The U.S. and Iraq
Pages
| Author | Topic: The U.S. and Iraq |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 09:53
Profile
Homepage
Early in this decade President Bush declared war on Iraq, claiming Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. However, Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs before the U.S. ever invaded. Many people suspect that it was for the oil there, bit if that's true, why hasn't hw withdrawn the soldiers out of Iraq? Of course, some people could claim that it was to set up a republic there and overthrow Hussein, but Iraq wasn't the only country like that. The U.S. isn't minding its own business. Really, America should focus on overthrowing its own corrupt government. I don't know the real reason Bush had for invading Iraq, but me and many other Americans are fed up with Bush and the war in Iraq. For some reason, Americans don't want to hear people like me who say the American government is corrupt. However, people in other countries seem to know everything about the falsity of America's "freedom." I don't consider myself an American, even though I've lived there all my life; mainly becaused I don't give into to all the brainwashing by the government. I've said stuff like this in America, but most Americans will deny anything you say. I spoke out here, because the members of this forum seem to be rational. [ Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:30: Message edited by: Excalibur ] -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7638
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 10:27
Profile
I suppose that America is free in that you can vote and you can pretty much choose any career you want. quote:Being American doesn't mean supporting its government, it's more of a sense of nationalism that people love their country. The government reflects the will of the people and there is a lot of stupid people living in the United States. Iraq, well let's not talk about that... [ Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:27: Message edited by: Leftover Sauerkraut ] -------------------- "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981 "But what ... is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. Posts: 152 | Registered: Monday, November 6 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 10:44
Profile
Homepage
As recently as a year ago, I liked political topics. I'd rant to my heart's content. Perhaps in the meantime I've just grown cynical, and there's nothing more to say about this that I haven't said a dozen times before. So count me out. Although I will take the time to commcemorate the fourth anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie, an activist who was run over by a bulldozer four years ago yesterday. Also: quote:Do they indeed. Edit: quote:You should tell that to the guys on Free Republic and Little Green Footballs some day. :P [ Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:45: Message edited by: Dr. Johann Georg Faust ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 11:20
Profile
quote:You live in northern Nevada, which is basically part of Utah, which is one of three states (along with Nebraska and Idaho) that actually maintained a favorable opinion of Bush in the last polls I read. While what you have to say might not have much traction there, bear in mind that only around 18% of Americans polled supported the troop surge and more than half - around 60% or so - support an immediate or gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Even down south in Clark County, where people are somewhat less enthusiastic about guns and Jesus and evading taxes, the vox populi is pretty comparatively conservative. A lot of the rest of the country has its head on straight and would nod along to what you have to say. We're just nuts here. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 11:29
Profile
Homepage
We went to Iraq because both the Republicans and the Democrats thought that Hussein had WMD's. Please don't make me dig out Clinton's quotes again. He thought Hussein had WMD's, too, long before Bush jr got into the runnings. He just didn't do anything about it. We are still there because Bush is embarrassed at the failure to find any and is trying to make up for it by making sure Iraq is better off when we leave then it was before we came. In other words, we are still there because Bush made a mess of things and Bush thinks he needs to fix it. He's not really on the wrong side for thinking so. Usually it goes without saying that if you make a mess, you clean it up. The problem is he's using the American's hard earned tax dollars and the blood of America's brave, young, men and women to do it with. The people are sick of being used to fix his mistakes and we want out. I, personally, am ready to just pull out, but only because I am unattached to anyone in Iraq and I can handle that country, way over there, going to pot. My compassion for the innocents there has worn thin. It's probably not a good thing on my part but it's where I am. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 11:34
Profile
Homepage
I'd say you're preaching to the choir by posting that on Spiderweb, but most of Spiderweb would be offended by having serious politics linked to religion. —Alorael, who isn't sure he believes in a right to delcare oneself "non-American." Being proud of your country because it's your country is foolish, but refusing to take responsibility for your country is equally foolish. Citizenship is an obligation to fix the corruption. Ask not what your country can do for you and all that. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 11:47
Profile
Homepage
One argument that has bugged me lately is the following: "If we leave, the terrorists will follow us here." This makes **** for sense. The whole point of international terrorism is that it is not based anywhere and respects no borders. Does anyone honestly believe that Al Qaida and other relevant extremist organizations — which have many members as far west as North Africa and as far east as Pakistan, if not farther, as well as a handful in Europe and the U.S. — are particularly worried about a few people getting killed in Iraq? Does anyone honestly believe that we're focusing the efforts of "the terrorists" — a completely heterogeneous and decentralized category of people — in Iraq and that, as a result of being occupied there, they cannot attack elsewhere if they feel like it? Try to make this argument to a Spaniard ("If you leave, they'll follow you home!"), and see what sort of response you get. Besides which, characterizing "the terrorists" in this way drives me crazy. Terrorism is not the weapon of Islamic extremists alone. The most deadly terrorist attack on United States soil prior to the September 11th attacks was the Oklahoma City bombing, not committed by a Middle Eastern man nor by a Muslim, but by our own home-grown terrorist. [ Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 8
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 13:56
Profile
kkklinton -------------------- "Names is for tombstones, baby." -Mr. Big Posts: 699 | Registered: Thursday, September 20 2001 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 14:00
Profile
Homepage
That's "daçade", not dacade. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 15:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:You win. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, March 17 2007 23:57
Profile
I thought Iraq was part of Canada. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 00:43
Profile
quote:Excuse me? Clinton bombed the place repeatedly, enforced a no-fly zone, and helped engineer the continuing sanctions. And the record indicates that not once between Desert Storm and the occupation did Saddam have either the resources or the inclination to build WMDs. To the extent Iraqi WMDs were a problem at all, Clinton was on top of it. By contrast, if Iraq had ever had WMDs, they aren't there any more. Thank god those WMDs probably don't exist, because if they did some pretty nasty people would probably have them thanks to Bush. quote:'Going' to pot? The Iraqis seem to be doing a pretty good job of running their own government. On election days, the insurgent groups literally stopped with the attacks and started guarding polling places. I have a sneaking suspicion that the pessimism over the ability of Iraq to govern itself is motivated by a sort of subtle but awful racism - the same that feared when Saddam was executed that riots would break out, because obviously the Iraqis just love to beat each other up for no good reason like the children they are. The large majority of violence in Iraq is directed towards coalition forces; polls conducted in Iraq consistently find that less than the margin of error think US forces are doing any good there or want them to remain there. Why did we wage this war? Not because of WMDs (although that is the official excuse); that was a reason drummed up after the fact and drilled into the people's heads by the right-wing noise machine. It was a sordid little lie that Bush blew out of proportion to support an existing scheme. The invasion of Iraq resulted in billions (with a B) in no-bid contracts being shovelled into infrastructure contractors and the oil industry. Iraqi oil accounts for around 20-30% of the world's production; even a fraction of that tantalizing crude would more than make the sacrifices endured by the American people work it for American oil companies, which alongside the defense industry has its hand firmly up Bush's ass. It's no coincidence that PNAC's hilariously nutty plot to dominate the world apparently starts with an apocalyptic fixation on Iraq as a major enemy - probably a result of how deep the PNAC wants Israel's you-know-what inside it, because Iraq has been the Israeli establishment's public enemy #1 since Sadat. But the huge amounts of oil and strategic location help too. Thank God the PNACers are corporate lifers rather than anyone who had any reason for geopolitical acuity; the monomania on Iraq, while nasty for us and for them, will torpedo them in a nasty hurry and completely discredit their idiot behavior. They jumped into Iraq under the absurd assumption that the Iraqis would be as enthusiastic about it as the French were about being liberated during WW2, and in apparent complete ignorance of the fact that Iran is right next door. Note, and note well, that the reason for this war was not any of the stated reasons; it was to satisfy the ridiculous political yen of Bush's handlers. Planning for the invasion of Iraq began on September 12, 2001; so far as I can tell, they still haven't started planning the occupation. If they had any legitimate or practical reason to be there besides bilking billions from oil (courtesy the people of Iraq) and infrastructure contracts (courtesy the American taxpayer), the occupation wouldn't be as catastrohpically underfunded and poorly-planned as it is. But Jewels, as I expected she would, blames Bush for the mess to the extent she has a problem with it at all. Of course: Bush is a wonderful fall-guy and allowing him to play the patsy prevents us from having to take the ugly step of wondering why he's done us so horribly wrong. You don't even have to get all the way through how he's done so. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 01:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:That sounds kind of ambiguous. Guarding against attacks or voters of the opposing parties? According to Riverbend, the fundie groups are doing their part to disrupt the country, and she can usually be relied on not to have a pro-occupation bias... [ Sunday, March 18, 2007 01:56: Message edited by: Dr. Johann Georg Faust ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 09:03
Profile
My understanding of the news is that the election days tend to promote something vaguely like a general truce. Of course: nobody, but nobody, wants to encourage Coalition forces to stay any longer by showing the vaguest hint of political instability. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 11:29
Profile
Homepage
Indeed. Even though Iraq elected its own leaders, Iraq is still a protectorate of the U.S, just not officially. By Honor Among Fora quote:I'd like you to show me where I linked politics to religion. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 13:34
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Excalibur: quote:Alorael was refering to himself with that statement, since he used the phrase "preaching to the choir." Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Sunday, March 18 2007 18:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Seconded. I personally hate it when people who are literally citizens of America say that they don't consider themselves Americans. Kinda springboarding off of Alo's remark, it's not very productive to just try to evade being characterized as an American. It's better to try and change the views that the rest of the world holds by actually taking a bit of responsibility for where our government's gone as of late. Thus, I consider myself an American, and I'm damn proud to live in a country where I can speak my mind. I'm incredibly psyched to finally be able to register to vote. I want to be part of a solution. ...and now that my idiotic rant is out of my system: I really want to see what Iraq does on its own, and to that end, I would love to see "Coalition" troops out ASAP. Or, at least reduced to pretty low levels... something sane, you know? Because whether or not you call the conflict a civil war at this point is pretty moot, because all the factions seem to agree on one thing: they can't stand us. So, let's get out and see what they do. They've had practice governing the country, we haven't. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 01:26
Profile
Iraq will not be remembered, as it should, as a graveyard of possibilities. History will not be long spent poring over what could have changed if the money we poured into Iraq had been devoted to building functional civil (instead of industrial and oil) infrastructure, if we had managed the warring factions with more tact, taking that inevitable nasty step of playing the strongest against the weakest in order to get our reforms through. History will not wonder what kind of paradise Iraq could have been if America and its craven lap-dogs had as its first priority anything but throwing out lucre to their corporate masters. History will not ask whether the involvement of the UN would have legitimized the grand mission for humanity some were fooled into believing was at work - if it ever does, it will be to try and discredit the UN rather than to try and discredit those who scorned it. History will not long remember the preposterously false bumper-sticker patriotism of the right wing contrasted with their golden boys' cost-benefit-analyzing the unfortunate souls on the ground to a bloody pulp. There will be no memory of 'supporting the troops' by forcing an administration on them intent on stripping them of materiel and the benefits of service. History will not ask what things would be like if someone like Truman had managed Iraq instead of someone like Coolidge. That is not how history works. History will invent facile lies about Cindy Sheehan spitting on the troops as they return home to a nation that denied them the numbers they needed to gain victory. Bush will not be remembered as a heinous criminal who squandered the great potential of the mission to democratize once and for all in the name of nepotist greed, but as a quixotic crusader foiled by the treason of liberal activists. If we intend history to say anything different than that, we had better start cracking some heads. [ Monday, March 19, 2007 01:29: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 02:02
Profile
I share your concerns about how this will all look decades from now Alec, but you should remember that history is not written only by Americans. With the attention this whole travesty has received, bystanders (meaning countries not directly involved in the war or occupation) will have a whole lot more information to write their history books with. Iraq will be remembered for what it was. Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 02:20
Profile
Homepage
As they say, the superpowers and victors write the history books. So you'd better learn how to read Mandarin and Cantonese. -------------------- VIVE LA TAKERS! VIVE LA REBELLION! VIVE LA GHALDRING! Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 03:21
Profile
quote:What don't you remember "there is only those who are with us and those who are against us"? Silly Alec, have you forgotten? History is written by the Zionist Council as it has been for the past 5000 years. Of all people, you were the last I'd expect to forget that. Oh, and yes, I do plan on eating Christian blood with great relish in the coming Passover holiday. -------------------- ??? ?????? ???? ????? Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 03:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:Relish? You barbarian! Everyone knows that salsa is the only appropriate condiment to accompany human flesh. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 05:18
Profile
Homepage
I'm surprised, Alec. You're apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept of liberal "revisionist" history. Not all history books devote whole chapters to Washington and the cherry tree at the expense of mentioning that he did in fact own slaves. It is true that many historians don't like asking, "What if...?" This dislike mostly stems, I think, from the difficulty of answering the question, compared to the question, "What was...?" There is still a fair bit of discussion, though, about Truman dropping the atom bomb on Japan. Historians do argue whether this was a good thing to do or not. Likewise, there has been a great deal of investigation into how exactly we got into Vietnam, which was a long and complicated process, perhaps as long and complicated as how we got into Iraq, so I don't doubt that historians even now are doing their best to figure out how the heck we got into Iraq. If it proves demonstrable — and this will take time and a great burden of evidence, not just probable speculation — that we went there for corporate greed, I don't doubt that some textbooks will attempt to paper this over, but some others will write it. As for what we should have done, well, eh. Like I said, historians have trouble proving what we should have done, but they don't have any trouble pointing out what we could have done, and I don't doubt that they will here, too. EDIT: Also, human flesh is good with some salt and herbs. I find that it is far easier to enjoy properly the delicate taste of baby flesh if it is lightly seasoned than if is drowned in salsa. [ Monday, March 19, 2007 05:27: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 06:10
Profile
History is written by everyone who cares to write it, and wildly divergent versions of the Iraq occupation will likely persist for decades. But with no draft, I doubt it will be anywhere near as big an item in American history as Vietnam. Iraqi history will be another story. What I wish I understood, or anyone understood, is just what went wrong. Obviously lots of things went wrong; but tons of things would have gone wrong in even the best realistic case. Wars and their aftermaths are inevitably appallingly wasteful, and the best realistic case would still have been Iraq emerging from Saddam's overthrow like a family escaping from their burning house. The question is which of the many errors made the difference that led to the case that is so much worse than that. Was there in fact ever any real chance for a much better outcome? Four years ago it seemed so, but was that an illusion? It would be nice to salvage from the mess at least some understanding of why it has happened, which might help prevent it happening again. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, March 19 2007 09:17
Profile
Homepage
I read somewhere — before I was a Classics major, so I don't know if it's true — that when Alexander the Great conquered the Persians, he made sure to take out the very top people in power, but to leave in place the low-level governors and the military in order to keep order, so that he wouldn't have to rebuild a government from scratch and so that he wouldn't create a massive group of armed men who hated him and had nothing to do anymore but try to kill him. This was part of the reason for his great success. I think — again, on the basis of little evidence, so I may be wrong — that de-Baathification went too far, and we created our own enemies at times. This, I suspect, was part of the reason that things soured so quickly. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |