The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 13 2002,221)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Dec. 14 2002,03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that what US citizens should do, instead of just being interested in revenge, maybe look at what actions of the goverment prompted the attack.

If you really can't see how wrong the foreign policies of America in the last 25 years or so have been, then you are simply fooling yourself. Setting up puppet dictators, funding terrorist organizations when they happen to have a mutual enemy, dictating world trade policy to their own benefit...<span id='postcolor'>

Thank You Fubar, that is exactly what i've been trying to say all this time, in a nutshell.<span id='postcolor'>

actually that pretty much sums what other countries are doing too. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Not on that scale I don't think (and not most), but anyway, Americans will be better off if they realize this.

[FSPilot 0]

Welcome to the wondeful concept of capitalism.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,04:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Welcome to the wondeful concept of capitalism.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. The term you're looking for is imperialism

*edit* and yes, my previous promise to discontinue arguing with you momentarily slipped my mind, so my apologies, you may ignore this post if you like and carry on misusing terms

[Renagade 0]

same old,same old.

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's just that USSR went down, and now that US remains, everyone wants to get a piece of US. when US goes down, i'm pretty sure someone is going to take US's place and be exactly same as US, and is from one of those countries that criticized US.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 14 2002,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's just that USSR went down, and now that US remains, everyone wants to get a piece of US. when US goes down, i'm pretty sure someone is going to take US's place and be exactly same as US, and is from one of those countries that criticized US.  <span id='postcolor'>

I would more put it like this: All countries have moronic leadership and humans in general are a stupid breed. It just happens that USA is in a powerful position and can actually go through with the ideas that the moron leaders come up with and the stupid people follow

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you may ignore this post if you like and carry on misusing terms  <span id='postcolor'>

Finally something I'm good at.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to warmth up some pizza in the nuclear reactor.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know it's not intentional, but you are right, it is a small consolation, and as to not having started it, my main argument  is that US foreign policy may have provoked it.<span id='postcolor'>

Undoubtedly, U.S. policy DID provoke AQ's attacks -- at least in their minds.  But guess what -- just because a group of fanatics finds our military presence offensive doesn't justify their actions.  Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "all opinions are equally valid and relative judgments are always wrong" school of thought.      

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Face it, most of the people the US is fighting there right now  likely never comitted an act of terrorism, they're just trying to defend what's theirs. That said,  Yes, I do realize it's war and they are an enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

And all we're trying to do right now is help stabilize the place.  On a personal note, I believe removing the Taliban was the easy part.  The challenge will be to lay the foundation to rebuild Afghanistan (politically and physically).  We're prepared to do what we can to help, but the problem is that you can't give a nation freedom, they have to want it.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll give you a better one - Manifest Destiny and it's impact in Latin America.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I'm aware of U.S. history in Central and South America, dating back to the Nicaraguan Banana Wars of the 20's.  It's clearly not our finest hour.  But it doesn't have much to do with AQ.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Agreed upon with Batista, not in any way relevant with today's government.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, we've held Gitmo since long before Batista (1903 I believe).  But we're way off track.  The bases I was referring to are the ones in Allied nations (today's Allies, not WWII Allies) that came about after the two WW's.

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Dec. 14 2002,069)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Undoubtedly, U.S. policy DID provoke AQ's attacks -- at least in their minds. But guess what -- just because a group of fanatics finds our military presence offensive doesn't justify their actions. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "all opinions are equally valid and relative judgments are always wrong" school of thought.<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that being from Cuba and seeing how nasty US foreign policy can get, I can understand why they find your military presence there offensive. Make no mistake, the WTC attacks sickened me, but US foreign policy is simply trampling on too many people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And all we're trying to do right now is help stabilize the place. On a personal note, I believe removing the Taliban was the easy part. The challenge will be to lay the foundation to rebuild Afghanistan (politically and physically). We're prepared to do what we can to help, but the problem is that you can't give a nation freedom, they have to want it. <span id='postcolor'>

Forgive me for not believing the US cares all that much about stability in Afghanistan. I remember how much it cared about stability once the Soviets moved out. All the help the Afghans were getting up to that point just stopped. "Stability" means simply enough control of the country to make sure another movement which oposes the US does not flourish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I'm aware of U.S. history in Central and South America, dating back to the Nicaraguan Banana Wars of the 20's. It's clearly not our finest hour. But it doesn't have much to do with AQ.<span id='postcolor'>

It does if the US foreign policy over there is anything like it was/is in South America. Furthermore it negates your argument that the US was "isolationist" early in the last century

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, we've held Gitmo since long before Batista (1903 I believe). But we're way off track. The bases I was referring to are the ones in Allied nations (today's Allies, not WWII Allies) that came about after the two WW's.

<span id='postcolor'>

So then if a country is not an ally its OK to occupy their territory under such a half-baked pretense? Tell you what, I'll come over to your house packing all sorts of weapons and say "I'm gonna live in that room and I'll pay you $20 a year in rent. Your great-great-grandaddy told my great-great-grandaddy HE could do it, so so can I"....*sigh* for christs sake, all I'm saying is, if you want to know why so many people are pissed at your country and maybe change that, just look at your foreign policy!

[Schoeler 0]

As an American, I can readily admit that our foreign policy has at times quite plainly sucked, particularly in Latin America. Backing Pinochet was wrong simply to quel communism, and we have a similar history in Nicaragua. But criticizing the Panama invasion hardly seems comparable. Noriega was a drug dealer and a thug and he deserves to rot in jail. We didn't do that for money or power, in fact we gave up the canal shortly thereafter and Panama seems to be doing fine now.

As for Afghanistan, the U.S. went in to take out a valid enemy and the invalid oppressive government that backed them. Sure, we screwed up by not doing what we are doing now after the Soviets pulled out, and we paid for that error on 9-11. Obviously we don't intend to make the same mistake twice. The U.S. is going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long, long time and will end up spending billions to stabilize that country simply because it has been unstable for so long. don't confuse that with imperialism. What does the U.S. really stand to gain in Afghanistan besides an assurance that Al-Qaeda won't be able to use it as a base of operations? They have no economic resources to speak of, and as far as forward basing, the Tajiks and Turkey are more than willing to welcome U.S. forward bases in central Asia with open arms, so that can't be it. The only justification for our spending of lives and cash is that we freed the Afghan people and particularly their women from a murderous and oppressive regime of opium dealers and terror backers. It really is that simple. And no, I'm no true believer, my family suffered enough from mistaken U.S. policy in Vietnam, and as a veteran, I saw some of the real motivations behind the Gulf War.

My point is, if the U.S. can atone for its mistakes by ridding the world of a dangerous dictator, while at the same time insuring he doesn't supply proven enemies with WMD, then it should be done. Sure we want his oil, but we also want stability and prosperity for Iraq. We have a problem with the Saudis, it makes sense not to have the majority of our oil coming from one possible shaky source. Its sound strategy to stabilize Iraq. I agree with the post that said Iraq could set an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow with a stabile regime in place. Look at the Kurds up north, they are prospering with U.S. assistance. Civilians are going to die in this war which is unfortunate, but civilians die in every war. The U.S. actually kills less civilians because of our tecnological capabilities. Hopefully, we can make the life of the average Iraqi better, and they can realize that and won't resent our little adventure over there.

The reasons we are going to fight in Iraq aren't all good, but the results might still justify the actions taken. As for pre-emptive action, I would have been the 1st person to argue against that pre 9-11. Now I'm not so sure. If Iraq has WMD, then I believe Saddam's hatred of the U.S. is great enough that he will supply them to terrorists whom, I'm certain will not hesitate to use them. Personally I want only the best for the Iraqi people. If we can take Saddam out, the sanctions will end and life will surely improve for them. I hope we can do this with minimal collateral damage.

As for the War On Terrorism, I don't think it will ever end, but it might slow to a snail's pace if the U.S. is willing to sacrifice now to fix the mess we made in the past. If we can stabilize the middle east, we might just reverse some of the hatred we created. Its worth the risks from my point of view. I don't want to live in fear, or have to send my children off to fight in a land of hatred where WMD may be used against them.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember how much it cared about stability once the Soviets moved out. All the help the Afghans were getting up to that point just stopped. "Stability" means simply enough control of the country to make sure another movement which oposes the US does not flourish.<span id='postcolor'>

How were they supposed to tell if the Taliban was going to be a stable government or not? They got the soviets out which was our objective, then the Taliban took control. If they took control from the Taliban in the 1980's then you'd be in here complaining about how the U.S. steals government control from innocent muslim fundamentalists.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember how much it cared about stability once the Soviets moved out. All the help the Afghans were getting up to that point just stopped. "Stability" means simply enough control of the country to make sure another movement which oposes the US does not flourish.<span id='postcolor'>

How were they supposed to tell if the Taliban was going to be a stable government or not? They got the soviets out which was our objective, then the Taliban took control. If they took control from the Taliban in the 1980's then you'd be in here complaining about how the U.S. steals government control from innocent muslim fundamentalists. <span id='postcolor'>

should I or shouldn't I? Ok, sure, i bite, I'll answer. I'm not suggesting the US should have interfeered in any way with the actual government there. All I'm saying is, after encouraging a bloody war, providing billions in weapons and certain "training" that eventually came back to haunt you, you may want to consider providing some humanitarian aid at the end and some help in rebuilding a war torn country. Not just "we're done with you now, good luck sorting this out"

[FSPilot 0]

You do know the operations in Afghanistan were a covert operation, right? Large amounts of people weren't supposed to know about what was going on. They couldn't of spent a lot of time rebuilding the country because their influence would of been recognized by other countries.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 13 2002,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 14 2002,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's just that USSR went down, and now that US remains, everyone wants to get a piece of US. when US goes down, i'm pretty sure someone is going to take US's place and be exactly same as US, and is from one of those countries that criticized US. <span id='postcolor'>

I would more put it like this: All countries have moronic leadership and humans in general are a stupid breed. It just happens that USA is in a powerful position and can actually go through with the ideas that the moron leaders come up with and the stupid people follow <span id='postcolor'>

Haha, what is that? Denoir have you been drinking alot?

very funny and honest interpretation for sure, thanks

EDIT: Me sittu, hadis

[FSPilot 0]

That's actually probably the most truthful thing I've seen on this thread.

Behold the wonders of alcohol!

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that being from Cuba and seeing how nasty US foreign policy can get, I can understand why they find your military presence there offensive. Make no mistake, the WTC attacks sickened me, but US foreign policy is simply trampling on too many people.<span id='postcolor'>

I've already conceded that our foreign policy is the "cause" of the WTC and other attacks.  My point is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE cause.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forgive me for not believing the US cares all that much about stability in Afghanistan. I remember how much it cared about stability once the Soviets moved out. All the help the Afghans were getting up to that point just stopped. "Stability" means simply enough control of the country to make sure another movement which oposes the US does not flourish.<span id='postcolor'>

"Stability" means that one half of a country is not trying to kill the other half.  It means that mothers and babies don't routinely die during childbirth.  It means children can walk around without getting their legs blown off by landmines.  Etc., etc.  Being a closet optimist, I hope we've learned a lesson from ignoring Afghanistan the first time.  I can't blame you for being skeptical, but I can give you some fairly convincing examples of how we have helped former enemies given the opportunity.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It does if the US foreign policy over there is anything like it was/is in South America.<span id='postcolor'>

Not even close.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell you what, I'll come over to your house packing all sorts of weapons and say "I'm gonna live in that room and I'll pay you $20 a year in rent. <span id='postcolor'>

Cash?  DEAL!  Basic cable, and you get one shelf in the refrigerator.  No loud music.

Semper Fi

   

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You do know the operations in Afghanistan were a covert operation, right? Large amounts of people weren't supposed to know about what was going on. They couldn't of spent a lot of time rebuilding the country because their influence would of been recognized by other countries.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL Yep, Big secret......the Afghanis just suddenly developped Stingers....uh-huh....Believe you me, everyone knew what was going on, and after the Soviet union broke up even more so. So why didn't the US step in to help then, only a couple of years after the war? bit late, but they could have used the excuse you gave...why?....because they were done with Afghanistan...Just another godforsaken war torn country of no significance.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Dec. 14 2002,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've already conceded that our foreign policy is the "cause" of the WTC and other attacks. My point is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE cause.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey I agree, but you know it was the cause....so....you know it has caused suffering for people across the world before, you joke about my analogy about the $20 a year in rent and the Guantanamo issue, but even you must see that isn't just....so do you truly want to fix it the problem? You want to prevent terrorism? Start there, with your foreign policy. Try to be more considerate of countries who's government your government dosen't happen to find convenient.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL Yep, Big secret......the Afghanis just suddenly developped Stingers....uh-huh....Believe you me, everyone knew what was going on, and after the Soviet union broke up even more so. So why didn't the US step in to help then, only a couple of years after the war? bit late, but they could have used the excuse you gave...why?....because they were done with Afghanistan...Just another godforsaken war torn country of no significance.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, just like everyone knows that Iraq has WMDs now, right?

And no, we still wouldn't of stepped in.  Why?  Because they probably just didn't need our help.  I don't even think they needed our help after 09/11.  The only thing wrong with them was that they were almost nazi-ish with their religion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try to be more considerate of countries who's government your government dosen't happen to find convenient.<span id='postcolor'>

Cuba?  Russia's old nuclear missile storage facility?  Our communist neighbors?  Do you really expect the U.S. to make friends with a country who's political system we've sworn against?  Please...

And that really is the thing about terrorism, it doesn't belong to a specific country.  Afghanistan didn't attack us on September the 11th, neither did the Taliban, Al Queda did, Osama Bin Laden did.  You can't possibly expect the U.S. to bend over backwards and sacrifice itself to try to make every single person in the world happy.  It's just not going to happen.

[ralphwiggum 6]

here's what i reiterate at this point.

if US doesn't get involved, world bitches. if US does get involved they still bitch.

Afghan: Afghanis wanted to kick Soviet's butt. so they got help from US. is that wrong? maybe Afghans should have let USSR rule them and they would be happy. and when US left as soon as Soviets did, was that wrong? if US stayed, that would be deemed as 'The Great Satan is forcing itself on us.' For once US stayed away, and it lets Taliban do whatever they want, and when US went in after 9-11, world bitches. did rest of the world give any consideration to Afghanistan before 9-11? any aid of considerable size?

one thing is about the cause of 9-11. it caused some twisted mind to think that they are divinely right to attack civilians. with their logic, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start another fanatical religious war. heck send Rush Limbaugh out! he'll scare the lights out of Osama with his manly posture!

so here is the problem. everyone who scrutnizes US' s policy usually ask for some absolute righteousness in US's action. however do they do that? seldom. French gov't. they are not opposing war on Iraq because of their consciousness, but because of their oil profit. they heavily invested in Iraq at the moment and they don't want to loose it. I'm pretty sure first thing French gov't will do when war happens(hope not) is ask US for a slack in thir investment. they will protest US's action, but in the back alley deal, they will try to protect their money, not Iraqi civilians.

another thing that world is denying in themselves is that they are not doing becuase it's completely "US is wrong and they are right", but it's because they masturbate by being something that goes against what is percieved to be a dominant force in world-US.

did anyone of countries that oppose US's current politics do effective measure? UN was unable to send it's inspectors back in until recently. it's only when US does something, that anti-US ppl stand up, and during the time that there is hardly any one, they usually don't do a thing that will set the precedent of what should be done.

it's always easier to criticize, but it's harder to set a standard. US is by no means a good standard setter, but neither is rest of the world.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,07:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey I agree, but you know it was the cause....so....you know it has caused suffering for people across the world before, <snip> so do you truly want to fix it the problem?  You want to prevent terrorism? Start there, with your foreign policy. Try to be more considerate of countries who's government your government dosen't happen to find convenient.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think I'm getting my point across.  Our physical presence in the Middle East has in fact prevented suffering.  (At least from the Kuwaiti standpoint -- I'm sure the Iraqis disagree, but there's a price to be paid for aggression.)  AQ does not attack us because we oppress people, or because of our screw-ups in South America.  They attack us because under their twisted perversion of Islam, our MERE PRESENCE is an affront.  We're "infidels," so we're fair game.  This is not a "cause" and it is not a "reason."  It is an excuse, and it is NOT based on politics.

With fanatics like AQ, there is NOTHING we can do that will prevent their attack attempts.  Why?  Because to their way of thinking, the problem is not our political viewpoint, or our history of dealing with other countries.  The problem, quite simply, is THAT WE EXIST.

Buenos noches, y

Semper Fi

[DarkLight 0]

Will anyone please answer my fucking question?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 14 2002,14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Will anyone please answer my fucking question?<span id='postcolor'>

there is one word in this phrase that has no direct grammatical use!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,01:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You do know the operations in Afghanistan were a covert operation, right? Large amounts of people weren't supposed to know about what was going on. They couldn't of spent a lot of time rebuilding the country because their influence would of been recognized by other countries.<span id='postcolor'>

Look I'm talking to a brick wall again.

You continue to think that "top secret" or "covert" gives your government some special rights... I know exactly what classified, secret, top secret, covert etc. is, and let me tell you by example

WE DON'T WANT TO SAY.

this is equivalent to a person saying

I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU.

it is nothing god damn special, just an organization deciding it will not disclose information for it's own good.

I am pissed at you pilot because you want to accept the U.S. + British claim of WMD in Iraq without proof just because they flash a term at you like "top secret". Yet you don't want to even pursue my hint of Iraqi families getting personal weapons from the Iraqi government when I do not disclose my information source, which could be "top secret" to me. (which it is not, and I am not acting nor insisting on this information)

You have to start treating large organizations/governments as a single entity, like a single person, because that is how they represent themselves.

You are full of double standards pilot, I belive you need to change, even if you don't yet.

[hugo2020 0]

do you know that link? It is a new office for homeland security.

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/

Same cooperate identity as the iluminates ^^

Big brother is watching you, and the $$ is rolling for the home economy....and be always and everywhere afraid against terror.