View Full Version : Wahhhh!
You cried about the carpet bombing of civilians that you were sure would happen. It didn't.
You cried about the thousands of coalition soldiers that were sure to die. Very few have died. Nearly half were accidents.
You cried about the fact that the Iraqi's didn't want this war. Yet now they dance in the streets with glee at Saddams destruction.
Now you complain. You say, "Oh yeah, big deal, the coalition steamrolled right over a defenseless country." Wait a minute, three days into the war you complained about how it wasn't going to be as easy as everyone said it would be. When victory came swift, you complained it was too swift. Face it, you just want to be on the other side of George Bush. Well guess what? George Bush is being celebrated by the Iraqi people. How ya like them apples? I guess that means your on the opposite side of the Iraqi people. Of course, I always knew you were.
Regardless of your opinions, the Iraqi people are happy we did what we did. You'll never, ever, live that down. Happy days. [:D]
ADMIN EDIT: Profane innuendo
russ_watters
Apr9-03, 04:28 PM
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.
Hippies around the world are saddened by our success. Liberals in the US are disheartened by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 04:28 PM
*In voice of Darth Vadar*
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a life is insignificant in comparison to the power which creates it.
-------------
Methinks you seek to lump everyone together in one tightly knit ball and bounce this ball off the wall.
Not really.
The ones I can't lump into a racket, I lump into a ball. It makes for better sports.
You cried about the carpet bombing of civilians that you were sure would happen. It didn't.
You cried about the thousands of coalition soldiers that were sure to die. Very few have died. Nearly half were accidents.
You cried about the fact that the Iraqi's didn't want this war. Yet now they dance in the streets with glee at Saddams destruction.
We did? That's news to me.
1. I never mentioned it. But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?
2. Hmm? Really? I thought the consensus was that we should win easily?
3. Note "at Saddam's destruction". Not at the declaration of war. Most of it is relief the war is over. And the point was at the start of the war we DIDN'T know.
Now you complain. You say, "Oh yeah, big deal, the coalition steamrolled right over a defenseless country."
Clean out your brain Alias. There seems to be an army of radical ignorants hiding in the part we call your IMAGINATION. Or maybe these are messages from posters in a parallel universe? Hmm...
When victory came swift, you complained it was too swift.
Erm... when? We worried it was going to take a long time, but we are happy it's finally (hopefully) over. IMHO, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but it's better than expected. But the real test will come in the months/years ahead.
Face it, you just want to be on the other side of George Bush. Well guess what? George Bush is being celebrated by the Iraqi people. How ya like them apples? I guess that means your on the opposite side of the Iraqi people. Of course, I always knew you were.
Sweet and fresh, please.
I always thought of Bush as an dimensional character. So any side I take is on the Iraqi people's side. Unless... how many sides do the Iraqis have?
ADMIN EDIT: Profane innuendo
Damn. I missed it.[6)]
Hippies around the world are saddened by our success. Liberals in the US are disheartened by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
Now that's just a straw man argument.
But you needn't bathe yourself in glory quite that much, you know...
Originally posted by russ_watters
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.
Hippies around the world are saddened by our
success. Liberals in the US are disheartened
by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
[:D]
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
This is obviously not the end of problems in Iraq, by a long shot. But it is a significant turning point. That's what I'm celebrating.
My main beef is that the "anti war-give inspections more time" crowd was horribly wrong in their assesment of the problem.
Examples of this are pouring in as Iraqi testimonials about the brutality and torture by Saddam's Regime. Weapons inspections would never, ever have stopped the torture. Yet, the 'give inspections a chance crowd' had no answer for this problem. Their unwillingness to take responsibility for shedding a small amount of blood to save a lot underscores their complete wussification.
Again, this buttresses my contention that 'those not politically similar to myself' don't know how to troubleshoot or effectively solve problems. And even when they are faced with the scary cliff of viable solutions, they chicken out and refuse to jump. Leaving the problem unsolved.
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"
Njorl
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Njorl
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"
Njorl [:D] [:D]
why dont you read the papers. or turn on the news. if you had you would see that we HAVE bombed civilians. We have killed innocent iraqis. Granted this happens in war, I just thought you should know.
Should we have given the inspectors more time? Well why not, if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction. Do you mean to tell me he's hiding them in Baghdad? Please.....
alias, i think you need to find some hobbies away from your computer...
Originally posted by hybrid
why dont you read the papers. or turn on the news. if you had you would see that we HAVE bombed civilians. We have killed innocent iraqis. Granted this happens in war, I just thought you should know.
Should we have given the inspectors more time? Well why not, if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction. Do you mean to tell me he's hiding them in Baghdad? Please.....
Everyone is well aware that we have accidentally bombed civilians. The number of deaths has actually been remarkably low, and the troops deserve congratulating for this. Theres also a good chance that Saddam bombed his own people at least once.
However, we have also almost definitely saved more Iraqis from Saddam's sword had he been left to stay in power, than we have accidentally killed.
The UN had 10 years to get Saddam to comply to the agreements of the Gulf War. He didn't. We should have gone back in a year or two after he started his antics again, but that's in the past. We could still have been in the same position in 10 years time as we were 3 weeks ago had we left it to the UN to do something (more than words) against Saddam. In that time, who knows how many more Iraqis would have suffered and been killed at his hands?
Saddam producing and hiding WMDs WAS NOT the only reason for conflict, although I repeat, for about the hundredth time, there is still a high chance that WMDs will be found - there are so many highlighted sites that haven't even been searched yet!
And finally, the images of Baghdad today just confirmed that we had made the right choice.
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"lol. I hope for a repeat of '92. Can we have Clinton back? Please?
russ_watters
Apr9-03, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
We did? That's news to me.
1. But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?
Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
I think there are some moments where people should just pause and show a bit of grace. I found myself tearing for the sheer joy in their faces but..it's not over...and they've earned their moment, I'm afraid not a one of us arm chair captains have and maybe gloating just isn't appropriate at times like these.
My two cents.
Nicool003
Apr9-03, 09:44 PM
[QUOTE]*In voice of Darth Vadar*
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a life is insignificant in comparison to the power which creates it.
QUOTE]
Being the star wars moron i am....
you mean Darth Vader. And it was insignificant to the power of the force but that was referring to the movie reason but you seemed to be quoting so I thought I would correct it[:D]
This is a silly, silly thread. Again, let us thank the protesters, without whom Iraw may well have been carpet bombed.
If the intent was to deal with terrorism, how does carpet bombing Iraq fit into the equation.
You seem to assume that the war is about oil and economics. If it is, why are we not carpet bombing? If it is about money, why don't we just take over the oil fields and blast Saddam and his people if they get to close.
Why go to all the trouble of engaging in as humane a war as possible? World opinion, and if you listen to the left, the vast majority of the US population are against Bush, so how could it get any worse for Bush and his buddies if they just killed everything in site with a minimum amount of money and coalition lives? Their reputation couldn't possibly get any worse. Why are they conducting themselves in such a respectable way when no one respects them?
The truth is that the US government is telling the truth, and I admit, as foreign a concept as that sounds, it just happens to be the case this time. We will liberate Iraq. We will find WMDs. We will expose atrocities of Saddam's regime. We will help the Iraqi's restore order. We will help the Iraqi's create a better government. We will leave when these things are accomplished. And the rest of the Arab world is going to have to deal with a very free, and very rich Iraq. That's what I call a huge step in treating the problems that cause terrorism.
Please wake up and smell the cordite. This is not colonialism. This is not one country conquering another. This is a war on terrorism.
But then again, maybe we should give inspections more time. Good grief!
Originally posted by Alias
Why go to all the trouble of engaging in as humane a war as possible?
you mean not brutal enough to hopefuly not turn more people against the ageneda.
Originally posted by Alias
World opinion, and if you listen to the left, the vast majority of the US population are against Bush, so how could it get any worse for Bush and his buddies if they just killed everything in site with a minimum amount of money and coalition lives?
see above.
Originally posted by Alias
Their reputation couldn't possibly get any worse.
it damn well could.
Originally posted by Alias
Why are they conducting themselves in such a respectable way when no one respects them?
that might make some sense if it was true.
you are the one who is obviously sleeping on the job Alias. [s(]
Hmmmmm...use a made up 'War on Terror'(the dumbest idea since Missle Defense)to secure oil contracts in Iraq. Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria. This administration hasn't told teh truth sincce they stopped letting Shrub answer questions off the cuff.
russ_watters
Apr10-03, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria. I'm not sure why I didn't pick up on it before, but isn't that ironic. The same people who made excuses for why we needed to continue inspections after 12 years of failure want Iraq to be an open book in 3 weeks. Such hypocrisy. Hell, give us at least a month. We've been a little busy lately.
...made up 'War on Terror' 9/11 was painful for all uf us, but denying it happened won't change the fact that it did.
kyleb - You live in an alternate universe.
Zero - You seem to be time traveling into the future of kyleb's universe.
Maybe you guys should stop watching Dr. Who.
And ironic that U.S. inspectors need time, but feel confident, while mocking teh same statements and convitions from the U.N.
We're hijacking this thread, let's move on, shall we?
Originally posted by Alias
kyleb - You live in an alternate universe.
Zero - You seem to be time traveling into the future of kyleb's universe.
Maybe you guys should stop watching Dr. Who.
it is called reality and maybe you should watch some Dr. Who, so that you might see the difference. [:D]
Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
Oh.. ok..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
(CBS)_They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted
Hey we have some big bad dictators down here too. Come and attack India, please.
Make sure you get us to destroy all our weapons first, though.
And sure, you can say the Indian govt. caused Sep 11th. Never mind that the Al Q hates us as much as it hates you.
Come on ... there are some nice juicy reconstruction deals to be won here too.
Of course we have no oil, but hey, you cant have everything now, can you ?
- S.
russ_watters
Apr11-03, 02:20 AM
re: carpet bombing.
But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
Originally posted by FZ+
Oh.. ok..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml FZ+, *NOTHING* in that article can be construed as a threat. It is not a communication meant for Iraqi officials. It is simply a discussion of possible tactics. And NOWHERE in that article does the term "carpet bombing" appear.
Exactly. It was meant for the public and press to drive themselves into a frenzy so that whatever the military eventually does would seem like an anti-climax. It was a well calculated exercise in misdirection. (By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics)
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmmm...use a made up 'War on Terror'(the dumbest idea since Missle Defense)to secure oil contracts in Iraq. Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria. This administration hasn't told teh truth sincce they stopped letting Shrub answer questions off the cuff.
This is logigal hogwash.
You claim the war on Iraq was not about terrorism, but about oil, and that now we plot war with Syria.
What possible aim could we have in a war with Syria? Our only beef with them is that they support terrorism. But according to you, terrorism can only be a facade for war.
Njorl
russ_watters
Apr11-03, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
Exactly. It was meant for the public and press to drive themselves into a frenzy so that whatever the military eventually does would seem like an anti-climax. It was a well calculated exercise in misdirection. (By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics) Well thats fine and I tend to agree it was somewhat of a propaganda campaign (and whether its a direct or implied threat is a matter of semantics), but the use of the word "threat" wasn't my primary objection. My objection was to your inference that we threatened CARPET BOMBING. We did no such thing. The term they used (interestingly this link shows the military actually uses the term - I figured some dumb speachwriter made it up for Bush) is "shock and awe." Shock and awe is not even close to carpet bombing. In fact it is the antitheses of carpet bombing. *EVERY* bomb we dropped on Bagdhad was guided.
We "threatened" "shock and awe" and we followed through with it.
This is logigal hogwash.....You claim the war on Iraq was not about terrorism, but about oil, and that now we plot war with Syria.
What possible aim could we have in a war with Syria? Our only beef with them is that they support terrorism. But according to you, terrorism can only be a facade for war. Easy answer: Does Syria have oil? (No really, I don't know). If Syria has no oil then we couldn't go after them for oil. Did we go into Somalia for their oil? Yugoslavia? Haiti?
Njorl, I think its extremly convenient that terrorism seems to go often hand in hand with oil. The anti-US crowd can then easily make the logical fallacy seem logical that we use terrorism as the excuse to go after oil. I also think the opologists have it backwards - we don't use terrorism as an excuse to go after oil, rather terrorism exists BECAUSE of the oil. Oil attracts greed. Certainly the US would do little in the region if there was no oil, but by the same token if there was no oil, there wouldn't be anything for the US to do - oil is the enabler for people like Saddam Hussein.
Syria probably produces more sesame oil than crude.
I will readily concede that oil attracts our interest in terrorism like nothing else. We don't hear much about the terrorism in Sri Lanka (there's quite a lot). We would have ignored the invasion of Kuwait if it were not for oil (or maybe we'd boycott the Baghdad Olympics if they ever were held there).
But I don't think that greed for oil is all that drives our foreign policy. If it were, we would have sold out Israel years ago. We would have used the siezure of our embassy in Iran in 1979 as a pretext for invasion (it would actually have been justified, technically).
Njorl
The whole pretext of this war was to get WMD. Have we got them? Nope. I suppose Sadam's got them all hidin in his basement... Why go after Iraq though? Its obvious they havent the technology to use them directly on us. But here's a thought. North Korea has WMD and HAS the technology to hit us directly with them. SO why arent we fighting them? Because a war with lots of american casualties looks bad on a presidential resume. especially when your job is up for the taking very soon.
On another almost completely unrelated note....Bush's brilliant tax cut. Oh boy. Do you suppose he's told any of our injured soldiers that he's cutting $28billion from their health care so he can have a nicer christmas?
"Is there no honor in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation's heros and rob our programs....to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" - Edward Heath - national commander of disables american veterans.
"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
peace
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well thats fine and I tend to agree it was somewhat of a propaganda campaign (and whether its a direct or implied threat is a matter of semantics), but the use of the word "threat" wasn't my primary objection. My objection was to your inference that we threatened CARPET BOMBING. We did no such thing. The term they used (interestingly this link shows the military actually uses the term - I figured some dumb speachwriter made it up for Bush) is "shock and awe." Shock and awe is not even close to carpet bombing. In fact it is the antitheses of carpet bombing. *EVERY* bomb we dropped on Bagdhad was guided.
We "threatened" "shock and awe" and we followed through with it.
Whatever they actually meant, the image and intention was critical. It's not every day you had military advisors comparing what they would do to hiroshima, is it not? And it's not everyday when we are given figures for bomb loads as more than the previous conflict altogether. (and I do not believe such a load was dropped on the first night)
As to the carpet bombing, I do not think I or anybody else used that term to cry about. Rather, we were concerned, probably as intended about the consequences of dropping over 400 cruise missiles on a single night. And in the end, did that happen? No.
The press don't get excited about nothing. They are easily excitable, yes, but something must start it. And the various disclosures made did it quite well.
Tell me the truth. How many of you genuinely expected the war to begin the way it did? I rest my case. (And if you said yes, then you know too much. [;)])
Can you be more clear about YOUR POINT! I can't see it.
Look into my eyes... you are becoming conservative... you hate big government... you want to be responsible for your own destiny... tax cuts for the rich are your responsibilty... you must sacrifice to me... for I am George Bush The Evil One..muuuuaahhhhhhhhh!
russ_watters
Apr12-03, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
As to the carpet bombing, I do not think I or anybody else used that term to cry about. No, but you *DID* say we THREATENED to carpet bomb when we clearly did NOT. That was my primary point.
Can you be more clear about YOUR POINT! I can't see it Alias, he's trying to evade the point because he doesn't want to admit he misspoke. It goes back to my thread on admitting mistakes...
And I did say it was a bad choice of words on my side:
(By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics)
Can we let this one go now?
russ_watters
Apr13-03, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
And I did say it was a bad choice of words on my side:
Can we let this one go now? Sure - except that the bad choice of words was the words "carpet bombing"....
Then why did you capitalise the THREATENED in each of your posts? Misdirection again?
Originally posted by Alias
Look into my eyes... you are becoming conservative... you hate big government...
LOL yeah, "I hate big government but I just created a brand new entirely useless branch which will invade your privacy because you are a threat to national security!!!!! I AM HOMELAND SECURITY!!!!"
I suppose all anybody ever 'needed' was the illusion of security. Thats all this post 9-11 drama has done. You think this new airport security will keep the sky's safe? What will stop a terrorist -short of his/her own free will- from bombing a school. Homeland security is the biggest joke Ive heard in my life. whats sad is im not laughing. Once we are targeted again by terrorists I wonder if anybody will actually question homeland security. and when they do and homeland security says "its not my fault" i hope they demolish it. Its a waste of money that should be used for education. or maybe a tax cut [g)]
Nice one, Hybrid. The fact is, terrorism cannot be stopped by security or military action. To believe that you can fight it directly is like thinking you can fight a hurricane. Homeland Security is a joke, but it makes people feel good to see people with guns.
russ_watters
Apr14-03, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
Then why did you capitalise the THREATENED in each of your posts? Misdirection again? Check again. I capitalized "threatened" once and "carpet bombing" once. YOU are the one who tried to shift the focus of the arguement.
Why will you not admit we did not threaten to carpet bomb them? What is so important about that to you?
Just say it: No we did not threaten to carpet bomb them.
I also retracted that... shame you didn't notice.
Once again, we did not ThReAtEn to CaRpEt BoMb them.
We misdirected the public by suggesting that we would persue a policy of bombing in Iraq that would generate horrendous civilian casualties.
Happy now?
russ_watters
Apr15-03, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
I also retracted that... shame you didn't notice.
Once again, we did not ThReAtEn to CaRpEt BoMb them.
We misdirected the public by suggesting that we would persue a policy of bombing in Iraq that would generate horrendous civilian casualties.
Happy now? Well, reading through I don't see a retraction on "carpet bombing." But yeah, that'll do. Why did it take 4 days? Is it really that painful?
Its like I said in my thread on admitting mistakes. You get far more respect if you admit them upfront. But hey- at least you finally admitted it. That puts you way ahead of the pack in honor.
heumpje
Apr15-03, 07:47 AM
Is this what they call gloating??
russ_watters
Apr15-03, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by heumpje
Is this what they call gloating?? Could very well be. But if he had been more upfront, there would be nothing to gloat about [;)]
Originally posted by hybrid
...if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction.
That has yet to be demonstrated. The military has been busy fighting the war until now. Now with the fighting coming to a close, they can get underway looking for WMDs. Don't forget that MWDs, if present, are likely very well hidden (and maybe even exported out of the country). We haven't even found most of the former Iraqi leadership yet, never mind WMDs that they have had a chance to hide away for the past decade.
Hmm... the re: the whole WMD problem, aren't we back were we started? Now we can still not show whether Iraq has WMDs, and can probably never disprove that Iraq has such weapons. And in this case, there isn't any authority with information to possibly cooperate with us, and much of the paperwork would probably have been destroyed. So, war or not, we are back to the solution of giving the inspections "more time".
In a perverse way, France's choice won out after all.
russ_watters
Apr16-03, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... the re: the whole WMD problem, aren't we back were we started? Now we can still not show whether Iraq has WMDs, and can probably never disprove that Iraq has such weapons. And in this case, there isn't any authority with information to possibly cooperate with us, and much of the paperwork would probably have been destroyed. So, war or not, we are back to the solution of giving the inspections "more time".
In a perverse way, France's choice won out after all. Except that now we are free to ACTUALLY LOOK for the wmd. We don't need their cooperation when we control the country - we can go whereever we want. I read they are currently examining 2,000+ possible wmd sites. We'll learn quick, but quick is still a couple of months.
GlamGein
Apr17-03, 01:16 AM
Anybody with a heart and a conscience mind began crying 12 years ago when the U.S. started bombing Iraq daily. For twelve years, we have been bombing that country, and imposing starvation on an already impoverished people through sanctions. I still detest GWB, but now maybe these people can start to put their lives back together, no thanks to his ignorant and selfish father, GB Sr., who put Saddam into power in the first place. For all of you who don't know, Saddam was put into power by the CIA (GW was director at the time) in order to appropriate oil for U.S. interest. Being the rogue type of guy he is, he betrayed us, and tried to keep that oil money for himself. Thats the reason we went to war with Iraq. Not for freedom, not for ideals, not even for ourselves. The Bush family, as we all know, is made of oil money, and have now appropriated even more of it for themselves. If you think the U.S. people aside from oil moguls will benefit from GWB's actions, you are mistaken.
Entropia
Apr17-03, 01:42 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=12&u=/ap/20030417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_anti_americanism_6
Originally posted by Entropia
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=12&u=/ap/20030417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_anti_americanism_6
From that article...
"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."
Well screw you buddy. I say we leave your burned out country with you in charge. I'm sure you could get a new government up and running in just a few minutes.
Also from that article...
"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."
That was not true. However, with an attitude like that, I'm beginning to care less and less about Iraqis or their history.
In fact (now Alias is pissed off) if all this war did was scare the crap out of "Muslim(s)...(that) don't like the Americans and the British," (Fouad Abdullah Ahmed's words, not mine) then so be it. Keep your suicide bombers out of the US or we'll burn your countries to the ground. GOT IT?
Jeez, try to help a guy out!
And PLEASE, no comments about how there aren't any terrorists in Iraq. Saddam himself is(was) the mother of all terrorists, and if that's not good enough for you, invite Abu Abbas over for dinner some night.
GENIERE
Apr17-03, 02:54 AM
GlamGein:
Just the facts!
Let's see, Saddam came to power in 1979 while (wadda ya know) Democrat Jimmy Carter was president and Admiral Turner was the CIA director. Did the CIA have dealings with Saddam at that time? Yep, there was a big effort to funnel arms into Afghanistan in any way possible to involve the USSR in a protracted war.
Did the CIA help the Baath party asume power in Iraq? Yep, in 1963 while (wadda ya know) another Democratic, JF Kennedy was president. Why? To create a regime that would be anti USSR. Didn't work.
Many countries were in the line of fire of the two superpowers from 1945 until about 1990. Every US president's goal, Rep or Dem was to destroy the USSR. Lots of nasty stuff happened. Iraq and other countries were pawns in a much bigger game. Oil never was and is not now an issue. President Reagan eventually won the cold war by making it economically impossible for the USSR to compete.
Regards
Between the Democrat bashing and the Republican bashing, we've made a VERY strong case that the situation in Iraq is America's fault, haven't we?
If the US is responsible for all of the problems Iraq has had in the last half of the 20th century, then every one of our allies is complicit. Including you, UK.
As for the new situation in Iraq, you bet it is our fault, and you can bet that the quality of life of the average Iraqi will meet and exceed that of pre-war life in a few short years. And it is also our fault that they are no longer under the brutal dictatorial rule of a murderer.
And your right we let some looting get out of control, and a bunch of replica artifacts got smashed or stolen (Saddam took most of the real stuff). Small price to pay I'd say.
Also, did you ever think that maybe there are some problems with Arab culture that contribute to the messes that Arab countries seem to get themselves in?
Just because you are guilty of a crime against a person, does not mean that that person was without blame or fault, or that that person wasn't a criminal himself.
Yeah, we murdered a bunch of Indians. But they were just as murderous to each other.
Yeah, we enslaved a bunch of Africans, but we purchased many Africans from Africans and Africans, to this day, still enslave one another.
Obviously, two wrongs don't make a right, but lets keep things in perspective.
All hail George Bush!!![:D]
Alias, you forgot teh part where teh US is responsible for teh chaos and anarchy in Iraq, because they went in with no solid plan for anything but securing the oil fields.
russ_watters
Apr17-03, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Alias, you forgot teh part where teh US is responsible for teh chaos and anarchy in Iraq, because they went in with no solid plan for anything but securing the oil fields. Alias, you also forget that everything bad that has happened in the world since 1776 is the US's fault [g)]
I need a new pet word... How about PREPOSTEROUS!!!
Originally posted by russ_watters
Alias, you also forget that everything bad that has happened in the world since 1776 is the US's fault [g)]
I need a new pet word... How about PREPOSTEROUS!!!
How about accepting teh WHOLE truth, and not just the parts that make you feel good?
russ_watters
Apr17-03, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Zero
How about accepting teh WHOLE truth, and not just the parts that make you feel good? Yeah. Should I follow your lead?
I believe I DID state in another thread that it was a mistake to not send a better occupation force in sooner. Its a catch-22 though - clamp down too tight and the anti-US crowd (you) will claim we are there to occupy them. I believe it was a calculated political move when it shouldn't have been.
So, whole truth, eh: is there anything good that you see coming out of this war? Anything at all? Only ONE of us has been acknowledging that there are two sides to every story.
Hmm... Don't make me use my powers of citizen's locking....
This topic was pretty much a tasteless gloat to start off with. Let's keep the gloating clean, people...[g)]
GlamGein
Apr18-03, 01:47 AM
Alias:
No, the fact remains that GB is the person responsible for Saddam, and why is a little conspiracy so hard for you to believe?
GWB admits he is a member of the society of the skull and bones, which some say controls the entire world...
some say GB forced Regan to accept him as running mate, and OTHERS say the assassination attempt of president regan was NO coincidence...
A little conspiracy here and there never hurt anyone.
Glamgein, Geniere, I think you guys are both oversimplifying the picture with Hussein coming to power, and the CIA's role. The major period of direct American involvement with Saddam was during the Iran-Iraq war, when the USSR was also supporting Iraq, though to a lesser extent. See
THE EMERGENCE OF SADDAM HUSAYN, 1968-79 from the Library of Congress
http://www.countryreports.org/history/iraqhist.htm
UPI article on CIA-Saddam involvement
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
Alias, have you tried turning those arguments around and looking at them from the other side? Like, let's say I'm 'Alias Abbas' from Iraq: I'm beginning to care less and less about Iraqis or their history.... Keep your suicide bombers out of the US or we'll burn your countries to the ground. GOT IT? That is not true, we never sent suicide bombers to the USA. Keep your invading armies out of our countries, or we will blow up your buildings and planes. With an attitude like that, I don't care if it just makes you Americans scared and angry and thinking we just want to destroy what your country stands for.
Did you ever think that there are some problems with American culture that explains why so many people hate them? Yes, the terrorists murdered a bunch of Americans. But the Americans murdered each other, and the Indians, and the Vietnamese, and the Afghanis, just as much. Just because they 9/11 attackers committed a crime, does not mean that that those Americans in the WTC were without blame or fault themselves.
---
See what I mean?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah. Should I follow your lead?
I believe I DID state in another thread that it was a mistake to not send a better occupation force in sooner. Its a catch-22 though - clamp down too tight and the anti-US crowd (you) will claim we are there to occupy them. I believe it was a calculated political move when it shouldn't have been.
So, whole truth, eh: is there anything good that you see coming out of this war? Anything at all? Only ONE of us has been acknowledging that there are two sides to every story.
Go ahead Russ, turn off your brain by calling me 'anti-US' again, because i don't look at the world through rose-colored glasses. You only see the 'good', what little there is of it. There are so many negative aspects to American foreign policy in general, that you simply ignore in your fervor to 'support' America no matter what.
You are like a mother of a death row inmate, screaming about how wonderful her murdering son is.
Originally posted by GlamGein
Alias:
No, the fact remains that GB is the person responsible for Saddam, and why is a little conspiracy so hard for you to believe?
No what? It's you that is hard to believe.
GWB admits he is a member of the society of the skull and bones, which some say controls the entire world...
If he "controls the entire world", why does he need the US Military to get his way? What, are you four?!?!
some say GB forced Regan to accept him as running mate, and OTHERS say the assassination attempt of president regan was NO coincidence...
Some say not tossing salad is hazardous to your health.
A little conspiracy here and there never hurt anyone.
All hail the Evil One, George Bush! Hail George Bush!
russ_watters
Apr18-03, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Go ahead Russ, turn off your brain by calling me 'anti-US' again, because i don't look at the world through rose-colored glasses. I think it is self evident - if you are against the policies and/or actions of the US, you are anti-us. Thats kinda the definition.
You can differentiate that from "anti-american."
Originally posted by russ_watters
I think it is self evident - if you are against the policies and/or actions of the US, you are anti-us. Thats kinda the definition.
You can differentiate that from "anti-american."
The current administration is not the country, boss....elsewise, all those who attacked Clinton based on lies(Rush Limbaugh, for instance), should be considered traitors.
russ_watters
Apr19-03, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Zero
The current administration is not the country, boss....elsewise, all those who attacked Clinton based on lies(Rush Limbaugh, for instance), should be considered traitors. Quite wrong. The current administration sets most of the official policies of the USA. virtually all of the foreign policy for example comes directly from the president or from people he personally appointed to represent him. When an ambassador goes to another country, he's a representative of the President himself. The war we just fought was Bush's policy.
Now if you oppose Bush's tax plan for example, then you do not oppose the official policy of the USA since Bush doesn't have the authority to set that policy. See the difference?
And there isn't anything impeachable about what Bush has done - otherwise the democrats would be pushing to impeach him. Also, there is nothing traitorous about opposing a policy.
Russ, Ihave no idea what you are talking about...how is opposing Bush and his anti-American cabal the same as opposing the country?
well i know how everyone hates it when someone starts making nazi comparisons, but it is basically the same as how it was considered an outright crime against the homeland if you opposed Hitler. i mean at other points in history it has been perfectly fine to disagree with the administration, but when the country is worked up into a heathenist frenzy it is a whole different story; anything even boarding on dissent becomes essentially the antitheses of apple pie and baseball. [:D]
That's like people saying that calling Bush a slacker gives aid to terrorists...no, in real life, aid would be money or food. Only in some sort of Orwellian nightmare word does criticism of one person equal support of another.
well i know how everyone hates it when someone starts making nazi comparisons, but it is basically the same as how it was considered an outright crime against the homeland if you opposed Hitler. Yeah, basically. In Nazi Germany if you openly opposed Hitler, the SS came to your door at 5am to drag you away to a death camp. Now, if you openly oppose Bush, some conservatives call you a dirty hippie and say you're unpatriotic.
Exactly the same thing. <rolls eyes>
Originally posted by damgo
Yeah, basically. In Nazi Germany if you openly opposed Hitler, the SS came to your door at 5am to drag you away to a death camp. Now, if you openly oppose Bush, some conservatives call you a dirty hippie and say you're unpatriotic.
Exactly the same thing. <rolls eyes>
LOL, the ATTITUDE is similar...and, after all, like the right-wing media has been screaming; do you wait until they do act before responding, or do you nip it in the bud early, before the damage is done?
well damgo, i was referring to the earlier stages prior to the death camps. but you might want to stop rolling your eyes and break out a dictionary to understand the difference between the terms "basically" and "exactly", it would be more productive. [;)]
[;)] Yeah, I see the parallel... isn't there even some famous quote by a Nazi about all governments using patriotism in wartime to demonize political opponents? Was that your sig I saw that in kyleb?
Mind you... seeing that Zero allowed this entire thread which is based on gloating and ridiculing of other people's reviews, it's pretty stupid accusing him of being too strict in his role as moderator here, or abusing his power. Hmm...
Originally posted by FZ+
Mind you... seeing that Zero allowed this entire thread which is based on gloating and ridiculing of other people's reviews, it's pretty stupid accusing him of being too strict in his role as moderator here, or abusing his power. Hmm...
The complaining about me 'abusing power' isn't about reality. It is about claiming victim status to get special treatment, a classic strategy. For the most part, one side feels like if it has to compromise, it is being suppressed. It is the same way that some Christian groups claim that their rights are being taken away if they cannot force their views on others 24/7 in every public forum.
i think this thread has gone on long enough as i see it drifting way off topic...zero, sting, are you with me in closing it?
Originally posted by Kerrie
i think this thread has gone on long enough as i see it drifting way off topic...zero, sting, are you with me in closing it?
I dunno...yeah, why not? And, you could show me how to close one, if you aren't too busy?
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.