lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Should the US leave Iraq?
Yes 3 37.50%
No 2 25.00%
Other - read post 3 37.50%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Vacating Hell: Iraq
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-11-2007, 05:27 PM   #41
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
I am beginning to think about it this way:

Have our troops leave Iraq. Why? If the Iraqis want freedom and stability, they will fight for it when under pressure. If they do not want freedom, that is not my problem. I do not think we should die for a country where people do not fight for themselves. Living in the United States gives me a unique perspective. If you look at US history, you will find that our freedom comes from a wanting. We desired certain freedoms that Europe did not want to give us, so we came to a new world. Once we started to become stabble, British military tired to take our freedoms away. Since we desired our freedom and liberties, we picked up arms and started to fight.

If we stay in Iraq for too much longer, the Iraqi people will not pick up arms. They need to stand on their own two feet, they need to fall, and then they need to rise for their own freedoms and liberties. If they cannot do this on their own, that is their own problem. Period.
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-12-2007, 08:18 AM   #42
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkecho05
And what exactly have you done that this issue makes it your problem? mm? because you're an American?
I'm Canadian. This falls under the fallacy of Guilt by Association (you're the enemy because you're American), Converse Accident (you generalise that Americans think this way), Complex Question (generalising that being American makes one personally responsible) and an attempt of Poisoning the Well (his view isn't valid because he's American.) Using your logic should we put the blame for deaths in Iraq on all Muslims because Iraqi, Suuni, Shi'ite and Al Qaeda terrorists are having at it? If not you are also guilty of Special Pleading, dressing yourself up to appear that you are not to be subjected to the judgement you level at others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkecho05
I've my roots in Iraq, which makes me an Iraqi.
But your profile says you're from Sweedan, which makes this Non Sequiter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkecho05
I've read in so many posts all around the web...
:snip:

Unless you can back up these quotes with conclusive evidence this is Ad Hominem as well as a Strawman. Throw in Special Pleading as well because it would seem you believe it is alright for it to be done to Amercan soldiers (which is false) and not the other way around, for American soldiers to do it (even falser).

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkecho05
So hey, American, your people caused this mess, now they will fix it.
This moves away from debating the topic and instead levels the attack at the person, Ad Hominem. It is also Questionable Cause (the uprising of violence occured when Saddam was ousted from power, so therefore America must be held responsible rather than Sunnis Shi'ites and Al Qaeda), and Guilt by Association (blaming any American for Bush's decision to invade Iraq and the soldiers fighting for him).

And I hope the mods don't think this is overstepping the line but given your last statement I feel it nessecary. The worldwide forces against terrorism; which is what you have stated to become, a terrorist, are second to none. From America's Special Operations Force Detatchment Delta to Canada's Joint Task Force, from Great Britain's Special Air Service to Germany's Grenzschutzgruppe 9, from Russia's Spetznaz to Israel's Isayeret, their lives and their goals are centred on the hunting down and killing of terrorists, who you have said that you want to become. I happen to know quite a bit about the GSG-9 as well as the Army Rangers, including what they do to terrorists, both the tactics used to kill them and what happens to those they capture. Picture 24 or the Punisher for a taste of what to expect if you do follow through with your desire to become a terrorist. So with that in mind, I am begging you to join up with them. I'm just saddened that I wouldn't get the chance to see you captured alive, if you're lucky. Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to what I would do to people with the opinions and the attitude you have displayed here.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-12-2007, 02:49 PM   #43
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkecho05
If they do not want freedom, that is not my problem.

And what exactly have you done that this issue makes it your problem? mm? because you're an American? Haha!!! I've my roots in Iraq, which makes me an Iraqi. I've read in so many posts all around the web...

American ex.soldier1: OH YEAH, HAVE YOU TO SERVED IN IRAQ?! IT WAS AWESOME! I KILLED 20 PEOPLE, DUNNO IF THEY WHERE CIVILIANS BECAUSE THEY ALL LOOK A LIKE!

American ex.soldier2: HELL YEAH MOFO!!! KILL EM ALL!

American ex.soldier: I KILLED A 14 YEAR OLDS FAMILY AND THEN I RAPED HER, AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS COURT MARTIAL.

Can't you see? are you blind? people go to Iraq for only one reason, to kill and gain some war experience.

Journalist: Is it true that Saddam hussein has nuclear weapons?

George.W.B: eh.. Yes!! (No, i just want a reason to invade Iraq and take their OIL) .. Yes, they have nuclear weapons and we will proceed with operation "Iraqi Freedom"

So hey, American, your people caused this mess, now they will fix it.

P.S this thread only make me hate Americans even more, maybe I'll join the fanatics and come cut your ****ing head off and show it in public television standing next to Usama bin ladin, i bet your FAMILY would be devastated.
You are an interesting fellow. I am not going to start with what you have just done wrong. I do suggest that you should be more civil in the future. I personally do not hate Iraqis, but I do think they should fight their own wars.

Well, welcome to the forums.
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2007, 07:49 PM   #44
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Ah, the Iraq-related threads always seem to pop up, don't they. That's a good thing, the issue needs to be discussed.

There is an assumption routinely made that we (the US and UK) are doing more good than harm by remaining in Iraq. Sadly, this is an assumption without basis in fact, as far as I can tell.

We are of course a focus for violence in Iraq. Those Iraqis who collaborate with our puppet Iraqi government become the targets of extremists, and our presence as an occupying invading force provides a great deal of political ammunition to those who wish to incite violence against those targets.

The fact is that we immorally butchered Iraq. Not merely in this most recent illegal invasion, but over years and years with bombings, economic sanctions and wars. Our presence in Iraq is always going to be a thorn in the side of peace.

Add to this the fact that we provide little or no security for Iraqis even in the tiny "green zone" where we hold the most sway, and frankly the conclusion is obvious. We are doing more harm than good through our presence as an occupying force. We're not stopping violence, we're creating violence. We're not providing security for the Iraqi people, we're endangering them. Therefore we should leave.

Of course, though interesting, this is all moot. The Iraqi people don't want us there as an occupying force, according to polls conducted by our own governments from 2004 to 2006. And since the Iraqi people are the victims... OUR victims, THEIR wishes should be honoured. We have no right to make this decision, end of story. Just end of story.

Does a man who invades your home have the right to decide whether to stay or leave? Of course he doesn't. We don't have that right either.

I'd like to vote in the thread poll too, but the options don't make any sense.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2007, 08:11 PM   #45
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL

I'd like to vote in the thread poll too, but the options don't make any sense.
You always got a smartass comment to say don't you.
Your arrogance will be your undoing.
The options do make sense, there just stated in my special flavor.

You have no sense of humor.
Do you ?
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2007, 09:15 PM   #46
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Actually I am inclined to agree with Spider Al, Windu. I myself have not voted because I honestly don't understand the poll.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2007, 09:41 PM   #47
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Actually I am inclined to agree with Spider Al, Windu. I myself have not voted because I honestly don't understand the poll.
Ok, ET I will make clear.

Option 1: al-Qaida wipes us out; some people believe that if we leave Iraq too soon al-Qaida will become more sucessful lanching attacks in the U.S.
Option 2: A genocide will occur in Iraq, beacause of sectarian violence geting way to out of hand.

Option 3: Or, we live happily ever after; No negative result will occur or the Iraqis will get on the ball and take control of their country's future.

Is that more clear now, ET ?

But Spider is still a arrogant pesk, I know you have notice that.
Unless you and him are friends.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2007, 09:56 PM   #48
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
What's a pesk?

Speaking purely for myself, I thank windu for his enhanced version of the poll options, but I don't think any of them reflect the reality in Iraq.

The fact is that we've decimated the country, if we leave it'll still be decimated, but a major focus for violence will have been removed. As for "al qaida", they aren't responsible for the vast majority of the violence in Iraq and there's no reason to suspect that their negligible influence will increase in any meaningful way if we leave. In fact, it might increase if we stay. And there's definitely no happy ending on the cards for the Iraqi people. We've ruined their nation. Now we should leave them to determine their own future without our hindrance.

So I can't very well vote in the poll. Shame.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2007, 12:58 AM   #49
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
I've taken the liberty of fixing the poll. It's rather clear and simple now. Everyone who voted should be able to revote.

windu6, here's some advice. Try to be clearer in your posts and polls. I can barely understand half of what you say as it is.

And let's all refrain from calling each other names. This is a serious forum and discussion.

Edit: And the poll is actually fixed this time. Now you can revote.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2007, 01:03 AM   #50
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
That rocks. Have voted.

It's worth pointing out that leaving Iraq completely and never looking back is not an option that myself or other dissidents generally favour.

I am in favour of removing the occupying force but... maintaining many advisors (some would quite possibly be military) to assist the Iraqi people, WHATEVER their decisions regarding the US puppet government. I'm also in favour of pumping a great deal of cash into the country. So I have voted "other" in order to be totally clear.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2007, 01:48 PM   #51
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
No I don't (Prime), and yes I could (Nancy).

Perhaps our next President will have a new Plan for Iraq that will actually work, I don't know. But right now, I don't see much of a point in staying there. I guess the oil could be a reason, but I wouldn't fuss if we lost it.

As I mentioned before, our staying or leaving will make no difference to the region. People are still going to be killed, kidnapped, raped, bombed, ect. It's the frickin' Middle East. By pulling out we'll save money, and no more of our soldiers will be killed.

Just curious, but would it be fair to say you think we should w/drawl from the Balkans and that we should stay out of Darfur (assuming anyone ever really wades into that mess)? You sound like a bit of an isolationist and was just wondering if that's the case.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2007, 01:33 PM   #52
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Isolationism would be a preferable attitude for the US (and all nations) to take... At least compared to their current position.

International intervention is practically always self-interested in nature. The US and UK for instance do not interfere in the affairs of other countries unless they can gain something from that interference.

The number of instances in history where a nation has sent troops into another country for altruistic reasons can literally be counted on one hand.

Therefore, while being BENEVOLENT would be optimally moral... being isolationist would certainly be an improvement, since we are effectively malevolent, currently.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2007, 02:50 PM   #53
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Just curious, but would it be fair to say you think we should w/drawl from the Balkans and that we should stay out of Darfur (assuming anyone ever really wades into that mess)? You sound like a bit of an isolationist and was just wondering if that's the case.
I guess you could say I'm isolationist. I'd rather the US was self-sufficient and kept to itself. A "Prime Directive" of sorts, leave everyone the heck alone. But, of course, we rely on other countries for all of our luxeries and oil. So my viewpoint is rather futile.


Africa is probably worse than Iraq, and it's the same deal. The stuff that goes down over there will not stop. The moment we leave, the problem will resume. I'd rather not waste resources and lives in a futile attempt.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2007, 08:00 PM   #54
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
I'd have to say I'm pretty much in agreement with your sentiment. Autarky would be an optimal situation. Economic self-sufficiency and a strong defense would be quite ideal.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2007, 01:36 AM   #55
Heavyarms
The Buckeye Maneater!!!
 
Heavyarms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: America, the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave!
Posts: 2,473
Ooh, an Iraq thread. I remember when the war started and we had debates. Oh, and hi Rogue15. I'm apparently back from the dead...

The United States can never be isolationist. For one, it would damage our economy irreparably if we did that and we'd fall on our faces and take at least several dozen countries with us. Two, September 11 showed us, or at least me, that even if we try our best to stay out of some peoples' business they'll still want to kill us, so we need to be proactive. I'm always a lead-by-example kinda guy, anyway.

That being said, Iraq's been an interesting country over the last several years. I do think the President has screwed up in places, I think we shoulda had more troops in there like McCain thought. It might have stopped this from the start.

But it didn't. And here we are. As for your comments Spider, I think about it this way: The U.S. Army can in the end not guarantee anyone's safety. Your local police department can't do that either. What good security requires is helpful citizens and residents to stop the bombings, shootings, and kidnappings. I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. Bush made his mistakes and stuff. But the Iraqi government (which was elected by the iraqi people, and is not a puppet government) can't get its own sorry collective butts together and make progress. Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble. That has to change, but the people have to want it to.

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference. I think they are maybe coming around now. But time will tell. I think part of the blame is the government didn't take a broader approach to fixing the problem besides the military one. People seem fixated on the troops and the body counts. Please don't take it the wrong way because every death is another tear from the U.S.A., but that is not the primary concern.

I understand what the dems want, which is pressure on the Iraqi government. I don't think we should do that by removing troops, it should be by cutting aid. In the long run, that gets everyone to shape up, when they don't get the $$.

Ok, that's enough for now. Big post!


Proud to be an American.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke
Heavyarms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2007, 08:03 AM   #56
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Don't forget that a large part of the blames lies with the Sunni's warring with the Shi'ites, insurgents trying to drive the invaders out and Al Qaeda who have travelled there to kill Americans as well.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2007, 08:38 AM   #57
Vaelastraz
Veteran
 
Vaelastraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: City 17. It's safer.
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference. I think they are maybe coming around now. But time will tell. I think part of the blame is the government didn't take a broader approach to fixing the problem besides the military one. People seem fixated on the troops and the body counts. Please don't take it the wrong way because every death is another tear from the U.S.A., but that is not the primary concern.
I think you can't blame the Iraqi for not instantly adopting to our western democracy. The development of democracy in the western world was a result from many things...it was a slow process until it reached what we know today.

The middle east never went through a comparable development, and therefore you can't expect them to embrace the system of government we forced on them within a day..

For me it's hard to imagine that someone would not want democracy and personal freedom, but if you're raised in one form of government (dictatorship), wouldn't you hesitate to accept a "new" system too?
Vaelastraz is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2007, 01:26 PM   #58
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Ooh, an Iraq thread. I remember when the war started and we had debates. Oh, and hi Rogue15. I'm apparently back from the dead...
Hahaha, hello there Rogue, welcome back. Did you forget your password? You never used to post this much text, either. What have you done with the real Rogue15?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
The United States can never be isolationist. For one, it would damage our economy irreparably if we did that and we'd fall on our faces and take at least several dozen countries with us.
The US might indeed suffer from an economically isolationist policy (though you're incorrect regarding "several dozen countries" following the US down the pan, that would seem to be a vast overestimate of America's worth on the world stage) but that doesn't mean that the US couldn't follow a militarily isolationist policy. And that would, as stated before, be morally superior to their current policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Two, September 11 showed us, or at least me, that even if we try our best to stay out of some peoples' business they'll still want to kill us, so we need to be proactive.
Actually Rogue, if you do a little research on the subject, (and I do mean only a little research,) you'll find instantly that the stated motive for the 9/11 attacks (stated by the US government, the 9/11 commission AND al-qaeda) was that it was retaliation against perceived injustices caused by US foreign policy.

So it wasn't a case of "The US was minding its own business and was then attacked", it was a case of: The US was acting as an oppressive imperialist power worldwide, some people didn't like it, and so they decided to resort to acts of immoral terrorism.

Attacks on civilians are always immoral, there's no debate about that. But to say that there was no REASON for the attacks is abject nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
As for your comments Spider, I think about it this way: The U.S. Army can in the end not guarantee anyone's safety. Your local police department can't do that either. What good security requires is helpful citizens and residents to stop the bombings, shootings, and kidnappings.
Rubbish. It is nothing to do with "guaranteeing anyone's safety". It's to do with providing basic security to the Iraqi people.

If you want to discuss the relationship with Iraqi people, fine. Since the US and UK invaded Iraq illegally and immorally, it's OUR responsibility to engage with the Iraqi people and provide security, help and support to the public. It's OUR responsibility to endear ourselves to Iraqis, not the other way around. We have not done so. That's not the Iraqi public's fault, it's our fault. We're an invading force. It's not their responsibility to "like us" or to work with us.

Secondly, you're sitting there quibbling over WHY we aren't providing security to the Iraqi people. But that's hardly the overarching point. The point is that we AREN'T providing security. You can blame that on innocent Iraqis if you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that we aren't doing very much good there. Hence, my earlier point stands, we should leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. Bush made his mistakes and stuff. But the Iraqi government (which was elected by the iraqi people, and is not a puppet government) can't get its own sorry collective butts together and make progress. Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble. That has to change, but the people have to want it to.
1. Bush didn't make any mistakes, except when reading from his autocue. Bush had little to do with it, he's a figurehead. It's doubtful that he has any meaningful impact on US national policy.

2. You say the Iraqi government was democratically elected by the Iraqi people? The list of candidates was vetted by the US. (And anyone the US didn't like was prevented from standing). The Iraqi people had no advance knowledge of who they were voting for (and therefore had no idea of the candidates stances on any issues) and much of the Iraqi populace was either too resentful of US/UK forces to vote in such a sham, or too afraid of violent retaliation to risk voting.

You call that democratic? You call that "elected by the Iraqi people"? That's madness. The only thing one CAN call it, is a US puppet regime. It doesn't even qualify as a proper "government", frankly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble.
Hah! the US picked him, blame them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference.
Once again you foist blame onto the Iraqi people. But they weren't to blame for:
  1. US support, funding and arming of Saddam, the brutal dictator and his brutal regime during the eighties, support that cost the Iraqi people their lives and infrastructure
  2. The decades of economic sanctions that crippled the Iraqi people and made them even more dependent on Saddam, the brutal dictator and his brutal regime, meaning that the Iraqis were incapable of overthrowing his government
  3. The US policy that drew Iraq into Kuwait, in the early nineties, causing the first Gulf War, which further impoverished the Iraqi people and caused the deaths of civilians and soldiers on both sides
  4. The repeated bombings of Baghdad that further butchered an already ailing people
  5. The recent illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and UK, which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has destroyed what little was left of Iraq's national infrastructure
  6. The continued occupation of Iraq which acts as a focus for violence and will undoubtedly lead to more pointless death and destruction.

So what exactly ARE you blaming the Iraqi people for? It seems to me as if the US and the UK have the whole "culpability" thing sewn up.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2007, 08:53 PM   #59
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
And the added problem with bringing democracy to the Middle East is their strong beliefs, possibly stronger than anything in the west. People are killed for not following Islam over there, neither through peace or war are their beliefs going to be easily solved.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2007, 08:12 AM   #60
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
First of all Nancy, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "bringing democracy" to the middle east. It was never our governments' intention to install democracy in Iraq. It was their intention to install a friendly regime, a puppet regime.

Also, we don't have a functioning democracy in OUR OWN nations, so there's little likelihood of giving it to anyone else.

Secondly, before we blundered in, Iraq was one of the most secular, non-religious societies in the region. Saddam's regime had removed Islam from the criminal court system, for instance. And Sunni and Shia were cohabiting with a remarkable degree of non-violence. Religion is a problem wherever you find it, but Iraq? Iraq was remarkably secular.

So sitting around blaming Islam for our inability to pacify the state we illegally invaded is ridiculous. The reason we haven't brought peace to Iraq is threefold:

1. Our governments were never interested in bringing "peace" or "democracy" to Iraq in the first place.
2. We never put enough money into Iraq to rebuild it, and corrupt US officials essentially squandered what little cash we DID put into Iraq.
3. When you invade a country and act as an occupying force of invaders... the people aren't going to like it. Some of them will attack you. It's obvious.

These are some of the reasons that people like myself opposed the war from the get-go. These were all predictable consequences of the illegal invasion.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2007, 03:55 PM   #61
Heavyarms
The Buckeye Maneater!!!
 
Heavyarms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: America, the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave!
Posts: 2,473
First off, I am not Rogue15. I just said hi.

This isn't meant to flame, but you really sound like one of those secular-progressive socialists, Spider.

Lemme try to respond to several posts now...

There has never been any resolution from anyone in writing as far as I know stating that the invasion of Iraq is illegal. If you believe it is illegal, please find some evidence that states it as illegal. Did we invade and learn that the intelligence was wrong? Yes. Did we invade and have no exit strategy: yes. Was the invasion illegal? No. Did we invade for oil and prop up American oil companies? No.

Please also define oppressive imperialism. I don't see the U.S. annexing anyone for their own personal benefit. We did several interventions in locations that showed that we were paper tigers and could be attacked, like Beirut in 1983, Iraq in 1991 and Mogadishu in 1993, and Bosnia, and unwilling to intervene in really disgusting areas like Rwanda.

And if the President doesn't set national policy, who does? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? "The Man?" In the end, the buck stops with the President. He's responsible. He's the elected official, as well as the VP. It's their responsibility.

And I don't know much about corrupt bargains in Iraq, I'm assuming you mean the Halliburton thing. Definitely wasn't a great idea, but we still are sending aid to Iraq.

Okay, the United States did not pick the government. Maliki was not picked by the United States. IF he was, you need some evidence to back that up. The Sunnis boycotted the election, that's their problem. The point is there was a free and open election, and intimidation and violence was very low during that time. You at points like to give the U.S. every reason for wrongs, including everything bad Saddam did and that we absolutely destroyed the Iraqi people when Saddam did a much worse job. He's a bad guy. You realize if he wasn't there, a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably. I see what we did was effective policy tools. Sanctions are designed to change a leader's policies.

My problem with the Iraqi people now is they don't want to help the American forces, whether or not they are an occupying force. They do realize if they help the country be secure the occupying force leaves sooner.

So, my question to you spider, is what should we have done? Iraq was a problem at the time. What should we have done to solve the problem before the war, with intelligence (that turned out incorrect, but was believed true by the entire world community for the most part) that says they have WMDs present. What'ya going to do?


Proud to be an American.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke
Heavyarms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-25-2007, 07:13 PM   #62
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Killing unarmed people, as Saddam set out to do, sounds mighty close to terrorism. So given the atrocities he committed one would have to be amoral to allow it to happen.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 10:09 PM   #63
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
First off, I am not Rogue15. I just said hi.
Oh, I beg your pardon Heavy, I thought you WERE Rogue15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
This isn't meant to flame, but you really sound like one of those secular-progressive socialists, Spider.
Ah, now I understand why I confused you with Rogue15.

First of all, the fact that you seem to regard the terms "secular" and "socialist" to be negative enough to warrant an "isn't meant to flame" disclaimer... is ludicrous. Because:

1. secularism is a fine, laudable ideal. Keeping religions out of state issues is... well, it's GREAT! After all, organised religion is absolute nonsense, used throughout history as a tool to control people's minds and make them do awful things. Note that the United States was originally envisioned as being governed by an essentially secular administration. Unfortunately over the years some religious power-seekers have gotten their claws into what was once a promising national character and have warped it. "One nation indivisible", anyone?

2. As for socialism, there's nothing particularly negative about socialist ideals. They're certainly as laudable as any other political ideals. Like democracy, it would be nice to see what would happen if socialism was ever employed to any meaningful degree...

As for my own political proclivities, I don't identify myself with any particular political label. If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal. But political labels of this sort have been so debased by misuse over the years (calling the Soviet Union "communist", and the United States either "capitalist" or "democratic" are all good examples of flagrant misuse of political terminology) that they've become essentially meaningless.

My "politics" is merely based on two things: An ongoing attempt to think about the world logically, and some sort of innate desire to ensure the wellbeing of a majority of the world's population. Labelling it any other way would simply be inaccurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
There has never been any resolution from anyone in writing as far as I know stating that the invasion of Iraq is illegal. If you believe it is illegal, please find some evidence that states it as illegal.
I'm happy to provide evidence: It was illegal, because under international law (which the US signed up to) a United Nations resolution is required to approve such an invasion... or it remains illegal.

There is of course one exception defined by the UN charter, that is if a nation is attacked, they can retaliate militarily without first seeking UN approval. Of course this never applied to the United States, as Saddam was no danger even to his neighbors in 2003. Let alone the US.

So it was illegal. By definition. Do you have any cogent response to this undeniable fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Did we invade and learn that the intelligence was wrong? Yes. Did we invade and have no exit strategy: yes. Was the invasion illegal? No. Did we invade for oil and prop up American oil companies? No.
1. My dear Heavyarms, the "intelligence" you're referring to was intentionally fabricated through a process of cherry-picking and outright falsification. We have plenty of evidence from official memoranda and whistle-blowers from inside US/UK administrations to support this (fairly obvious) conclusion.

This is so well known that it's no longer even an issue and yet people like yourself still feel comfortable denying it? That's beyond me, it really is.

Everyone KNEW that Iraq was no danger to anyone. In 2001, representatives of the US government made repeated public statements declaring that they were pretty certain that Saddam's regime had no capacity to seriously harm any other nations in the region, not even with conventional weapons, let alone with WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors confirmed this judgement a little over a year later. Knowing this, can you really expect anyone to believe that the US government was so stupid that it invaded Iraq to find WMDs that everyone (including them) knew did not exist? I certainly don't believe them to be that stupid.

2. As for the exit strategy... I'm sure the US government had plenty of exit strategies in place. Will they be able to use any of them? Time will tell. I'm certain that all the exit strategies rather depend on achieving sufficient "stability" (public quiescence) for a US puppet regime to survive against the populace.

3. Of course the invasion WAS illegal, by definition. As stated before.

4. Did we invade for oil? Well let's ask the question: Why DID we invade? It wasn't to "find WMDs". That's been established. So why invade a backwater, ailing country like Iraq? The most obvious explanation in this case is that Iraq has some of the largest energy reserves in the world, in a world that is rapidly running out of viable energy sources. And it was invaded by a nation that drinks oil like it was Coca-Cola. (tm)

So you tell me. Did we invade so that we could plant a friendly regime in Iraq and thus ensure our consumption of energy for the next few years? Of course we did. There's no other realistic reason on the table, Heavy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Please also define oppressive imperialism. I don't see the U.S. annexing anyone for their own personal benefit.
I'll be happy to define it!.. and you certainly see the US attacking, invading and persecuting MANY nations for its own benefit, by the way.

1. For the past fifty years or so, the US has been constantly expanding its network of entrenched military bases worldwide, often at the cost of the indigenous population of the areas they move into. I could give the Chagos Islands fiasco as a notable (and ongoing) example.

2. Economic imperialism is one aspect of US foreign policy. The threat of economic sanctions is often used as a sort of bludgeon to bring other nations in line. And in fact, US sanctions have probably killed significantly more civilians in Iraq than US bombs have.

3. Thirdly, the US has been funding violent, oppressive regimes that butcher countless people worldwide (The Suharto regime in Indonesia is one good example, Saddam's regime in Iraq is another good example, but of course there are many... MANY more) just because those regimes are ostensibly friendly to the US.

4. Last but not least, the US has been both directly and by proxy invading weak, defenceless nations in amoral attempts to INSTALL (and maintain) such friendly regimes, for the past few decades. Vietnam, various places in South America... Iraq... etcetera.

This is exactly the pattern that previous major imperialist powers followed, the British Empire being a notably similar example. We even invaded the same places using the same propaganda! The parallel with Iraq is bizarrely exact, if you look at the record. So does the US qualify as an oppressive, imperialist power? Of course it does. It oppresses people economically, by proxy AND directly, and with its immense international influence and multiple military garrisons worldwide, it's most definitely an empire. Whether you wish to call it one or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
And if the President doesn't set national policy, who does? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? "The Man?" In the end, the buck stops with the President. He's responsible. He's the elected official, as well as the VP. It's their responsibility.
You seem to have some sort of ingrained urge to believe that one person has to be "the boss". An innate urge to believe that somewhere, if you go high enough up the chain, one middle-aged guy in a leather chair smoking a Cohiba Robusto and stroking a white cat "calls the shots".

It's just not the case, Heavy.

On a national scale, decisions are formed by a massive conglomerate of very slightly varying financial interests, each sensitive to the pressures exerted on them by all the rest. In short, the US has an oligarchic arrangement going on. Decisions are made both consciously and unconsciously by the opulent minority en masse. There's no "one guy". The President, the Vice President... they're just mouthpieces. Spokesmodels. Figureheads. In fact it's arguable that national policy is pre-determined WELL before it gets to the governmental stage.

That's the net effect of our undemocratic system of governance, you see. Or perhaps one could say that our undemocratic system of governance is the effect of natural human weakness en masse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
And I don't know much about corrupt bargains in Iraq, I'm assuming you mean the Halliburton thing. Definitely wasn't a great idea, but we still are sending aid to Iraq.
Very few people who support the US government in its illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq seem to know much about America's corrupt dealings worldwide, Heavy.

In this case I was referring to the nine billion dollars from the reparation fund lost in the shuffle by the American occupation authority (the CPA), under Paul Bremer's administration.

ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/

And as stated in previous threads... We're giving a PALTRY amount of money to Iraq. It's totally insufficient to rebuild what we've destroyed. It took us over fifteen years to bring the country to its knees like this... it's not going to be solved by a pathetic few billion dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
Okay, the United States did not pick the government. Maliki was not picked by the United States. IF he was, you need some evidence to back that up.
Ack! Of course the US "picked" the government! The US vetted the list of candidates prior to the election. By definition, that means they selected those that could run. Therefore, it was NOT democratic. Secondly, the whole "elections" were a clear violation of the Hague Convention (which the US is signed up to, by the way) which forbids an occupying military force from making any permanent changes to the government of the occupied country.

As for Maliki, the US exerted massive pressure on Jafaari (Maliki's predecessor) to step down as PM. (Presumably because they considered Jaffari to be too pro-Iran.) They (both the US and the UK) then publically approved of Maliki assuming the office, from that day to this. That's about as "picked" as you can get, short of physically lifting the man into the PM's chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
The Sunnis boycotted the election, that's their problem. The point is there was a free and open election, and intimidation and violence was very low during that time.
"Free and open"? A minority of the population voting for candidates selected by an invading force, candidates who in most cases were completely unknown to the voters ANYWAY, because the list of candidates was not released to the Iraqi people before the election... In a nation where half the country was still deep in armed conflict...

Is that what you call "free and open"? That's madness! It was about as far from "free and open" as it was from "democratic". Be serious.

As for the Sunnis... Frankly I'd have boycotted such a sham, such a grim parody of an election, if I were an Iraqi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
You at points like to give the U.S. every reason for wrongs, including everything bad Saddam did and that we absolutely destroyed the Iraqi people when Saddam did a much worse job. He's a bad guy. You realize if he wasn't there, a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably. I see what we did was effective policy tools. Sanctions are designed to change a leader's policies.
I don't understand much of this paragraph, but I'll try to address some points:

1. Yes, Saddam was indeed a "bad guy". He was a bad guy who was funded and armed by the US and UK. He was funded and armed by us because he was killing our ideological enemies (Iranians). Therefore, our states share responsibility for his evil acts. End of story.

2. You say: "If Saddam wasn't there a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably"... And that's nonsense. Do you think there's a shortage of evil people in the world? If it wasn't Saddam heading up the regime, it would have been someone else, and the US and UK would have funded and armed them too, as long as they were fighting OUR ideological enemies, as Saddam's regime was.

3. The sanctions were effective at starving Iraqi civilians, and forcing them to depend on Saddam's regime even more than they depended upon it before. That is ALL they were effective at doing. Such sanctions aren't meant to "change a leader's policies", but to harm innocent civilians in the hope that they'll pressure their leaders into going along with US policies. Therefore, they're immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
My problem with the Iraqi people now is they don't want to help the American forces, whether or not they are an occupying force. They do realize if they help the country be secure the occupying force leaves sooner.
So your problem with Iraqi people is that they're not rushing to help a violent and self-interested occupying power, that invaded their country without cause and without concern for the effect on the civilian population? Yeah, they're an ungrateful bunch, those Iraqis.

And to the US regime, "secure" means "under the control of the US". That wouldn't be in the interest of the Iraqi people either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
So, my question to you spider, is what should we have done? Iraq was a problem at the time. What should we have done to solve the problem before the war, with intelligence (that turned out incorrect, but was believed true by the entire world community for the most part) that says they have WMDs present. What'ya going to do?
1. Iraq wasn't a "problem", for its neighbors or for us. So what "problem" are you referring to?

2. The pseudo-intelligence dredged up prior to the illegal invasion wasn't believed to be true by "the entire world community", nor even "for the most part". This is a classic fallacy always squeakily wheeled out in all debates of this type. Almost everyone conceded prior to the invasion that Iraq might have some old fashioned chemical weapons material lying around somewhere. But virtually nobody believed the US/UK lies stating that this possibility constituted a meaningful and imminent threat to anybody, and of course only a minority of countries supported the illegal war. So your assertion is meaningless.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Killing unarmed people, as Saddam set out to do, sounds mighty close to terrorism. So given the atrocities he committed one would have to be amoral to allow it to happen.
Of course it was terrorism! It was terrorism not only allowed, but also essentially funded by the US and UK. We approved of Saddam's evil actions for YEARS, until he fell out of favour with our governments. So are our governments amoral? Of course.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 10:16 PM   #64
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
What about those who still cry that Saddam should have been left alone? It would have been amoral not to take action against him.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 10:31 PM   #65
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Excuse the double post, since when has America supported the killing of innocents? Can you provide one example of an American approved mission? Just one? Just one time they had set groups such as the Taliban not against the invading Soviet forces but against defenceless civillians? Just one shred of evidence, that's all I'm asking. Some secret docuement, some stolen covert operations profile, anything.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 10:51 PM   #66
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
What about those who still cry that Saddam should have been left alone? It would have been amoral not to take action against him.
It would have been perfectly moral to pursue peaceful, political action against Saddam. There were plenty of options of this type.

It was IMMORAL to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as we did! End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Excuse the double post, since when has America supported the killing of innocents? Can you provide one example of an American approved mission? Just one? Just one time they had set groups such as the Taliban not against the invading Soviet forces but against defenceless civillians? Just one shred of evidence, that's all I'm asking. Some secret docuement, some stolen covert operations profile, anything.
I can give you two examples just off the top of my head, without doing any research.

US direct training of, and massive financial support for the Salvadorian death squads, responsible for the assassinations of civilians and human rights activists in the 1980's... Because the death squads purported to be "anti-communist".

And of course the decades-long US political support of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, a regime that butchered the people of East Timor. The US armed and supported the Suharto regime before, during and after the genocide, once again for oil interests.

Go and google 'em. Most depressing reading.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 11:00 PM   #67
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. We tried for a decade peaceful political barganing with Saddam. You suffer from the delusion that Saddam is an innocent party.

I did search for them on Google and it says they killed political dissidents, but nowhere does it say that America set them out to kill them. And even if some group is armed to fight, such as Saddam against the Soviets, and they kill innocents, it's deluded to say that the people armed with the weapons are not to blame but America is.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 11:08 PM   #68
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
We tried for a decade peaceful political barganing with Saddam.
No Nancy, we didn't. We starved and bombed the Iraqi people for over a decade, that's what we did. Peaceful negotiation was never employed in any meaningful way.

Quote:
You suffer from the delusion that Saddam is an innocent party.
Uh?...

Go and get me one single quote where I even IMPLY that Saddam was in any way innocent. You will not find one. End of line.

Quote:
I did search for them on Google and it says they killed political dissidents, but nowhere does it say that America set them out to kill them.
Well go and search again, because you've clearly missed a whole lotta pages there. The "School of the Americas" was essentially set up to train people to go and kill "commies" or any other ideological enemy of the US government. It's famous for it.

Quote:
And even if some group is armed to fight, such as Saddam against the Soviets, and they kill innocents, it's deluded to say that the people armed with the weapons are not to blame but America is.
Er... Go and find a post in which I've said that "they're not to blame but America is". I never have.

It's obvious that BOTH the gunman AND the man who armed him are to blame. Therefore, both the US, the UK and Saddam's regime share the blame for the regime's atrocities.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 11:17 PM   #69
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Do we blame the inventor of the handgun for murder? Gerald Ford for vehicler homicide? The man who cut down the tree that made the paper for a book on bombs for suicide bombings? Where does accountability end?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2007, 11:21 PM   #70
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
We blame the man who sees a gunman taking aim at innocent people, and then runs up and gives him an even more expensive gun.

That's like Saddam and the US/UK. The US/UK had no illusions about what Saddam was doing. They gave him weapons and cash because it was in their interests to do so. And that's immoral, and they share the blame for the evil acts they facilitated.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 03:27 AM   #71
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa
If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal.
And vice versa, no doubt....

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa
It would have been perfectly moral to pursue peaceful, political action against Saddam. There were plenty of options of this type.
What EFFECTIVE means did you exactly have in mind?
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 12:53 PM   #72
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
And vice versa, no doubt....
Ummm... No, highly doubtful.

Quote:
What EFFECTIVE means did you exactly have in mind?
What would have been the most effective means of freeing the Iraqi people? Why, peaceful political support, of course. The cessation of crippling sanctions that made Iraqis dependant on Saddam's regime would have been a good start. Then perhaps increased financial & political support for popular movements in Iraq.

Brutal dictators have been overthrown by their own people all over the world, when those people had a decent chance. It could have happened in Iraq, if the Iraqi people were given a chance by the US/UK. Starved, bombed and with their infrastructure crippled by the US/UK, they never were given that chance.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 01:13 PM   #73
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Unfortunately, al, you're long on generalizations and short on specifics. It's highly doubtful anything you allege would have realistically worked. Nice try though....
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 01:46 PM   #74
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.

As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more.

So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 02:01 PM   #75
Heavyarms
The Buckeye Maneater!!!
 
Heavyarms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: America, the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave!
Posts: 2,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.

As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more.

So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?
So, if we hadn't done all that, you are saying that Saddam's regime would have fallen on its own? I doubt it. He was way too oppressive and cruel for people to try against it. We supported bad people, yes, and America is not a heaven saint like you're pretty adamant at saying.

There has not been a case of an extremely repressive regime and the people rebelling against him and it succeeding. Or at least I don't know of one off the top of my head. Trust me, the people would have been killed, much like Josef Stalin or Mao Zadong. Josef Stalin's regime didn't collapse until fifty years later and millions died, and that was after Gorbachev was a much weaker leader than Stalin. Look at North Korea. There's a case where his country has pretty much crippled itself, but they aren't getting rid of him. The Nazis weren't overthrown, either.

I understand your dislike of what we did during the cold war at times. I think we made some mistakes, including supporting Saddam. But we're responsible for what we've done, aren't we? And I think sanctions are appropriate tools to correct what we've done. I know why you dislike sanctions, and that's ebcause you believe they hurt the people and not the leader. They hurt the leader, trust me. They usually target items that the leaders want, such as weapons and high luxury goods (like the ones that have been placed on North Korea, as well as other ones). Humanitarian aid is given to the people.


Proud to be an American.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke
Heavyarms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 02:32 PM   #76
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
So, if we hadn't done all that, you are saying that Saddam's regime would have fallen on its own? I doubt it. He was way too oppressive and cruel for people to try against it.
The huge, insurmountable reason his people couldn't try to overthrow him was that they were crippled by our support of Saddam, then our economic sanctions against the Iraqi people, then our bombings. We made them DEPENDENT on him. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
There has not been a case of an extremely repressive regime and the people rebelling against him and it succeeding. Or at least I don't know of one off the top of my head.
Of course there have been cases, many cases in fact. I pointed out two easily memorable ones in the post above yours, so please go back and read more carefully... and then I would advise you to go and learn more about world history from reputable, unbiased sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
I understand your dislike of what we did during the cold war at times. I think we made some mistakes, including supporting Saddam. But we're responsible for what we've done, aren't we?
What do you mean "we're responsible for what we've done"? Since when has ANY US administration taken responsibility for US atrocities committed over the past six decades? Since when has the US provided financial compensation to ANY of its victims at a level proportionate to US crimes?

Nobody's taken responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyarms
And I think sanctions are appropriate tools to correct what we've done. I know why you dislike sanctions, and that's ebcause you believe they hurt the people and not the leader. They hurt the leader, trust me. They usually target items that the leaders want, such as weapons and high luxury goods (like the ones that have been placed on North Korea, as well as other ones). Humanitarian aid is given to the people.
Sigh. No Heavy, they DON'T hurt the leader, they HELP the leader. They make the people destitute and dependent upon the leader. We've SEEN it in action. We don't need hypothetical piffle about how it's an "appropriate tool", we've SEEN what it does to innocent people, we've seen it in Iraq. End of.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 05:05 PM   #77
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.

As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer
nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more. So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?

If you really think this would work you're fairly naive. England couldn't have kept India if it tried. 2 world wars in a quarter century and the rise of a bipolar US-USSR political landscape reduced England to a second rate world power. The Vietnamese kicked the French out of Indochina w/in a decade of WW2 ending, and not with non-violence for that matter. Even had the US/UK not supported SH in any way, there were still the Soviets and French, not to mention SH using Stalinesque tactics to control his regime. It is you that is mistaken. Apples and oranges. Iraq ain't India, it's probably arguable to what extent Suharto wasn't just shoved aside at the upper tiers of power by competitors. A more apt comparison would be NK and Iraq. If KJI can be moved aside by the paradigm you suggest, then that at least would be proof that you weren't indulging in wishful thinking. Still, the rub is that any "peaceful" organization would be given that kind of latitude required for your "non-violent" solution to take hold in thuggish dictatorships. Maybe Venezuela and Cuba should go on your list for non-violent "change".

Also, Hitler wasn't "Hitler" (ie the evil boogeyman of WW2 infamy) prior to 1938. Would have been interesting to see how the world would've turned out if the "give peace a chance in our time" crowd had NOT been in a position to screw up the world through wishful inaction. An ounce of prevention would no doubt have proven more palatable than kilotons of cure. How many might still be alive if Mao and Stalin had been stopped in their tracks? We'll never know, sad to say.....

BTW, "throwing $$ at a problem" is NO solution. I believe you've countlessly brought this up with regard to the current situation in Iraq.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 08:19 PM   #78
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
If you really think this would work you're fairly naive.
But once again, you've failed to provide any cogent reasons why it wouldn't work, Tot. You've just listed a lot of either incorrect or irrelevant things that do not support your assertions. And I'll go through them one by one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
England couldn't have kept India if it tried. 2 world wars in a quarter century and the rise of a bipolar US-USSR political landscape reduced England to a second rate world power.
Yes, England was a weakened power by 1946, but they were still comparitively more effective as an armed force and an international threat than Saddam's regime was following the first Gulf War. Iraqi military resources were positively crippled by decades of war, and the main thing... the MOST important thing keeping the Iraqi people from overthrowing their oppressive government... were US/UK sanctions and bombings. So what's your point? That a dictatorship has to be in a weakened state before people can effectively overthrow it? Perhaps so. But Saddam's regime WAS in a weakened state, throughout the nineties and up until our illegal and immoral invasion, therefore if we hadn't crippled the Iraqi public, they might well have overthrown Saddam.

So this argument hardly benefits you. If anything it benefits me more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The Vietnamese kicked the French out of Indochina w/in a decade of WW2 ending, and not with non-violence for that matter.
And the US promptly began punishing said Vietnamese for such temerity!

But what are you trying to say, that oppressive occupying regimes can be overthrown from within by revolutionary violence? Of course they can. They can also be overthrown by non-violent methods. So which should we be encouraging, funding and striving for? Which is more conducive to peace and the preservation of life... and which is more moral? The latter, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Even had the US/UK not supported SH in any way, there were still the Soviets and French, not to mention SH using Stalinesque tactics to control his regime.
You're attempting to imply that US/UK support for Saddam's atrocities made no meaningful difference... And that's just ludicrous. I mean, really. Take away the political and financial support of the world's number one superpower... and what do you get? A severely weakened dictator.

Furthermore, the fact that others do an immoral thing doesn't make it right, doesn't make it okay, in fact doesn't mitigate it AT ALL... when we also do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It is you that is mistaken. Apples and oranges. Iraq ain't India, it's probably arguable to what extent Suharto wasn't just shoved aside at the upper tiers of power by competitors.
Once again, formless nonsense. You state "Iraq wasn't like India or Indonesia!!" without providing any logical argument to show that the situation in Iraq was such that popular struggle would NOT have overthrown Saddam, had we not bludgeoned the Iraqi people with our sanctions and violence.

As for your comment regarding Suharto, it's just self-serving. Popular struggle brought pressure to bear on his autocratic regime. Without that popular struggle, the same pressure would not have been brought to bear, end of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
A more apt comparison would be NK and Iraq. If KJI can be moved aside by the paradigm you suggest, then that at least would be proof that you weren't indulging in wishful thinking.
Whether Kim Jong Il is deposed by his people or not has ZERO bearing on the uncontested fact that common people can and HAVE overthrown evil dictators in the past. So this statement makes no salient point.

As for your contention that North Korea is comparable to Iraq under Saddam's rule... It's both self-serving and completely incorrect. Iraq's military was so crippled that it was no danger even to its neighbors following years of US bombings and sanctions. North Korea's government DOES still have sufficient military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Which is largely why the US/UK haven't invaded it, methinks. It's not weak and defenceless enough. Yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Still, the rub is that any "peaceful" organization would be given that kind of latitude required for your "non-violent" solution to take hold in thuggish dictatorships.
This makes no sense. Perhaps you're trying to say something about revolutionaries becoming evil dictators when they get into power... but you'll have to clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Maybe Venezuela and Cuba should go on your list for non-violent "change".
Venezuela and Cuba? Hahahah. Cuba's not a bad place to live, despite years of US military, political and financial persecution they have quite a high average standard of living there, certainly one of the highest in the region. Cuba is not the ultimately evil bugbear that Fox news likes to make out.

The US government has always hated Castro's Cuba because, and I quote from a declassified 1964 state department document, Castro: "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." It's that simple. Venezuela's a similar story, not least because of the co-operation between the Chavez and Castro regimes.

Once again Tot, I encourage you to form your opinions using facts, rather than neo-con propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Also, Hitler wasn't "Hitler" (ie the evil boogeyman of WW2 infamy) prior to 1938. Would have been interesting to see how the world would've turned out if the "give peace a chance in our time" crowd had NOT been in a position to screw up the world through wishful inaction. An ounce of prevention would no doubt have proven more palatable than kilotons of cure.
Firstly, it's arguable that Hitler was guilty of boogeyman-esque war crimes when he assisted the Franco regime's massacres during the Spanish "civil war" (read: nazi atrocity exhibition) at least as early as 1937, which I think you'll agree is prior to 1938.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say... are you trying to say that someone should have murdered Hitler when he was much younger, BEFORE he committed any of his crimes? Which is to say... are you implying that people should be punished because they might commit a crime in the future? (which was essentially the stated basis for the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, in fact.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
BTW, "throwing $$ at a problem" is NO solution. I believe you've countlessly brought this up with regard to the current situation in Iraq.
Hmmm. Actually you'll find (if you actually READ any of my posts on Iraq) that I have repeatedly stated that we have NEVER put enough money into the rebuilding of Iraq. "Throwing money at the problem" might at the very least be an interesting change from what we've been doing, which is either "keeping most of the money for ourselves" or "losing quite a lot of the Iraqi people's money."


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 09:51 PM   #79
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
But once again, you've failed to provide any cogent reasons why it wouldn't work, Tot. You've just listed a lot of either incorrect or irrelevant things that do not support your assertions. And I'll go through them one by one.
You haven't said much beyond..If it worked here, there's no reason it couldn't work there. I don't have to prove that it wouldn't work, you have to prove that it would. Just citing what you think COULD happen is a meaningless and empty reply. Also, to quote you, self-serving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Yes, England was a weakened power by 1946, but they were still comparitively more effective as an armed force and an international threat than Saddam's regime was following the first Gulf War. Iraqi military resources were positively crippled by decades of war, and the main thing... the MOST important thing keeping the Iraqi people from overthrowing their oppressive government... were US/UK sanctions and bombings. So what's your point? That a dictatorship has to be in a weakened state before people can effectively overthrow it? Perhaps so. But Saddam's regime WAS in a weakened state, throughout the nineties and up until our illegal and immoral invasion, therefore if we hadn't crippled the Iraqi public, they might well have overthrown Saddam. So this argument hardly benefits you. If anything it benefits me more.
Seriously, al, if this is the best you've got....it might've happened....then you still have nothing. And the argument benefits you only in a fantasy world. Besides, considering that they didn't overthrow SH at the end of the First Gulf War, when they might have had a chance before all those pesky sanctions, your argument is basically bupkiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
And the US promptly began punishing said Vietnamese for such temerity!
Self-serving irrelevancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
But what are you trying to say, that oppressive occupying regimes can be overthrown from within by revolutionary violence? Of course they can. They can also be overthrown by non-violent methods. So which should we be encouraging, funding and striving for? Which is more conducive to peace and the preservation of life... and which is more moral? The latter, of course.
You're sounding a lot like those silly people who say things like communism (for instance) doesn't work because WE (ie the self-deluded purveyors and disciples of the ideology in question) haven't tried it yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
You're attempting to imply that US/UK support for Saddam's atrocities made no meaningful difference... And that's just ludicrous. I mean, really. Take away the political and financial support of the world's number one superpower... and what do you get? A severely weakened dictator.
Furthermore, the fact that others do an immoral thing doesn't make it right, doesn't make it okay, in fact doesn't mitigate it AT ALL... when we also do it.
Once again, you infer things that are not in someone else's statements. I know you've got a bug up your arse about asserting your overbearing sense of morality into every occasion, but quit reaching. To spell it out for you....take the US and GB out of the picture and you still have other powers who benefitted from SH's rule. Given that one of them was a superpower (the USSR, remember them?), it's foolish to assert like you do that SH would have easily been removed from power through the peaceful means that you blather on about constantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Once again, formless nonsense. You state "Iraq wasn't like India or Indonesia!!" without providing any logical argument to show that the situation in Iraq was such that popular struggle would NOT have overthrown Saddam, had we not bludgeoned the Iraqi people with our sanctions and violence.
Just a reminder, al, you're the one making the argument that it could work, but consistently fail to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative, remember. Besides, as you should well know, the middle east is full of dictatorships which are not overthrown by people who haven't been burdened with crippling sanctions. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Whether Kim Jong Il is deposed by his people or not has ZERO bearing on the uncontested fact that common people can and HAVE overthrown evil dictators in the past. So this statement makes no salient point.As for your contention that North Korea is comparable to Iraq under Saddam's rule... It's both self-serving and completely incorrect. Iraq's military was so crippled that it was no danger even to its neighbors following years of US bombings and sanctions. North Korea's government DOES still have sufficient military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Which is largely why the US/UK haven't invaded it, methinks. It's not weak and defenceless enough. Yet.

Yes, apt. Neither SH nor KJI (let alone his father) would have tolerated the interference you advocate allowing to take place. Given that it's easier to fold in the face of intimidation than stand up to it, it's unlikely your pipedream peace activist agenda would have been sown on anything other than rocky soil in either country. The only think self-serving so far has been the deluded contention that peaceful activism will ALWAYS work in the end. END OF STORY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
This makes no sense. Perhaps you're trying to say something about revolutionaries becoming evil dictators when they get into power... but you'll have to clarify.
Way off the mark here (par for the course, as always). I basically addressed this above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Venezuela and Cuba? Hahahah. Cuba's not a bad place to live, despite years of US military, political and financial persecution they have quite a high average standard of living there, certainly one of the highest in the region. Cuba is not the ultimately evil bugbear that Fox news likes to make out.

The US government has always hated Castro's Cuba because, and I quote from a declassified 1964 state department document, Castro: "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." It's that simple. Venezuela's a similar story, not least because of the co-operation between the Chavez and Castro regimes.Once again Tot, I encourage you to form your opinions using facts, rather than neo-con propaganda.
Earth to al......aw nevermind, you're in your own little universe, billions and billions of LYs away. If you think that Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela are great places, then you are deluded (remember, that's just merely a neutral term, so no derision......unless you're willing to concede that you use that term the same way you'll ascribe to me now. ) Frankly, I won't take your word for it, no offense. Your obsession with neo-cons is very telling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -al
Firstly, it's arguable that Hitler was guilty of boogeyman-esque war crimes when he assisted the Franco regime's massacres during the Spanish "civil war" (read: nazi atrocity exhibition) at least as early as 1937, *snarky comment snipped*
Secondly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say... are you trying to say that someone should have murdered Hitler when he was much younger, BEFORE he committed any of his crimes? Which is to say... are you implying that people should be punished because they might commit a crime in the future? (which was essentially the stated basis for the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, in fact.)
No, al. What I'm saying is that the spineless "peace in our time" proponents should have stood up to Herr Hitler as early as 1934-38 when he was busy openly defying the terms of Versailles. Reclaiming the Ruhr, annexing the Sudetenland and the Anschluss should have been the wake up call they needed to take another look at what he was trying to do. Given that he had spelled out in Mein Kampf what his intentions were, it would have been the equivalent of a no brainer. 1939-1945 was the result of their cowardice. How many had to die so that the craven and misguided peace crowd could have their moment in the sun? 50+ million. So much for the superior morality of the peacenik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Hmmm. Actually you'll find (if you actually READ any of my posts on Iraq) that I have repeatedly stated that we have NEVER put enough money into the rebuilding of Iraq. "Throwing money at the problem" might at the very least be an interesting change from what we've been doing, which is either "keeping most of the money for ourselves" or "losing quite a lot of the Iraqi people's money."
Do you intentionally misinterpret people? You've griped about all the money wasted (from your pov) on Iraq and how it's such a mess. No doubt b/c the money was spent on the "illegal/immoral" war. The point is that throwing money at a problem is no solution, regardless of the desired outcome. Several examples of how throwing money at problems doesn't work are: sending lots of aid to corrupt african regimes in famine situations, only to watch it go to the warlords and corrupt govt bureaucrats; we spend tons of money in this country on education, higher than many countries on a per capita basis, yet consistently lag behind many nations when students are tested; and then there's the wars on poverty and drugs. No victory, just more poor people and more drugs in the streets. Sending and spending $$$ does not =success. BTW, I'm sure the Dems in congress will be disillusioned to find out that it's been Iraq's $$ (and not ours) that's been squandered. One less thing for them to lob at the current prez.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sa
If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal.


Quote:
And vice versa, no doubt....

al....by definition, he will be more conservative in the areas where you are more liberal and vice versa. That was just sloppy (and immoral )on your part.

Last edited by Totenkopf; 06-01-2007 at 04:15 AM.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2007, 11:19 PM   #80
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Long story short, a strong military alone cannot win politics for you but you cannot win without it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Vacating Hell: Iraq

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.