Never been more Proud of America than I am right now. [Archive]

cogsliastro

01-29-2005, 04:41 PM

Let's say for a brief moment you're right about "all about money"... even a 3 year old would understand you don't spend a trillion dollars fighting a war over $1.85/gallon gas, even at $50/barrel. If it were about money, we'd never recoup the cost

halliburton is making a killing over there......and oil prices are extreamly high right now,and who do you think is making money off of it?????

the bush family bussiness is oil.....and hes definately making money off of it.

look at the elections if afghanistan.......who won the election........humud kawzia is a ex eron rep.

We had reason - just turned out to be bad intelligence. You can't use hindsight and tell me we shouldn't have done it. That's just not being intellectually honest.

thats too funny roo........we had the u.n. and alot of foreighn countries asking us not to go into iraq and did we listen............no,did bush give multiple reasons to go into iraq.........yes,were any of them realistic.......no

Civil war? The only thing preventing it was Saddam's terror, or our soldiers. So what? It's not like it's a bad thing. Some people just can't live together. They have to figure it out. I don't see why we don't recommend splitting it into two countries. One for the Sunni's and one for the Shiite's. Why not??

what a great idea roo,maybe we should go into south corea and do the same thing.......or maybe we could do that in iran........maybe the whole world... and maybe hitler had a great idea.

You have a right to your opinion - unless it's slander or libel. But spreading ignorance and lies knowingly does demean your character - but you are free to do so!

this is comical because u are doing exactly this.

Rooster

01-29-2005, 05:37 PM

lol... yeah, k..

thats too funny roo........we had the u.n. and alot of foreighn countries asking us not to go into iraq and did we listen............no,did bush give multiple reasons to go into iraq.........yes,were any of them realistic.......no LOL!! You just conveniently overlook how many Euro's and UN peeps got caught with the hand in the "oil for food" cookie jar! BUSTED! :fuct: & :owned:

They didn't want us going in and busting up their good thing! Yeah, it's about money.

Last I checked, WE don't make the oil. WE don't sell the oil. WE are not making any kind of a profit off this. Until you can prove otherwise, you're making a fool of yourself with your ignorance.

I thought you could think for yourself, but apparently you've let Michael Moore take over the critical thinking part.

And I thought I knew some "black helicopter ops" headed people... wow.

Rooster

01-29-2005, 05:43 PM

As for Halliburton... they are the only company in the U.S. that does what they do. What the hell is the point of bidding?

You don't think they're getting paid enough? You try it. You risk your life and limb for a company. I didn't think so.

I have. U.S.A.F.

They deserve to earn whatever money they do make. Don't be a h8ter, just cause you're jealous of their success & willingness to do what others won't. That's petty.

cogsliastro

01-29-2005, 07:08 PM

ok oil for food wasent the best move u.n ever made .....but that does not include alot of other countries that were against us goin in ....france,germany,and otheres that were not involved in oil for food..

heres a oil for food link

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

and bush does sell oil,ask his buddy ken lay about that :)

but heres a link for the subject

http://www.alternet.org/story/12946

and another

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3332.htm

and another

http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm

this one is from japan

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=180

and on and on and on and on

i did a serch on (bush and oil)and got ALOT of sites about the subject .

but noooooooo bush dosent make any money off oil........pfft

and micheal moore doen NOT make up my mind...........but im sure he would thank you for the free publicity :)

Allison

01-29-2005, 07:27 PM

I absolutely agree with the "representative of our choosing" bit. It ould be naive to think that anyone would be elected in this first election who didn't have the approval of the U.S.

Yes, people can vote for whom they choose, and hopefully, Iraq will someday be lead by a true representative of the people. (And hopefully, that representative will also be western-friendly.) But that's just not going to happen right now. Americans are masters of public manipulation. We know how to win elections, and we have the money and influence to do it. I'm not talking about fraud or anything like that. I'm talking about a foreign influence over a national election that is necessarily prohibititive of an autonomous selection by the Iraqi people. And unfortunately, I think that's just the way it has to be right now. The alternative would be to pull out immediately and let them sink or swim, the former being the most likely result.

I don't think we should have ever gone into Iraq. I believe we went in not because we thought he had WMDs or to free the Iraqi people, and not because of money per se, but because those in power have a bold vision to transform the Middle East into a less hostile, more western-friendly, more business-friendly environment, and Iraq is the first step.

Rooster

01-29-2005, 07:51 PM

Bush makes money off oil, yeah, but not Iraqi oil!

Post

01-29-2005, 08:35 PM

Well, indirectly he does. I saw this interesting episode of some news show, that showed how OPEC keeping oil prices down is something they really push for, not because it's morally good, and not even because it makes them better-looking politically. Rather, the way the economy works, if oil ever went too far up, while they'd do better short-term, they'd be killed long-term.

They showed how people will cope with higher prices eventually, and find alternative means for oil, less dependent upon it, and makes the oil market dump out. While OPEC has survived the ups and downs, there's plenty of companies outside of the Middle East that have gone under because of that, including companies drilling for oil here in the US.

Keeping the prices down for oil ensures a market (read: a dependence) for oil. Lowering prices of oil gives long-term insurance to oil companies, just as long as it doesn't go to the other side of the price curve. To which it won't ever happen as long as the prices don't go too far up and people find alternatives.

So yes, everyone that's in the oil market for the long haul is in a position to make a lot of money from preventing things such as dictators in the Middle East doing things to make the oil market rapidly surge upwards.

Andolinni

01-30-2005, 01:23 AM

this election is totalitarian in my opinion...

what we are saying to the world is........iraq will vote and pick a represenitive of our choosing........OR ELSE!!!!!

the elections are ganna get nasty and prolly start a civil war in the area.

and our forighn polocy will be no better than it was(prolly worse)than it was when we(pres.bush)went into a war that has no warrent.....exept for money(of course).

just my opinion.......and me being able to express it is what makes america great.

i have high hopes for the process in iraq. Imo today the world is much better off than 10 years ago. A lot of that has to do with the destabilization and rebuilding of the middle east as a whole. In all the great ideals that bush has installed will hurt america because no matter if iraq succedes we loose money. If iraq and the middle east become a working civilized area we stand to loose a lot from more products and more interest in power in the world.

I think time will tell the best, but what america is doing is good thing imo. Imo bush hurting himself and his country for overall well being of the world, he won't ever be viewed that way, but sometimes it takes a person to tear it all down in order to get a good system put into place. He seized upon the oppurtunity offorded him, and i think as a whole, bush has made very difficult but good decisions. The guy is hated by half the world, but i honestly belive he standing up for his best ideals for the world, that takes a lot of inner strength and conviction, although some will say stupidity.

Andolinni

01-30-2005, 01:25 AM

Andolinni

01-30-2005, 01:43 AM

If it's true, and it's insulting, then I don't apologize. Sometimes people need to hear the truth. Letting people live in ignorance would do our society an injustice.

If I'm wrong, then I certainly will (apologize).

Let's say for a brief moment you're right about "all about money"... even a 3 year old would understand you don't spend a trillion dollars fighting a war over $1.85/gallon gas, even at $50/barrel. If it were about money, we'd never recoup the cost.

Are we reaping any monetary rewards out of Iraq? NOPE.
Did we cancel Iraq's debt to the U.S. to help their financial situation? YUP.

Hrm.. kinda shoots that down doesn't it.

I agree, and not to troll it up on posts in past 30 min.. but oh well. The overall cost of war just doesn't justify the gain that anyone can actually give a figure by looking at a paystub from. And even if bush was getting back the 3 trillion dollars or whatever we spent on war in iraq, if thats true then why the politicians pissed about our spending? If he's making all this money, why aren't you happy he's doing huge things and trying to balance the budget? Unless you mean that bush personally himself is making dollars off war in iraq... which in some way i'm sure he made some funds over it, lost some funds over it as a whole also.

I mean, he's born into the oil business, of course he's looking out for oil business, thats part of his constituancy no? i think that was figured in, but i don't think oil was the reason bush went to iraq, and personally i think micheal more is just a propagandist with an agenda. His "biography" isn't even completly true, making it not even a biography. so w/e on that guy.. if he's so sure bush is bad guy; why can't he give 100% true facts and let the facts speak of the issue, not change facts to suit your message.

MickeyFinn

01-30-2005, 07:16 AM

If Iraq didn't want the USA to invade, they should have learned from it the first time 10 years ago

Rooster

01-30-2005, 08:08 AM

Yup. Saddam was SO playing the U.N. for the tools they were. They proved they were just like the Senate in Star Wars Episode I. Worthless & corrupt.

Nymf

01-30-2005, 02:41 PM

Europe was proud of colonization of the world 500 years ago also, guess history repeats itself.... with bigger & better weapons...

Rooster

01-30-2005, 09:03 PM

Man, delusional isn't even the word for that post.

Colonization? Are you folks actually that blind?

Roscoes_C&W

01-30-2005, 09:59 PM

Really, there is no point talking to these people. You're arguing with people who have no sense of reality. They live in a theoretical world with unrealistic opinions and ideas. These are the Ted Kennedy's who are quick to criticize but have no solution of there own. These are the people who can ignore terrorists and just hope the problem goes away as they kill innocent people.

They say things like, "we need to get out of Iraq right now". Even though everybody with a brain knows it's necesarry we stay in Iraq and help this country build itself or else everything we have done, all the troops who have given up their lives, all the Iraqis who have given up their lives, will all be wasted. If we leave right now and don't stay to make this country safe then we will only be helping terrorism.

All of you who come here and criticize the war, it's too late. The war has happened, it is happening, the best thing we can do right now is get these Iraqis out there and voting and showing the world that they are going to build a civilized nation to sustain itself and terrorists have no reason to go there and ainlessly kill. The time to be critical of the war is overwith.

I see some of you are now going to criticize Iraqis out there walking miles to vote. You say things like "O America will just put to power who they want". How can you say that? Have any of you watched the coverage of these people walking to polling places even though it's dangerous? They care, they want a free safe Iraq, they appreciate what we have done for them. You people are so goddamn dillusional it amazes me. Open your fucking eyes.

Allison

01-30-2005, 10:50 PM

Roscoes, who are you talking to? No one in this thread has endorsed ignoring terrorists; no one has suggested we "get out of Iraq right now"; no one has criticised the Iraqi people or in any way diminished the risks they take and the sacrifices they make. No one.

And that's one problem I have with this forum now. Too often, people respond to posts as if the poster is some sterotypical, extreme, archetype. Just because I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, that doesn't mean I think we should pull out. Just because I don't buy the reasons given us for invading, that doesn't mean I'm a Michael Moore fan. Just because I recognize that it's impossible for the Iraqi people to experience a completely autonomous election doesn't mean I think they shouldn't vote or that they don't want a free and safe Iraq.

Honestly, everything is not black and white. And if you think your above post is representative of anything I've said in this thread, then I think you need to take a step back and look at what people are saying and not what you think they mean.

Rooster

01-31-2005, 12:14 AM

But when you follow their suggestions or issues with a situation to its logical conclusion - it's pretty black & white.

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 12:17 AM

Sorry Allison, maybe I'm not directing that at you. It's just so frustrating to me that people allways have to criticize even when something good is happening. When something that people put there lives in the line for. This is a giant step and when people chime in with harsh criticism saying things like "colonization" or saying it's only a money making opportunity, it's so frustrating. It seems to me that no matter what happens in Iraq the same people will be spewing out the same retoric that they been spewing out since the beginning. What's the point? Why can't anybody appreciate a great accomplishment? Why can't these people recognize that progress is being made? It's almost like these critics want the US to fail so that they can say "I told you so..." or "Bush is stupid, America is stupid, see what happens!!". It's a case of the cliche, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Nymf

01-31-2005, 12:31 AM

im proud of living in a country that hasnt been in war for 280 years.

That better ?
Or u just wanna cencur my post as it never happend ....

MickeyFinn

01-31-2005, 04:45 AM

Just because you haven't gone to war doesn't mean war wasn't necessary. Leave things like "real life" to the people who take action for the sake of their families... Or was it wrong for the USA to go after Hitler? Where was your country then? Hiding with its tail between its legs I presume. You are lucky there are people out there with the balls to recognize reality.

Beep! boop! Least you've still got those cell phones and cool knives.

Tammarion

01-31-2005, 06:22 AM

I'm not gonna comment on the "right or wrong" of war, but I'm gonna point out that being proud of not being in a war for whatever time is like being proud that you've gone X years without an asteroid dropping on you. When the other guy is dead set on having a war, yer kinda screwed.

Nymf

01-31-2005, 09:01 AM

Good of USA to go after hitler, too bad they become him.
An iraqi prison is just a newer version of auswitch and 80% of all civilian casulties are murdered by american troops and iraqi police the other 20% by terrorist that are pretty damn far away from the families u protecting.
War is NEVER necessary and it takes balls to realize that.
A coward is the guy that holds the Gun, not the one trying to avoid the bullet.

Post

01-31-2005, 09:25 AM

"Good of USA to go after hitler, too bad they become him."

That's crap. I'm a liberal, I think that we moved to war too quickly, but that's crap.

]LoL[Harm

01-31-2005, 09:32 AM

But when you follow their suggestions or issues with a situation to its logical conclusion - it's pretty black & white.

The Iraq war and all of it's components are as far from black and white as you can get. It is rife with complexities. Maybe if you take their suggestions and only look at it from a single perspective then yes it's easy to marginalize it down to a black or white situation, but life isn't like that.

For someone during the Iraqi war it IS about money. Someone always profits from war, and Halliburton is one of the many that war=money. You can't deny it, it's truth. In a twisted way there will be colonization, the colonization will come in the form of McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Gap, Targets and Wallmarts. We are actively colonizing, we just do it in the capitalist way. And it's not a bad thing per se (I don't like it but that's because I don't like the companies to begin with) since it will bring economic growth and stability. That is if we can ever make it stable enough for those companies to move in to the region.

Every angle I take when I look at the Iraq war comes away bloody and with little meaning. Following the current course of events to their "logical conclusion" I can only see instability and civil war. You cannot force a democracy. Democracy must be fought for by the people, otherwise it will have no value for them. My logic is built on the history of the world and what has happened again and again when foreign countries try to alter the path of another. I however would really like for myself and history to be proven wrong.

And war is never necessary, as long as everyone else believes the same.

Murrie

01-31-2005, 11:28 AM

Man you people are messed up.

I cant believe that even 5 freaking seconds cant be spent being proud of the accomplishments of this great country. The world will ONCE AGAIN be made a better place because of AMERICA
Not because of Canada, Not because of the almighty Sweden (whos entire contribution to world history probably can be covered by a string bikini), Not by France, Not Germany, Cuba, Russian, or the cluster fucking dictator loving thieves in the UN.

You should be eating crow, but once again when history proves you wrong your blinding ignorance will allow you to ignore your logical fallacies while you cook up some other nonsense about how everything going to hell and its Americas fault.

Millions upon millions of people have now freely voted to begin to determine their own destiny. No massive death. no civil war. nothing that the nay sayers have spouted has come true.

And all the bad shit that the nay sayers seem to be wishing on the world will not come true either.

How someone can be so wrong so often and still continue to think the same way is beyond me...

Even if you dont want to face it, the fact is that even with all of the screw-up and misdeeds taken into account, America and Americans are the greatest force for good this planet has ever seen.

At least the likes of Post and Allison, while they dont necessarily believe that we did the best thing at the correct time can see the good that will come from our actions. Thank both for reminding me that at least some people can disagree while still understanding what they are disagreeing with.

Tammarion

01-31-2005, 11:44 AM

Sweden's contribution to world development was Gustav Aldolphus, father of modern warfare. :)

Nymf

01-31-2005, 11:45 AM

Nice to see that u think america is uber and the rest of the world is "cluster fucking dictator loving thieves" .
It was like that Hitler thought of the world and set upon himself to liberate country by country with the greatest force for good this planet has ever seen ( at the time ).

Murrie

01-31-2005, 12:16 PM

Hows not talking German treating you?

And I said the UN is a bunch of "cluster fucking dictator loving thieves" if youd read what I wrote.

You also really need a history lesson before you come here acting like you understand the world and history.
Hitler wanted to destroy. He wanted to destroy all Jews and non-arians. He launched WW2 to cover up is plan to eliminate everyone who didnt fit into his master race, or could be used as a slave of that master race.

You want to compare Germany circa 1937 and America circa 2003 lets do it:

Germany;
launched a war for territorial gain and conquest, and the main goal of the removal of an entire race the Jews and launched the war to cover up for his action and to be able to reach more jews to wipe out.

America;
Launched a war to remove a horrible dictator(the WMD, the terrorists, all the reasons come down to the goal of the removal of saddam), and has freely given the country back to the people that live there.

Outside of people dieing there are absolutely no parallels.

Finally, I challenge you to name another country that has come even close to providing as much freedom and prosperity to as many people around the world as has the United States of America.

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 12:19 PM

Democracy must be fought for by the people, otherwise it will have no value for them.

but they are. They are the ones getting killed by suicide bombers and snipers. The Iraqi police stations are being attacked by terrorists and the Iraqis are fighting back. They are the ones going out to vote in droves to show the terrorists they aren't welcome, to FIGHT BACK. How can you say the Iraqis aren't fighting for their freedom? All we did was help them, we cleared the way for them to fight. Now they can liberate their country, and appreciate their freedom. Do you see what is happening?

Tammarion

01-31-2005, 12:21 PM

Oh don't worry, in the funhouse mirror version of reality, Iraq vote = Austrian Anschluss because there were people voting.

Post

01-31-2005, 12:36 PM

"It was like that Hitler thought of the world and set upon himself to liberate country by country with the greatest force for good this planet has ever seen ( at the time )."

The problem wasn't Hitler thinking that; the problems was that a whole bunch of other people thought that as well, and the people who didn't, didn't speak up. Which is the reason why, even if the right was like that, makes your analogy incorrect. There is an opposing side that exists and speaks up. There are also enough people that support Bush that, even while they don't agree with people like me, support my ability to have that opinion.

So your analogy is wrong.

Murrie

01-31-2005, 12:45 PM

Excelent Point Hep!

In Germany if you disgreed with Hitler you were simply eliminated.

In America if you disagree with Bush you get to try to vote for someone else to change the course of action. You get to dress up like ninny and wave signs calling Bush everything from Hitler to a baby killer... If BushCo. had tried to take away or in some great way hampered Heps ability to disent he would have had absolutely no chance

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. (Voltaire)

There are no parallels between The Germany of the 1930s and The America of today.

MickeyFinn

01-31-2005, 01:23 PM

War is NEVER necessary and it takes balls to realize that.

Are you kidding me? Do people actually believe this? I don't even know how to respond to this.

Grundy

01-31-2005, 01:28 PM

We simply don't have the cash to liberate the world and we can't go around occupying every f+cked up country to install a puppet democracy. This whole thing was a really really expensive, bad idea. I am def not proud! I am embarassed that we could be so arrogant.

The Iraqis will in the end simply elect hard line Theocracy leaders who hate America and Western values. They don't want us there and they are not grateful for our help. Complete waste of resources!

MickeyFinn

01-31-2005, 01:29 PM

I don't care if they hate America, long as they openly hate us for giving them the right to say that they hate America. Get what I'm saying? :)

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 01:29 PM

and you know this how?

]LoL[Harm

01-31-2005, 01:48 PM

The world will ONCE AGAIN be made a better place because of AMERICA

Better is a relative term. We need three basic things in life in order to live and raise a family: Sustenance, Shelter and Security. I would like you to point out how each of those three basic needs are currently improved, or will be improved anytime in the near future over what they were. I know we've built things and implemented infrastructure, but we have been destroying the same infrastructure for years. Prior to our arrival bombings did not occur, police stations were not raided. The people of Iraq lived under a different kind of fear before the war, who gave us the right to trade in the fear of Saddam and replace it with the fear that the Isreali's live under.

Who are we to decide it is their time to die for a revolution they did not start?

How long do you think the upcoming elected president of Iraq will survive? How long before the larger religious section of Iraq duplicates the government of Iran? The people over there value religion far above personal freedom. Democracy is not sacred to them.

And I am never proud of death and destruction. I would however have been proud if the billions upon billions of dollars were spent here in the US, aiding the people in need around us before attempting to destroy an ailing dictator in a country barely scraping beyond 3rd world status.

cogsliastro

01-31-2005, 02:30 PM

first off i wanna reply to this

Bush makes money off oil, yeah, but not Iraqi oil!

now that is soo naive,u really think this roo?????........so what about saudi oil?or how about afghanistan oil??or how about kuwaiti oil??

now back to our regular schedueld program....

roscoes......of all the crazy shit u say u were the last person i would expect to start cryin,u should be ashamed of yourself and your tainted image has been proceeded by a little whiner.....

that said........I cant believe that even 5 freaking seconds cant be spent being proud of the accomplishments of this great country. The world will ONCE AGAIN be made a better place because of AMERICA

man what an accomplishment,thousands of iraqi's are dead,thousands of americans are dead,babies.....women.....dead.
man thats something to be really proud of.......esspecially when u got bad intelligance(yea,thats a good reason......and bs in my opinion)
as for the election,only 25 got killed and WOW what an occomplishment...

when iraq has an election of their own oppointment and noone gets killed i will be more simpethetic.

fyi.....the iraqis donot want us there .....i have a friend there in iraq right now and he tells me that it is not all peaches and cream with the natives.
they cannot stand the fact that they are occupied by us and as for the election i will let u all know what he says next time he calls home........im sure it will not include positive sediments.

Nymf

01-31-2005, 02:44 PM

"Hows not talking German treating you?"
I speak that of choice actually, as 4 other languges.

"And I said the UN is a bunch of "cluster fucking dictator loving thieves" if youd read what I wrote. "
The countries in the UN are the rest of the world exept some small states.
What u said about fact knowladge ?

"You also really need a history lesson before you come here acting like you understand the world and history.
Hitler wanted to destroy. He wanted to destroy all Jews and non-arians. He launched WW2 to cover up is plan to eliminate everyone who didnt fit into his master race, or could be used as a slave of that master race."
His initial plan was to libarate countries that in his way of seeing things had unworking governments and the jew killing wasnt in the initial plans at all, hitler was a jew if ya didnt know that. He used the fear and hate amongst the german people ( kinda like bush plays the americans against the terrorist threat ) to grow powerful. Im by NO means defending his actions cus he was 1 of the worst powermongers the world ever seen but i see too many paralells between bush and hitler to not compare them.
The ONE thing that stops Bush from doing the same is the american system prohibits it .

"Finally, I challenge you to name another country that has come even close to providing as much freedom and prosperity to as many people around the world as has the United States of America."
The Roman Empire
The British Empire

Boom

01-31-2005, 03:01 PM

There are no parallels between The Germany of the 1930s and The America of today.
Well, having to take a "loyalty oath" before being allowed to go hear the president speak seems a little parallel to me... But even that is "Nazi light" at best. Also, anti-Bush protesters not being allowed anywhere along the inaugural parade route seems kind of anti-american to me. Even so, GWB, even at his worst, hardly qualifies as a real Nazi. Its almost an insult to the victims of the real Nazis to call someone like Bush a Nazi.

As for Halliburton... they are the only company in the U.S. that does what they do.
That is not correct. Schlumberger is as qualified as Halliburton for that kind of work. And that is just a company I happen to know off the top of my head because a friend of mine used to work for them. There are others. The fact that Halliburton is under investigation for ripping off the U.S Government on various deals, while it keeps getting these no-bid sweetheart deals really makes the whole thing look fishy.

On the money issue, I don't think we went to war because of money, but I want to address the issue anyway. There are two viewpoints in this thread on the Iraq war and money, and both viewpoints are correct. One viewpoint is saying we aren't making money and the other is saying we are, so how can both be correct? Because yall are talking about a different "we" who is making the money.

Rooster is totally correct that the American people and the American government are not making money off this war. We are paying OUT THE FUCKING NOSE for this war. It is insane how badly we are getting screwed and how much worse our deficit is because of this war.

But some people stand to make a killing, and those people happen to be closer to the Bush Administration than anyone. Bush's biggest supporters and closest friends (and most likely some companies that his family has interests in, since they are so closely tied to the oil business) stand to do very well from this war. Remember that famous speech when Bush was addressing a bunch of rich people and said how he was happy to be there before "the haves and the have mores," and he went on to say how some people think of them as the ultrarich but he thinks of them as "my base." Well, those people stand to make a LOT of money from the war in Iraq. Bush's base. Bush and Cheney's corporate cronies. Roo is right, WE THE PEOPLE, won't make any money from this war, we are going to pay out the nose for it (as will our children and grandchildren). But Bush's base may wind up raking it in.

Again, my point is NOT that money had anything at all to do with us going to war.

You don't think they're getting paid enough? You try it. You risk your life and limb for a company. I didn't think so.
I am sure the Haliburton employees in Iraq are making a nice salary, and they deserve every penny of it. Actually, they probably deserve more. But they aren't the ones who are going to pocket tens of millions of dollars. The CEO's and upper execs are the ones who will make the millions, and they aren't going to spend a lot of time in Iraq. They are too busy schmoozing at the $40 million Inauguration Party. Those guys are here, safe in America. It's the "haves and the have mores" who are really pocketing the money from Iraq. Bush's base. When we complain about Cheney's former company making billiions off the Iraq war, we aren't complaining about the engineers on the ground getting a nice salary.

Now, I do think the war did some good. We got rid of Saddam and he was a Hitler. For real, not like how people say Bush is a Hitler. Saddam was a real Hitler. He was a psychopathic monster and the world is better off without him in power. But, even if I say that overall the war accomplished a good goal, that doesn't mean the war is now totally immune from any criticism. A ton of mistakes were made. I think its terribly shortsighted to say, "Well, it happened, there is no point in discussing whether or not mistakes were made, we are there and that is that." Ok, fine we are there and we have to deal with it and we can't just withdraw, I understand that. We have to look forward and work with what we have now, and of course we always have to support our troops. But it still very very very important for us to look back and discuss what went wrong. Not to slam Bush or attack anyone for making the mistakes. It's not about blame. It's about learning from our mistakes so we don't make them again. It's not about using hindsight to say, "See, that didn't work, Bush was dumb for doing that." It's about using hindsight to say, "See, that didn't work, if we are in a similar situation in the future we should try something else." For example, everyone seems to think it was a mistake to disband the Iraqi army. We could have used them as a peacekeeping force, with new leadership, and had all those trained and armed Iraqi's answering to people on our side. We disbanded the Iraqi army, so we have to do the whole job ourselves, and many of those Iraqi soldiers were suddenly out of job and were pissed and joined resistance groups. I am not saying anyone should be blamed, or that it was stupid, or Bush sucks because of that. But it is something we can learn from. We need to discuss that, and figure out if it really was a mistake, or if the criticisms are wrong and it really was the best plan, so when we invade Iran next we don't make the same mistake.

And I am with Ailia 100% on her annoyance with the way these discussions go. If you make a point (lets say a liberal point), someone doesn't counter what YOU said, they make an argument against the most extreme possible liberal position. You could be PRO war and PRO Bush, but make some minor criticism here and the response will have little to do with your actual criticism, the response will be a huge rant against crazy Michael Moore liberals who hate Bush and all the stupid things that the Michael Moores supposedly say. Its silly. How many times, in how many different threads, have Ailia and I said, "Who are you arguing with? No one here said anything like that!"

Murrie

01-31-2005, 03:37 PM

We need three basic things in life in order to live and raise a family: Sustenance, Shelter and Security. I would like you to point out how each of those three basic needs are currently improved, or will be improved anytime in the near future over what they were.

Security- I will trade "security" for freedom everyday of the week. And as millions of Iraqies showed yesterday they are willing to as well.

Shelter- Freedom to own their own properties and destiny without fear of Saddam taking everything they own because they possibly mispoke about him isnt better?

Sustenance- Aid programs are no longer being stolen and controlled by Saddam. Monies that are being sent to help poor Iraqies are now making it to the intended parties not ending Lining Saddam's and the UN's pockets.

The people of Iraq lived under a different kind of fear before the war, who gave us the right to trade in the fear of Saddam and replace it with the fear that the Isreali's live under.

The UN gave us the Legal International legitemecy. Saddam himself did by not living up to his side of the Cease-Fire agreement that left him in Power in 91

How long do you think the upcoming elected president of Iraq will survive?

Till the end of his life. He knows the risks and determined that Freedom at risk is more important than being a save slave.

How long before the larger religious section of Iraq duplicates the government of Iran?

Probably never. Point to a actual choice freely made by a peoples to live under oppression. Given the Choice freedom and democracy are choosen nearly every time.

The people over there value religion far above personal freedom. Democracy is not sacred to them.

Thats one of the most rasist biggoted snide comments I have ever read. dirty brown folk dont deserve freedom, how silly of me.
Millions risk their own life going to the Polls to vote to determine their own future and they dont hold that sacred? wow...

Your turn Harm, I would like you to point out how each of those three basic needs are currently WORSE in A. Japan, B. Germany, C. South Korea.

Murrie

01-31-2005, 03:43 PM

man what an accomplishment,thousands of iraqi's are dead,thousands of americans are dead,babies.....women.....dead.
man thats something to be really proud of.......especially when u got bad intelligance(yea,thats a good reason......and bs in my opinion)

As opposed to sitting back and ignoring Saddam doing far far worse?

fyi.....the iraqis donot want us there .....i have a friend there in iraq right now and he tells me that it is not all peaches and cream with the natives.

Some dont, hell most probably dont, living under ocupation probably sucks ass, but for everyone that you can dance in front of us that wants us out, i can return with an Iraqi whom is glad we liberated them...

The countries in the UN are the rest of the world exept some small states. What u said about fact knowladge ?

No clue what kind of point your trying to make, but here a good one, the UN recieves well over 40% of its money from the Evil USA.
Human rights commision? Chaired by Dictators that would just as soon enslave their people as give them a single right. The UN is a joke.

His initial plan was to libarate countries that in his way of seeing things had unworking governments and the jew killing wasnt in the initial plans at all, hitler was a jew if ya didnt know that. He used the fear and hate amongst the german people ( kinda like bush plays the americans against the terrorist threat ) to grow powerful. Im by NO means defending his actions cus he was 1 of the worst powermongers the world ever seen but i see too many paralells between bush and hitler to not compare them.
The ONE thing that stops Bush from doing the same is the american system prohibits it .

Wow... you have no clue... Hitler hated Jews from the time he was extremely young. He blamed his mother for possibly passing down jew blood to him. Read Mein Kampf he cleary states his goal was the complete destruction of Communism and Judaism.
Im done agruing with you nymf, your understanding of History is so shallow its sad.

Allison

01-31-2005, 03:44 PM

I cant believe that even 5 freaking seconds cant be spent being proud of the accomplishments of this great country. The world will ONCE AGAIN be made a better place because of AMERICA

Well, you can't be too surprised to get a negative reaction when your comments are filled with such arrogance and pride. It's like a surgeon talking to the family of a patient about what a kickass surgeon he is when their loved one is teetering on the brink of death: Well, at this point, it's 50/50. He might live, he might die. But hey, on the brighter side, man, you should have seen me in that operating room! I'm so proud of myself! I kicked some major ass! If he dies, I can tell you, it won't be my fault, 'cause I rocked! Okay, well, he might very well have been brilliant, and he might very well be proud of his efforts, but it's inappropriate for him to be bragging about his mad skills when someone's life is up in the air, and he shouldn't be surprised when the family tells him to feck off.

And the same thing applies here. I can understand why, given your views, you might feel pride, but it's inappropriate and insensitive to express it right now. The struggle and the suffering belong almost exclusively to the Iraqi people, and will continue with them long after we've gone. It's about them now, not us. Even if you agree with everything we've done over there, talking about how great the United States is while the fate of the Iraqi people is so uncertain is bad form, at best.

History will judge whether our actions will have been worth the price that's being paid. I hope that I and others will be proven horribly wrong and that Iraq emerges as a peaceful, stable, autonomous nation. But we're a long way from knowing how it will go, and it's a little too early to be patting ourselves on the back.

Nymf

01-31-2005, 03:54 PM

"Wow... you have no clue... Hitler hated Jews from the time he was extremely young. He blamed his mother for possibly passing down jew blood to him. Read Mein Kampf he cleary states his goal was the complete destruction of Communism and Judaism.
Im done agruing with you nymf, your understanding of History is so shallow its sad."

Read it in the original language then. U will be amazed what the propaganda have translated it into.

Murrie

01-31-2005, 03:55 PM

History will judge whether our actions will have been worth the price that's being paid. I hope that I and others will be proven horribly wrong and that Iraq emerges as a peaceful, stable, autonomous nation. But we're a long way from knowing how it will go, and it's a little too early to be patting ourselves on the back.

Im sorry A great thing happened yesterday and it boggles my mind how negatively people are taking it. WTF is wrong with being proud of freeing people from oppression. Damn the reasons for it, that alone should lift your heart - knowing that the Iraqies now have a voice in their own destiny, who care WHO did it, or what the pretext was, they are FREE

MickeyFinn

01-31-2005, 04:03 PM

Boom

01-31-2005, 04:04 PM

On a side note. We better hope that we are controlling the elections to some extent. If the people of Iraq are allowed to choose who they really want for a leader, they will choose an extremist Muslim, Ayatollah type guy. They want religious rule. They want to be like Iran. I've recently read a really good book on the middle-east from the perspective of this ex-cia guy. I will post the name of the book when I get home. It should be required reading. And its not a Bush bashing book, or a Clinton bashing book, or any kind of "redstate" or "bluestate" book. It just describes the situation (with particular emphasis on Saudi Arabia) and shows how incredibly fucked up the whole thing is.

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 04:11 PM

O man, now our books are being translated by the evil propoganda machine!!! AAAAAHHHHHH@@@@!!!!!

Nymf

01-31-2005, 04:37 PM

"Alright, well let's be fair then. Nymf, since you are proud to be in a country that is historically notorious for avoiding war, your opinion has no place here. If you aren't willing to take a side in the conflict, then sit back and shut your mouth."

"The problem wasn't Hitler thinking that; the problems was that a whole bunch of other people thought that as well, and the people who didn't, didn't speak up."

Ye, shut me up...

]LoL[Harm

01-31-2005, 04:43 PM

Alright, well let's be fair then. Nymf, since you are proud to be in a country that is historically notorious for avoiding war, your opinion has no place here. If you aren't willing to take a side in the conflict, then sit back and shut your mouth.

So if you don't like war you aren't allowed to talk about it? That kinda sucks, guess I'll shut up too and all you pro-war guys can have a little orgy together with your non-conflicting views.

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 04:45 PM

Ya we can share our propoganda that was put into our breakfast cereal by the evil United States.

Tammarion

01-31-2005, 04:54 PM

Well out of all this gibber-jabber there hasn't been a cite or anything. We can reduce our dependance on arab oil by sticking this discussion in a power plant and heating our cities with all the hot air.

Nymf, you say that Mien Kamf, english edition is radically different than the original german. Well lets see it - roll off some passages - what our propaganda edition says, and what you've translated it to really say.

MickeyFinn

01-31-2005, 04:56 PM

No Harm, I'm saying that in Nymf's case, (s)he is proud to live in a country that is always neutral so (s)he shouldn't give a god damn what the rest of the world does. If (s)he wants things to change, then (s)he should step up to the plate and take a side. Otherwise, stuff it.

You can't claim to be completely neutral then point fingers at both sides, that's just plain stupid.

Post

01-31-2005, 05:06 PM

"Ye, shut me up..."

Let me rephrase that, then. The problem was, people who were willing to do something about it if it got too bad didn't speak up.

Murrie

01-31-2005, 05:21 PM

This post was intended to be a celebration of the great achievement and advancement that has taken place in Iraq, and Afghanistan for the betterment of humanity. We have had plenty of arguments for and against this war in plenty of other topics.

I really dont understand how something as easily agreeable under just about any situation (freedom = good thing) is so clouded by hatred of Bush/American/Halliburton/whatever that that the good that will befall the Iraqi people can simply be disregarded.

Is freedom from oppression such a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing when it America and Bush giving that freedom out. Or is it bad because its difficult and unfortunately people had to die to achieve that freedom? Or is it bad because it cost money? Or is it bad becuase someone will make some money?

Damn the how, Damn the Why, forget the Who, SCREW THE MONEY. Imagine fairies from la la land removed Saddam with funding from the toothfairy, I dont care. The world, and specifically the lives of Millions of Iraqis, Aphganie's and the lives of their children will only be improving now that they are free to determine their future themselves.

Will it backfire and their lives get worse?
Possibly, but the point is its THEIR decision now, not Saddams, Not the corrupt bureaucrats in the UN.
No one but the Iraqi's, for better or for worse, they will be making the decision freely. Sure the US has had influence on the results, just as we did in Japan and in Germany, and in South Korea. But eventually we will be completely removed from the situation and they will be in complete control of their direction.

I mean look at Germany, they regularly elect fairly anti american politicitans. Good for them I say! They are free to do and elect whomever they want, no matter what we think. Would I rather have a dictator that bowed to everything the US said? It would sure make our lives easier when dealing with them, but it set a huge number of human being back from the right to determine their own way. I would rather have 100 free countries that hate the US than a single dictator that loved us.

How anyone can argue with or believe their freedom is a bad thing is beyond me.

Tammarion

01-31-2005, 05:27 PM

My POV on the whole timeline:

The US did not go into Iraq to get Saddam, they did not go in to free the Iraqi people. Sure they're on the list good things to happen, but under the UN charter and just plain general international principle, the only reason to go to war is self defence, or with a UN mandate. Hense, the WMD. Any other reason they give now is the same as Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman because oral sex isn't really sex." Crap that gets spewed because a president can't say he made a mistake.

As I understand it, the WMD portion is part of the ceasefire agreement as a result of Gulf War I. If Saddam didn't trash his WMD, then its game on, Gulf War Part II. In practice, no ones ever called a 10-year time-out for a war. If North Korea throws a bomb into Seoul, technically its okay because they don't have a peace agreement.

Now heres where things get surreal. Saddam DID have WMD when he booted out the inspectors the first time around. Captured documents and technicians bear this out. But then his 2 son-in-laws haul ass to Jordan, whom he's put in charge of hiding the things, taking with them various docu-goodies, showing how they snookered the UN inspectors, and gave them the boot when they got anything resembling a clue.

Now Saddam panics, and destroys all the WMD in secret, because he can't be seen to have lied. (Remind us of certain presidents?) But we don't believe the son-in-laws - we think they've got other docu-goodies stashed to get some cash out of the CIA or whoever, because thats what a smart person would do.

But no - they're morons - they believe Saddam when he says all is forgiven, come back to Iraq. Naturally he shoots them. Which of course proves that the hidden docu-goodies exist, since Saddam would want to silence them before telling us where the real loot is. Which isn't the case, because Saddam just liked shooting people who pissed him off.

So fast forward to 2002, 100,000 US troops ready to invade unless Saddam makes with the proof that he did away with WMD. Ever tossed a receipt for something you want to return now? Oops.

Which brings us to today. Here the US is, like a banker whos forclosed on the biggest money pit, the king of fixer-uppers, trying to put the best face possible on it. And the europeans saying you should have left the Unibomber in his shack ....

Roscoes_C&W

01-31-2005, 05:28 PM

You obviously had an extra bowl of your Propoganda Cheerios this morning. Or maybe you took the Propoganda Highway to work today? I feel sorry for you and your propoganda machine telling you what to think. You're so feeled with propoganda it makes me wonder, do you find it difficult to sleep at night with all that propoganda flying through your brain?

Allison

01-31-2005, 06:37 PM

Alright, well let's be fair then. Nymf, since you are proud to be in a country that is historically notorious for avoiding war, your opinion has no place here. If you aren't willing to take a side in the conflict, then sit back and shut your mouth.

This statement is out of line. His opinion has every place here. You can disagree with someone, think they're an idiot, whatever you want. But everyone has the right to give his or her opinions here.

And Murrie, I understand that you are at a loss as to why people don't see things your way, but not everyone does. First of all, is seems like you see Iraq as a bright and shining success. If that were true, if everything there were perfect, if it was plainly evident that Iraq was on the path to a brighter future, then coming here and saying, Look at this great thing America did. We're so great, wouldn't sound quite as distasteful. But you have to understand that other people see it as an absolute mess. A mess perhaps with the potential to turn into something good, but a mess, nonetheless. People are fighting and dying and struggling and mourning in a way that we can't comprehend. Yes, elections are good. Yes, there is hope for the Iraqi. And, if you want to celebrate their spirit, if you want to be proud of those Iraqis who are risking their lives every day to build a better Iraq, I think that's wonderful. But I don't know why it's so hard to understand that your bragging (and that's what it sounds like) is wholly inapropriate right now and is bound to draw criticism.

If your first post had been more along the lines of, No matter what you think about the war, seeing the recent election in Iraq, and the determination of the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, it makes me proud and hopeful for the future of their country, you probably wouldn't have gotten any argument. But instead you focused on the "great sacrifice" of America. What great sacrifice are you talking about? The only Americans making any sacrifices are those who are over there and their families. The rest of us are driving around in our big SUVs spending our big tax cuts at the mall and arguing on internet forums about "wrong war/right war." You want to appreciate sacrifices let's talk having your son blown up while waiting in line for a job to serve his country. Let's talk about a child's father being assasinated for daring to run for public office. Let's talk about your child dying in your arms. Our great sacrifice? Why can't we spend 5 seconds celebrating our great sacrifice, you ask? Because it's arrogant and premature and self-centered and it dimishes the efforts of the people who truly are making great sacrifices.

Rooster

01-31-2005, 08:46 PM

My ONLY issue with the war was... How do you prove you don't have something?

Regardless of that, he REFUSED to let the inspectors do their jobs. He considered the UN a joke - and all the money grubbing corrupt asshats ignored it - and proved it; BECAUSE the corrupt asshats didn't want the US to ruin their good thing.

Maybe it's just me, but it would appear that the Bush-Haters have thought themselves into a conundrum.

First, they think Bush is stupid. They don't think he can make his own decisions. They think he's slow.

Then - He's Machievelli reborn! He decides to invade a 3rd world country so he and some buddies can make a million or two. Nah, he's a good-ole Texas boy that doesn't give a rats ass about sending people to die for it.

Please. You guys don't even think before you talk. I guarantee NONE of you that think the above would believe the same after meeting him.

At least my political position doesn't contain GLARING contradictions.

Post

01-31-2005, 09:19 PM

"My ONLY issue with the war was... How do you prove you don't have something?"

My issue with the war was, that it was purposely insinuated to us, the US people and the world, that Saddam not only had WMD's, but was fairly close to using them on the US, when all of the decent evidence they really had was that he had some a few years back and they didn't know where they went. And then when it was all said and done, the debate came down to either (a) they didn't technically say it was going to be within the next few years (even though they did plenty of things to insinuate it), and / or (b) they act as if just not showing us the WMD's was enough to go to war over, so it was ok to insinuate more.

We were purposely misled in order to gain our support. It doesn't matter if it was technical lies. It doesn't matter if we would have supported it anyway even if we weren't misled. What matters is we were, and it wasn't misled about taxes or what the President did in Vietnam, it was about war.

If you want to pick one thing not to mislead people on, war would probably be one of the top ones.

cogsliastro

01-31-2005, 09:36 PM

hey boom post that book plz:)

Allison

01-31-2005, 10:15 PM

Maybe it's just me, but it would appear that the Bush-Haters have thought themselves into a conundrum.

First, they think Bush is stupid. They don't think he can make his own decisions. They think he's slow.

Then - He's Machievelli reborn!

At least my political position doesn't contain GLARING contradictions.

But you see, you've left out a very important link .... the missing link, as it were, *snicker* . When people talk about "Bush's decision," "Bush's policy," "Bush's plan," ... they are referring to the Bush administration, also know as the collective Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz hand inside the sock puppet head of George W. Bush. :laugh:

Andolinni

02-01-2005, 01:43 AM

i see this as a reoccuring theme in some posts... "we should get out of iraq now!". kk, i'm sure you all know the cost of bailing before project is finished (IE ww2). After any "good" war there MUST be a rebuilding, a reconstruction... you saw it in america's civil war, you saw it in ww2. you didn't see it in the first Desert Storm, you didn't see it in vietnam.

Also there no way that the now leader of palistine (Abbas) would have become leader elect had it not been for US steping in. Sure it would have been great in 1999, after the failed oslo accords when palistine leader and isreali leaders met to try and solve problems, it would have been great if they could have resolved differences. If you believe that middle east is worse off now than 5 years ago, you are crazy. Again, even Clinton had bombers in the air, with orders to assinate Saddom... he didn't pull the trigger, personally i think it's because he knew there was no quick solution to a problem thats been going on for hundreds of years. You guys seriously think that in 2 years you can just walk away from middle east and everything will be OK? i say we are there, we've spent the money, our forces are in place... lets see the job finished and see a better world for everyone to live in.

I saw someone post about the senate in star wars, and i very much see a buttload of symbolism on part of U.N. and the senate in star wars, they just want problems to go away, don't want tough responces, sanctions, anything. They just wanna throw some money at it and it be gone. That doesn't work with power lusted leaders, especially in countries where extreamism is the norm.

Just so everyone knows, i'm pro-choice, pro-life, anti-government. Sure it'd be great to live in a eutopia where sexi chicks brought me grapes and i drank wine and played video games.. KK back to reality. We live in a world, with a lot of other people, a lot of times tolerance must be the answer... however you MUST have a strong backhand to show those that cannot ... work within the confines of the world. Take for example, you got an employee that does all their work, is smart guy, but can't get along with any other team member. now even tho the guy is right that the others don't do nearly half the work he does... if he can't work within the confines of the group... what are you ganna fire everyone else, or just that one guy. C'mon, most all of us have worked in a restaraunt, and rather its right or wrong, the best choice is to have the smart-hard working employee find a better place of employment, unfortunantly we only have one Earth.

Andolinni

02-01-2005, 01:45 AM

But you see, you've left out a very important link .... the missing link, as it were, *snicker* . When people talk about "Bush's decision," "Bush's policy," "Bush's plan," ... they are referring to the Bush administration, also know as the collective Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz hand inside the sock puppet head of George W. Bush. :laugh:

Again, clinton had planes in air with order to assinate saddom... do you mean to say that clinton is a puppet for bush??? ohhh wait thats right, clinton free thinking lad that figured it out that saddam not good for the world. Thank god he had foresight to see that just taking saddam out wouldn't be good solution.

Post

02-01-2005, 01:58 AM

"Thank god he had foresight to see that just taking saddam out wouldn't be good solution."

As if he (or even Democrats, for that matter), was the only one to have an opportunity to take Saddam out of office permanently.

Allison's point wasn't debating if Bush was a puppet or not. It was rebutting the point Rooster was trying to make - that liberals had two stances that contradicted one another (that Bush is smart and Bush is stupid). She was pointing out that the "Bush is smart" opinion is leaving out the key part that states it really isn't Bush being smart, it's people directing him.

It's not if it's true or not, it's if people are making contradicting opinions to make Bush look worse. Which isn't so.

]LoL[Harm

02-01-2005, 08:46 AM

Thats one of the most rasist biggoted snide comments I have ever read. dirty brown folk dont deserve freedom, how silly of me.

My statement wasn't racist at all. Read up on cultures, some cultures value religious conviction above personal freedoms. That isn't a negative or positive thing in and of itself. In Pakistan it is culturally acceptable in certain regions to do honor killings, it isn't even legal but many people themselves accept and follow this tradition, a religiously dictated tradition. Religion often trumps personal freedoms in many cultures. Case in point, religion in the United States is trumping the personal freedom of homosexuals in their ability to marry, because Marriage is a religious tradition. Do not cast the word bigot around without being educated on what you call bigotry. And if that is one of the most racist comments you've ever heard, considering it isn't one, then you are too sheltered to be calling anyone a bigot. The Middle East is HEAVILY religious, and Iran an entire country is an EXACT representation of my so called bigotted comment. Would you like me to name a few others? Cause I have a handful of them. And to think that a country in the middle of them will differ from the others is wishful thinking. It may happen, but I may win the lottery tomorrow as well.

i see this as a reoccuring theme in some posts... "we should get out of iraq now!". kk, i'm sure you all know the cost of bailing before project is finished

Where did this come from, I don't recall reading a single comment in this entire thread that indicate we should get out of Iraq now, this whole post is going off a perceived argument.

I really dont understand how something as easily agreeable under just about any situation (freedom = good thing) is so clouded by hatred of Bush/American/Halliburton/whatever that that the good that will befall the Iraqi people can simply be disregarded.

I don't hate Bush, I'm not even a democrat.
I don't hate America, if my father didn't adamantly refuse I would have been in the Army, as my father was and my grandfather and my brother and my Uncle and so forth.
I Hate Corporations so yes Halliburton falls under this but Halliburton isn't really taking steam away from the "celebration" of freedom, they're just making profits off of our war.

And Alli is saying it true. We, the non-combatants, are only sacrificing two things. One is our tax dollars the other is best quoted by Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. (Dwight D. Eisenhower. April 1953, Washington, D.C.)"

Rooster

02-01-2005, 08:53 AM

Hey now... you had something typed... and I replied to it... blah.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 09:00 AM

The bail out of Iraq statement is a favorite strawman because thats whats on the signs of anti-war protesters - "Out of Iraq - NOW" that sorta thing, and it reflects the haste at which the US pulled out of Somalia. And its basically an indefencable position, useful in arguements :D

]LoL[Harm

02-01-2005, 09:08 AM

Hey now... you had something typed... and I replied to it... blah. Sorry I found things that didn't flow and had them surgically removed. :)

Noleader

02-01-2005, 11:24 AM

Harm I must say you covered most of the points I would have brought up.. .Well said.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 11:24 AM

including the surgical removal? :D

Andolinni

02-01-2005, 12:16 PM

Post

02-01-2005, 12:46 PM

"so in 16 years 3 administrations had idea that saddam bad for the world, and tried to remove him."

No. Not only are you incorrectly insinuating that Clinton's administration thought that Saddam wasn't bad for the world, you're also ignoring the US's standing policy of no assassinations of a country's leader, no matter how bad that leader is. If you want to get technical about it, only one other President was in a position to do that within our own rules (since in times of war, Saddam was seen as a military leader and not a political one), and it wasn't done, despite the opportunity to. And he wasn't Democrat.

But hey, who cares about our own rules when it comes to us following them, right?

MickeyFinn

02-01-2005, 12:52 PM

Well Hep, I think Bush v1.0 would have probably had Saddam killed if he hadn't ran away like a little girl. American tanks were literally running his army over. It's like Walter says in the Big Lebowski, "This is not combat. This is a bunch of towelheads trying to find reverse on a Russian tank"... And although crude, it's true. If he hadn't held up the little white flag after only A FEW DAYS I am *positive* he'd have been put up before a firing squad

Post

02-01-2005, 12:57 PM

IMO, there was no way to see that Saddam wouldn't fade away like Qaddafi, so it's really 20/20 hindsight moreso than a fault of the foresight to blame past Presidents. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's rediculous to act as if Clinton was the only President that had the opportunity (or even the best opportunity) to permanently take Saddam out of office.

ie, while killing Saddam (or even permantly jailing him) for the crimes of the Gulf War may have been inopportune for Bush Sr to do, it would have been even more devastating for our foreign policy to assassinate a political leader of another country.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 01:49 PM

If I remember correctly, there was debate that if Saddam was to find himself in a sniper's scope while touring kuwait, they might be able to get away with popping him because he keeps wearing a uniform.

Not sure if the "commander in chief is a rank" excuse would work, but I think probably the "I saw the clean uniform and the guards, and figured this guy needs to die" defence might :)

Roscoes_C&W

02-01-2005, 02:16 PM

That would be pretty irresponsible. Sure would be cheaper, and less loss of lives on our part, but irresponsible.

Post

02-01-2005, 02:58 PM

Doing the right thing is typically more difficult and costly than getting things done the wrong way. Else, there'd be no reason to do them the wrong way.

Murrie

02-01-2005, 03:07 PM

You will never convince me that helping a people acheive freedom is not the right thing to do. Never. Not because it cost too much, that people end up dieing, becuase it was stable before hand, or that because of their culture they dont deserve freedom.

Where have men like John F Kennedy gone?

“We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of Liberty.” – John F. Kennedy

So which side are you really on, the side of Liberty, Freedom and the advancment of the Human race, or are you for enslavement and oppression.

I see way to many people and posts that indicate they are willing to pay absolutely nothing, bear no burden, not stuggle against any hardship, stand with the foes of liberty, all in order to maintain the status quo of oppression.

Absolutely Pathetic.

Congradulations Iraq, and Congradulations America for the great advancment of Humanity that is now taking place in Iraq. Struggle on! Freedom is more than worth it.

Roscoes_C&W

02-01-2005, 03:34 PM

I agree.

Figtoria

02-01-2005, 03:40 PM

So which side are you really on, the side of Liberty, Freedom and the advancment of the Human race, or are you for enslavement and oppression.

What side are we on? Side? It's not that simple. Not one of these issues is black and white. And it is this very naivete of the Bush administration (or at least its PR machine) that is so alarming.

Effective, lasting political change is not made through domination and brute force. You can make the Iraqi's LOOK like they have created a democratic nation, but if in their hearts, they're all just waiting for the US to get the hell out of their business - what good has been done?

And let's just not even talk about Bush and oppression. Let's not even go there...

Murrie

02-01-2005, 04:00 PM

What side are we on? Side? It's not that simple.

How much simpler can it be.

America and allies have spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of soldiers taking on an oppressive dictator removing him from power and has handed the fate of the oppressed people back to them to determine THEMSELVES.

America is apparently on the side that IS willing to pay the price, and bear the burden to oppose the enemies of freedom and liberty.

You arer apparently on the side thats too worried about how oppressed you are living under the Evil Nazi Bush administration than to worry about the freedom that evil nazi is providing to millions of people.

You have it completely backward. You are on the side that OPPOSES the friends of freedom and liberty and YOU stand with those that oppose it.

Post

02-01-2005, 04:00 PM

"You will never convince me that helping a people acheive freedom is not the right thing to do."

Hold on. We're not talking about the "right" thing to do as in to help another people achieve freedom. We're talking about the methods to do it. There are plenty - plenty - of methods and times that forcefully moving in freedom onto a people is not the right thing to do.

My specific example of moral right and wrong was about if it's ok to break our own rules in order to get a favorable end result. And no, it's not. It's not simply ok to use whatever method necessary to get the end result of more criminals behind bars (guilty until proven innocent, for example). It's not simply ok to use whatever method necessary to get the end result of being more safe from terrorists (illegal search and seizure, for example).

And it is not simply ok to use whatever method necessary to get the end result of freedom to a people. Who knows, maybe the end result of this war will be a really great thing. While it's bloody and war-ridden right now, the end result may very well be the liberation of peoples all across the Middle East, and a more peaceful world as a whole. It doesn't mean that the method that was used to arrive to it is ok, though.

]LoL[Harm

02-01-2005, 04:02 PM

Freedom is another relative term, one that cannot be used as a blanket statement that covers all of humanity. Freedom does not encompass society, society encompasses freedom. We decide what type of freedom we like. We decide as a society what is acceptable in the concepts of freedom and what is not. It is not OUR right to decide another peoples freedoms. It is not OUR right to force a freedom upon another society that may not want it, who may not be able to support it or who culturally oppose our societal views. (Some or none of these may be true for Iraq) It is naive think it is OUR right.

You will never convince me that helping a people acheive freedom is not the right thing to do. Never. Not because it cost too much, that people end up dieing, becuase it was stable before hand, or that because of their culture they dont deserve freedom.

This is shortsighted idealism. There is always a price to pay, and sometimes the price IS too high. As it stands now, 1000+ dead soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars is what has been spent; different views will dictate whether or not that is too high a price.

We initiated their fight for liberty. We started their revolution. Again, what gives us the right to decide when it is their time for liberty? Did JFK give us this right? And you’ve stated that the UN may have given us the right…you’re off your gord, they DIDN’T want us to go to war, no matter what mandate was in place.

Why do others feel it is their right to impose their way of life on another people. Here’s an example, a little off topic but salient none the less. I’m pro-life, but only in my little world. I only date women who are also pro-life, because I know if they get pregnant there will never be discussion of abortion. I however will NEVER support pro-life as the means to rule over our society. It is naïve and egotistical of me to believe that EVERYONE must live under my view of the world. I will always vote pro-choice because choice IS freedom.

Therefore I would not force democracy upon a people who have never chosen democracy for themselves. Iran, Syria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and etc. None of these countries have chosen democracy. Are we to war with them all to give them our definition of liberty? When will China fall? How many of our children shall we march off to war in order to give our precious liberty to the world? From your perspective we should give every last man and woman, for there is no price too high.

Understand though, I like the idea of Iraq voting. I however do not hold much hope for it, because they did not choose this liberty by themselves, they did not fight this with iniative, they did not ask us to give them our liberty. The most stable of democracies in this world have come from the people of that country rising up and overthrowing what kept them from the freedoms and liberties that they desired. The democracies instilled by a foreign power have fared far worse. History shows us this. History is often right. As I said earlier, I hope history and my fears are proven wrong. Until they are, I will not celebrate anything.

Because if in a year, after we have left (if we have left), and there is nothing in Iraq but a bloody civil war, then the cost will have been too high. The loss of our soldiers and the lives of the Iraqi’s will have been too high for something that failed. Just like Vietnam.

Post

02-01-2005, 04:03 PM

"You have it completely backward. You are on the side that OPPOSES the friends of freedom and liberty and YOU stand with those that oppose it."

No. As my example shows above, you're equating method of result and result as the same thing. By your logic, because I'm for innocent until proven guilty, I'm also OPPOSING a more crime-free America. And that isn't so. We both agree on the end result of freedom - where we differ is in the method to get to that result.

Figtoria

02-01-2005, 04:06 PM

Harm and Post expressed my thoughts, so I won't re-iterate.

Murrie - that old saying, "If yer not for me, yer agin me," isn't true.

Allison

02-01-2005, 04:42 PM

Nice post, Harm.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 04:53 PM

Basically its all about means and ends. Back in 2002, if you went and said that this was the ends that we were going to go for - ie no WMD, just plain crusading for liberty and democracy. And it would be a crusade. I would say geez, the means aren't justified. Frankly, I'd say just stomp on north korea, maybe burma, maybe zimbabwe, the list is endless if we wanna talk bang for the buck.

Now in 2004, with the means already in place, its time to salvage what ends we can get out of the whole deal.

Murrie

02-01-2005, 05:49 PM

Nice post, Harm.

Yes it was a nice post, But Harm your premise and understanding of history is wrong.

Freedom is another relative term, one that cannot be used as a blanket statement that covers all of humanity. Freedom does not encompass society, society encompasses freedom. We decide what type of freedom we like. We decide as a society what is acceptable in the concepts of freedom and what is not.

There is no relativity to human freedom: Freedom in regards to the human condition is the capacity to exercise choice; the exercising of free will without the arbitrary restraints of authority. It is the ability to determine ones future for better or for worse.

It is not OUR right to decide another peoples freedoms. It is not OUR right to force a freedom upon another society that may not want it, who may not be able to support it or who culturally oppose our societal views. (Some or none of these may be true for Iraq) It is naive think it is OUR right.

And we have not. We have simply removed the authoritative restrictions imposed by saddam on the Peoples of Iraq. They are now free to do whatever they want with that freedom including completely screw it up.

This is shortsighted idealism. There is always a price to pay, and sometimes the price IS too high. As it stands now, 1000+ dead soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars is what has been spent; different views will dictate whether or not that is too high a price.

There is nothing shortsighted in my optimism. Humanity as a whole improves every time someone moves from a state of oppression to a state of freedom. Given that there is also an price to be paid for doing nothing your do nothing attitude is the short sighted unidealistic view since no ones lives would have been improved. Billions of dollars were spent anyway, with the loss of thousands of lives, but they were not American lives so they dont count do they?

We initiated their fight for liberty. We started their revolution. Again, what gives us the right to decide when it is their time for liberty? Did JFK give us this right? And you’ve stated that the UN may have given us the right…you’re off your gord, they DIDN’T want us to go to war, no matter what mandate was in place.

Saddam violated the Cease Fire agreement. He violated 13, thirteen UN resolutions. We had all the international legitimacy we needed to remove Saddam from power that we needed. If you think the UN has any actual legitimacy regarding whats right your the one off your Gord. They opposed the removal of Saddam because they were making a FORTUNE off of him. You get all upset because Halliburton making some cash in a capitalistic way, but seem to excuse the despicable UN being in bed with a horrible dictator that murdered and oppressed his peoples. Hypocritical of you IMHO.

Why do others feel it is their right to impose their way of life on another people. Here’s an example, a little off topic but salient none the less. I’m pro-life, but only in my little world. I only date women who are also pro-life, because I know if they get pregnant there will never be discussion of abortion. I however will NEVER support pro-life as the means to rule over our society. It is naïve and egotistical of me to believe that EVERYONE must live under my view of the world. I will always vote pro-choice because choice IS freedom.

I would have to agree with this, because your actually on the side of more freedom with this example...

Therefore I would not force democracy upon a people who have never chosen democracy for themselves. Iran, Syria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and etc. None of these countries have chosen democracy. Are we to war with them all to give them our definition of liberty? When will China fall? How many of our children shall we march off to war in order to give our precious liberty to the world? From your perspective we should give every last man and woman, for there is no price too high.

If the difference is living like a king while the rest of humanity falls into slavery vs fighting to the last man woman and child I say FIGHT!

You list 7 countries that repress their people to the point that there is no possible chance to fight for themselves. They have little to no education, little to no free speech, and no arms. Basically no chance.
My turn>

Slovenia
Germany (at least 1/2 of it)
Japan,
Ukraine
Philippines
Croatia
South Korea

I could go on, but each of the above have is some way been "given" a choice for freedom by another nation or entity and in one way or another they have all embraced that freedom.

Yes none of those places are in the Middle east. The governments of arab, and specifically muslim countries have used their power and their religion to keep the peoples of those countries oppressed and nothing more than slaves.

Again I find your opinion that since they havnt had the chance, and since they have not had democracy "imposed" on them then they can rot as slaves is shocking.

As for China, we can argue that one all day long, but if you could demonstrate to me that we could free the billions of oppressed Chinese with a similar level of hardship as we expended to free the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq then I say do it yesterday. Hell I say raise my taxes to make it happen.
no chance of that though since our politicians make so much money from the slave labor they ignore in china.

Understand though, I like the idea of Iraq voting. I however do not hold much hope for it, because they did not choose this liberty by themselves, they did not fight this with iniative, they did not ask us to give them our liberty.

Um, in Iraq if you questioned Saddam (which asking the US for help would definitely be) you were put in a meat grinder. Im glad you like the idea of them voting, but if we did things the way you would have approved of it would not have happened.

The most stable of democracies in this world have come from the people of that country rising up and overthrowing what kept them from the freedoms and liberties that they desired. The democracies instilled by a foreign power have fared far worse. History shows us this. History is often right. As I said earlier, I hope history and my fears are proven wrong. Until they are, I will not celebrate anything.

Bullshit. History has shown that given the free choice between oppression and freedom freedom is always chosen. Name more than 1 country in the modern era (germany in 1930s does not count) that freely choose to revert from a free democratic state to an oppressive dictatorship.

Because if in a year, after we have left (if we have left), and there is nothing in Iraq but a bloody civil war, then the cost will have been too high. The loss of our soldiers and the lives of the Iraqi’s will have been too high for something that failed. Just like Vietnam.

We wont have left in a year, unless of course they request it, and I doubt that will happen. There will be plenty of problems in a year. Freedom is messy no two ways around it. But even if they vote to revert back away from freedom I still say that simply the attempt at such a noble cause as freedom was well worth the price.

Is is possible for us to save the entire world? No. Does that mean we should not at least try? According to many of the post here the last thing we should do is attempt to make even a small part of the world thats not directly under our feet better.
THAT is shortsighted and not even imaginative...

Rooster

02-01-2005, 06:18 PM

There you go down the isolationist path.

Which doesn't really help anyone.

Noleader

02-01-2005, 06:20 PM

Damn Harm... Well said again!

Allison

02-01-2005, 06:54 PM

Murrie, the humanitarian intervention you're talking about is a fantasy. We are in Iraq because of our own self-interests. It benefits us to have a pro-western democracy in the middle east that will presumably spread into other nations. If it did not benefit us to be there, we wouldn't be there. Period. IF someday the people of Iraq are better off, then that will be a happy by-product, but a by-product, nonetheless. Do you really believe that the United States has made some great sacrifice soley for the betterment of humanity, and that everyone who doesn't stand up and salute this selfless sacrifice obviously doesn't care about freedom or those who are desirous of, and live without it?

I would have loved to have fought the war that you seem to think we're fighting, and most people here would. Most of the people here whom you accuse of not caring about the ideals of freedom do care, very much so. Most of us would very much like to see every man woman and child on the planet have access to decent healthcare, a fair wage, and a say in their own destiny. Your assumptions to the contrary are dead wrong.

As to your question about a nation in the modern era that chose to move away from Democracy, how about Iran? Granted, they were merely moving toward Democracy when the people revolted in favor of a theocracy, but it certainly demonstrates the point that Harm was making.

Noleader

02-01-2005, 07:00 PM

There is no relativity to human freedom: Freedom in regards to the human condition is the capacity to exercise choice; the exercising of free will without the arbitrary restraints of authority. It is the ability to determine ones future for better or for worse.

Well that is still relative... If I decide to kill someone, exercising my choice, would that be acceptable under our idea of freedom? Or if I decide to sell dope and someone buys it, because it was both of our desisons, exercising choice, should I not be held accountable under our idea of freedom?

And we have not. We have simply removed the authoritative restrictions imposed by saddam on the Peoples of Iraq. They are now free to do whatever they want with that freedom including completely screw it up.

If that was the case Murrie we would have grabed Saddam and left the country to the people that live there. We did not do this, we setup a temp government until they could vote for a government that we had heavy infulence in designing.

There is nothing shortsighted in my optimism. Humanity as a whole improves every time someone moves from a state of oppression to a state of freedom. Given that there is also an price to be paid for doing nothing your do nothing attitude is the short sighted unidealistic view since no ones lives would have been improved. Billions of dollars were spent anyway, with the loss of thousands of lives, but they were not American lives so they dont count do they?

Humanity improves as a whole then a group of people decide to throw off the chains of oppression and laydown their OWN lives in the name of freedom. Should we have assisted? Yea we should have, but after they threw the first stone.

All we did was give them the ability to vote, most would not lay down their lives if that right was taken away. Really they are like a lot of sheep right now and America carries the biggest stick so they follow us around.

Now try to picture it if any of our Presidents did not step down after their term(s) were complete? America would raise up and throw him from power before anyone knew what happened.

Saddam violated the Cease Fire agreement. He violated 13, thirteen UN resolutions. We had all the international legitimacy we needed to remove Saddam from power that we needed. If you think the UN has any actual legitimacy regarding whats right your the one off your Gord. They opposed the removal of Saddam because they were making a FORTUNE off of him. You get all upset because Halliburton making some cash in a capitalistic way, but seem to excuse the despicable UN being in bed with a horrible dictator that murdered and oppressed his peoples. Hypocritical of you IMHO.

I support none of the UN actions on that. If the US felt we needed to remove Saddam because of the UN resolution violations then by all means remove him. That being said ONLY HIM, not dismantling the full government and putting an American government in its place. We have the World Court for a reason... Hell just do what we did to Noriega... Grab him up and throw him in an American Prison... I can support that but not what we did.

If the difference is living like a king while the rest of humanity falls into slavery vs fighting to the last man woman and child I say FIGHT!

And that is why America is the most powerful nation in the world. It is because we did fight and will fight for our country if we feel that our rights are being threatened. We did not wait till the french attacked the british to start are revolution, we fought a long hard war until we received their help.

You list 7 countries that repress their people to the point that there is no possible chance to fight for themselves. They have little to no education, little to no free speech, and no arms. Basically no chance.
My turn>

When we went to war with brition for our freedom no one thought we could win. They were the worlds super power for years and we were farmers with hunting rifles... If History has taught us anything it is that the group with the most conviction will win. We lost battle after battle and are forces were running, but our men stuck it out though cold winters with little protection to keep fighting. 250 years later that is one of the many things that makes me proud of our country.

Slovenia
Germany (at least 1/2 of it)
Japan,
Ukraine
Philippines
Croatia
South Korea

Well most of those examples are countries we A) Owned but gave up when we called a end to colonization B) Assisted in their war or freedom (much like the french did for us) C) Internal change within their governments bought about change (IE when USSR ended).

I could go on, but each of the above have is some way been "given" a choice for freedom by another nation or entity and in one way or another they have all embraced that freedom.

None of them where given a choice of freedom... All of them fought for it well before we got involved.

Yes none of those places are in the Middle east. The governments of arab, and specifically muslim countries have used their power and their religion to keep the peoples of those countries oppressed and nothing more than slaves.

Religion only controls the masses when they look to it for guildence... Us coming in and saying "This is how it will be" does not solve that problem, all it does is create more radicals.

Again I find your opinion that since they havnt had the chance, and since they have not had democracy "imposed" on them then they can rot as slaves is shocking.

If their choice was to do nothing and rot as slaves I am giving them their freedom to do so. That and that alone is democracy. Everyone in this world has Democracy, it all boils down to if/when they decide to put their life up for it.

As for China, we can argue that one all day long, but if you could demonstrate to me that we could free the billions of oppressed Chinese with a similar level of hardship as we expended to free the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq then I say do it yesterday. Hell I say raise my taxes to make it happen.
no chance of that though since our politicians make so much money from the slave labor they ignore in china.

If they wanted it they could earn it themselves... 1 billion people held down by a government of no more then a few thousand... I think the one thing everyone forgets is WE THE PEOPLE empower our government, as they do theirs, Be it in the form of action or the lack their of.

Um, in Iraq if you questioned Saddam (which asking the US for help would definitely be) you were put in a meat grinder. Im glad you like the idea of them voting, but if we did things the way you would have approved of it would not have happened.

See Above.

Bullshit. History has shown that given the free choice between oppression and freedom freedom is always chosen. Name more than 1 country in the modern era (germany in 1930s does not count) that freely choose to revert from a free democratic state to an oppressive dictatorship.

Cuba, Dominican Republic (Rebels threw out the elected president without due process)

And that is just in our backyard... I am sure you could find MANY more if you looked for them. Hell Afganistan did it back in the day as well... They had an elected form of government after the king but then the Taliban stepped in and took over, granted it as very limited freedom compared to ours.

We wont have left in a year, unless of course they request it, and I doubt that will happen. There will be plenty of problems in a year. Freedom is messy no two ways around it. But even if they vote to revert back away from freedom I still say that simply the attempt at such a noble cause as freedom was well worth the price.

Was it noble to battle for Vietnam? Nobel is a good way of saying we failed and still save face. Freedom is not messy if the people that are given the freedom truly want it.

Is is possible for us to save the entire world? No. Does that mean we should not at least try? According to many of the post here the last thing we should do is attempt to make even a small part of the world thats not directly under our feet better.
THAT is shortsighted and not even imaginative...

Making the world a better place is not imposing our will on them. Like I said had they started the battle for freedom I could understand and support helping them... It should never be a foreign power leading the revolt... It should be the natives.

Noleader

02-01-2005, 07:04 PM

There you go down the isolationist path.

Which doesn't really help anyone.

You should read some of the Founding Fathers notes... They preached isolationism, but they also said that when America was at risk then to do what you must to defend her.

No WMD = No Risk.
Overthorwing a middle eastern country = greater risk.

We increase the chance of new people joining the ranks of the terror groups.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 07:21 PM

My point is that at the time the decision was made to into Iraq, we did think there were WMD. Now we know thats not true. GWB won't say it was a mistake because it undermines the presidency. But any objective look will say at the least it was a mistake. Certain people on the left now say that it was not a mistake, but fabrication. To whom I offer tinfoil beanies.

Now that we're there, and have already increased the chance of new people.., blah blah blah, we might as well make the most of it. You broke it, you buy it. That simple.

I really think when all the hulabulo blows over, GWB is gonna be called "The Accidental President". In 20 years+. Any shorter timeframe, and people start saying things like how the tanks going into Iraq were 'bogged down'.

Noleader

02-01-2005, 07:24 PM

There is no proof that there were WMD in Iraq... But there is all the weapon inspectors that say there was none pre-war.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 07:39 PM

You mean what's his name, Ritter I think, who was trumpeting how there were WMD leaving compounds just hours before the inspection teams showed up, then turned around as soon as he got canned from the UN teams?

There are documents brought over by Saddams son-in-laws when they fled to Jordan. Also documents captured after the fall of Bagdahd. There are the parts hidden in a scientists rose garden. These all show that the UN teams pre-1996 were being decieved.

2002 - yes, there were no WMD. And the UN teams might have found it out, but Saddam was still doing the same song and dance, only this time, he wanted to negotiate himself a better deal. As they were pulling him out of his hole, he thought we owed him a better deal. Like a guy doing the shell game, wanting us to pay him more to show whats under all of the shells. He actually thought it was in his intrest to pretend to have WMD.

There are examples of government showing full coperation when dismantling and verifying WMD programs. South Africa. 20 year ago we thought they were close to the bomb. - see Robocop :p Iraq wasn't even close to cooperation. The day those 100,000 troops on Iraqs doorstep were going home, the day after, *surprise* the inspectors were gonna as well.

Murrie

02-01-2005, 07:43 PM

i just i just have a more optomistic opinion regarding the world and our place in it. The world is definately a better than hundreds of years ago and much better than it was 50 years ago. That betterment has benefitted us all, and the one recurring theme running thoughtout the improvement is the undercurrent of expanding freedom. More countries today reflect the success of democracy and freedom in the model of the greeks today than reflect the dictatorial monarchies of just a few hundred years ago.

Peoples that move from oppression towards freedom see great improvements in their qualities of life. I dont care about the disagreements nor positions against the means, IMHO the ends are already justified, and i have faith in humanity that the future will show that freedom will result in a better life for those that life under it.

I believe that it is for the betterment of us all to work to remove oppression, and that the entire free peoples of the world should be actively involved in strongly discuraging the dictators and oppressors of this world, and fostering in all ways necessary, including with force, the peoples ability to freely have a voice in determine their own governance, and their states roll in the world. The world isnt seperated anymore, a nation that joins the world comunity with a free voice benefits all nations.

Will I support that goal when i see small parts of it acheaved? Absolutely. Am i blind to the fact that actions were taking for reasons that arnt necessarily selfless? absolutely not. The end some times does justify the means when the end is a better life for everyone. Im sorry I just cant sit back and pretend those dark little corners of the world dont exist. They are just as much my nieghbor as any of you and I would agrue just as strongly to grant you the same freedoms I take for granted no matter what the reasoning behind that liberation was pretexted.

The spreading of freedom will only mean a better life for my children and my childrens children, of this I am absolutely positive.

Allison

02-01-2005, 08:44 PM

I would agree with just about everything in your last post, Murrie. And that's something I don't think you realize. We all want the same result: a safer world where human diginity can flourish. That fact is not changed because we disagree about how to best achieve that goal, or to what extent we can achieve that goal, or even to what extent and at what price we have the right to work toward that goal.

Tammarion

02-01-2005, 08:50 PM

The problem is, one has to respect the opinions and positions of other free people, instead of grabbing a warm dish of "freedom fries" and telling yourself how they'll get over it. Or have a damn good reason for acting independantly, because there is a price that is paid above and beyond just lives and money.

If the US is going to maintain the moral high ground, then the standards that go with it have to be kept.

China is on the way to becoming a capitalism based superpower with no respect for human rights, and as little interest in playing by the same moral rules as the west. The world is increasingly approaching GDP and population as a measure of how much say one has in how the world is run, and they've got it in spades. Now is not the time to tarnish the concept of democracy, and right now its on the poker table of Iraq.

Allison

02-01-2005, 10:20 PM

Who's tarnishing the concept of Democracy?

]LoL[Harm

02-01-2005, 10:35 PM

Thanks Allison and Noleader.

And I agree with Alli's last post. None of my ramblings have indicated I think we should do nothing. I'm merely proposing that our solution is not the best. That our liberty is not designed for them right now. We cannot take a country that is a century behind ours in human rights and move it to the current status of the United States over night. Societies do not evolve that quickly. A generation of people do not change their ways like that. People are not that fast to adapt, they crave the comfortable and the familiar and will work to recreate what was comfortable and familiar in the past. It is the basic human condition. That is why Iran moved back towards a theocratic republic.

Bullshit. History has shown that given the free choice between oppression and freedom freedom is always chosen. Name more than 1 country in the modern era (germany in 1930s does not count) that freely choose to revert from a free democratic state to an oppressive dictatorship.

You word your question well, because it can’t be answered. However when we first gained our “liberty” there was a movement to have George Washington crowned king. I cannot recall the size of the movement, but it existed and there were more than a handful of supporters. I can easily name failed attempts at disposing a foreign power in an attempt to create a democracy, started by yours truly the US. I can also point out failed democracies that were heavily influenced by foreign powers. The thing is they don’t revert to oppressive dictatorships; they instead turn into civil wars. And some last for a very long time, mostly because their society was not ready for the upheaval, they were not ready for change; too many still exist that cling to the old ways.

Is is possible for us to save the entire world? No. Does that mean we should not at least try? According to many of the post here the last thing we should do is attempt to make even a small part of the world thats not directly under our feet better.
THAT is shortsighted and not even imaginative...
I’m not saying that we should do nothing, you take it that my disagreement with the current solution means I think we should haul ass back to the US and play with ourselves. I suggest we work within the confines of their society. We should be setting up a government that closely mirrors that of its neighbors. Creating a Theocratic Republic would have a far better chance at survival and acceptance than a democracy will. To think that there is only one solution to a problem is not the proper way to rebuild countries. Our view of liberty and government is not their view. That is the point I was trying to make.

Other than that, I completley agree with your last post. It could not be more true: The spreading of freedom will only mean a better life for my children and my childrens children, of this I am absolutely positive.

The only question you have to ask is, how much hell do we put the children of today through for the children of tomorrow. When you reach the scenario that you are not willing to play out, then you've reached that "too high of a price". The Japanese would tell you the price they paid was beyond that limit.