Iraq Situation is Bullshit
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 3 of 17
NOW I remember! It's "libertarian". DUH!
But you don't want to know what I think about THAT! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I noticed a mention of Tribalism in another thread, and consider that many "tribes" were in effect Anarchist in form.
A good example of an Anarchistic Tribe would be the Renshai, from Mickey Zucker Reichart's "Last of the Renshai" series.
(A damned good read, btw)
Government generally is best when it governs least, people are like a handful of sand, hold them gently and you hold most of em, but the harder you squeeze... the more slips right through your fingers.
Come to think of it tho, I don't think I would really want the Renshai hanging in my neighborhood, but their form (or lack) of government worked for them.
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"We're in the shit, and we gotta deal the dice till the end. But this had better be the last of it... If suddenly we're dropping bombs on others (N. Korea, Iran, etc) that's when something needs to stop, seriously... "
Look, the war in Iraq cannot be understood isolated all by itself. It has to be understood from the perspective of a war against terrorism. You know, keeping another 9-11 from ever happening again.
This is a war of survival. They hate us. And they think that they can kill us, or rob us or whatever, and we will do nothing to stop them. If we lose, we die. (Or worse, lose our freedoms) We are a walking, talking refutation of their worldview, a blasphemy. No amounts of calm, cool considered discussion is going to change that fact.
We fight, or we die. We fight them in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or wherever they are now, or wait for them to come here, and kill us at home.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"This is a war of survival. They hate us. "
Class, any opinions as to why they might hate us?
Timmy?
Timmy: "Because over the past century the west has treated them like Shit"
Good job Timmy! You get a cookie!
Seriously, though, the US has had its hand in the cookie jar for way too long in the Middle East. If we were worried about our own safety and of human rights violations, we would have stopped it when it started. But no, we were the ones setting up regimes, and then tearing them apart when the people we set up said they didn't like us. We were the ones who gave people like Saddam and Bin Laden training to kill others. We were the ones who could have said Saddam did bad things in the 80's. We could have stopped Saddam after the first Gulf War, and told him to get his ass outta there.
But we didn't? Why? Because we wanted oil, in whatever means we could. Now, the manipulation of the people has caused resentment to no end of the West and its meddling, and its coming back to bite us. Should we let it happen? No, of course not, but currently our actions of pre-emptive strikes on asprin factories and whatnot are just giving the enemy more fighters to their armies. The US is not invincible. Rome did fall in time. We need to grow up, and let others police the world, rather than putting our name on everything on the planet.
Perhaps using the United Nations as its intended purpose rather than as a US puppet might help things, you think?
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.
No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.
Nor is it the truth. bin Laden made a big deal about the Crusades, long before the US was even a pipe dream. The Soviets, French, British, and Germans were all more involved in the middle east than we were. They get a pass while we are the "Great Satan"
No, I ain't buying it. Nor should you.
The real root cause is Levis. And Barbie, and MTV. We are changing their culture and they don't like it. They have a growing population of young folks who find the old ways stifling, repressive, and just not much fun. They look at us and see a land of milk and honey, with DVDs and computers and digital watches, all the stuff that they cannot make, and they want them. Not because we force them to buy, but because they want the products.
Those products are things they do not produce themselves, despite having ample money from their oil sales to build factories and make investments.
But they are Allah's people (or so they claim) How can the West be so superior in terms of military might, technological advancement, political power, economic wealth and cultural attractiveness than these chosen people. We do all that despite the fact that we are a "Godless nation" who does not even have a Sharia based legal system. Muslims here are forced to treat Jews and pagans (like myself) just like other folks. No dhimmitude here.
We are a walking, talking blasphemy to what they have been taught. We are a constant reminder that they are comparitively, a failure on the world stage. At one time the Muslim Empire ruled from China to Europe and Morocco. No more.
That and we support those pesky Jews who have a per capita GDP of about twice what any other Muslim country does, (including and especially Saudi Arabia) despite having NO oil, and only a sliver of land.
No, the things you have cited are merely the excuse, and a pitable one at that. The reason for their hatred is not as nice as you would like to think it is.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off: No body ever said a bloody word saying "terrorism and 9-11 are justified" and for you to dare say that is an offense to everyone in this world who suffered on that day. Nothing can ever justify that day, or any other terrorist action.
And if their hatred was based on their economy, then why isn't China, Japan, and every other East Asian culture which wants to throw away its past for "the American God" attacking and trying to blow the US up?
You could say "Its the Muslims" but thats bullshit too. If you hadn't noticed, the majority of the people are quite pacificst. Islam condems killing. Islam is tolerant of other religions. To group "Muslims" as a whole as "violent savages" is a racist comment, because those are the extremists, those who are tired of being manipulated by everyone around them. Not just the US and Europe, but their own rulers and the like. The Arab nations get plenty of money from the oil they sell, but their leaders do not give it to the people. That is where they should focus their anger on.
But they don't. Why? Because foreign invaders keep screwing things up! We are the ones dropping bombs! We are the ones limiting their economies by buying only oil, and no other products! We are the ones placing economic sanctions that limit things like MEDICINE!!!
Venting their anger at us is not the right place, but regardless of it, they are. That does not mean that we are the gods of the world and deserve to blow up who we want to. If you hadn't noticied, we went against the will of the world in attacking Iraq. The rest of the world said give the inspectors more time, and we said "Fuck You."
And you wonder why everyone is turning a blind eye to us when we say "We need help in Iraq, please send your troops and money to support us." Because we started it, and if we don't stop this crap, eventually even our own allies will begin to hate us.
The Muslim Empire once spanned across all of Eurasia. So did Rome, Britain, and the empire of Alexander.
Notice where they are today? If we want to protect our people, we need to stop trying to rule the world, because if we don't, the only people that will care about the US will be the history books after we are gone.
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are trying to explain their actions in a form that is to render them sympathic. You are correct, in that nothing justifies or excuses their actions on that day. You found my response offensive. Good. I was attempting to show you exactly how just 'excuses' make me feel.
in other words, that explaination that "America brought it on itself" is, in my opinion far more offense than me pointing out that you were doing just that. It is the equivalent of telling a rape victim they should not have worn such a short skirt.
It is not just economics. It is primarily cultural, of which economics is a reflection. japan and China have shown themselves that they can adapt to modern capitalism (Heck the Chinese Communist Party is even inviting capitalists into its ranks.) Their cultures, as rigid as they have been in the past, are adapting to the changing times.
You are quite right in that most Muslims are not terrorists in any way shape or form. But that is not the issue. The terrorists themselves are claiming to be Muslims. It is the cultural ideology of, in particular, Wahabi Islam that is problematic here.
BTW: Muslim is not a race. Even if I were decrying all Muslims in the bigoted sense you accuse me of, since Islam is not a race, it is not a racist comment.
It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.
But the "foreign invader" is a useful scapegoat. It detracts the populace from the real source of their problem, and toward the US or some othe outside entity. If people are protesting Israel, they are not protesting against the Saud family. If they are rushing off to martyr themselves in Checnya, they are not trying to kill the royal family.
They have NO other products beside oil. There is nothing to buy from them except oil. They have an aggragate GDP, excluding oil, of Portugal. This despite the fact they get billions every year in oil sales. They are the ones not building factories, not starting new businesses, not educating a growing population, not making things other than oil.
Besides which, someone not buying what you are offering to sell is hardly an excuse for mass murder.
(And even the oil is brought out of the ground and transported by foreign labor. We have to go drill the oil, build the pipelines and get it ready to ship.)
You point out that we are the ones dropping bombs, ignoring the context in which those bombs are dropped and the fact that they have no airplanes to even attach bombs to. You are forgetting that 9-11 is what brought about the present campaign in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. We are not blowing up stuff simply because we don't like it. We are blowing up stuff to keep them from killing us. There is a reason and a purpose for choosing this course of action.
Our allies, as well as the rest of the world, can love us or not. Personally I don't care. As long as they don't try to kill us, or help those who would. This is not about empire building, or any other such stuff. We are not Europe. The closest we ever had to an empire was after the Spanish American war when we got the Phillipines, which we gave back to the people, (the process was interrupted by WW2, but as it was already ongoing when the war broke out, we got a lot of help from the Phillipine people.)
Let me say it again. We are not Europe. We are not Great Britian of old, we do not have nor want colonies all over the globe. We don't want to rule the world. We just don't want people to kill us. We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.
Found that statement interesting,
Quote:
It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.
I would suggest buying oil ( as well as other products ) acceptable, but the question of Military Aid, as well as providing arms involves the US to a degree which limits the peoples ability to rise up and overthrow their own governments.
While one can argue arms may be supplied from other sources, this is like saying why shouldn't I sell drugs, they can buy them somewhere else.
As for providing Military support for Israel, while international law is a joke, it did state that providing arms to one side of a civil war ( that is what I would call the situation ) constitutes an act of war.
Perhaps a complete disengagement from the Middle East, and its political messes is the approach. At least a slashing of Military / Foriegn aid and cutting the sales / giving away of arms.
American credibility is any peace process is next to non existant due to your constantly changing foriegn policy ( General Anthony Zinni )
Why not stay out of it for a while, encourage other to as well. Maybe the internal problems of these countrys are better left to the people living there.
" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)
The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.
In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)
I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law. I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.
As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.
Perhaps you are right in that internal problems should be handled without our interference. Unfortunately, its really too late for that. The consequences of withdrawl are pretty severe especially if we want to form alliances with anyone else anywhere at any time in the future. Who would trust us to keep our word if we cut and run now?
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some very good points, but I still think some of the principles are flawed,
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)
The opposite could also be said, that the U.S. was also trying to expand their influence, against the other. Just a matter of perspective, nothing wrong with it, but I think a point which has to be reconized.
Quote:
The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.
Once again, the opposite also applies. Different areas and countrys have responded quite differently to both systems, Marx envisioned his system for Great Britian, and didn't project it in a country as vast as Russia. Other countrys such as the former Yugoslavia under Tito found a balance with that system. Keeping the peace between ethnic group who despised each other and building an economy which had a higher GNP than any on the Mediterranean including Italy. Look at the chaos once that system was changed
http://www.princeton.edu/~mlane/
Another interesting example is Poland, where after two years of Solidarity, the people re-elected the communists so their social infrastructure would function again.
http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg03233.html
Quote:
In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)
But if by supporting Batista, or Somozsa, or Pinochet , or Peron, or Suharto, or Diem, etc in harsh regimes does it make the U.S. any better than the Soviets ? particularly in the eyes of the people in those countries ?
Quote:
Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not
or you fight...
Quote:
I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law.
Cannot find an online reference, found it in a book on Eisenhower's reaction to the revolution in Cuba, may be wrong there.
Quote:
I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.
But is that really neutrality ? there was quite a debate at the time
http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/49thparallel/backissues/issue7/aj.HTM
If for example, Syria was sending war material into Iraq during the conflict, would the U.S. have considered them neutral ?
As for Pearl Harbor that raises other questions
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/RD-PEARL.html
Quote:
As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.
This debate has been on for a long time. Does one group have the right to exist at the expense of the other ? By picking a side here, do you not make yourself the enemy of the other ? Israel has had the upper hand compared to its neighbors, does that give them the right to act however they like ?
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/09/27/water020927
Neither side is right
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME