that U.S. American troops are leaving Iraq, but in a couple of years Iraq will be like Germany, Korea and other countries the US has been in.
Even though we are leaving Iraq, there are still private contractors hired by the department of state to assist them with there work to "advise" and "assist" with the Iraqi government and army. So hopefully their government is going to be stabled.
Since I'm a U.S. Soldier, I can't really openly say anything else.
Also the cool thing is, my company is the last to leave Iraq :D! Gonna be the highlight of my life.
Have a nice trip back. Hopefully you're not sent off to any more damned wars during the remainder of your service.
Thank you I appreciate it! Since my job is Infantry Mortarman, the possibility of me deploying to Afghanistan is high. :[ Good thing is my contract is done by the time I deploy to Afghanistan.
On October 23 2011 22:52 Malgrif wrote: what was the war about?
Oil, and ..... Well, oil and controlling world's economy and politics ? By throwing off their throne dictators that have ruled the country. I'm not FOR Gaddafhi, but it was supposed to be an humanitarian Mission, not a Man-hunt/assaulting entire cities to find him. US might retreat from Iraq, but war in the Middle East is far from over, Barracks will just find somebody else to drop his bombs on.
Why did they go and wage War in iraq in the first place ? Cuz they knew FOR SURE that bin Laden was the Coordinator of the 9/11 or something like that ?? I am not really aware of all the factors in this "humanitarian War", but I know that US didn't have anything to do in Middle East except continue their so called War On Terror because they supposedly knew the names of the 13 or so terrorists that hijacked the planes(one of their passport miraculously was not burned during the crash and landed right in front of the crash site ! weird isn't it ?). Same thing With the UK, France, or anybody else. There never were any Weapons of Mass destruction and nothing really menacing coming from Iraq. You'll tell me: They have helped Lybia to reconstruct and have a better place to live. If they were not bombing Lybia, they would be no need to reconstruct after~ They went in a war that involves nobody but lybians, forced the hand of gaddafi and in the end, he won't even be Judged in a martial court, he was just coldly executed in the street.
On October 23 2011 23:32 rohanim41 wrote: Why did they go and wage War in iraq in the first place ? Cuz they knew FOR SURE that bin Laden was the Coordinator of the 9/11 or something like that ?? I am not really aware of all the factors in this "humanitarian War", but I know that US didn't have anything to do in Middle East except continue their so called War On Terror because they supposedly knew the names of the 13 or so terrorists that hijacked the planes(one of their passport miraculously was not burned during the crash and landed right in front of the crash site ! weird isn't it ?). Same thing With the UK, France, or anybody else. There never were any Weapons of Mass destruction and nothing really menacing coming from Iraq. You'll tell me: They have helped Lybia to reconstruct and have a better place to live. If they were not bombing Lybia, they would be no need to reconstruct after~ They went in a war that involves nobody but lybians, forced the hand of gaddafi and in the end, he won't even be Judged in a martial court, he was just coldly executed in the street.
On October 23 2011 23:47 R4TM wrote: I do not believe this, past august he said the same thing.
On February 27, 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced a deadline for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. According to the president, by August 31, 2010, after nearly seven and a half years of United States military engagement in Iraq, all but a "transitional force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be withdrawn from the Middle Eastern nation.
On August 19, 2010, the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last US combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq. About 50,000 US troops will remain in the country in an advisory capacity. According to the US, they will help to train Iraqi forces in a new mission dubbed by the US as "Operation New Dawn," which will run until the end of 2011.[21] The mission that ended August 19, 2010 was dubbed by the US as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," at a projected cost of more than $900 billion and 4,415 US troops killed in action.[21] Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were estimated to be killed, according to the Iraq Body Count website.[21]
He did what he said he would do last time...know your facts.
Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
They're probably not going to redeploy additional troops to Afganistan to increase the number of troops we already have there on the ground. At the moment, we're winding down on the troops that were sent there for the surge and will be back at pre-surge troop levels by the end of this year. They might get rotated in to give existing troops there more leave time to come back stateside to recoop though I doubt it will happen anytime soon (not this year, and not next year since it's an election year and we already have plans and are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014)
I doubt we're going to do anything major against Pakistan (not Iran...Pakistan is where the tension is at the moment). Though, despite recent tension between Pakistan and the US, open warfare is a remote possibility due to the complex relationship and power balance that is in play in that region at the current time.
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country.
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country.
what "enemies" are you talking about and how will they prepare to do what?
What do you think they are going to do with the remaining 150 troops? Are they safe? Also why would you tell the world the number of troops your a withdrawing? In his case it is to increase him approval not benefit the country.
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country.
Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta kept the door open to further talks on trainers. While civilian and military officials characterized the withdrawal as a clean break, negotiations could always resume.
“As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces,” Mr. Obama said. “After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq, and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant.”
At the Pentagon, however, senior officials said that without a change in the tenor of Iraqi domestic politics, it was unlikely that any enduring American military presence could be negotiated with the Iraqi government.
Instead, these officials said, the two countries might look to create what one Pentagon official called “a smaller footprint and more flexible relationship.” That might include organizing joint exercises, inviting Iraqi officers to American military schools and offering to train Iraqis in other Middle Eastern nations where the United States has a presence.
Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia.
On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices.
Seriously, go read before posting bullshit that. Pulling back troops doesn't equate to leaving Iraq forever. The partnership has already been established and obviously US top officials aren't going to just leave the country to become unstable since it's strategically and more importantly, our responsibility, important to make sure Iraq is stable and safe.
The skeptic in me can't help but hate Obama for doing this because Election time is coming up.
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
He ran on putting MORE troops in Afghanistan, and he did say he was going to take us out of Iraq... at the end of 2011. Guess what time it is.
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country.
what "enemies" are you talking about and how will they prepare to do what?
What do you think they are going to do with the remaining 150 troops? Are they safe? Also why would you tell the world the number of troops your a withdrawing? In his case it is to increase him approval not benefit the country.
First of all, "you're withdrawing" not "your a withdrawing"
Secondly, how would a withdrawl of troops work WITHOUT releasing the number of people you're going to pull out? Other people have intelligence networks anyway, even if you didn't say, a mass exodus of people wouldn't be a very easy thing to hide and even if it was it'd be very easy to figure out the number of personnel being left behind. This is called transparency. It's not like when he said we're leaving 150 people behind he listed all the names and locations of those people.
What you said is akin to "Hey! Let's establish an embassy in this country but tell no one so the people in the embassy will be safe!" WTF kind of logic is that?
On October 24 2011 00:38 Atokad wrote: Just because they are leaving Iraq doesn't mean they aren't going to Afghanistan or somewhere else. We did pull back all of the combat troops, the troops he is talking about now are the ones that were left behind to train the new police and army there.
No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country.
Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta kept the door open to further talks on trainers. While civilian and military officials characterized the withdrawal as a clean break, negotiations could always resume.
“As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces,” Mr. Obama said. “After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq, and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant.”
At the Pentagon, however, senior officials said that without a change in the tenor of Iraqi domestic politics, it was unlikely that any enduring American military presence could be negotiated with the Iraqi government.
Instead, these officials said, the two countries might look to create what one Pentagon official called “a smaller footprint and more flexible relationship.” That might include organizing joint exercises, inviting Iraqi officers to American military schools and offering to train Iraqis in other Middle Eastern nations where the United States has a presence.
Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia.
On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices.
Seriously, go read before posting bullshit that. Pulling back troops doesn't equate to leaving Iraq forever. The partnership has already been established and obviously US top officials aren't going to just leave the country to become unstable since it's strategically and more importantly, our responsibility, important to make sure Iraq is stable and safe.
So why leave for a year. The fact of the matter is if the top US officials believe that we need to keep control of the strategically important Iraq/Middle east there is no reason to leave. The reason they stay they may come back is they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again.
So why leave for a year. The fact of the matter is if the top US officials believe that we need to keep control of the strategically important Iraq/Middle east there is no reason to leave. The reason they stay they may come back is they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again.
Because there was an agreement to pull out the mass majority of troops by the end of 2011 that was signed in 2008??? The only reason the issue of keeping troops there is even an issue is because the IRAQI MILITARY feels they need more training and support before they can fully be self-sufficient. We currently have 39,000 troops in Iraq. We only need from 3k to 5k troops there to train. Of course we're pulling back the vast majority of our troops.
God, if you're not going to post sources about "they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again." then I'm not going to bother responding since the military has already stated that Iraq has very low chances of falling back into a shithole. You already failed at arguing your point with evidence backing it up.
While i read the comments i realise most of them are about how good it is that USA is pulling their troops out. But why did USA even go to war? There must be a majority of the people in USA who supports the war aswell...
On October 24 2011 01:51 Fus wrote: While i read the comments i realise most of them are about how good it is that USA is pulling their troops out. But why did USA even go to war? There must be a majority of the people in USA who supports the war aswell...
They went to war over WMD's.
There has been extensive coverage on how this was sold as a sure thing whilst it was a lot more in the area of "might have WMD's, need to keep an eye out".
Iraq also had the "advantage" of being near Afghanistan so it was an easier sell for a war.
People will pitch you all kinds of alternative reasons like oil or removing an unfriendly dictator. Both those views fall horribly short and can be refuted by looking at how the US has handled Iraq.
The truth is that the official reason was WMD's. Maybe they really believed it, maybe George Bush suffered from an inferiority complex to his father and wanted to do what he couldn't.
You see how crazy the reasonings can go?
The only answer to your question that is honest is two fold:
1) The war was held because of the fear of WMD's.
2) We do not know and cannot prove there was a greater motive.
3) We can conclude based on behaviour that creating puppet states or obtaining oil was not the intended goal. If that was the goal then it would show in the Iraq we have today.
On October 23 2011 23:39 IveReturned wrote: I dont want to bash US but those people destroyed millions of lives.
Do you even know the population of Iraq? Destroyed millions of lives? Please.
31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement).
On October 23 2011 23:39 IveReturned wrote: I dont want to bash US but those people destroyed millions of lives.
Do you even know the population of Iraq? Destroyed millions of lives? Please.
31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement).
6.5% would actually be a very large percentage.
It is also based on nothing.
You can't just name a number that "feels" right and consider that enough basis for it to be true.
I had never supported this war. In my opinion, I thought this war was brought on mainly by the fear of Americans like most of the previous wars America was involved. Osama bin Laden did his job. I'm not going to praise or support what he did, but he made us fear in terror and chase him for nearly a decade costing so much in money and men. However, I fear that Americans won't even learn from this. Why did this happen in the first place? Is the hate born from anger and fear too great for many to see? Is our current actions going to make another Osama? We armed them to fight for us, and then we abandoned them. They felt bitter and fought for their own. What happens when you give power to people and arm them? They take control of people who have none. If we are to learn from this, we have to learn from what we did in the past.
Do you see the Arab protests and revolutions this year? If their people don't like their government, then they will fight against it. The only problem is... foreign influences has kept some of the current governments in power. Their own people should revolt against their own oppression, not by a foreign power that seeks much more than that. If there is to be democracy in the Arab nations, then they must want it for themselves and not for us.
Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
Religion is not even one of the reason for terrorism. Terrorists use religion to fuel their own agenda. They warp it to a point to get others that follow that religion to gain power. The underlying cause of terrorism is much more than religion. Terrorism is created by fear to invoke fear. Fear causes anger which then in turn causes hate. Some people want to get rid of fear instead of facing it in this world.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You can't help but wonder how much the 2012 election influenced this decision. Did Obama really make the decision he would have made if he didn't have the pressure of being up for reelection next year? Who knows.
I don't believe Obama will pull out nearly as many troops as we're led to believe. Only "non-combat" troops are coming home, but we will still have a standing presence (read: a new base!) there just as we have after every other conflict we've ever entered (except Vietnam). I hope Ron Paul's foreign policies start catching on with other candidates as well as Obama himself so we can finally bring the troops home. And let them stay home!
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
He ran on putting MORE troops in Afghanistan, and he did say he was going to take us out of Iraq... at the end of 2011. Guess what time it is.
It was already agreed and signed in 2008 that all forces would be removed by the end of 2011. It has nothing to do with Obama's next election.
On October 23 2011 23:39 IveReturned wrote: I dont want to bash US but those people destroyed millions of lives.
Do you even know the population of Iraq? Destroyed millions of lives? Please.
31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement).
20 years of completely destroying the economy, infrastructure, all social institutions, agriculture, industries, security, and anything that can be regarded as development for a country, and mind you, one that was previously developing quite strongly, the complete impoverishment of a people, etc. It's safe to say the lives of at least 99.5% of Iraqis were destroyed.
On October 24 2011 01:31 Aberu wrote: As much as I love this news...
The skeptic in me can't help but hate Obama for doing this because Election time is coming up.
On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election.
This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said.
He ran on putting MORE troops in Afghanistan, and he did say he was going to take us out of Iraq... at the end of 2011. Guess what time it is.
It was already agreed and signed in 2008 that all forces would be removed by the end of 2011. It has nothing to do with Obama's next election.
On October 23 2011 23:39 IveReturned wrote: I dont want to bash US but those people destroyed millions of lives.
Do you even know the population of Iraq? Destroyed millions of lives? Please.
31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement).
20 years of completely destroying the economy, infrastructure, all social institutions, agriculture, industries, security, and anything that can be regarded as development for a country, and mind you, one that was previously developing quite strongly, the complete impoverishment of a people, etc. It's safe to say the lives of at least 99.5% of Iraqis were destroyed.
I really fear for the future of Irakis
I really wish them the best. They have suffered so much for the last 40 or so years. Western countries have fucked it up so bad.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
Religion is not even one of the reason for terrorism. Terrorists use religion to fuel their own agenda. They warp it to a point to get others that follow that religion to gain power. The underlying cause of terrorism is much more than religion. Terrorism is created by fear to invoke fear. Fear causes anger which then in turn causes hate. Some people want to get rid of fear instead of facing it in this world.
Fear causes anger which causes hate? Nice conclusions there Yoda. The ignorance strong in you is.
It's safe to say the lives of at least 99.5% of Iraqis were destroyed.
That's a bit liberal with the estimation, isn't it though?
You're right. There's most likely some villagers so isolated from the rest of society, it probably wouldn't affect them even if the Mongols came and killed the whole population again. So I guess 98%.
Bottom line is the US cannot afford this war anymore. Doesn't really matter if they pull, just a matter of when because the wars in the Middle East are not gonna help economic recovery.
So why leave for a year. The fact of the matter is if the top US officials believe that we need to keep control of the strategically important Iraq/Middle east there is no reason to leave. The reason they stay they may come back is they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again.
Because there was an agreement to pull out the mass majority of troops by the end of 2011 that was signed in 2008??? The only reason the issue of keeping troops there is even an issue is because the IRAQI MILITARY feels they need more training and support before they can fully be self-sufficient. We currently have 39,000 troops in Iraq. We only need from 3k to 5k troops there to train. Of course we're pulling back the vast majority of our troops.
God, if you're not going to post sources about "they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again." then I'm not going to bother responding since the military has already stated that Iraq has very low chances of falling back into a shithole. You already failed at arguing your point with evidence backing it up.
It's conspiracy theorists running rampant in every U.S. thread ....The basic reason as to why the U.S. is pulling out is because frankly, its a cancer on the economy, even tho the military complex is large chunk of the economy, the economy over-all is not in a great shape where it can stimulate it, so it has just become an hamper. The other reason being is that of-course they could not come to a agreement on the "immunity" for U.S. troops, I think that was a bit over-board but yeah. There is also that other agreement where the U.S. agreed with Iraqi government that they will fully withdraw within a certain period of time, which has now expired.
The other reason of course is, in the eyes of people their saviors have basically become the occupiers, the U.S. relationship with the Iraqi government is not the best because the people see the government as U.S. puppets, it only makes sense that the U.S. withdraw almost fully, but extend their hand for help. While the U.S. is withdrawing, it will still have about 4-5k security personnel there to help the Iraqi government in any way, not to mention the U.S. has extended their hand again in any help that Iraq needs.
Now the question that remains to be seen is how Iraq will fair, not because of the mess there, but because the 3 different ethnic groups there basically hate each others guts and have done so for the past couple hundred years. It remains to be seen if they can work together and look past their differences to remain as a single country.
Anyway now for some more of my opinion, as to why the U.S. went to war, who knows. The main reason given was that Saddam was creating WMD and thats what the former leadership was selling, but we knew otherwise after the war, even tho we found some banned gas stashes, it still does not constitute for WMD that were described. It could of fairly well been just a ruse since they were in Afghanistan that they wanted to replace Saddam with somebody more friendly to the U.S. views. I doubt the oil played a major role as <10-11% of all U.S. oil comes from the middle east and majority is from the America's. Another reason could of been that Bush JR. was trying to finish what his father started, but that does not make sense, since the original reason for the Gulf-War was because Iraq invated Kuwait because they had a disagreement between each other.
From my understanding, Kuwait and Iraq share a large oil field and they had an agreement to pump equal amount of oil, but since after the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq was short on funds and started to pump more than the agreement. The other reason being of course is that majority of middle east hates Iran, it's religious and Iraq was like a shield for them. During the Iran/Iraq war, the Arab nations poured countless billions into Iraq to continue the war, but after the war was over they demanded the money back, hence why it's also another reason why Iraq invated Kuwait, as Kuwait I think controls 15-20% of the world's oil supply. while Iraq controls 12-15%. So when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the entire world community came to their defense. Their original plan was never to kick Saddam out of power, the purpose of the war was to push him out of Kuwait.
Hence why it's so confusing to figure out why the war in Iraq happened since many of the reasons don't really make sense and only Bush really knows the real answer, one which we may never know.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
Religion is not even one of the reason for terrorism. Terrorists use religion to fuel their own agenda. They warp it to a point to get others that follow that religion to gain power. The underlying cause of terrorism is much more than religion. Terrorism is created by fear to invoke fear. Fear causes anger which then in turn causes hate. Some people want to get rid of fear instead of facing it in this world.
Fear causes anger which causes hate? Nice conclusions there Yoda. The ignorance strong in you is.
So anger causes love?
Anyway religion is not responsible.Religion is not human so it cannot be responsible for anything.Same like history.
Yeah now with evil uncle saddam and good uncle obama away,and with oil fields in gentle and open hands of foreign oil firms,iraq can finaly begin to work its way to better tommorow,to brighter capital. future.
On October 24 2011 06:11 whitelly wrote: Anyway religion is not responsible.Religion is not human so it cannot be responsible for anything.Same like history.
I agree. Religion isnt human, its god and god does only good things.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
Religion is not even one of the reason for terrorism. Terrorists use religion to fuel their own agenda. They warp it to a point to get others that follow that religion to gain power. The underlying cause of terrorism is much more than religion. Terrorism is created by fear to invoke fear. Fear causes anger which then in turn causes hate. Some people want to get rid of fear instead of facing it in this world.
Fear causes anger which causes hate? Nice conclusions there Yoda. The ignorance strong in you is.
So anger causes love?
Anyway religion is not responsible.Religion is not human so it cannot be responsible for anything.Same like history.
Yeah now with evil uncle saddam and good uncle obama away,and with oil fields in gentle and open hands of foreign oil firms,iraq can finaly begin to work its way to better tommorow,to brighter capital. future.
It was a direct star wars quote, and a nonsensical one at that. Both fear and anger can cause a wide array of things. It's human emotion we're talking about here. I can't remember once that fear has cause anger in me. I usually just get.. scared and go away? And anger causing hate is the biggest BS ever. I can't remember how many times I've been temporarely angry at people and things that I love. Yoda sucks at philosophy.
Religion is human in every way possible. Religion is made up by humans. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that every religious text was written by a human.. Basically every religion tells the people to shut the fuck up, pay their taxes, kill anyone who starts asking questions or think differently and do as your masters tell you. A medieval power tool.
Bam! I believe that's one more in the bag for Obama. He's solved the American health care death spiral, killed the world's most dangerous terrorist, and now ended the most disastrous war in US history. What an inspirational leader.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
Seriously...? You're going to try to argue the point that Muslim extremists > Christian extremists? Do you NOT remember what happened in Norway? Does the KKK and other extreme radical groups (including christian based cults) not count under Christian extremists? (Answer, yes they do).
You can bet your ass that if a Christian nation was invaded and then taken over by an Islamic nation bad shit would be going down FAST with regards to Christian extremists going crazy. Last time that happened we had a little thing called the Crusades and Inquisition.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses.
edit: Also, it sounds like you think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. it is staggering, though, how many Americans were under that impression in 2003 when we invaded. The power of misinformation.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses.
That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional .
In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses.
That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional .
In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
Seriously...? You're going to try to argue the point that Muslim extremists > Christian extremists? Do you NOT remember what happened in Norway? Does the KKK and other extreme radical groups (including christian based cults) not count under Christian extremists? (Answer, yes they do).
You can bet your ass that if a Christian nation was invaded and then taken over by an Islamic nation bad shit would be going down FAST with regards to Christian extremists going crazy. Last time that happened we had a little thing called the Crusades and Inquisition.
Which is why I said currently......whens the last time that you heard about Christians hijacking airplanes and blowing themselves up to kill innocent people? As for a lot of the people saying in this thread that we shouldn't have invaded the way that I see it is that we have no other choice.
How are we going to unite as a whole if we have country's that are living 500+ years in the past being raised by religious extremists that brainwash them to believe in 2,000 year old fairy tales and that all people that don't follow that religion are infidels that deserve to be blown up. The world is a much safer place with all of the country's on this planet modernized and free of religion.
On October 24 2011 08:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses.
That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional .
In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
Yea, I'm glad that our country isn't being ran with the mindset that you have. In your view it would be better if we just left a country alone that hates ours and will go to extreme measures to kill Americans because we are infidels and are evil. I definitely would rather live in Iraq now by the way. At least the country is starting to get some order and is being modernized. I don't believe in any Al Quida myths by the way, all that I said were that terrorism was widespread in that country and we're doing a good job of fixing that. To think that cowards like yourself think that its okay for terrorists to be left a lone to fly planes into our buildings is sickening. That in itself was an act of terrorism. We have to set some country's straight or else the world is going to remain a scary place.
Anyways, it seems like you're trolling to me, you keep bringing up all of the bad things but none of the good. Sounds like you're a terrorist yourself.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
Seriously...? You're going to try to argue the point that Muslim extremists > Christian extremists? Do you NOT remember what happened in Norway? Does the KKK and other extreme radical groups (including christian based cults) not count under Christian extremists? (Answer, yes they do).
You can bet your ass that if a Christian nation was invaded and then taken over by an Islamic nation bad shit would be going down FAST with regards to Christian extremists going crazy. Last time that happened we had a little thing called the Crusades and Inquisition.
Which is why I said currently......whens the last time that you heard about Christians hijacking airplanes and blowing themselves up to kill innocent people? As for a lot of the people saying in this thread that we shouldn't have invaded the way that I see it is that we have no other choice.
How are we going to unite as a whole if we have country's that are living 500+ years in the past being raised by religious extremists that brainwash them to believe in 2,000 year old fairy tales and that all people that don't follow that religion are infidels that deserve to be blown up. The world is a much safer place with all of the country's on this planet modernized and free of religion.
On October 24 2011 08:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 24 2011 08:17 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 24 2011 08:03 Sovern wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:52 tjosan wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government.
What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation.
And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is.
You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action.
The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally.
America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself.
Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults.
Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses.
That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional .
In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
Yea, I'm glad that our country isn't being ran with the mindset that you have. In your view it would be better if we just left a country alone that hates ours and will go to extreme measures to kill Americans because we are infidels and are evil. I definitely would rather live in Iraq now by the way. At least the country is starting to get some order and is being modernized. I don't believe in any Al Quida myths by the way, all that I said were that terrorism was widespread in that country and we're doing a good job of fixing that. To think that cowards like yourself think that its okay for terrorists to be left a lone to fly planes into our buildings is sickening. That in itself was an act of terrorism. We have to set some country's straight or else the world is going to remain a scary place.
Anyways, it seems like you're trolling to me, you keep bringing up all of the bad things but none of the good. Sounds like you're a terrorist yourself.
[sarcasm] Yeah, it's absolutely a terrible thing when people use reason, logic, and intelligence rather than outlandish, wild support of hoaxes already stated by their original propagators to be false and other things that are just terribly incorrect, absurd, and in every manner wrong. Yeah, let's all advocate and support destruction and death and then make up fictional stories that now the affected country is better in every manner, despite being set back about 50 years in reality.
Let's also continue to support hoaxes that they are responsible for 9/11, even though even the US government doesn't even use those hoaxes anymore. This is very intelligent. [/sarcasm]
Oh wait....
I mean, now that you're trying to defend your previous assertions that devastating Iraq was a good thing and has incredibly benefited them and Iraq was the biggest supporter of terrorism in the mideast, etc. etc., I really can't see you having any credibility at all. Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before the US came in. They came in after the US invaded, and in your last post, you said AQ was already in there before, among some other very bizarre things. Continuing to promote hoaxes to try and make your ultranationalistic point, eh? Lol I like this new hoax of yours that Iraqis were going to kill us. Yes, Iraq had to be invaded before they somehow kill off the whole American population, which they were obviously conspiring to do and had the means to do as well /sarcasm. Dude, are you off your rocker?
Allow me to further demonstrate how desperate you are to try and make a point. I never say a single thing concerning 9/11, and now you're able to say quite decisively that somewhere I claimed that terrorism is okay. Only people who are at that height of delusional thinking and nationalistic fanaticism can speak like you are at this very moment. It's not only scary that people can have such a mentality (just as bad as religious extremists), but it's a bit frustrating because I have to suffer from the ridicule of Americans by the rest of the world because of folks like yourself. My warm-hearted suggestion is that you stop thinking and talking like that. It is terribly inhumane and foolish, and shows nothing but a hateful, cowardly, and frightening personality. Sure your pals who have similarly fucked up ideals may be fine with it, but to the average intelligent human being, what you're saying is really screwed up, fictional, and irrational.
Also, Iraq had nothing to do with AQ or 9/11, so your argument in this post is entirely invalid. Stop trying to dig yourself out of that indefinitely deep trench you're in. Stating continuously more absurd things isn't going to help.
And then you call me a terrorist. This was the best part of all. I guess my last post defeated your poorly thought-out, mythology-based, irrational post so hard, that you couldn't take it. Now you're angry as hell and decide to resort to calling people terrorists and whatnot. Dude, do you even see what you write? lol. And then you say I'm trolling? It's always nice when a troll calls someone out for trolling because the troll gets easily countered by common sense and intelligence. This is rich. Oh man. No, you can't be trolling, because you're still sticking with your beliefs. Had you been trolling, you would have dropped them when you saw that people didn't get trolled xd. You should have at least claimed you were trolling, so that way you could still possibly save some face and credibility :S.
When I was a ideallistic tennage I used to read a shitload of news about the americans, the bush administration infuriated me with their stupidity.
Now older and wiser, I gotta say I dont give a damn about what the US does, the US will be the US.
They will not fight the wars the world wants them to fight, because like every country god put on this earth, they have their own agenda.
Now I just aknowledge that not all countries agenda's will go hand in hand with the US agenda, and when doing military foreign power, the question anyone should ask themselves first is, how would we fare against a US invasion, honestly, the way things are going, I wouldnt be surprised if the next republican nutjob starts WWIII
No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.
My advice for all teens outthere, the US imperialism will go on with or without you, support your own country and world peace and call it a day.
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
Tell that to north korea.
And Iran soon
edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e
Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there
Thank you for starting discussion on this news topic on such a high note. Please, don't blatantly try to start an America bash thread the moment it opens... at least have the decency to hide behind a well reasoned argument or a post 10-20 pages along in the thread...
On October 22 2011 02:02 ShoCkeyy wrote: Finally; Those people will be able to finally see their families and live a normal life. I'm glad this finally happened.
That's what we HOPE to be saying in around ten years from now about Iraq.... thinking that American soldier LEAVING Iraq solves anything for the average Iraqi citizen is horribly ignorant...
As an American... I know this is the right choice... I just don't know if it's the right time for said right choice.
The remark that America should have just gotten the fuck out as fast as possible because it never should have been there in the first place is ignores the socio-political turmoil in the daily life of an Iraqi citizen... We HAD to stay, if only to prevent civil war and genocide that we might have caused... I still don't know if leaving at the end of 2011 is the right decision for the people of Iraq.
I'm happy no more of my brothers and uncles and cousins (lol, PC time, sisters and aunts too) will have to die on that foreign soil... but sometimes I wonder if their spilt blood would be best spent just a little longer for the mission they thought they'd subscribed to.
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
Tell that to north korea.
And Iran soon
edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e
Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
That is a thoroughly ignorant remark. Nuclear weapons do not work as war deterrents in small scale warfare (as in non-total war scenarios) and America, and the rest of the global community, can easily bully the SHIT out of nations with nuclear capability. Even the threat of using nuclear weaponry burns away at geopolitical capital at an alarming rate...
Simply put, you can't bully or anti-bully with nuclear weapons, because the moment you use them the entire global community sees you (you refers to the nation that used the nuclear weaponry) as an existential threat. If this wasn't true, and nuclear weapons could be used as a political tool so easily, then why AREN'T they used more frequently... it'd be like the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card...
North Korea is grasping at straws to keep its people fed and only exists because South Korea refuses to use its great political clout and standing for fear of destabilizing its markets and market opportunities... Korea has the second largest number of MNC's on Earth, so even the spectre of war would seriously damage markets.
Iran will be mashed into the ground if it uses nuclear weaponry, of that is completely certain. Do you seriously think Iran would be able to use nuclear weapons as a political gimme with Israel and the entire of NATO breathing down it's neck, BEGGING for it to be THAT stupid?
EDIT: We bully the hell out of Pakistan all the time and they have nuclear weaponry. China is at constant war with India via border skirmishes and THEY both have stockpiles of nuclear weaponry. North Korea shot down a South Korean frigate and Korea's existence hinges on the United State's military presence... The United States has Nuclear weapons. Please, if you're really THAT ignorant of normal world politics please don't post with such provocative statements.
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
Tell that to north korea.
And Iran soon
edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e
Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
If you don't think there's already massive global attention on Iran for trying, and a ton of theorizing of what to do if they actively begin proliferating nuclear weapons, then you're delusional. Iran is already under major international containment, but fortunately for them they have the support of China/Russia, which means they get knowledge/material + a possibility of military support against any operations.
Again, nuclear weapons don't exist in a vacuum. You need to be able to shoot back after an attack to provide deterrence (second-strike capability). Even if Iran (or another country) had weapons, they need multiple launching platforms with the range to damage a potential aggressor. Simply having a nuclear weapon is not enough, and is quite likely to make you more at risk without the appropriate infrastructure. There is a lot of work produced as to why increased proliferation is a bad thing for parties involved (and, to be fair, for the other view as well).
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote: >>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<< This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
Tell that to north korea.
And Iran soon
edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e
Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
If you don't think there's already massive global attention on Iran for trying, and a ton of theorizing of what to do if they actively begin proliferating nuclear weapons, then you're delusional. Iran is already under major international containment, but fortunately for them they have the support of China/Russia, which means they get knowledge/material + a possibility of military support against any operations.
Again, nuclear weapons don't exist in a vacuum. You need to be able to shoot back after an attack to provide deterrence (second-strike capability). Even if Iran (or another country) had weapons, they need multiple launching platforms with the range to damage a potential aggressor. Simply having a nuclear weapon is not enough, and is quite likely to make you more at risk without the appropriate infrastructure. There is a lot of work produced as to why increased proliferation is a bad thing for parties involved (and, to be fair, for the other view as well).
Yep, exactly. The whole point of nukes as a deterrence is to maintain second-strike capabilities. Very few nuclear nations actually have effective second strike abilities. The US clearly has the most powerful ones, but Israel, Russia, and China are all very much so able to provide significant second strike capabilities.
NK, Iran, Pakistan, and India are all pretty much completely unable to do so, so their nuclear weapons aren't keeping the US from doing anything. In NK's case, it's the 1000s of artillery pieces aimed directly at Seoul and in India and Pakistan's cases, they're strategic allies.
If Iran gets nukes, it won't change a thing. They need to then get ICBMs, submarines to carry those ICBMs, long-range bombers, etc. And of course they aren't getting that from anyone else, including China and Russia. For now both of those nations maintain "friendly" terms with Iran, but don't confuse that for trust. Neither China nor Russia actually care about Iran and neither are particularly receptive to theocracy or Islam in general. Maintaining relations with Iran is good for them, but arming Iran is not. There's a reason why Iran's military equipment is largely made up of outdated Russian technology -- Russia won't sell them anything powerful enough to threaten their own safety.
When I was a ideallistic tennage I used to read a shitload of news about the americans, the bush administration infuriated me with their stupidity.
Now older and wiser, I gotta say I dont give a damn about what the US does, the US will be the US.
They will not fight the wars the world wants them to fight, because like every country god put on this earth, they have their own agenda.
Now I just aknowledge that not all countries agenda's will go hand in hand with the US agenda, and when doing military foreign power, the question anyone should ask themselves first is, how would we fare against a US invasion, honestly, the way things are going, I wouldnt be surprised if the next republican nutjob starts WWIII
No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.
My advice for all teens outthere, the US imperialism will go on with or without you, support your own country and world peace and call it a day.
w...t....f.....
you admit oppressive US imperialism is bullshiat, then you say all you can do is support your country?
que the bill hicks skit of sucking satan's memeber.
Iran could probably hit israel with a nuke if they had one, and thats enough to stop any agression towards it (unless badass seals seize the facility somewhat, ill give you that) but on the big scale.
If Iran ever gets a nuke pointed at israel, they wont ever need about suffering a large scale invasion from another country ever again, they might not be in good graces with the west, but I dont think they give a damn, and I dont blame them, they are the last bastion of their culture that is not overrun by crazy fanatics or completely a puppet.
I honestly think Iran is an honest nation, and that they should have nuclear power and weapons, who are we to stop a sovereign nation from developing nuclear weapons to protect itself in such a dangerous world ?
Yes we have the UN and several goverments have them already and we dont need more actors yadda yadda
If you can overcome all that and get the nukes (and the launchers) you will no longer be bothered.
When I was a ideallistic tennage I used to read a shitload of news about the americans, the bush administration infuriated me with their stupidity.
Now older and wiser, I gotta say I dont give a damn about what the US does, the US will be the US.
They will not fight the wars the world wants them to fight, because like every country god put on this earth, they have their own agenda.
Now I just aknowledge that not all countries agenda's will go hand in hand with the US agenda, and when doing military foreign power, the question anyone should ask themselves first is, how would we fare against a US invasion, honestly, the way things are going, I wouldnt be surprised if the next republican nutjob starts WWIII
No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.
My advice for all teens outthere, the US imperialism will go on with or without you, support your own country and world peace and call it a day.
w...t....f.....
you admit oppressive US imperialism is bullshiat, then you say all you can do is support your country?
que the bill hicks skit of sucking satan's memeber.
You are american from your POV the US imperialism is a good thing, and their bullying is actually policing the world against bad guys. Therefore support them in their quest for greater good, while i support my country to develop nukes to defend from said imperialism
that said we all love your countries and live in peace
On December 15 2011 23:42 D10 wrote: Iran could probably hit israel with a nuke if they had one, and thats enough to stop any agression towards it (unless badass seals seize the facility somewhat, ill give you that) but on the big scale.
If Iran ever gets a nuke pointed at israel, they wont ever need about suffering a large scale invasion from another country ever again, they might not be in good graces with the west, but I dont think they give a damn, and I dont blame them, they are the last bastion of their culture that is not overrun by crazy fanatics or completely a puppet.
I honestly think Iran is an honest nation, and that they should have nuclear power and weapons, who are we to stop a sovereign nation from developing nuclear weapons to protect itself in such a dangerous world ?
Yes we have the UN and several goverments have them already and we dont need more actors yadda yadda
If you can overcome all that and get the nukes (and the launchers) you will no longer be bothered.
Just get ready to be self sufficient !
It's true that nuclear powers have not fought wars against each other.
It's also true that nuclear powers have had numerous crises, proxy wars, and minor skirmishes. Full-scale war is no longer logical because of the slim chance that there will be a massive retaliation on your own country, so small-scale conflicts become more of an option. Examples: India-Pakistan rivalries and clashes, every proxy conflict between the USSR/USA, various crises during the cold war... Don't think that having a nuclear weapon means your national interests can no longer be challenged - and the same limitations of you being attacked hold with you attacking another country.
This is, of course, assuming a proliferating country remains entirely stable, does not open itself to be disarmed, does not have any accidental detonations or launches (of which there were nearly several during the cold war that could have ended the modern era), and does not have any escalation of crises. If we look at those possibilities, then mathematically the increase in weapons and actors with weapons will likely increase the chances of these occurring.
I don't disagree that countries, for their own interests, might want to develop weapons. But this development is so menacing to other states that they make themselves a threat - and threats get opposed. That is something that must be considered, because that increase in hostility can be as much of a destabilizing factor as having the weapons themselves can be a stabilizing one.
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years.
Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen.
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years.
Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen.
Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point.
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years.
Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen.
Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point.
-_-
Define "leave".
It's mostly a political show, perhaps to take some attention off of Obama's reversal in whether to veto the NDAA Act that allows indefinite detention of US citizens and repeals the executive order on torture? Or just coincidence?
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years.
Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen.
Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point.
-_-
Define "leave".
It's mostly a political show, perhaps to take some attention off of Obama's reversal in whether to veto the NDAA Act that allows indefinite detention of US citizens and repeals the executive order on torture? Or just coincidence?
That's a possible domestic point, but probably means a lot less to everyone else.
The 'legitimacy' - and overall success of occupation missions - is actually quite dependent on whether there's a believable schedule for departure. The US actually showing they're moving out is a good thing in that regard.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
does anyone find it odd that right as we're pulling out of Iraq, Iran mysteriously acquires a fully intact drone and frictions between the U.S. and Iran begin growing...
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years.
Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen.
Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point.
-_-
Define "leave".
It's mostly a political show, perhaps to take some attention off of Obama's reversal in whether to veto the NDAA Act that allows indefinite detention of US citizens and repeals the executive order on torture? Or just coincidence?
That's a possible domestic point, but probably means a lot less to everyone else.
The 'legitimacy' - and overall success of occupation missions - is actually quite dependent on whether there's a believable schedule for departure. The US actually showing they're moving out is a good thing in that regard.
Repealing the executive order ban on torture isn't a domestic issue (but ironically might become one now). A believable schedule for departure? Or again, coincidence (i.e.- politically motivated/expedient)?
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
Well it is a country that is much less likely to invade its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran) than under Saddam. So definitely a good job. (although it might have been better executed if Bush #1 had pushed for regime change)
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
It's definitely better off in certain ways. The real question is if the cost for all sides involved was worth it. Right now thats looking like a big fat no.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
Stop trying to incite a venomous argument over everything and start writing in complete sentences please.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
How could you possibly know its worse? we're on the otherside of the planet.
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
The argument you just said can be also be used on the people who say "it was better off before the USA got there". How do they know? Did they live as Iraqi's? Hell no they didn't. I've had family do business there in the 80's, 90's and some in the 2000's. At least I can go off their stories and a few documentaries that have been done on iraq pre-9/11.
The reality was, Iraq was a hell hole since the Iraq/Iran war and that was all because of Saddam. He built countless palaces, villas, bunkers and all kinds of extravagant things for himself and his family while the rest of the country was rotting. He did not repair or reconstruct a single thing post the Iraq/Iran war, the country was in shambles. Then he invaded Kuwait and the consequences of that added even further upon the countries infrastructure, again, he didn't rebuild anything, just continued to build a more lavish life style for himself.
That is why I am going to continue to say, Iraq is better off. At least this time around, they can use their money to rebuild the nation and move on, as opposed to having a country with a destroyed infrastructure for the past 30 years.
Whether it is better off or worse is besides the point. This was never America's job in the first place and should have been left up to the UN to decide what to do. The case for taking out Saddam's regime should have continued to have been brought up there instead of unilateral action.
On December 16 2011 00:22 Tewks44 wrote: does anyone find it odd that right as we're pulling out of Iraq, Iran mysteriously acquires a fully intact drone and frictions between the U.S. and Iran begin growing...
Well, at least we can finally begin to see progress both in America (hopefully) and Iraq.
And by progress in America i mean i hope we can get our shit together back home now that we are only spending half (Afghanistan LOL) of our defense budget in the middle east.
On December 16 2011 04:41 Happylime wrote: The US should just stop invading people. Every time we do it money is drained and the people of each nation we occupy are worse off in the end.
On the other hand, I completely and totally support aiding nations in the formation of strong governments should they ask for our help.
Or you should just conquer people for good oldfashioned world domination or just a little bit of landgrabbing, something that would be more understandable than trying to play world police and just creating more pain in the process. If you wanna go down in history as a nation of great warriors you have to man up and conquer canada or shit and stop stomping 3rd world countries, that just makes you seems like assholes.
On December 16 2011 04:41 Happylime wrote: The US should just stop invading people. Every time we do it money is drained and the people of each nation we occupy are worse off in the end.
On the other hand, I completely and totally support aiding nations in the formation of strong governments should they ask for our help.
Or you should just conquer people for good oldfashioned world domination or just a little bit of landgrabbing, something that would be more understandable than trying to play world police and just creating more pain in the process. If you wanna go down in history as a nation of great warriors you have to man up and conquer canada or shit and stop stomping 3rd world countries, that just makes you seems like assholes.
The fact that you're from germany just puts a smile on my face ^^
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them...
The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam.
But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah.
And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam.
GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
How could anything be rebuilt when the country was under sanctions on literally everything? Even food had to be illegally smuggled into the country, and there was still widespread famine. It was also one of the worst economic depressions easily. Of course you can't do much besides create public works projects for landmarks just for the sake of giving people jobs when few people have one any longer. What 'rebuilding' could be done was also done, but when you have no money nor economy, you can't really do so much.
The current government is actually really corrupt, so corrupt, that it's even made US news headlines when Iraq was still in the news half the day. Don't expect much allocation to rebuilding as there could be. While the previous administrations were fairly dedicated to build up the country, this current administration seems to be far less motivated, despite receiving tons and tons of investment, easily the most in the country's history unless I'm missing some fine detail somewhere. And in the one period of time the country needs rebuilding the most, the government is sorely slacking. Well, when the ruling party is a [former] Islamic terror group, can't really expect much development or rationality out of them.
I'll give them 20-25 years to get back to where they were 20 years ago, without taking into account the fact they have like 12 million or so more people today.
On December 16 2011 00:22 Tewks44 wrote: does anyone find it odd that right as we're pulling out of Iraq, Iran mysteriously acquires a fully intact drone and frictions between the U.S. and Iran begin growing...
No. This has been scheduled for months
Only months? Bush signed the capitulation/withdrawal back in 2008. Try ~40 months ago. lol
On December 16 2011 06:01 acker wrote: How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
I had read 15,000 for embassy detail (largest in world), and a supposedly fully trained Iraqi defense force.
For the people who say it was about oil, you know most US oil comes from Canada right? I think I read somewhere that only about 11% of American oil comes from the middle east. The rest is Canada, the US itself, South America, etc..
US invasion of Iraq 2003 was a terrible and unjust event, but I'd like to point out that everyone who claimed that the war was unwinnable, that Iraq was "another Vietnam", that the insurgency could never be broken, well, they were all wrong. It's such a tired old cliché that insurgencies are superior to modern militaries, not to mention completely false.
Of course, nobody will admit they were wrong about claiming the war was unwinnable, they'll just quietly switch stances from "we can never win" to "maybe we won, but it was not worth it"... actually, they probably won't even use the word "win".
On December 16 2011 06:01 acker wrote: How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
I had read 15,000 for embassy detail (largest in world), and a supposedly fully trained Iraqi defense force.
For the people who say it was about oil, you know most US oil comes from Canada right? I think I read somewhere that only about 11% of American oil comes from the middle east. The rest is Canada, the US itself, South America, etc..
you do realize that it wasnt about government but rather about special interests? Contracts- rebuilding, security, oil as well. Most notably Haliburton and Blackwater.
On December 16 2011 06:01 acker wrote: How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
I had read 15,000 for embassy detail (largest in world), and a supposedly fully trained Iraqi defense force.
For the people who say it was about oil, you know most US oil comes from Canada right? I think I read somewhere that only about 11% of American oil comes from the middle east. The rest is Canada, the US itself, South America, etc..
Oil corporations have made an incredibly colossal profit off of contracts made during the war. That's what matters, not percentages of where oil comes from. Importing oil doesn't profit or benefit those corporations, in fact, it loses them business, so yes, the fact that oil-related matters were such a huge benefit to foreign, particularly US/UK, corporations in this war contradicts your point. Also, even before the 2003 war, there were discussions among oil firms about taking over oil in Iraq. Here's what a simple google search can bring up. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html
And following the '91 war, the US got oil for practically free from Iraq for 12 years. Funny how the second war came about when the Iraqis started trading oil on the Euro to scratch out a few more pennies from under the sanctions that deprived them of making negligibly more than nothing on exporting oil, and basically denied them any sort of trade otherwise. More importantly, other Arab nations were strongly considering doing the same before the '03 war, and that surely would have killed the petrodollar if it happened.
On December 16 2011 06:32 zezamer wrote: Is this the same dude who promised to close Guantanamo? Like 3 years ago....
No. It was actually Bush who promised to withdraw from Iraq.
On December 16 2011 06:01 acker wrote: How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
I had read 15,000 for embassy detail (largest in world), and a supposedly fully trained Iraqi defense force.
For the people who say it was about oil, you know most US oil comes from Canada right? I think I read somewhere that only about 11% of American oil comes from the middle east. The rest is Canada, the US itself, South America, etc..
On December 16 2011 06:18 Warlock40 wrote: US invasion of Iraq 2003 was a terrible and unjust event, but I'd like to point out that everyone who claimed that the war was unwinnable, that Iraq was "another Vietnam", that the insurgency could never be broken, well, they were all wrong. It's such a tired old cliché that insurgencies are superior to modern militaries, not to mention completely false.
Of course, nobody will admit they were wrong about claiming the war was unwinnable, they'll just quietly switch stances from "we can never win" to "maybe we won, but it was not worth it"... actually, they probably won't even use the word "win".
ask the American Military Complex and private corporations involved with Iraq, they won big, that is all. 911 is extremely suspicious, The Anthrax scare soon after pointed directly to a US government military building in the US, the reason to go into iraq was a lie, and soon the reason to go into Iran will be repeated daily until public opinion seems just right...
On December 16 2011 06:18 Warlock40 wrote: US invasion of Iraq 2003 was a terrible and unjust event, but I'd like to point out that everyone who claimed that the war was unwinnable, that Iraq was "another Vietnam", that the insurgency could never be broken, well, they were all wrong. It's such a tired old cliché that insurgencies are superior to modern militaries, not to mention completely false.
Of course, nobody will admit they were wrong about claiming the war was unwinnable, they'll just quietly switch stances from "we can never win" to "maybe we won, but it was not worth it"... actually, they probably won't even use the word "win".
ask the American Military Complex and private corporations involved with Iraq, they won big, that is all. 911 is extremely suspicious, The Anthrax scare soon after pointed directly to a US government military building in the US, the reason to go into iraq was a lie, and soon the reason to go into Iran will be repeated daily until public opinion seems just right...
The whole damned thing stinks...
From everything i've seen since 2003, it's either going to be that the US tries the same for Iran as they did for Iraq, or the entire Middle East is going to see the changes currently happening because of the Libyan and Egyptian uprisings.
Im glad to see these countries' actively taking a stand, fighting for their own freedom and ultimately showing that the US and its UN allies arn't going to be needed everywhere
On December 16 2011 06:18 Warlock40 wrote: US invasion of Iraq 2003 was a terrible and unjust event, but I'd like to point out that everyone who claimed that the war was unwinnable, that Iraq was "another Vietnam", that the insurgency could never be broken, well, they were all wrong. It's such a tired old cliché that insurgencies are superior to modern militaries, not to mention completely false.
Of course, nobody will admit they were wrong about claiming the war was unwinnable, they'll just quietly switch stances from "we can never win" to "maybe we won, but it was not worth it"... actually, they probably won't even use the word "win".
ask the American Military Complex and private corporations involved with Iraq, they won big, that is all. 911 is extremely suspicious, The Anthrax scare soon after pointed directly to a US government military building in the US, the reason to go into iraq was a lie, and soon the reason to go into Iran will be repeated daily until public opinion seems just right...
The whole damned thing stinks...
From everything i've seen since 2003, it's either going to be that the US tries the same for Iran as they did for Iraq, or the entire Middle East is going to see the changes currently happening because of the Libyan and Egyptian uprisings.
Im glad to see these countries' actively taking a stand, fighting for their own freedom and ultimately showing that the US and its UN allies arn't going to be needed everywhere
the Islamic brotherhood, a militant group, took over Libya. Though im sure some Libyan citizens wanted Gaddafi out, the Islamic brotherhood is basically the same as what the Taliban was in Afghanistan. The day Gaddafi was killed the brotherhood announced to the world that they are invoking sharia law on Libya...
Under Gaddafi women could vote, go to school, were not forced to wear religious head gear and could divorce, under Sharia law all of this is void. Again the whole Libyan "uprising" reeks because Libya is full of not only oil but gold.
Egypt is another story, we actually got to see the citizens do their protests on TV and heard their stories. Mubarak more or less stepped down, no militants attacking the country. Egypt is what a citizens uprisings look like, Libya, not so much.
Bush made the deal to exit the war by the end of 2011, however both the Bush and Obama wanted to extend military presence in Iraq, and for good reason. Unfortunately, Iraq was insistent that they honour the original agreement with Bush (from 2008?)
Iraq is very unstable right now. Sunni and Shiite Muslims are vying for control of the Iraq government. If Shiites gain control, Iran will have an even stronger bond or influence over Iraq than ever before.
I'm not sure who said it, but Bush's war on Iraq and removal of Saddam has arguably strengthened two of America's worst enemies.
On December 16 2011 06:18 Warlock40 wrote: US invasion of Iraq 2003 was a terrible and unjust event, but I'd like to point out that everyone who claimed that the war was unwinnable, that Iraq was "another Vietnam", that the insurgency could never be broken, well, they were all wrong. It's such a tired old cliché that insurgencies are superior to modern militaries, not to mention completely false.
Of course, nobody will admit they were wrong about claiming the war was unwinnable, they'll just quietly switch stances from "we can never win" to "maybe we won, but it was not worth it"... actually, they probably won't even use the word "win".
ask the American Military Complex and private corporations involved with Iraq, they won big, that is all. 911 is extremely suspicious, The Anthrax scare soon after pointed directly to a US government military building in the US, the reason to go into iraq was a lie, and soon the reason to go into Iran will be repeated daily until public opinion seems just right...
The whole damned thing stinks...
From everything i've seen since 2003, it's either going to be that the US tries the same for Iran as they did for Iraq, or the entire Middle East is going to see the changes currently happening because of the Libyan and Egyptian uprisings.
Im glad to see these countries' actively taking a stand, fighting for their own freedom and ultimately showing that the US and its UN allies arn't going to be needed everywhere
the Islamic brotherhood, a militant group, took over Libya. Though im sure some Libyan citizens wanted Gaddafi out, the Islamic brotherhood is basically the same as what the Taliban was in Afghanistan. The day Gaddafi was killed the brotherhood announced to the world that they are invoking sharia law on Libya...
Under Gaddafi women could vote, go to school, were not forced to wear religious head gear and could divorce, under Sharia law all of this is void. Again the whole Libyan "uprising" reeks because Libya is full of not only oil but gold.
Egypt is another story, we actually got to see the citizens do their protests on TV and heard their stories. Mubarak more or less stepped down, no militants attacking the country. Egypt is what a citizens uprisings look like, Libya, not so much.
And yet despite this, the Muslim Brotherhood is expected to take over in Egypt in the upcoming 'elections'. :S. Well, with secularism in Iraq dying thanks to Khomeini's influence (which exists to this day; go see the Shi'a) and the fact a former terror group (Islamic Dawa) rules there now and things look like they're Islamifying further, and secularism about to die in Egypt if the Brotherhood wins the 'elections', we can kiss secularism in the far less influential countries like Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, and Lebanon good bye. What does that leave us with in the Mideast/N. Africa? Turkey?
Also, I don't know if MB is in Libya, but I know that Libyan Islamist Fighting Group and Al Qaeda in the Maghreb are. Either way, Islamofascists took over Libya.
I'm glad the U.S. is finally getting out of this mess of a war. Hopefully we can analyze the cost savings now that we aren't funding anymore bases and put it towards our growing deficit
On December 16 2011 06:01 acker wrote: How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
I had read 15,000 for embassy detail (largest in world), and a supposedly fully trained Iraqi defense force.
For the people who say it was about oil, you know most US oil comes from Canada right? I think I read somewhere that only about 11% of American oil comes from the middle east. The rest is Canada, the US itself, South America, etc..
It was said they had like 700,000 Iraqi defense forces, but that they weren't all fully trained, and would be getting more help from security contractors in that way as well. There was video somewhere of PMCs also being used to help police certain areas. (I'll try to find it again.)