lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: And we wonder why the Iraqis don't like us...
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 02-06-2007, 04:18 PM   #41
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
I'd wager that such a tactic makes them no less vulnerable. It's not as if you cannot aim an RPG at a moving target, or detonate a car bomb as Americans drove past.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2007, 01:14 PM   #42
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 Totenkopf
Your contention about democracy has implicit in it that somehow you support the concept in Iraq. That isn't even remotely believable given the fact that you would have been quite content to see them suffer under Saddam's regime (or any that followed) b/c the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise.

-----Ludicrous nonsense. I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq........ therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

As for your ridiculous implication that I was in some way in favour of Saddam's rule... Ugh, it's beneath contempt. Every civilised, intelligent person was against Saddam's regime, but every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that bombing the heck out of Iraq (as we did over the course of decades) would do NOTHING but strengthen Saddam. Every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that invading Iraq, destroying what little infrastructure they had left and decimating the civilian population would be WORSE than leaving Saddam in power, as evil and damaging as he was.

So was I (or any other individual with more than one brain-cell) in any way in favour of Saddam's reign? Of course not, only a sillyperson would suggest so. I was in favour of ousting Saddam through means that would not adversely affect the Iraqi people and international attitudes to the US and UK, means which I have mentioned above.
Save the canned speeches for your fanbase. Fact is, the only way for the Iraqi people to shed themselves of SH would have been for him to die in his sleep or to have been turned on by his own praetorian guard. If all your brain cells weren't so busy engaging in mental self-abuse, even you would realize that. Even using your VERY strained attempt at logic, you can only claim that you favor (by default) some form of democracy only insofar as you relate it to the issue of the presence of foreign troops.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place

Oh do we indeed? .... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral".

No, I'm just going from your ludicrous statement that a UN impramataur somehow makes any action even remotely moral. You have a misplaced faith in international institutions that many don't share. Fact is, you were even unwise enough to suggest that had the UN given any support at all to what you've made verrrry plainly clear is grossly immoral, that would have lent it some moral credibility. So much for your vaunted logic. Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral. So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway) in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked.

-----Bahahah! Ohhh Tot. You really are priceless. "Pure democracy is mob rule!!!111" as if that's something negative...
The only thing unmissable here, besides your bluster and hubris, is how you infer soooo much from anyone's statements. And really, this 111 stuff is pretty juvenile, al. Mob rule equals anarchy. The KKK was mob rule. I could very reasonably conclude logically that you don't have a problem with lynching b/c it was democratically done. In a group of 10 men, one being black, it's naturally a positive thing that the 9 white guys would hang the black man, b/c .......hell, majority rules (afterall, that's what pure democracy is all about). hoist on your own ridiculous petard. end of story.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The "accusation" was neither spurious nor poorly formed. Unfortunately, you consistently twist people's words to fit your rants and then deny that you are guilty of anything. In doing so, your responses become irrelevant. Also, you've demonstrated repeatedly throughout that you have neither a modicum of maturity or apparently an ounce of introspection. You also make leaps of logic that are both non sequitur in nature and astounding in their arrogance. I'd be able to take you seriously if you weren't so selectively hypocritical in your attempts at admonishment. ... You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked. This is just one example of how you devolve into irrelevancy. You simply make too many assumptions. So, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop spewing your own particular brand of nonsense in these threads. Untill then, you just have no credibility.

------There you go again with a veritable smorgasbord of unsubstantiated accusatory assertions...

A multitude of examples have been provided for you (and not just w/regards to me) over the course of many posts. Your inability to take criticism in no way dismisses anything (btw, you're very quick to try in bask in any statement that's remotely favorable to you). The only thing really ludicrous is the immature nature of many of your replies. Grow up. Untill you do so, you're dismissed to go play with the rest of the children.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2007, 04:36 PM   #43
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
And there's one overriding issue to remember above all else with Iraq: As much as we should leave, as much as we should never have gone in, if we do leave we'll be leaving the Iraqi people to kill each other and allowing this mob rule, anarchy, to take over the country. Certainly it can be argued that we had destabalised things to this point but wouldn't the Iraqi people be better off with some semblence of law and order there?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-18-2007, 08:22 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
Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, the only way for the Iraqi people to shed themselves of SH would have been for him to die in his sleep or to have been turned on by his own praetorian guard.
Clearly nonsense. Common people have overthrown dictators the world over throughout history. If the Iraqi populous hadn't been made destitute and dependent on Saddam by years and years of US sanctions, they undoubtedly would have had more of an opportunity to revolt. And how much easier would it have been for them to revolt if we had SUPPORTED them instead of pounding them into the dust with our evil sanctions and our ill-advised military attacks? Much easier.

People have overthrown barbarous US-sponsored regimes before, and no doubt they will again. Your contention that this was an impossibility in Iraq is sheer ridiculousness.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

you can only claim that you favor (by default) some form of democracy only insofar as you relate it to the issue of the presence of foreign troops.
On the contrary, I have demonstrated that I am in favour of democracy ACROSS THE BOARD, both in Iraq and elsewhere. I shall once again post those few phrases in from post #37, that you conveniently chose to ignore in your last offering.

I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq.

The Iraqi people didn't want to be decimated by our violence and starved into submission by our economic sanctions, therefore I was AGAINST those violences, and against those sanctions.

The Iraqi people didn't want us to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroy their national infrastructure in the process of illegally invading their country, so I was against that invasion.

The Iraqi people don't want us illegally occupying their country, they don't want us continuing to be a focus for violence and occasionally going off on one and beating Iraqi kids up if not blowing their heads off. So I'm against the occupation.

So I'm in favour of the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

No, I'm just going from your ludicrous statement that a UN impramataur somehow makes any action even remotely moral. You have a misplaced faith in international institutions that many don't share. Fact is, you were even unwise enough to suggest that had the UN given any support at all to what you've made verrrry plainly clear is grossly immoral, that would have lent it some moral credibility
I have never made such a statement, Tot, and I have pointed that fact out to you before, many times. Let me explain yet again in the most simple of terms:

The UN's support does not MAKE any international intervention moral. If something is immoral, it's immoral whether the UN supports it or not. One could in theory pressure the UN into supporting an immoral war. Therefore UN support doesn't "make" any action moral. I have never claimed this, it is a fallacy that only you have wheeled out. It's a straw man, a nonsense.

But, WITHOUT the sanction of an international institution like the UN, an international intervention CANNOT BE truly moral. In other words, an act which the government of one nation considers to be just is merely vigilantism without the support of international law and the institutions that embody international laws. And vigilantism, lynch mobs... these are immoral and illegal things.

Once more: The UN doesn't MAKE any international intervention moral. But without the UN, it could never BE moral. To be just, an international act like a war must be BOTH inherently moral, AND have the support of international law. The invasion of Iraq had neither.

You have failed to grasp this simple distinction EVERY time it has been shown to you, I have no reason to believe you'll grasp it now. But perhaps... a vague hope lingers in my battered old heart. So I'll keep telling you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral.
Ha! In post #36 You said this: "the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise. And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place"

And my response was this: "Oh do we indeed? Go and find a post in which I've described those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You won't find one. Once again you make the basic error you've consistently made throughout these threads... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral"."

Firstly, you attempted to quote me out of context, by cutting out the first couple of sentences of my response. How childish. Secondly, you still haven't come up with a post in which I describe those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You haven't found one, you won't find one, so your original assertion was rubbish. QED.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

The only thing unmissable here, besides your bluster and hubris, is how you infer soooo much from anyone's statements. And really, this 111 stuff is pretty juvenile, al. Mob rule equals anarchy.
You accuse me of being juvenile? That's laughably rich. Secondly, I didn't have to make any great inference from your statement, because you literally said:

"I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway)"

And that reprihensible statement is perfectly clear. You refer to pure democracy, rule by the people as "nothing more than mob rule". You call the PEOPLE a "mob" (most derogatory) and with that, you clearly imply that true democracy would be a negative thing.

And now you've compounded your earlier statement by opining that "mob rule" equals anarchy in your book.

Anarchy = a state of society without government or law.

Even more ludicrous! You equate pure democracy with lawlessness, ungoverned chaos, etcetera. Tot, you clearly dislike the idea of democracy... not merely in Iraq, but in general.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

The KKK was mob rule.
No Tot, the KKK was a violent mob. A minority.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

I could very reasonably conclude logically that you don't have a problem with lynching b/c it was democratically done. In a group of 10 men, one being black, it's naturally a positive thing that the 9 white guys would hang the black man, b/c .......hell, majority rules (afterall, that's what pure democracy is all about). hoist on your own ridiculous petard. end of story.
In my experience Tot, nothing you've ever concluded in the senate could remotely be called "reasonable", and this is no exception. You present a hypothetical racist lynching as an example of what you consider to be democracy in action. This is laughable. It pains me to even dignify this idiocy with a rebuttal, but I suppose I should rebut for the sake of completeness.

First of all, the lynching you describe is undemocratic because the racists have not obtained a mandate from the masses before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. Secondly the racists have not obtained the imprimatur of the democratically elected state legal bureaucracy before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. It is neither sanctioned by the people, nor the officials elected by the people. Therefore, counter to the democratic ideal.

Frankly, if you really tried hard, you might find some historical example that actually DOES represent a genuinely democratic majority-sanctioned act that is also immoral... but that of course would be meaningless. A democratically decided national decision might be immoral... but without a state of true democracy no national decision can be optimally moral.

Once again, we have the "UN distinction" that you have yet to grasp. Democracy doesn't necessarily MAKE state decisions moral. But without democracy the state's decision CANNOT be moral.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

A multitude of examples have been provided for you (and not just w/regards to me) over the course of many posts. Your inability to take criticism in no way dismisses anything
No they haven't. You've accused me of basically everything under the sun, from "hypocrisy" to "twisting people's words". And you haven't come up with a single example that shows I've done any of these things you've accused me of. Accusations without proof are dismissed, Tot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Save the canned speeches for your fanbase.

...

If all your brain cells weren't so busy engaging in mental self-abuse, even you would realize that. Even using your VERY strained attempt at logic,

...

So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.

...

(btw, you're very quick to try in bask in any statement that's remotely favorable to you). The only thing really ludicrous is the immature nature of many of your replies. Grow up. Untill you do so, you're dismissed to go play with the rest of the children.
As for these snippets of petulant childishness, what can one say? They're reprehensible, Tot.


[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 04-03-2008, 09:28 PM   #45
FoolInTheWave
Rookie
 
FoolInTheWave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 79
Please people, be supportive of your own country. We are in a war and certain measures must be taken. This war isn't half as bad as WWII or Vietnam. At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.

Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.

If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil. It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.


Error in REALITY.SYS. Run BIG_BANG.EXE (Y/N)?

Are you ready?
FoolInTheWave is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-03-2008, 10:57 PM   #46
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
Please people, be supportive of your own country.
I have no problem supporting my own country when my country makes smart decisions that are morally justified. This case meets neither of those criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.
Right because some of our actions in WWII were morally justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.
We lost Vietnam because of the hippies? I thought it was because we rushed headlong into a protracted ground war against guerrilla forces fighting for autonomy along side a corrupt pro-U.S. government. Wait....

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil.
No chance we'd see them crossing the ocean in their pontoons is there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.
There is more than one way to support our fighting soldiers. Allowing them to continue dying in an illegal, unjustifiable war doesn't strike me as being the best of them.

Thanks for your post.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2008, 12:05 AM   #47
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolInTheWave
Please people, be supportive of your own country. We are in a war and certain measures must be taken. This war isn't half as bad as WWII or Vietnam. At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.
American citizens didn't support entering WWII until after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor - up until then, the majority opinion was isolationism. The war, as well, had clear, specific definitions on who the enemy was. This war lacks that luxury, and therefore blind support is not possible.

Quote:
Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.
The sole aim of Vietnam was to prevent it from becoming a communist state and being the first domino to fall on the capitalist world. Despite the fact we lost the war, the dominoes did not tumble. That should raise the question of if the war was ever necessary in the first place...

Also, Korea was in an entirely seperate war than Vietnam. And that one had the support of the American people.

Quote:
If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil. It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.
The best way to keep Middle Eastern countries from terrorist overtake is to make the region stable and prosperous. Attempting to invade every Middle Eastern country in an attempt to quell terrorists only results in more hatred towards the US.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2008, 11:13 AM   #48
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion
The best way to keep Middle Eastern countries from terrorist overtake is to make the region stable and prosperous. Attempting to invade every Middle Eastern country in an attempt to quell terrorists only results in more hatred towards the US.

Kudos! I agree. That region will only become stable after the country has begun to be relieved of the backbreaking poverty many of its citizens experience.

If you really want to kill terrorism, I mean really kill it, make the Middle East a prosperous place for the people who live there.

The root of terrorism is religious fundamentalism (of course, U.S. interference doesn't help the situation). Religious fundamentalism seeks to oppress its citizens, it keeps them poor, keeps them rooted in a way of thinking that went out of style with Chain Mail armor and Scimitars. If you gave these same people jobs that paid well, common sense would dictate that potential terrorists would rather make money and support their families by working rather than strapping a bomb to their chest and running into a cafe full of Jews in Tel Aviv.


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2008, 01:19 PM   #49
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylilin
If you gave these same people jobs that paid well, common sense would dictate that potential terrorists would rather make money and support their families by working rather than strapping a bomb to their chest and running into a cafe full of Jews in Tel Aviv.
Well, except that in this scenario, the "terrorists" are doing this because the Israelis have walled them in and separated them from their farms/livelihoods.

Iraq sits atop the world's 2nd largest oil reserves. Clearly if there were some way to break the in-fighting/power struggle, Iraq would be a very rich nation. Of course, if they opted to socialize their oil revenues (the way Iran tried in the 1950's) then what? Would we try to overthrow that government the way we did Iran? Look where that got us (hostage situation in 1979 which eventually put us in bed with Saddam Hussein by way of "damage control")

No foreign investment. "Thanks, Haliburton, for all your help. This compensation should be more than sufficient to cover your expenses. Take care"? What happens if Hally-B says "no thanks" then is forceably expelled? Would that be viewed as an act of international aggression and a justification for war? Would an independent (i.e. not beholden to the U.S.) Iraqi government pose a threat to Turkey or Saudi Arabia (our allies)?

What if an independent Iraq decided to bury the hatchet with their old enemy Iran (Ahmadinejad recently visited his neighbors and was warmly recieved)? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing for Isreal (a country that we currently send more than 3 billion dollars in direct aid to every year)? Some would probably point out that Israel has a very sophisticated military force whereas the Iraqi are struggling to build their military. I bet Iran and N.Korea (Russia? Venezula?) would be willing to help them establish a military force.

I guess the point of this rant is to point out that the U.S. has absolutely no intention of estabilishing a truly independent democracy in Iraq. A truly independent democracy in Iraq could be very bad for us. What we want is a pro-U.S. goverment that is hobbled by the fact that it's infrastructure is almost entirely owned by U.S. interests (compliments of the no-bid contracts parsed out to Halliburton and their subsidaries) and was installed before the gov't itself (P.S. clearly this isn't imperialism, btw).

So while I agree that religious fundamentalism is a problem, I don't think that somehow eliminating it is going to somehow resolve the economic problems that you accurately highlighted above. Thanks for reading.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2008, 03:23 PM   #50
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
While I would, of course, prefer a pro-US government in Iraq (not too many Americans wouldn't), I really wouldn't mind a truly, truly independent and secular Iraqi government either, free from U.S., Russian, Iranian, or Religious influence. So far both of those goals seem like a pipe dream.


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2008, 03:44 PM   #51
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylilin
While I would, of course, prefer a pro-US government in Iraq (not too many Americans wouldn't), I really wouldn't mind a truly, truly independent and secular Iraqi government either, free from U.S., Russian, Iranian, or Religious influence. So far both of those goals seem like a pipe dream.
I would very much like to see *all* nations share a common set of values (we are talking about our pipe dreams here). But that's not the same thing as wishing for a pro-U.S. gov't. Which is what we *are* installing. While telling everyone that we're promoting an indepedent democracy. In other words, "lying".
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-10-2008, 03:12 PM   #52
Maxstate
I forgot.... what?
 
Maxstate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ;o ;p :eek:
Posts: 2,090
The US has been screwing over the Iraqi population from here to sunday since the 80's, why did you ever even think anything changed? People don't change, especially not people from the same administration that lead the country back then.

Maxstate is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-28-2008, 01:37 AM   #53
Seph
Senior Member
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Midwest
Posts: 1,183
Current Game: Skyrim/Skyward Sword
As soon as you guys come up with a way that prevents casualties on both sides(troops and civilians) like this pitch it but until then stick with what works, not everyone likes it but it's probably the best way they have right now.


When god gives you lemons you need to FIND A NEW GOD!
Seph is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-28-2008, 02:39 PM   #54
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seph
As soon as you guys come up with a way that prevents casualties on both sides(troops and civilians)
I have a way: withdrawl.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-29-2008, 05:02 AM   #55
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 Achilles
I guess the point of this rant is to point out that the U.S. has absolutely no intention of estabilishing a truly independent democracy in Iraq....
Frankly, don't think it would matter if we did have that intention or not. By which I mean any truly "independent"* democracy would last about as long as the Weimar Republic did after WW1. Took several centuries for the west to develop workable systems and a thorough beating down for the Germans and Japanes to come around. Arguably, in the west, it also required a certain amount of decoupling of strong religious influence from the levers of state power. Not likely to see that in the Middle East for some time, it seems.



*as in not "controlled" by the US, not necessarily others, apparently


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2008, 01:44 PM   #56
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
I wonder if anyone here has been out there and actually lived a day in the life of an american out there. Its all good to have your opinions and say what you feel is wrong with the war. But honestly before you can say how someone should do something over there try being there first. It will give you a perspective you don't have now.
hhunter6 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2008, 02:47 PM   #57
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
And what are you assuming that we would know if we did?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2008, 02:57 PM   #58
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
You would have an understanding of why we drive the way we do out there for one.
hhunter6 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2008, 05:37 PM   #59
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Which assumes that I don't. Anything else?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 07:56 AM   #60
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Which assumes that I don't. Anything else?
That all depends on you I suppose. Everyone has their own opinions about it. I have mine, and you have yours. Not to beat on my chest but I've spent almost two years in many different areas of that country. I've driven on almost every road from Basra to Baghdad. And I've seen the positive changes in area's where I've lived for months.
hhunter6 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 10:49 AM   #61
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
I don't doubt that you have. But I don't see how that has anything to do with our justification (or lack thereof) for being there in the first place.

Thank you for your service. If you are still there, I hope that you are safe and that you get to come home soon. Take care.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 11:03 AM   #62
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I don't doubt that you have. But I don't see how that has anything to do with our justification (or lack thereof) for being there in the first place.

Thank you for your service. If you are still there, I hope that you are safe and that you get to come home soon. Take care.
Let me ask this. How would you feel if Bush said, "Saddam is mass killing his people and it needs to stop. Thats why were going in." Would you feel different? I'm not defending the reason why we were over there in the first place by any means. There is alot that I don't agree with about the war in Iraq. But after seeing a grave of about 100 thousand bodies many children with bullet holes in there head, how big his palaces were and the poverty of the surrounding villages were. In some way it was justified going over there. But again when you find no WOMD then its a tainted mission so to speak. My thought is you see videos of the military bumping cars, which is crazy in its self due to the vehicle IED threat, but you never know out there. and I wouldn't want to be the next military guy to be captured and beheaded.

You don't have to thank me for anything I've enjoyed my time as a marine and I have no regrets. I havn't been back there for two years and i hear its calmed down alot since I was there. But I've seen alot there that no one here ever sees or hears about. (go media) I'm just one man with his own opinion. but I enjoy healthy conversations about it. It keeps you sane
hhunter6 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 11:42 AM   #63
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
Let me ask this. How would you feel if Bush said, "Saddam is mass killing his people and it needs to stop. Thats why were going in." Would you feel different?
No, because I would doubt the veracity of that reason as well. Bush was in the 2nd year of his term when he invaded Iraq. If he was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people and wanted to use that as a justification, he should have invaded much, much sooner.

The catalyst for the invasion was the attacks of 9/11. I don't know why a terrorist attack would in turn become the catalyst for a huge humanitarian effort, especially considering that terrorist mastermind allegedly responsible for the attacks is being relatively ignored in another conflict in another country. Should our attention be there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
I'm not defending the reason why we were over there in the first place by any means. There is alot that I don't agree with about the war in Iraq. But after seeing a grave of about 100 thousand bodies many children with bullet holes in there head, how big his palaces were and the poverty of the surrounding villages were. In some way it was justified going over there.
See above.

I have no doubt that Saddam was a real, honest-to-goodness ass-hat. An ass-hat that we put into power, gave weapons to, supported for years, etc. Again, if we had some moral obligation to be there, it went ignored for almost a decade. 2 years of which by George Dubya.

And if we're going to side-step the U.N. to act unilaterally in the name of human rights abuses, etc, then why aren't we in Durfur?

Also, please keep in mind that you're asking me to completely ignore all of the Project for a New American Century rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
But again when you find no WOMD then its a tainted mission so to speak. My thought is you see videos of the military bumping cars, which is crazy in its self due to the vehicle IED threat, but you never know out there. and I wouldn't want to be the next military guy to be captured and beheaded.
I also see video of contractors strafing cars with machine gun fire while listening to Elvis (or was it Johnny Cash?). But that's unrelated as they aren't actual military personnel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
You don't have to thank me for anything I've enjoyed my time as a marine and I have no regrets. I havn't been back there for two years and i hear its calmed down alot since I was there. But I've seen alot there that no one here ever sees or hears about. (go media) I'm just one man with his own opinion. but I enjoy healthy conversations about it. It keeps you sane
I don't follow the MSM, so I don't know how well they cover things. I do know that a lot of the documentaries I've seen aren't afraid to pull punches, so I do like to think that I have some small of idea of how completely nutters things have been over there.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 01:17 PM   #64
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
No, because I would doubt the veracity of that reason as well. Bush was in the 2nd year of his term when he invaded Iraq. If he was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people and wanted to use that as a justification, he should have invaded much, much sooner.

The catalyst for the invasion was the attacks of 9/11. I don't know why a terrorist attack would in turn become the catalyst for a huge humanitarian effort, especially considering that terrorist mastermind allegedly responsible for the attacks is being relatively ignored in another conflict in another country. Should our attention be there?
Absolutly it should be there. Trends show that as Iraq calms, Afghanistan gets worse. as I said there are many things I don't agree with, and your point about going to Iraq after 2 years in term is taken. IMO son wanted to finish what dad started. But what do I know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I have no doubt that Saddam was a real, honest-to-goodness ass-hat. An ass-hat that we put into power, gave weapons to, supported for years, etc. Again, if we had some moral obligation to be there, it went ignored for almost a decade. 2 years of which by George Dubya.
Politics will do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And if we're going to side-step the U.N. to act unilaterally in the name of human rights abuses, etc, then why aren't we in Durfur?
There are many places we should be, however the first one should be our own country. Maybe we should help ourselfs before we help others. but that could be rather selfish in the eyes of others if you feel that way of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Also, please keep in mind that you're asking me to completely ignore all of the Project for a New American Century rhetoric.
In my own ignorance I have to admit defeat on this cause I don't know what that is. BUT if I did, I would not ask you ignore any thought or idea. I was merely going off the first post about driving in the streets of Iraq and saying how someone should put theirselves in the Military's shoes while their out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I also see video of contractors strafing cars with machine gun fire while listening to Elvis (or was it Johnny Cash?). But that's unrelated as they aren't actual military personnel.
Blackwater or a company of the same equivalent no doubt. thats upsetting to see because they go off their own "rules" and pretty much do what they want. all that does is defeat what others have worked hard to try fix out there.
hhunter6 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2008, 04:08 PM   #65
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
Absolutly it should be there. Trends show that as Iraq calms, Afghanistan gets worse. as I said there are many things I don't agree with, and your point about going to Iraq after 2 years in term is taken. IMO son wanted to finish what dad started. But what do I know.
I am by no means an expert either, but I would encourage you to watch old footage of Secretary of State Dick Cheney talking about why Bush 41 opted not to invade Iraq.

Link if you need it.

That taken with reports that I've heard (sorry, no source so take with a grain of salt) that Bush 41 did not support Bush 43's invasion of Iraq leads me to suspect that even the "finishing what dad started" explanation doesn't work. But again, this is all my dime-store analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
Politics will do that.
And that's fine, but we can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
There are many places we should be, however the first one should be our own country. Maybe we should help ourselfs before we help others. but that could be rather selfish in the eyes of others if you feel that way of course.
And I would tend to agree with you, wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, this side-steps the question though.

Humanitarian crisis in Darfur vs. humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Relatively small oil reserves in Sudan mostly committed to China vs. 3rd largest known oil reserves in Iraq right next to neighboring ally with 1st largest known oil reserves (Saudi Arabia) which also holds strategic significance for neighboring enemy with 2nd largest known oil reserves (Iran).

Nevermind that we're still left wondering how the attacks of 9/11 factor into this.

But forgive me if I sound cynical and skeptical

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
In my own ignorance I have to admit defeat on this cause I don't know what that is. BUT if I did, I would not ask you ignore any thought or idea. I was merely going off the first post about driving in the streets of Iraq and saying how someone should put theirselves in the Military's shoes while their out there.
Fair enough. PNAC is a Washington think tank co-founded by Bill Kristol (also co-founder of The Weekly Standard). Members include Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense and creator of "The Wolfowitz Doctrine" later to be known as "The Bush Doctrine"), Scooter Libby (Assistant Secretary of State), Dick Cheney (Vice President), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), and other names associated with the Bush Administration, but might not be as well known.

The group began calling (quite publicly) for pre-emptive war against Iraq in 1991. Coincidentally, many of the key members (listed above) just happened to be key members of the Bush Administration and just happened to be central to the invasion of Iraq which just happened to have been "justified" by the attacks of September 11th.

Minor point of interest: the PNAC published a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses in September 2000 which identified Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the key stratigic obstacles to American military dominance. Coincidentally, Bush 43 has frequently referred to these three countries as "the Axis of Evil".

All of this information is online if you want to do your own research. I will also be happy to funish you with links if you would like for me to recommend sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhunter6 View Post
Blackwater or a company of the same equivalent no doubt. thats upsetting to see because they go off their own "rules" and pretty much do what they want. all that does is defeat what others have worked hard to try fix out there.
Indeed, it is very sad.

Thanks for the great discussion! I am enjoying it very much
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2008, 12:28 PM   #66
hhunter6
Rookie
 
hhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I am by no means an expert either, but I would encourage you to watch old footage of Secretary of State Dick Cheney talking about why Bush 41 opted not to invade Iraq.
indeed i'll have to watch this. however since ole Dick can not tell the difference between man and beast I may tend to steer clear of him all together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
That taken with reports that I've heard (sorry, no source so take with a grain of salt) that Bush 41 did not support Bush 43's invasion of Iraq leads me to suspect that even the "finishing what dad started" explanation doesn't work. But again, this is all my dime-store analysis.
Just cause papa doesn't approve doesn't mean son can't do. Lol. However I do remember hearing that W wanted to be remembered at the man who took down Saddam. I can't verify nor does it justify.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Humanitarian crisis in Darfur vs. humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Relatively small oil reserves in Sudan mostly committed to China vs. 3rd largest known oil reserves in Iraq right next to neighboring ally with 1st largest known oil reserves (Saudi Arabia) which also holds strategic significance for neighboring enemy with 2nd largest known oil reserves (Iran).
well thats all good to look at but I might be wrong, but do we not get a majority of our black gold(Texas tea) from Canada? but that is also asking why are we there as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Indeed, it is very sad.
Thanks for the great discussion! I am enjoying it very much
Indeed it has been a great discussion. Its always nice to learn new things and hear how regular people feel about the issue.
hhunter6 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 > And we wonder why the Iraqis don't like us...

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 10:52 PM.

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