I'm wondering whether the Bush government claiming such righteous and upright motives in regards to 'saving' the Iraqi people will care at all about the many other countries around the world who may not offer any benefits to American interests but simply have people who are suffering greatly and need outside infuence to help them gain freedom...as Mr. Bush seems to indicate is the objective in Iraq!!
I think that America is going to be put to the test as to their true intentions in the future and whether this gift of freedom extends only to Iraq or also to many other nations that would possibly welcome U.S and outside intervention.
Secondly I would like to pose this thought...I just recently watched an independant production called "Return to Kandahar" and at the end of the documentary it was said that not a single dollor of the "Billions" promised in financial aid has yet to be given to Afghanistan from America...and has america and the other nations involved in that country been helping to reconstruct the government FOR the people or have the warlords simply divided the land up once again and there is truly no real freedom.
What about countries that don't offer economical benefits to America?
Well, I would love to indulge myself on this comment but that would take a google of words to explain.
I will tell you that this little battle, the battle in Iraq, the propaganda battle between nations, the breakdown of international unity will have far greater damage then a little man and his little desert.
If you ever thought that this SHOCK and AWE campaign was ever about humanitarian aid, then I would suggest you re-evaluate historical hypocrisies.
There is no doubt that the logic behind this has alot to do with control of that region for strategical reasons as well as that beautiful oil - just spewing out of the sand with such little effort. The terrorist threat from Saddam was just a demonistic approach to have a reason and cause; after all, without the Russians, an enemy is a must in the making.
I'm glad that this battle will be over and done with so we can all focus on our own countries concerns as well as try and repair the damage we have between nations.
The repercussions of this unilateral attack will have irreputable damage but will also aid in preserving the U.S.A new policy on a world order.
The question I have is even though we may disagree with there new policy, would you prefer the US to control the demographics of this planets politics, power and wealth or would you prefer a multilateral conglomeration of several wealthy nations to control these aspects?
I believe that we should all respect each countries unique individualism and allow each nation to grow at there own pace towards a workable government. To force our democracy to those nations is a simulation which has failed time and time again. Unfortunately, Iraq does not sell grapes or apples, the oil they have and there strategic location is of up most importance for the survival of 1/3 of the earths population that relishes in most of this planets wealth - very sad but very true.
What I have said is rather vague and ambiguous for the most part but it's the best I can do for now.
I will tell you that this little battle, the battle in Iraq, the propaganda battle between nations, the breakdown of international unity will have far greater damage then a little man and his little desert.
If you ever thought that this SHOCK and AWE campaign was ever about humanitarian aid, then I would suggest you re-evaluate historical hypocrisies.
There is no doubt that the logic behind this has alot to do with control of that region for strategical reasons as well as that beautiful oil - just spewing out of the sand with such little effort. The terrorist threat from Saddam was just a demonistic approach to have a reason and cause; after all, without the Russians, an enemy is a must in the making.
I'm glad that this battle will be over and done with so we can all focus on our own countries concerns as well as try and repair the damage we have between nations.
The repercussions of this unilateral attack will have irreputable damage but will also aid in preserving the U.S.A new policy on a world order.
The question I have is even though we may disagree with there new policy, would you prefer the US to control the demographics of this planets politics, power and wealth or would you prefer a multilateral conglomeration of several wealthy nations to control these aspects?
I believe that we should all respect each countries unique individualism and allow each nation to grow at there own pace towards a workable government. To force our democracy to those nations is a simulation which has failed time and time again. Unfortunately, Iraq does not sell grapes or apples, the oil they have and there strategic location is of up most importance for the survival of 1/3 of the earths population that relishes in most of this planets wealth - very sad but very true.
What I have said is rather vague and ambiguous for the most part but it's the best I can do for now.
Re: What about countries that don't offer economical benefits to America?
From the State of the Union....Originally posted by X-Nemesis
I'm wondering whether the Bush government claiming such righteous and upright motives in regards to 'saving' the Iraqi people will care at all about the many other countries around the world who may not offer any benefits to American interests but simply have people who are suffering greatly and need outside infuence to help them gain freedom...as Mr. Bush seems to indicate is the objective in Iraq!!
Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.
Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines. Many hospitals tell people, you've got AIDS, we can't help you. Go home and die." In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. (Applause.)
AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year -- which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.
We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. (Applause.)
I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)
Certain battles need to be won first. We can't help dead people...but hopefully we can help prevent people from dying.
So the goals of the US are relevant to the needs of the world.
All we can do is attempt to make it a better place. If we choose to undermine those efforts internally....then they will be looked upon harshly externally.
-
RoundEye
- Posts: 18219
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: In a dry but moldy New Orleans, Louisiana
I've been staying out of these discussions for the most part but here goes, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I do think this is part oil, and part of a "catch-back" for trying to kill Bush senior, but for the most part when Saddam invaded Kuwait we ran him out and stopped at the border. Part of the agreement Saddam made with the world was to get rid of WOMD (I'm sooo tired of hearing that phrase), and for twelve years or so now, he has made every effort he could to thwart the UN inspections.
Now we have a man, Saddam Hussein, who has invaded another smaller country, and who's regime has allegedly* gassed his own people, tortured many others and in general just has treated the people of Iraq like shit. Now I don't know if he has WOMD or not, but I don't feel a person like Saddam should have control of a country. Even now his troops are hiding in hospitals and Mosques because they know we won't fire at them, and there has even been reports of using women and children as sheilds.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant southern redneck, but for the life of me I just don't understand how some people in this world would want to leave this man and his regime in control.
Right or wrong, I'm glad President Bush has the balls to do something about it. If they would let me, I would have no problem what-so-ever walking right up to Saddam and putting a bullet right between his eyes.
All I have to ask of people is show our troops some respect when they come home, even if you think the war is wrong. I know if I see somebody spit on one of our military personnel, I'm going to do my best to make sure that the next time they have to spit through a straw. I may not be able to fight for my country, but I have no problem going to jail for defending somebody that has fought for my country. (even though they don't need my help).
...off my soapbox and back under my rock....
*I say allegedly because I have no proof of what he's doing, but I do feel all these reports are true.
I do think this is part oil, and part of a "catch-back" for trying to kill Bush senior, but for the most part when Saddam invaded Kuwait we ran him out and stopped at the border. Part of the agreement Saddam made with the world was to get rid of WOMD (I'm sooo tired of hearing that phrase), and for twelve years or so now, he has made every effort he could to thwart the UN inspections.
Now we have a man, Saddam Hussein, who has invaded another smaller country, and who's regime has allegedly* gassed his own people, tortured many others and in general just has treated the people of Iraq like shit. Now I don't know if he has WOMD or not, but I don't feel a person like Saddam should have control of a country. Even now his troops are hiding in hospitals and Mosques because they know we won't fire at them, and there has even been reports of using women and children as sheilds.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant southern redneck, but for the life of me I just don't understand how some people in this world would want to leave this man and his regime in control.
Right or wrong, I'm glad President Bush has the balls to do something about it. If they would let me, I would have no problem what-so-ever walking right up to Saddam and putting a bullet right between his eyes.
All I have to ask of people is show our troops some respect when they come home, even if you think the war is wrong. I know if I see somebody spit on one of our military personnel, I'm going to do my best to make sure that the next time they have to spit through a straw. I may not be able to fight for my country, but I have no problem going to jail for defending somebody that has fought for my country. (even though they don't need my help).
...off my soapbox and back under my rock....
*I say allegedly because I have no proof of what he's doing, but I do feel all these reports are true.
X-nemesis,
You're setting up a false either/or argument to make your false contentions seem more plausible. The humanitarian argument is true, but isn't driving this war. It's mostly political PR -- same as the "it's all about oil" garbage from the other side. Iraq is a protected area where WoMD are being created. Stop acting as if 9/11 didn't happen and that the people who planned it don't want those weapons. That is why we're there.
Think,
Not vague or ambiguous at all. Just inaccurate.
Care to back up your predictions of "damage" with any facts? How about an al Qaeda delivered nuke that destroys NYC killing millions of people, rendering vast parts of the area uninhabitable for years, plunging the US (and world) economy into chaos like we haven't seen since the 1930s..... Hmmm. No, I guess in your mind, a petulant pissed off France is a lot worse. Far from "damage," standing up to obstructionists like this is likely to deter such pettiness in the future. Thankfully, national sovereignty isn't dead.
Quote: "The terrorist threat from Saddam was just a demonistic approach to have a reason and cause." That is ridiculously untrue. Combine the manufacture of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons (Hussein) with Al Qaeda's mutual seething hatred of the US..... If you can't see something that blatant, you're choosing to remove yourself from serious discussion and throwing your credibility in the trash.
"Unilateral attack"? More lying. The last I heard, it was a combined effort from the United States and the United Kingdom along with the support of over 40 other nations. Unilateral? Um.... yeah.
Quote: "To force our democracy to those nations is a simulation which has failed time and time again." You'd prefer crazed dictatorships and theocracies run by Islamic nutcases? It's not about establishing perfect systems or imposing on people, it's about making sure certain places aren't used to threaten the security of the rest of the world. But my guess is that you know all this. I just wonder what resentments are keeping you from acknowledging it.
You're setting up a false either/or argument to make your false contentions seem more plausible. The humanitarian argument is true, but isn't driving this war. It's mostly political PR -- same as the "it's all about oil" garbage from the other side. Iraq is a protected area where WoMD are being created. Stop acting as if 9/11 didn't happen and that the people who planned it don't want those weapons. That is why we're there.
Think,
Not vague or ambiguous at all. Just inaccurate.
Care to back up your predictions of "damage" with any facts? How about an al Qaeda delivered nuke that destroys NYC killing millions of people, rendering vast parts of the area uninhabitable for years, plunging the US (and world) economy into chaos like we haven't seen since the 1930s..... Hmmm. No, I guess in your mind, a petulant pissed off France is a lot worse. Far from "damage," standing up to obstructionists like this is likely to deter such pettiness in the future. Thankfully, national sovereignty isn't dead.
Quote: "The terrorist threat from Saddam was just a demonistic approach to have a reason and cause." That is ridiculously untrue. Combine the manufacture of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons (Hussein) with Al Qaeda's mutual seething hatred of the US..... If you can't see something that blatant, you're choosing to remove yourself from serious discussion and throwing your credibility in the trash.
"Unilateral attack"? More lying. The last I heard, it was a combined effort from the United States and the United Kingdom along with the support of over 40 other nations. Unilateral? Um.... yeah.
Quote: "To force our democracy to those nations is a simulation which has failed time and time again." You'd prefer crazed dictatorships and theocracies run by Islamic nutcases? It's not about establishing perfect systems or imposing on people, it's about making sure certain places aren't used to threaten the security of the rest of the world. But my guess is that you know all this. I just wonder what resentments are keeping you from acknowledging it.
Originally posted by RoundEye
I've been staying out of these discussions for the most part but here goes, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I do think this is part oil, and part of a "catch-back" for trying to kill Bush senior, but for the most part when Saddam invaded Kuwait we ran him out and stopped at the border. Part of the agreement Saddam made with the world was to get rid of WOMD (I'm sooo tired of hearing that phrase), and for twelve years or so now, he has made every effort he could to thwart the UN inspections.
Now we have a man, Saddam Hussein, who has invaded another smaller country, and who's regime has allegedly* gassed his own people, tortured many others and in general just has treated the people of Iraq like shit. Now I don't know if he has WOMD or not, but I don't feel a person like Saddam should have control of a country. Even now his troops are hiding in hospitals and Mosques because they know we won't fire at them, and there has even been reports of using women and children as sheilds.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant southern redneck, but for the life of me I just don't understand how some people in this world would want to leave this man and his regime in control.
Right or wrong, I'm glad President Bush has the balls to do something about it. If they would let me, I would have no problem what-so-ever walking right up to Saddam and putting a bullet right between his eyes.
All I have to ask of people is show our troops some respect when they come home, even if you think the war is wrong. I know if I see somebody spit on one of our military personnel, I'm going to do my best to make sure that the next time they have to spit through a straw. I may not be able to fight for my country, but I have no problem going to jail for defending somebody that has fought for my country. (even though they don't need my help).
...off my soapbox and back under my rock....
*I say allegedly because I have no proof of what he's doing, but I do feel all these reports are true.
Nicely spoken RoundEye.
Originally posted by RoundEye
I've been staying out of these discussions for the most part but here goes, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I do think this is part oil, and part of a "catch-back" for trying to kill Bush senior, but for the most part when Saddam invaded Kuwait we ran him out and stopped at the border. Part of the agreement Saddam made with the world was to get rid of WOMD (I'm sooo tired of hearing that phrase), and for twelve years or so now, he has made every effort he could to thwart the UN inspections.
Now we have a man, Saddam Hussein, who has invaded another smaller country, and who's regime has allegedly* gassed his own people, tortured many others and in general just has treated the people of Iraq like shit. Now I don't know if he has WOMD or not, but I don't feel a person like Saddam should have control of a country. Even now his troops are hiding in hospitals and Mosques because they know we won't fire at them, and there has even been reports of using women and children as sheilds.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant southern redneck, but for the life of me I just don't understand how some people in this world would want to leave this man and his regime in control.
Right or wrong, I'm glad President Bush has the balls to do something about it. If they would let me, I would have no problem what-so-ever walking right up to Saddam and putting a bullet right between his eyes.
All I have to ask of people is show our troops some respect when they come home, even if you think the war is wrong. I know if I see somebody spit on one of our military personnel, I'm going to do my best to make sure that the next time they have to spit through a straw. I may not be able to fight for my country, but I have no problem going to jail for defending somebody that has fought for my country. (even though they don't need my help).
...off my soapbox and back under my rock....
*I say allegedly because I have no proof of what he's doing, but I do feel all these reports are true.
Very well said...We Remember...
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
9|11
40 miles SW of Mt. St. Helens
-
The_Lurker
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:00 pm
Originally posted by X-Nemesis
So what about the many brutal regimes that also exist in this world...will they also be brought to justice? And don't get me wrong...I think they should be...who would not want to see a government such as these brought down?
i hope we'll (the USA) pick our fights carefully. keeping our countries safety and intrest first.......i hope
but heck, one fight at a time only.
I hope that, in time, they will. If there was a greater international effort to make it happen, a lot of suffering could be alleviated. The US and Britain can only do so much at once.Originally posted by X-Nemesis
So what about the many brutal regimes that also exist in this world...will they also be brought to justice? And don't get me wrong...I think they should be...who would not want to see a government such as these brought down?
Originally posted by torsten
I hope that, in time, they will. If there was a greater international effort to make it happen, a lot of suffering could be alleviated. The US and Britain can only do so much at once.
I would also add that we must find new ways to persuade the international community to invest in their own security. Some of these other countries that have this "won't happen to us" attitude are taking their own security for granted. Terrorism is the act of opportunists. Has France forgotten about the plan to level the Eiffel Tower? Did Germany forget that Mr. Atta kept residence there?
Originally posted by UOD
Has France forgotten about the plan to level the Eiffel Tower? Did Germany forget that Mr. Atta kept residence there?
I think that Germany and France are playing the otherside of the fence. Thinking that if they don't outwardly support the US's efforts against Iraq and terrorism that then the Terrorists will leave them alone.
Respect it.
Originally posted by agentbeast
I think that Germany and France are playing the otherside of the fence. Thinking that if they don't outwardly support the US's efforts against Iraq and terrorism that then the Terrorists will leave them alone.
Can't blame em really. Although they are gonna have some serious egg on thier face when they need our help anytime soon.
Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
Originally posted by agentbeast
I'm not sure about Germany, but I know that France has quite a large Muslim population. I'm sure this has also influenced their decisions.
Yes...a large Muslim population living in freedom...that in itself is a direct threat to the ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. According to them, you can't be a free Muslim. We also have a large Muslim population here in America....didn't stop 9/11 did it?
Originally posted by UOD
Yes...a large Muslim population living in freedom...that in itself is a direct threat to the ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. According to them, you can't be a free Muslim. We also have a large Muslim population here in America....didn't stop 9/11 did it?
No it didn't stop 9/11, and I'm not saying France is correct in their logic. That's just the way I see them thinking. That if they don't outwardly support the USA that then they will be free from attacks.
Respect it.
It's certainly influenced french politics. Left-leaning parties have started altering their positions so that it's now barely-disguised anti-semitism in order to cater to the group that's now over 6 million.Originally posted by agentbeast
I'm not sure about Germany, but I know that France has quite a large Muslim population. I'm sure this has also influenced their decisions.
And life in France grows worse every year. Read this to learn what 40 years of immigration from Algeria is producing in this once enlightened tolerant country. And that article only highlights a recent small sample of what's been happening in the last few years.
I never noticed torsten abrupt comments on my opinions until now.
I'm not here to win over a popular misconstrued concept of patriotic gibberish by any means and if this does offend your position, then so be it.
It seems to me torsten that you have confirmed my stance on the meaning of this war as a continuance towards the Republicans new world order. If you do not agree with there position then you will be subjugated to economic backlash and thus the argument supports this as being a unilateral aggression by the U.S. - British Prime Minister Tony Blair caught in the strings.
This is about oil but it's also about the control of that region.
Enough said....as useless as an argument as religious threads when the only view is limited to the immediate effects instead of understand the historical evolution and future consequences of these actions.
Good day.
I'm not here to win over a popular misconstrued concept of patriotic gibberish by any means and if this does offend your position, then so be it.
It seems to me torsten that you have confirmed my stance on the meaning of this war as a continuance towards the Republicans new world order. If you do not agree with there position then you will be subjugated to economic backlash and thus the argument supports this as being a unilateral aggression by the U.S. - British Prime Minister Tony Blair caught in the strings.
This is about oil but it's also about the control of that region.
Enough said....as useless as an argument as religious threads when the only view is limited to the immediate effects instead of understand the historical evolution and future consequences of these actions.
Good day.
Originally posted by Think
I never noticed torsten abrupt comments on my opinions until now.
I'm not here to win over a popular misconstrued concept of patriotic gibberish by any means and if this does offend your position, then so be it.
It seems to me torsten that you have confirmed my stance on the meaning of this war as a continuance towards the Republicans new world order. If you do not agree with there position then you will be subjugated to economic backlash and thus the argument supports this as being a unilateral aggression by the U.S. - British Prime Minister Tony Blair caught in the strings.
This is about oil but it's also about the control of that region.
Enough said....as useless as an argument as religious threads when the only view is limited to the immediate effects instead of understand the historical evolution and future consequences of these actions.
Good day.
Is it possible for you to be right and to be wrong?
Your point of view is as welcome as the next. But none of us has ALL the answers.
I'm not sure what you're mean by some of that -- the part about winning over a concept and the part about Republican new world order. (and btw, I'm definitely not a Republican).Originally posted by Think
I never noticed torsten abrupt comments on my opinions until now.
I'm not here to win over a popular misconstrued concept of patriotic gibberish by any means and if this does offend your position, then so be it.
It seems to me torsten that you have confirmed my stance on the meaning of this war as a continuance towards the Republicans new world order. If you do not agree with there position then you will be subjugated to economic backlash and thus the argument supports this as being a unilateral aggression by the U.S. - British Prime Minister Tony Blair caught in the strings.
This is about oil but it's also about the control of that region.
Enough said....as useless as an argument as religious threads when the only view is limited to the immediate effects instead of understand the historical evolution and future consequences of these actions.
Good day.
Did you read what I wrote carefully? I said nothing that should lead you to believe that I thought the US should act as some sort of world bully. I'll repeat what I said earlier..... It's not about establishing perfect systems or imposing on people, it's about making sure certain places aren't used to threaten the security of the rest of the world.
And Tony Blair isn't "caught in the strings." He's taken a principled position and acted to best ensure the future security of the UK. He doesn't want to see London go up in smoke or watch a million British citizens die from bio terrorism.
You dismissed the threat of Iraq as a supplier of weapons for terrorism, saying it was just an excuse to pursue other aims. And I'm saying again, that is blatantly untrue.
You now (again) say, "this is about oil" but don't offer any evidence to refute what I said about WoMD and terrorism. You can say "it's about oil" all you want, but saying it doesn't make it so. Oil is flowing to the US from many sources NOW --- has been for years. Without Iraqi oil, the US would continue to do just fine. If it were all about oil, the US could have removed Hussein after defeating Iraq in 1991. The thing that changed was 9/11 and Hussein's development of chem, bio, and nuke weapons.
I'd be happy to hear what you have to say about the "historical evolution and future consequences of these actions" but you didn't really say much about this bigger picture you claim has been left out of the discussion.
The bush government suddenly got interested in "Liberating" iraq and "disarming a dangerous scourge" that america actually supported before the kuwait conflict because he just happens to be sitting on tons and tons of oil. All that other crap you here is propoganda to get your compliance. Thats the beginning, middle and end of it.
I was in Roppongi a couple weeks ago, the foreigner district in tokyo. We were in a bar with a lot of american businessmen. One was the president of citibank`s japanese operations, to give you an example of the money level. Anyway, this guy comes in and shouts "We got it! Its ours, the oil is ours! They tried to set it on fire, but we`re putting it out!" and then he bought tequilas for everyone in the bar.
the point is, the class that actually benefits from all those tax cuts that bush made (yet that most of you barely saw) knows exactly whats going on. They dont have any patriotic pretenses about whats happening here. Theyre overthrowing another government for their financial benefit, and thats that.
But most americans arent part of bush`s america, even if they think they are. The decisions of his presidency are for the benefit of people far richer than you. So you're fed a bunch of patriotic garbage instead.
I was in Roppongi a couple weeks ago, the foreigner district in tokyo. We were in a bar with a lot of american businessmen. One was the president of citibank`s japanese operations, to give you an example of the money level. Anyway, this guy comes in and shouts "We got it! Its ours, the oil is ours! They tried to set it on fire, but we`re putting it out!" and then he bought tequilas for everyone in the bar.
the point is, the class that actually benefits from all those tax cuts that bush made (yet that most of you barely saw) knows exactly whats going on. They dont have any patriotic pretenses about whats happening here. Theyre overthrowing another government for their financial benefit, and thats that.
But most americans arent part of bush`s america, even if they think they are. The decisions of his presidency are for the benefit of people far richer than you. So you're fed a bunch of patriotic garbage instead.
Originally posted by jayyy
The bush government suddenly got interested in "Liberating" iraq and "disarming a dangerous scourge" that america actually supported before the kuwait conflict because he just happens to be sitting on tons and tons of oil. All that other crap you here is propoganda to get your compliance. Thats the beginning, middle and end of it.
I was in Roppongi a couple weeks ago, the foreigner district in tokyo. We were in a bar with a lot of american businessmen. One was the president of citibank`s japanese operations, to give you an example of the money level. Anyway, this guy comes in and shouts "We got it! Its ours, the oil is ours! They tried to set it on fire, but we`re putting it out!" and then he bought tequilas for everyone in the bar.
the point is, the class that actually benefits from all those tax cuts that bush made (yet that most of you barely saw) knows exactly whats going on. They dont have any patriotic pretenses about whats happening here. Theyre overthrowing another government for their financial benefit, and thats that.
But most americans arent part of bush`s america, even if they think they are. The decisions of his presidency are for the benefit of people far richer than you. So you're fed a bunch of patriotic garbage instead.
Very true.
Originally posted by jayyy
The bush government suddenly got interested in "Liberating" iraq and "disarming a dangerous scourge" that america actually supported before the kuwait conflict because he just happens to be sitting on tons and tons of oil. All that other crap you here is propoganda to get your compliance. Thats the beginning, middle and end of it.
I was in Roppongi a couple weeks ago, the foreigner district in tokyo. We were in a bar with a lot of american businessmen. One was the president of citibank`s japanese operations, to give you an example of the money level. Anyway, this guy comes in and shouts "We got it! Its ours, the oil is ours! They tried to set it on fire, but we`re putting it out!" and then he bought tequilas for everyone in the bar.
the point is, the class that actually benefits from all those tax cuts that bush made (yet that most of you barely saw) knows exactly whats going on. They dont have any patriotic pretenses about whats happening here. Theyre overthrowing another government for their financial benefit, and thats that.
But most americans arent part of bush`s america, even if they think they are. The decisions of his presidency are for the benefit of people far richer than you. So you're fed a bunch of patriotic garbage instead.
Good points Jayyy.
My take on all of this is that it's a win-win-win situation. America removes a threat to it's security, American corporations profit from the stability, and the Iraqi people get freedom.
I think that with the right mix of self government and corporate investment...we'll see Iraq as a major force in 15-20 years. Welcome to the 21st century Iraq!
Hmmm. Apparently it makes you FEEL better to call the facts "propaganda" because it matches your biases and gives you an excuse from acknowledging reality. I notice you desperately tried to ignore the issue of WoMD and terrorism and pretended it doesn't exist. The facts of 9/11, terrorism, and Hussein's weapons development are there whether you like it or not. Yeah, just call it "other crap" and hope everyone's too stupid (or biased) to notice what you're doing.Originally posted by jayyy
The bush government suddenly got interested in "Liberating" iraq and "disarming a dangerous scourge" that america actually supported before the kuwait conflict because he just happens to be sitting on tons and tons of oil. All that other crap you here is propoganda to get your compliance. Thats the beginning, middle and end of it.
This isn't about patriotism and you know it. It's about preventing future horrors.
An overheard statement in a bar (the meaning of which you're distorting) is evidence you cite for the "real" intent of American foreign policy? Please. The oil is Iraq's oil and will remain so. No other nation is going to steal it. There will likely however be a lot of buying, and Iraq as a nation will be more prosperous because of it, provided that a sound form of government is set up as a structure for the economy.Originally posted by jayyy
I was in Roppongi a couple weeks ago, the foreigner district in tokyo. We were in a bar with a lot of american businessmen. One was the president of citibank`s japanese operations, to give you an example of the money level. Anyway, this guy comes in and shouts "We got it! Its ours, the oil is ours! They tried to set it on fire, but we`re putting it out!" and then he bought tequilas for everyone in the bar.
Now most of that (except for the part about overthrowing for financial benefit) is true. Bush is the head of an essentially Darwinist party. Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.Originally posted by jayyy
the point is, the class that actually benefits from all those tax cuts that bush made (yet that most of you barely saw) knows exactly whats going on. They dont have any patriotic pretenses about whats happening here. Theyre overthrowing another government for their financial benefit, and thats that.
But most americans arent part of bush`s america, even if they think they are. The decisions of his presidency are for the benefit of people far richer than you. So you're fed a bunch of patriotic garbage instead.
Hey, I'm not desperately trying to hide anything. I'm a little pushed for time right now, but you said yourself that bush's party is run for the rich. I havent seen any evidence that iraq possessed any chemical weapons -if they did, they certainly didnt seem to use them on any us troops. But even if they did, the US was supporting hussein when he had much more power and posed much more of a threat than he did in the 90s when sanctions strangled iraq within an inch of life. So why now?
UOD-Its good to see hussein toppled, and after rule by him things can certainly only get better. Its good to see that such good has come of this.
But it creeps me out so few people seem to acknowledge the reasons. Remember when everyone talked about how evil the taliban was, and time had a cover story on the atrocities commited against afghani women, and how good old america was going to swoop in and be the hero? Afghanistan hasnt seen a single cent of those "billions in aid" promised, and likely never will.
Its gotten to the point people will openly acknowledge the country is run by the rich, and STILL insist the excuses they bring up for doing what they do for themselves are fully worthy of support. To me thats just weird.
UOD-Its good to see hussein toppled, and after rule by him things can certainly only get better. Its good to see that such good has come of this.
But it creeps me out so few people seem to acknowledge the reasons. Remember when everyone talked about how evil the taliban was, and time had a cover story on the atrocities commited against afghani women, and how good old america was going to swoop in and be the hero? Afghanistan hasnt seen a single cent of those "billions in aid" promised, and likely never will.
Its gotten to the point people will openly acknowledge the country is run by the rich, and STILL insist the excuses they bring up for doing what they do for themselves are fully worthy of support. To me thats just weird.
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
Its is important to remeber is the US does whats best for the US. Its all well and good to play nice with everybody else but in the end we're looking out for ourselves. Thats the way countrys work. Its the same thing that happens with people.
We've already proved that Iraq has been violating UN mandates for years (they hit us with banned missiles!) and we have many possible WMD cases but they are still testing to make sure they are really WMD.
Saying that afganistan hasnt seen aid, thats a flat out lie. not only is our governement sending aid but other countries and private organizations have sent food. Also our soilders being there is lots of aid. We're freeing people letting them go to school and grow out of being a third world country, we are letting women drive and go to school and people can have a say in their government,
We have done there what we will soon do in Iraq. Destroy our enemies then make them productive. Its the American way. It started during WWII with Germany and Japan and has continued.
We've already proved that Iraq has been violating UN mandates for years (they hit us with banned missiles!) and we have many possible WMD cases but they are still testing to make sure they are really WMD.
Saying that afganistan hasnt seen aid, thats a flat out lie. not only is our governement sending aid but other countries and private organizations have sent food. Also our soilders being there is lots of aid. We're freeing people letting them go to school and grow out of being a third world country, we are letting women drive and go to school and people can have a say in their government,
We have done there what we will soon do in Iraq. Destroy our enemies then make them productive. Its the American way. It started during WWII with Germany and Japan and has continued.
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
I just dont see where the argument is here.
I was reading today, paraphrasing only slightly, that bush was "Confident that the dispute over nuclear weapons with north korea can be resolved diplomatically". He made it clear he had no intention of going to war with them.
so on one hand you have a country which is announcing to anyone that will listen "WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THEY ARE POINTED TO THE US WEST COAST", and chucking test runs into the sea of japan. I actually saw one on the coast line, I swear. And Bush wants negotiation. Not dippy, forget about it if the UN doesnt do what he wants negotiation, but like, lets avoid war at all costs, honest-to-goodness talks.
and on the other hand, they're accusing a country of having biological weapons. they comply with requests for inspectors to come in the country, but bush is so zealous to invade he cuts all that short and just invades them anyway. no-one can find any biological weapons. more importantly, none were used against US troops, which makes whether or not they had them a rather moot point. if they had any and were planning on using any on anyone at any point in time, you can be sure it would've been then.
so anyway, there seems to be a grudging consensus on the board that the bush administration runs the country for the benefit of the rich and american corporations. One of those countries is sitting on billions upon billions of dollars of oil, a staple of the US economy, and one isnt.
Now why do you think one was attacked and the other wasnt, and what do you think the reasoning behind it was?
Why does this have to be so complicated? why do thousands of pages have to be written in print and on ten internet debating why this was done? isnt the answer just obvious?
I was reading today, paraphrasing only slightly, that bush was "Confident that the dispute over nuclear weapons with north korea can be resolved diplomatically". He made it clear he had no intention of going to war with them.
so on one hand you have a country which is announcing to anyone that will listen "WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THEY ARE POINTED TO THE US WEST COAST", and chucking test runs into the sea of japan. I actually saw one on the coast line, I swear. And Bush wants negotiation. Not dippy, forget about it if the UN doesnt do what he wants negotiation, but like, lets avoid war at all costs, honest-to-goodness talks.
and on the other hand, they're accusing a country of having biological weapons. they comply with requests for inspectors to come in the country, but bush is so zealous to invade he cuts all that short and just invades them anyway. no-one can find any biological weapons. more importantly, none were used against US troops, which makes whether or not they had them a rather moot point. if they had any and were planning on using any on anyone at any point in time, you can be sure it would've been then.
so anyway, there seems to be a grudging consensus on the board that the bush administration runs the country for the benefit of the rich and american corporations. One of those countries is sitting on billions upon billions of dollars of oil, a staple of the US economy, and one isnt.
Now why do you think one was attacked and the other wasnt, and what do you think the reasoning behind it was?
Why does this have to be so complicated? why do thousands of pages have to be written in print and on ten internet debating why this was done? isnt the answer just obvious?
Hi, I'd just like to start off by saying that this is one of the most intelligent discussions I've ever seen, so in depth. I don't think a single person is wrong here, and yet none totally right.
The truth comes before the media. I believe media to a certain degree, but none of it is fact, yet, or ever. The patriotic viewpoint is always applied in these times by the media. makes sense. The media is filtered, simple as that.
We never see the full picture of whats happening in the world no matter who you are (even Bush).
For the record, Saddam had to be removed, but remember who put him in his position to start with.
And he didn't go digging for anthrax in his back yard, it was given to him, along with the means for chemical weapons and along with a nuclear reactor, ALL given or sold to him by first world nations. Iran was evil then?
OIL is the reason they're there IMO, but also not the only reason. It has to do with human decency as well.
My heart goes out to all involved in the 'trenches' of Iraq, along with the people who inhabit the land. Nobody dead feels like a winner and nor do their families.
I find it interesting how we've created our own monster. Greed above all in politics people. Just my opinion.
Some countries had ethnic cleansing within the very recent past, didn't see too much INTEREST there :P.
The truth comes before the media. I believe media to a certain degree, but none of it is fact, yet, or ever. The patriotic viewpoint is always applied in these times by the media. makes sense. The media is filtered, simple as that.
We never see the full picture of whats happening in the world no matter who you are (even Bush).
For the record, Saddam had to be removed, but remember who put him in his position to start with.
And he didn't go digging for anthrax in his back yard, it was given to him, along with the means for chemical weapons and along with a nuclear reactor, ALL given or sold to him by first world nations. Iran was evil then?
OIL is the reason they're there IMO, but also not the only reason. It has to do with human decency as well.
My heart goes out to all involved in the 'trenches' of Iraq, along with the people who inhabit the land. Nobody dead feels like a winner and nor do their families.
I find it interesting how we've created our own monster. Greed above all in politics people. Just my opinion.
Some countries had ethnic cleansing within the very recent past, didn't see too much INTEREST there :P.
The more I drink, the less I care.