Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Pure and utter irony

  1. Dec 2, 2003 #1
    I find this exceptionally ironic!

    I read an article in the Sunday newspaper which commented on the War in Iraq and the transistional government.

    It said that on eof the major parties in Iraq is the communist party. Also, it's the only party with widespread support across religions and is the only one with Jewish membership.


    What happens if the American troops leave Iraq? An election will be held and guess who wins? The Communists!!

    So, America overthrew a right wing dictatorship to get control of Iraq'a oil. However, what they didn't see is that within a couple of years, those oilfields will be LEGALLY nationalised meaning they won't have control over 'em.

    Also, USA can't have a puppet government with communists!

    And what about relations with Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Surely if America is to be friendly towards Iraq, they must reconsider relations with other governments with left tendencies?

    I'm starting to think that the invasion of Iraq was probably the stupidest thing America has done for a while.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 2, 2003 #2

    Your assumption that the US invaded Iraq to get control of Iraqi oil is nonsense. This is a widely pedalled myth with no basis whatsoever in fact. here are some real facts:
    -No oil is being sold for US benefit.
    -The money for any oil that is sold will be spent entirely on Iraq
    -The US congress have just passed a bill giving billions of dollars in Aid to Iraq, just as they did for Germany and Japan after WW11.

    Your world view is somewhat tainted by your political outlook.

    As this is the Physics forum, perhaps you would like to give some data or fact to back up your assertions?
  4. Dec 2, 2003 #3
    Re: Re: Pure and utter irony...

    Your view is obviously tainted by Fox 'News'... now stick to the topic, ok?
  5. Dec 2, 2003 #4
    Temper temper Adrian!

    Okay, at least I now know the facts about the oil (even if they are tainted by fox news as zero pointed out :smile: ).


    That wasn't the point you know. I'm trying to point out that America is (apparently and also inadvertantly) "supporting" a communist regime!

    Get it??
  6. Dec 2, 2003 #5
    The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, as they say...we'll see how committed to democracy America is, when Iraq democratically elects a government that doesn't support American interests. With the world watching, will America once again support a dictatorship that will 'play the game', or will they allow a free government taht looks out for its people first?
  7. Dec 2, 2003 #6
    proof of the pudding hmm....

    WW1 - US supports Allies against militaristic takeover. The Americans leave us to it when the war ends

    WW2 - Us supports the Allies, but when the war is over devise the Marshall Plan. This involves the reconstruction of Europe into free democratic nations using billions of US taxpayers money. The same occurs in Japan. Europe is now free from tyranny, peaceful and successful. We are not a US colony.

    Korea - big conflict in an attempt, with the UN, to protect S Korea from vicious communists in the North. This protection, through the UN is still going on. S Korea is free and prosperous. N Korea is one of the poorest and most corrupt nations on earth.

    I could go on, and yes there have been failed missions (vietnam, Somalia etc) and some HUGE mistakes have been made. But can all you anti-americans point to these so called US colonies bled dry by American invaders? There aren't any. When the US succeeds it leaves behind freedom, democracy and eventually prosperity.

    What has France, or Germany done for world Peace? What other nation gives a f**k for the starving and oppressed in the world? Why doesn't S Africa intervene in Zimbabwe? Why doesn't the EU abandon its Common Agricultural Policy that prevents poor coutries from trading and dumps cut price produce on the world market undercutting those underdeveloped nations? Who is doing ANYTHING about the starving in N Korea?

    It is so easy to knock the US, because it tries to make a difference and sometimes fails or gets it wrong. Why not ridicule the nations who do nothing for a change.

    Oh and by the way, I have never seen Fox news - we don't get it in the UK
  8. Dec 2, 2003 #7
    A few notes...there were laws against U.S. war profiteering, laws that conservatives in America made sure were NOT included in the current spending bill.

    And, of course, here we go with the standard 'anti-Bush=anti-America' nonsense, the ability to pretend that so long as other nations are wrong, America cannot be criticized, and the rest of the standard 'America is perfect' nonsense. For the last time, the TOPIC is what happens when the freely elected Iraqi government acts in ways that serve its own interests at the expense of corporate interests? If Venezuela is any example, we can expect the US government to support the overthrow of a democracy.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2003
  9. Dec 2, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Re: Re: Pure and utter irony...

    His facts really are facts, Zero. Didn't you hear about the recent vote in Congress to NOT seek repayment of the reconstruction costs via oil profits? Call it selfish altruism if you want but its still altruistic.
    Maybe you should reread, Zero - he explicitly stated that America is NOT perfect. Your bias is clouding your vision - a pathetic display since I KNOW you know the real facts.
  10. Dec 2, 2003 #9
    As I said, remember Europe. Many thousands of your countrymen died on and around the beaches of France in WW2, because your country believed in freedom and democracy.

    France is so Anti-american it makes me cringe. Their Gov't and people treat you with contempt. Where is the attempt of "the US government to support the overthrow of a democracy" here then?

    The only Americans who still remain behind in France after the war are those who died in trying to reclaim France's freedom. I've been to the graveyards and it is a deeply upsetting experience.

    So, to get back to the TOPIC the answer is the US will try its hardest to defend its own interests, as every gov't should, but democracy and freedom in Iraq will be it's highest priority.

    What other nation, other than perhaps the UK, can say that?
  11. Dec 2, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, the US remains today the first and ONLY nation with a policy of rebuilding conquered enemies. Our enemies from WWII owe their current stability, prosperity, and freedom to us. And its spreading now on its own accord.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2003
  12. Dec 2, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Australia? Italy? Poland? Spain? Israel??

    The smaller the country, the more their priorities are coloured by the potential benefits (or costs) of an alliance with (or support for) bigger and closer countries. Fighting elephants are dangerous for ants, no matter which elephant the ants may feel affinity for. When there is only one elephant, the calculus for the ants is different.

    Maybe Blair's highest priority has to do with future special benefits he feels will follow from his staunch support of Bush?

    But back to shahil's early posts: perhaps an equally ironic outcome would be for the democratically elected Iraqi government to be a staunchly islamist one, which enforces some of the more abhorrent aspects of Sharia law?
  13. Dec 2, 2003 #12
    There will never be legitimate democratic electios in Iraq -- the US will always try to keep both the means of production and the raw material found in Iraq, and a popularly elected leader will never have power over these things. The contractors selected for the job of supplying power and pumping oil meanwhile profiteer from taxes on US civilians.
    If Saddam is successful, and it's hard to imagine him being successful in the long run, there could definitely be another totalitarian ruler, but Saddam's brand of "socialism" never has or will evolve from simple despotism.
  14. Dec 3, 2003 #13
    Re: Australia?

    Please explain the above examples? Australia maybe, but the others?

    Italy was a fascist dictatorship supporting Hitler, and have done nothing for democracy any where since. Spain stayed neutral in WW2 and is hardly known for fighting oppresion (other than hassling the free people of Gibraltar) And Isreal hardly believe in freedom and democracy for the Palestinians whose country they were 'given' by the west do they?
    Poor Poland has spent a great deal of the last century as an oppressed state. It is more a victim than anything. It is good to see that at last it is free from fascism, commumism or whatever else other states try to force upon it.

    I'm not trying to argue for the sake of it here (would I?), but I am interested in how you justify jour examples.
  15. Dec 3, 2003 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ref: Iraq, and who's pure of heart

    Adrian: I was responding to your question, as to which country - other than the US and possibly the UK - will have democracy and freedom in Iraq as its highest priority. AFAIK, Australia, Italy, Poland and Spain have all sent troops (or policemen, or 'security forces') to support the US and UK as part of the 'coalition of the willing' (Bush-speak). On a per-capita basis (or perhaps a per-persons under arms basis), my guess is that Australia is higher on the league table than the UK (much smaller population).

    As an interesting comparison, replay your statements, substiting "East Timor" for "Iraq"; "Australia" for "the US"; "???" for "the UK" and what emerges? My guess: although the Australian contribution to peace and stability in East Timor, on a per capita basis may be comparable to the US's in Iraq (if indeed that's what it's objectives are), there's little breast-beating about it.

    Perhaps a more telling example: who has supplied the troops to support the various UN peace-keeping missions around the world? Those soldiers died just as horrible deaths as the US Marines (etc) have in Iraq; their government's objectives have surely been just as pure as the US's - maybe more so, since there wasn't as obviously a single power's interests at play - but I don't recall too many words of praise from the Bush team on their sacrifices (Blair, to his credit, has been a staunch supporter, as has Howard).
  16. Dec 4, 2003 #15
    Re: Ref: Iraq, and who's pure of heart

    Oh I see your point. The Spanish Goverment have really put their necks out on this one - and good for them too. But Israel?

    The Aussies have done well, but with world terror affecting them too (ie the Bali bombing) they are on the front line and can't just ignore the terrorists. (as France wants to do!)

    Is it just about being SEEN to do the right thing though? If Bush were morally correct, but the World's nations disagreed with his actions who would be in the right then? Sometimes there are no easy or obvious answers.
  17. Dec 4, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not really sure about the political climate after WWII, so I'll just ask: did people say the same things about Germany and Japan after WWII? If so, what has changed about the US government since then. If not, what has changed about the perceptions of certain people since then?
    Well, thats just plain wrong. Since the US is not now keeping either, you could say - 'in the future the US will.....' but you'd have a hard time defending that since first the US would have to START controlling either - and the time for that to be possible without too much backlash has passed. Certainly we could have if we had wanted to but again (and people keep ignoring this inconvenient fact), Congress recently voted that we will NOT seek to recover the reconstruction costs. That makes it MORE altruistic than the Marshall Plan which for the most part was just LOANS.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
  18. Dec 4, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The sequence DOES matter

    AFAIK, the Australian deep involvement in East Timor came well before 9/11 and the Bali bombing.

    Israel?? = that's why I put two question marks. From reading kat's posts, I'd expected her to jump in with a lengthy piece on how the real-politik would've made any Israeli involvement in Iraq counter-productive, but nonetheless the Sharon government is behind Bush all the way.
  19. Dec 4, 2003 #18
    Democracy in Iraq? Is there anyone who honestly thinks any of this is about democracy, freedom, or some whacky form of defending a nation which has never been attacked by Iraq and is beyond Iraq's reach?

    Note: "democracy" does not mean "freedom". I know Bushy boy wants you to consider the terms equal, and to consider them inextricably entwined with the letters "USA", but that is simply not the case.
  20. Dec 4, 2003 #19
    1) Terrorism existed long before that 9/11 thing.

    2) Terrorism, to me, is deliberately killing civilians for some political cause.

    3) The USA, Australia, England, and other nations have done as much terrorism (see 2) as anyone else. I'll provide examples if you really need them pointed out to you.

    4) There is no front line against terrorism. There is no real war on terrorism. It's merely public relations, an advertising campaign, an excuse. Yes, some very bad things really did happen. But it is a mistake to think those bad things really have something to do with the current activities of the USA, Australia, et cetera.

    5) What is happening? The USA is on a path to economic ruin. They need a new industry to lower unemployment, allow influence overseas by direct force, and stimulate idustries at home. The answer is war. The USA currently has about 320,000 troops in other countries. Bush's buddies like Cheney and his mates now control Iraq's oil wells (Halliburton), without ever having to bother bidding for the contracts. Any time anyone mentions any of the sly dealing going no, patriots and politicians screa, "9/11!" as though is has some connection, when in fact Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. As for Australia, well, our weak government has neglected our military so long that we are basically defenceless, and John Howard is determined to ensure that, rather than spending money to boost our own capabilities, we'll have to rely absolutely on the USA by siding with them against just about the entire world.

    Rant over. :D
  21. Dec 5, 2003 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll bite. What examples do you mean? Please note though, that I'm not a guy who lives in the past and I know ALL countries have done bad things. A GOOD country is one that evolves avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. So how about RECENT examples. Say, the past 25 years or so.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook