The W
Views: 101548400
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.14 1236
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq (Page 2)
This thread has 33 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2509 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (68 total)
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 365 days
Last activity: 53 days
#21 Posted on
The entire American foreign policy can be boiled down to a few key points:

-Money is good
-Terrorism is bad
-I like pie

Since terrorism is bad, and Iraq harbors terrorists, then Iraq is bad by extention. And Iraq can only still harbor terrorisms because Bush's dear old daddy didn't finish the job in '91. So, his boy is out to finish the job...by any means necessary. Sorry...got in Triple H promo mood there... But still, if they take out Iraq at the knees, it helps public opinion of the government and military, and makes other countries bow down to the Americans.



"That's what the Internet is for, slandering others anonymously" Banky Edwards (Jason Lee), Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

"Smile." Maguire (Jude Law), Road to Perdition
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2890 days
Last activity: 2733 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
The general consensus here seems to be that we're attacking Iraq because it's a PR stunt. Whether that's true or not, attacking Iraq is a good idea because THEY WANT TO KILL US, and harbor those who WANT TO KILL US. Sheesh.

And, no, you can't boil American foreign policy down to those three things. What you can, more or less, boil mid-east foreign policy down to is "Oil is good, but other than that we don't know what the hell we're doing."

And come on... whether Bush's dad did or did not get the job done has NO BEARING on what Bush Jr. is doing. Again, IRAQ IS BAD. I am sure that all manner of moral relativists will spring into this forum to tell me that, really, who can say we're better than Iraq? But, dammit, they're Bad People. (They being Saddam and those of his murderous ilk). Is Bush supposed to leave Saddam alone because he wants to avoid the perception that he's just trying to "finish what his father started?"

Borttom line: Terrorists want to kill us. Saddam wants to kill us. It's them or us, so let's hit first. No amount of politically correct, "let's be sensitive to Islamic extremists.. they grew up in poor neighborhoods" BS is going to prevent another attack on the US, but you know what is? The death of our enemies. You can't negotiate with insanity, and what we're up against is certainly that.



Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on
I'm, oddly enough, in favor of war in Iraq, if only to get Hussein out of power. This country has some absolutely evil sanctions against Iraq, and they won't be repealed until Saddam is gone, so let's get off our ass and get rid of the prick.

That said, isn't it amazing how quicky Osama became "not important"? And how come we're willing to find any way to connect Iraq to 9/11, but even though 11 of the 13 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, they're our "ally in peace"?

And when in the hell did Democrats say you shouldn't fly your flag anyway? I must've missed that. The Democrats don't even criticize Bush and the Right Wing Agenda anymore when it merits it.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music."
---Anon.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 259 days
Last activity: 60 days
#24 Posted on
But see here's the thing: We're making war on Iraq. All of Iraq. Yet Saddam is the one in power who's directing his country's forces into an Anti-US stance. Yet we'll kill plenty of Iraqi's in our quest to get rid of him. If I was from Iraq, I'd probably hate America for all the economic sanctions killing people in my country and such. And you know what? While Saddam is an evil dictator, and I don't hold most Iraqi's responsible for his actions, Bush is an official elected by the majority of the United States (or Florida anyway). So I feel that WE as a nation are held accountable for Bush's actions. And some of those actions I just don't agree with.

-Jag

Or something.... I need food and sleep.

Tom Petty rocks!



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2926 days
Last activity: 2926 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
PalpatineW sez:

    Everyone acts as if dictatorships just spring out of nowhere and enslave peoples. They don't. They are the product of corrupt cultures, and until the people in those cultures decide to wake up and change them, they're all going to be screwed.

Please don't take this personally, but that is the kind of pig-headed ignorance that gives many Americans bad names with "foreigners". You are right ... dictatorships don't spring out of nowhere. They were established and supported by the Soviet Union and by America in the name of fighting Cold War. And when it comes to the Third World, America has more blood on its hands than any other country around.

Iraq: Saddam was supported by America from the 1960s to the late 1980s. He wasn't hostile to the U.S. in the least. But when he invaded Kuwait he was labelled "the new Hitler" and demonized. But it's the same Saddam, using the same brutal iron fist, that the U.S. government supported for 30 years.

Cuba: The people of Cuba did wake up in 1959 and changed their rulers. But the U.S. didn't like their socialist bent and The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis and the endless Cuban Sanctions resulted.

El Salvador: The U.S. supported a brutal dictatorship for decades in the name of fighting Cold War, because the opposition would have had land reform like in Cuba. Communism!

Guatamala: Ditto.

Nicaragua: The people of Nicaragua "woke up" and got ride of their U.S.-supported dictator in 1979. But the U.S. couldn't stand that -- so they armed and supported the Contras, "freedom fighters" who just happened to use terrorist tactics.

Chile: The people of Chile voted in a man in 1973 who the U.S. thought was too left-wing. So they had him assassinated and helped establish a brutal dictatorship under Pinochet.

Argentina: The U.S. supported the brutal military dictatorship for decades.

Indonisia: The U.S. supported the brutal military dictatorship for decades.

Iran: The U.S. supported the brutal Shah dictatorship for decades, which is why so many Iranians today call America "the Great Satan". You know, if the American-supported military tortured and killed your grandfather and uncle for speaking out against dictatorship, you would be pissed too.

I could go on and on and on. But I hope you've got the point. The U.S. supports, economically and militarily, regimes that are "market friendly". They don't give a damn about democracy as long as the governments don't fuck with American corporations making healthy profits. Democracy in America, sure, but definitely not in the Third World. Democratic governments would want to get ride of sweatshops and fruit-growing land deals and cheap oil deals that are so profitable for American corporations.

The most recent example -- Pakistan was not too long ago a democracy. Lots of corruption, but a democracy. The U.S.-supported military declared that General Mushariff is going to run things for a while, let's not worry about voting. That dictatorship sure didn't spring up out of nowhere. It sprang up thanks to Washington.

Rant over.



Let me put you in the picture, let me show you what I mean;
The Messiah is my sister, ain't no king man, she's my queen.
ICEMAN
Landjager








Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by ICEMAN
    It doesn't matter what the U.S. does we'll be wrong in everyone else's eyes anyway.




And it all comes back to this



"Calvary's here;calvary's a frightened guy with a rock, but it's here"
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#27 Posted on
That´s not true at all. While I agree that other countries tend to prejudge America and its foreign policy, it´s not at all true that they´ll think we´re wrong 'no matter what.' About ten years ago (and as recently as 1 year ago) attitudes toward America were much better than today. What foreigners don´t like is the U.S. acting like they run the world and could give a damn what anyone else thinks. Now, of course we do run the world (as it should be, remember what happened when Europe ran the world?), but we could at least pay some lip service to other countries, and maybe put the good of the people of the world above the good of Bush´s corporate buddies making a lot of money. That would go a long way toward othr countries not thinking we´re always wrong.

The ironic thing is that our foreign policy in the past, especially in relation to Latin America, what 10x worse than it is today.

(edited by MoeGates on 22.7.02 1234)


Expressing myself EVERY day!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
Let's just boil this down to brass tacks and really blame the most EVIL country on Earth for all of this:


France
chazerizer
Italian








Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4450 days
Last activity: 907 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on
ok, so I wasn't going to write this, but decided to in the end.

The US government has had its problems in the past. Central America is a debaucle that I think all of us would like to forget as quickly and painlessly as possible. That just isn't going to happen though. Recently, however, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc in Europe (which, by the way, was a lot worse than anything the United States ever did), the United States has been a lot better with foreign policy.

For example, Sadam Hussein was supported by the United States, UNTIL he broke an international law and actually invaded a neighboring peaceful nstion. Although I'm not saying I supported that action, I can certainly say it was justified. The same is true of MOST recent American involvement. And although most of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian, they were no doubt influenced by a lot of things not Saudi in origin.

War sucks, and we shouldn't do it.

Oh well.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that once we get rid of that EVIL France, we'll be set.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#30 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Attacking Iraq is a good idea because THEY WANT TO KILL US, and harbor those who WANT TO KILL US. Sheesh.

    Bottom line: Terrorists want to kill us. Saddam wants to kill us. It's them or us, so let's hit first. No amount of politically correct, "let's be sensitive to Islamic extremists.. they grew up in poor neighborhoods" BS is going to prevent another attack on the US, but you know what is? The death of our enemies. You can't negotiate with insanity, and what we're up against is certainly that.



You're probably hearing a hissing noise about now -- it's a slow leak in the back of your brain. Don't worry; it's a common post-9/11 malady, and lots of people are living nearly-normal lives with that condition.

According to your logic, we're perfectly justified in bombing Iraq flat, because (a) IRAQ IS BAD, (b) THEY WANT TO KILL US, (c) Iraq's leader wants to kill us, (d) we're better than them and (e) only the death of our "enemies" will prevent further attacks. Somewhere in the Middle East right now, there's a "terrorist" teaching his followers that (a) AMERICA IS BAD, (B) AMERICA WANTS TO KILL THEM, (c) America's leader wants to kill them, (d) Americans think their (religion/culture/way of life) is better and (e) only the death of America and Americans will prevent further attacks.

Yeah, that's a productive argument, especially because it's cyclical.

Generalizing countries as "the enemy" works great if your country's the one doing the bombing. Oddly enough, when other countries generalize America and Americans as The Great Satan To Be Destroyed, many of us don't seem to recognize the same logic at work. The same fallacy applies -- assuming that all those in a given country support the actions of their government, have uniform beliefs and should be held accountable for their government's actions.

The terrorists attacked America and its government symbolically on 9/11, and thousands of people who had nothing to do with our government's actions died horribly. Our government lashed out at Afghanistan in response, chasing the symbol of terrorism, and thousands of people who had never even heard of the World Trade Center died horribly. Bob the WTC accountant and Omar the Afghani goat herder have a lot in common, besides being dead. Did anything productive come out of either attack? Not really.

It's not as if there's a finite pile of people who are EVIL and INSANE and TERRORISTS and THE ENEMY, and once the US has killed them all there won't be any more. All the "War On Terror" will do is spawn more terror. Everywhere a bomb drops, everywhere that lives end, those who survive will say "See? THAT proves our point. Americans are EVIL and INSANE and TERRORISTS and THE ENEMY because they're killing us," and more and more people devolve from rational individuals to mindless xenophobes. It's worked great in this country, already...




"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
ICEMAN
Landjager








Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#31 Posted on
So what you're saying is that for the U.S. to be a good nation and let people run over us and not do anything so we can come out smelling like roses out of the whole thing.



If we do that we'll become the next France.



"Calvary's here;calvary's a frightened guy with a rock, but it's here"
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 259 days
Last activity: 60 days
#32 Posted on
And what are you saying that we should do?

-Jag



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
No I'm saying I hate France...

Personally, let's bomb the shit out of Iraq and hope for the best...
ICEMAN
Landjager








Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#34 Posted on
I'm saying the U.S. should overthown Hussein and/or destroy Iraq totally.


VSP proves what I said before "If doesn't matter the U.S. does it'll be viewed as wrong in everyone else's eyes ".


We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists.If we didn't defend ourselves we would be viewed as pussies,so we defended ourselves and were looked at as wrong for defending ourselves because we are accidently killing civilians.


The elimination of Iraq is good for the rest of the world.First they'll attack America then Britain then Germany and so on.America would just the start of a evil circle of destruction of the free world by the hand of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I think it's better to attack before being attacked.They wanna obliterate us,lets obliterate them before they have the chance.

If any other country did the same thing they would be cheered for.

We do it and and we're scoffed at.We're prejudged everyone knows that.We could kiss every countries ass and we would still be looked at as wrong for every fucking thing we do.

We are not a perfect country,we never said we were.We are viewed that way by other countries and when we fuck up they're all over us.


After 9/11,The U.S. doesn't care about what other countries say about us.We are defending ourselves and the free world and we get no respect, none.Its down to the point that we have done everything to be PC and we're wrong,so we've said screw everyone else we're on our own.



"Calvary's here;calvary's a frightened guy with a rock, but it's here"
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3048 days
Last activity: 3044 days
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by ICEMAN
    We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists.If we didn't defend ourselves we would be viewed as pussies,so we defended ourselves and were looked at as wrong for defending ourselves because we are accidently killing civilians.


Or was it because we defended ourselves by overthrowing an established (albeit not recognized) government that had just as many ties with the terrorists as we did?




    The elimination of Iraq is good for the rest of the world.First they'll attack America then Britain then Germany and so on.


How? They don't have the technology to do any of this at the moment, unless they packed up and marched over to Europe and then hopped on boats to America.



    They wanna obliterate us,lets obliterate them before they have the chance.


Who does? Every person in Iraq, or Saddam Hussein? Or the Saudi people, which is where most of the terrorists came from?



    If any other country did the same thing they would be cheered for.


They would? Like when Iraq invaded Iran, or Kuwait for grievances against those countries?



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the "F" Out! part 2
>BUY RPGs FROM ME!! PLEASE!

Weekly Visitor
ICEMAN
Landjager








Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#36 Posted on
I'm wrong ok,lets get destroyed.No one here gives two blue fucks about this country anyway.We are always gonna be wrong.


None of you people believe America has done anything right and you never will.



"Calvary's here;calvary's a frightened guy with a rock, but it's here"
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#37 Posted on
    Originally posted by ICEMAN
    VSP proves what I said before "If doesn't matter the U.S. does it'll be viewed as wrong in everyone else's eyes ".


    We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists.If we didn't defend ourselves we would be viewed as pussies,so we defended ourselves and were looked at as wrong for defending ourselves because we are accidently killing civilians.

    None of you people believe America has done anything right and you never will.



Let's start slowly here.

Pretend that some American civilians decide to strike out at the Taliban, and do so by blowing up some major public place in Afghanistan, with loss of life similar to 9/11. An American fundie militia group takes credit for the blasts; it's not a directly-government-sanctioned military strike, but an act of terrorism by an organization known for such acts.

Would the Afghanis then be justified in launching some jets and bombing the crap out of Washington, D.C., not really caring that much when stray bombs take out homes and shopping malls and residential districts?

How does one blatant wrong excuse another blatant wrong?

Now, did Iraq (as a nation) or Hussein have anything to do with the 9/11 attack? No, they didn't. Therefore, attacking them outright is _not_ "defending ourselves." It's going on the offense. It's a deliberate act of war, using the 9/11 attack as an excuse to go around the globe and play shoot-em-up anywhere we choose to. Is it any wonder that so many other countries who were on board for the Afghanistan bombings are saying "You're on your own, Jack" when it comes to attacking Iraq?

The old "I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first" excuse isn't good enough to keep a six-year-old from being sent to the corner. As a nation, I'd like to think that we're a LITTLE better than that.

And if "the US doesn't care what other countries say about us," why are you so concerned as to whether we're viewed as "pussies" or not?

The US "isn't always wrong." Far from it. But it sure as hell isn't always right, either, and pretending that it is always right isn't patriotism -- it's jingoistic stupidity.

(edited by vsp on 22.7.02 1645)


"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
ICEMAN
Landjager








Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1935 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#38 Posted on
I never said we were always right but all anyone here can say is that we are wrong all time.


I just think Iraq has a lot more than we know and will use it to destroy us.I just don't the death toll from 9/11 to be multiplied by a million.


I just have one question:

If they attack us will it be ok to go after them then?



"Calvary's here;calvary's a frightened guy with a rock, but it's here"
cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#39 Posted on
    Originally posted by vsp

      Would the Afghanis then be justified in launching some jets and bombing the crap out of Washington, D.C., not really caring that much when stray bombs take out homes and shopping malls and residential districts?


    Let's go even slower...

    Suppose the above happened, and Afghanistan asked us to hand over or prosecute the terrorists. If we told them to "Fuck off" the way they did us...then yes they might be justified in attacking an area that was harboring the terrorists.

    The difference is knowing right from wrong, and good from evil. While America has it's own set of problems and prejudices, I've always firmly believed that our moral compass has been relatively true.

    jmodo

    (edited by cranlsn on 22.7.02 1913)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3048 days
Last activity: 3044 days
#40 Posted on
countries refuse to hand over criminals to one another all the time. Hell, I could see Cambodia demanding we hand over Kissinger (and Nixon's corpse?) to stand trial there, but we wouldn't do it. And they had a lot closer ties to government than Osama did to the Taliban.



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the "F" Out! part 2
>BUY RPGs FROM ME!! PLEASE!

Weekly Visitor
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Okay, someone defend this:
Next thread: Suing fast food as a drug.....
Previous thread: Poor Traficant!
(2509 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
These idiots should rot in jail. EDIT: OUCH! The uneditable typo-in-the-thread-title strikes again!
- MoeGates, I hate stupid hiipy vegans (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.152 seconds.