| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10291 Registered: 4-1997  |
War isn't about politics? Holy ignorance. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1263 Registered: 4-2006 |
tom and dave- Actually I should have written : this war transcends politics. My question is: Are you saying Bush and his big oil cronies decided it would be better for corporate america if we invaded Iraq? Are we fighting for oil? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5392 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree -- which is why it's depressing that so much of the rhetoric from the right refuses to transcend politics and deal with the real situation. Instead we get position plays like the above regarding Dingell, and more slogans. Answer to your questions: 1) yes; 2) we are fighting for higher profits on oil. Our supply of oil was in no immediate danger; but the war has predictably raised the level of instability to the point where gas is nearly $2 over where it was, and a lot of that turns out to be profit for the oil and oil-services companies. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 813 Registered: 5-2001  |
Duh. If there wasn't any oil in the region we would have no interest there. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1658 Registered: 7-2005  |
Exactly...that's why we screwed over Afghanistan during the cold war, somalia, and numerous other countries. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 481 Registered: 8-2004 |
Fact: In response to your three cynical reasons for being in Iraq ... 1) I think seeing 100,000 American troops bogged down by insurgents in Iraq might have emboldened Iran and Syria more than frightened them. Furthermore, almost all the reading I have done lately suggests that Syria and Iran are in a much stronger strategic position than they were before this all began. 2) How does having troops within striking distance of Saudi oil fields stabalize our economy. Seriously. I don't understand this one. Also, your post seems to suggest that our economy (and all "western" economies) were unstable before going into Iraq. I don't recall that being the case. 3) We've exchanged threads on this theory before and we fundamentally disaggree. No need to rehash it. And for what its worth, Did I support invading Iraq? Yes. Do I understand the geopolitical and other implications about what we are doing there? I won't be so bold as to say "Yes" but I'm getting there. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1265 Registered: 4-2006 |
Twokitties: 1) It depends on your sources. There is a difference between how the western media sees it and the Iranians and Syrians do. The Iranians and Syrians don't necessarily see themselves that way. The Syrians are internationally isolated because they killed the last Lebanese PM, are suffering economically due to the U.S. law on trade with Syria, were forced out of Lebanon, a country they regard as southern Syria, and Assad is a minority Alawite ruling what is a restive majority Sunni nation. The Syrians are scared shi$less of the Israelis attacking them (a fight they would badly lose), that's why Iran had to state it would come to their defense if attacked ( geographically very difficult to do ). The Iranians have to import oil, they cannot upgrade their oil refinery capacity, improve manufacturing and other infrastructure due to the US embargo, and have watched a large part of their dollar investment in Hezbollah rocketry go toilet bowl after the Israeli attacks. They have to now spin the massive degrading of Hezbollah as a victory because the dolts " fought" Israel for longer than any prior arab army. Perception vs. reality shellgame. Actually the U.S. presence scares them because they realize in Iraq we play by rules of engagement and avoid civilian casualties. But striking Iranian or Syrian millitary targets, or a nuke site or two... very different story. 2) Actually it stablizes the global system and confidence. Europe and Japan need Saudi oil more than we do. Saudi Arabia is an uneasy kingdom which oil consuming countries realize as well as the fact that Al Queda has viewed taking over the kingdom as equally important as kicking the Crusaders (us) out of the Middle East. 3) Our economy and society as presently constituted could not withstand a domestic-based terrorist war of attrition as has occured in Israel. We simply are not built for it. Our economic system survived and did well after 9-11, arguably because we were also fighting this war abroad rather than at home. Our mere presence in the Middle East forces the jihadis to put their efforts and manpower into fighting us there based on their principles and beliefs. I didn't see the need to invade Iraq. I see the need to prevent Iran from getting the bomb at all costs. But since we are in Iraq I understand the geo-political implications and benefits. Immediate withdrawal or announced date of withdrawal is a mistake. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 429 Registered: 5-2005  |
Stay the course. Stay the course. Anything else would be a mistake. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1982 Registered: 6-2003  |
"In a 1995 Wall Street Journal interview, former North Vietnamese Army Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam in 1975 said that the American Anti-War movement “…. was essential to our strategy." He reasoned correctly that sensible and patriotic Americans would not continue to kill thousands and thousands of Vietnamese in order to prop up a puppet government in the south of the country. In the end, Vietnam was a victory for the American people over their own government. Some of the lesser war criminals like Lt. Calley were actually tried and convicted. Two presidents were driven from office and ended their careers in disgrace, although this was light punishment considering that they were responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein. The big losers were the U.S. warmongers and their dupes. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5687 Registered: 10-1999  |
Regarding whether people who disagree with a war should speak up - as Stephen Colbert put it, during his interview of Ned Lamont the other night: "In a time of war, is that really the time to be asking whether we should be at war? When it is over we should ask whether we should leave." | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1756 Registered: 10-2004  |
'we simply are not built for that' Presumptuous fiddle faddle. Rehashing of old presumptions and bs. If and when it comes to it Americans will fight to protect America, their families and their homes. Many people enlisted right after 9-11 thinking they would be doing just that. You underestimate greatly our society. Americans have not been asked to sacrifice for a long time, and rightly so. If there comes a time when we have to stand up to defend ourselves we will. The Iraq war is not this case. You cant fool the majority of the people by constantly changing the threat levels from Yellow to Orange and back. You cant fool the majority of the people into believing that somehow terrorist attacks are a new thing or that terrorism itself is something that you can fight a war against. 'In the end, Vietnam was a victory for the American people over their own government.'  | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 483 Registered: 8-2004 |
FvF: Thanks for the clarification. I fundamentally disagree with almost everything you said, but I appreciate the post. For the moment I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2289 Registered: 8-2003  |
It's just insane to think an open-ended commitment to Iraq gains the U.S. a "geopolitical" advantage. There is zero evidence to support that. The reasons FVF is citing for our continued presence in Iraq are one person's suppositions and hopes. Hope is not a plan. It really is too late to salvage anything good out of Iraq. The question becomes - at what point do you cut your losses? The only logical reason I can see for keeping our forces there is that it's actully too dangerous for them to try to leave. What happens to the last 25,000 troops after we've sent the first 100K home? Or worse, the last 10,000? How do you get all the troops out of the country safely? And when, if ever, will the country be safe enough to consider a troop pullout? We're screwed, and worse, the men and women of the military are the ones who'll be paying for it. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1759 Registered: 10-2004 |
Too bad we cant take our multi billion dollar vatican sized palace, er, um, Embassy with us. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 623 Registered: 3-2005 |
There's a couple of nonsensical remarks about why the US invaded Iraq and Saddam's nuclear arsenal that have gone unanswered that should be, although this is far from the extent of all the nonsensical remarks being made in support of continuing the folly. Apparently some people still believe that there were real-world alterantives to invading Iraq once the Bush Administration came to power. They weren't. The Bush Adminsitration was determined to invade Iraq before 9/11. What happened on Sept 11 was evidence of real and dire threat to America, but it was exploited by the Bush Administration to jump start a plan that they had alreaday committed themselves to long before: Putting military bases in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime was seen to be the biggest obstacle to that plan. So he was going to be removed whether Europe liked it or not. Europe was not given an invitation to think up alternatives. It was given an invitation to rubber stamp the plan. Britain, Spain and Italy rubber stamped against tremendous protest from their electorate. France, Germany, etc did not. But to imagine there was some scenario where different behavior from France or Europe, or blame France for the invasion (I'm laughing as I type) is to really be clueless about what happened. Futhermore, we didn't invade Iraq because we believed Saddam was a miltiary threat or because he had WMD or because we (or Saddam) believed he could acquire the nuclear bomb. We invaded Iraq because for years because our military knew for a fact that Iraq's military capacity was so degraded from sanctions it would be a "cakewalk." And it was. So why didn't the plan work? Why won't we ever have bases in Iraq? It isn't true it's because "we didn't send enough troops." It isn't true that "we could still win if Europe would climb aboard." It isn't true that "Americans lack the fiber to fight an existential war", or "Americans don't understand there is an existential threat being aimed at them by terrorists who are soldiers in a new fascism bent on destroying Western culture." We lost the war as defined by our true aims because the colonial history of Iraq, which the Bush Administration refuses to learn. That colonial history guaranteed the rise of an insurgency against us that our conventional military presence would be unable to fight, whatever its size and firepower. It also guaranteed civil war in the region, which no foreign occupying army or armies would be able to control because they themselves are the gas that that keeps the flames going. Obviously, in addition to losing the war, we have created new threats to America and Americans by our folly in invading Iraq, chief of which is the accelerated pursuit of nuclear weapons throughout the region, including by the new government of Iraq. In addition, we have provided a training ground for improving insurgency tactics and terrorist tactics, and greater motive to use them against targets in the US and Western Europe. Tragically, we have degraded our own American culture with the acceptance of dungneons without trial, torture and massacres. But the thing not to lose sight of if you want to understand the political reality in which you live today is that the Bush Administation planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 because it wanted to install a BIG military presence in a forward position in the Middle East, to intimidate Iran, among other things. That was impossible to do in Saudi Arabia because it was provoking terrorism against US targets abroad. When 9/11 happened, the Bush Administration enbarked on a disinformation campaign to get Americans to support a pre-existing plan to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. "But," say the neocons, "if the plan to invade Iraq was hatched partly in response to Al Qaeda attacks on US embassies abroad, weren't we right to try to grab bases in the region as a staging ground to fight terrorists?" First of all, you can't fight terrorists with the US Army. It's a self-defeating strategy. Secondly, the conglomeration of several quite separate political movements, all of whom use terrorism as a tactic to differing degrees, in order to fight a "global war on terror" may save on paperwork at HQ, but it commits the US to spending its blood and treasure fighting a war with an imaginary enemy while America's real enemies go scot free. Thirdly, this is a classic case of the Cold War military tail wagging the American government dog. We have a huge global military establishment which, like all institutions, has an internal drive to grow and justify its own existence. Empire is its own rationale after a certain point. And this is precisely the danger the military general, Eisenhower, warned against. It's not a conspiracy of generals. It's a conspiracy of chicken-hawks. But it will really destroy this country and more than half the world if you don't stop it. Anyway, I haven't got time for more. Besides, have you noticed how hot it is? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 801 Registered: 1-2006 |
More about Freedom, this time in Jordan: Woman murdered after delivering baby out of wedlock By Rana Husseini AMMAN — A 26-year-old Jordan Valley woman was hacked to death by her mother and sister after delivering a baby out of wedlock, an official told The Jordan Times Saturday. The criminal prosecutor on Saturday charged the 69-year-old mother and her daughter with premeditated murder, the official said. The victim reportedly received multiple axe wounds to different parts of her body while she slept, the official added. "The victim, who has been divorced for seven years, became pregnant and delivered a baby boy on the day of the murder," the source said, adding that her enraged mother decided to "kill her to cleanse the family honour." "The mother and daughter waited until the victim went to sleep, took an axe and hacked her repeatedly until they made sure she was dead," the source said. The two then headed to the nearest police station in the Jordan Valley claiming to have killed her "to protect their honour," the source added. An autopsy conducted by pathologists Azzam Haddad and Hussein Abul Samen indicated the reason behind the woman's death was external bleeding. The pathologists also confirmed that the woman did deliver a baby on the day of her murder, the source said. Criminal Prosecutor Mamdouh Najada is expected to conclude his investigation within two weeks and refer the case to the Criminal Court, according to the source. The victim became the ninth woman reportedly murdered in the Kingdom this year in a murder related to family honour. Sunday, July 30, 2006 Previous Headline Return to Jordan Times Today's Home Page Next Headline | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2290 Registered: 8-2003 |
of course. that's why we went to war. to stop honor killings. when do we invade Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10299 Registered: 4-1997 |
We're at war mainly to keep the defense budget high and to prevent children from having healthcare. In other words, the usual Republican action plan. http://videosift.com/story.php?id=6415 | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1765 Registered: 10-2004 |
great video Dave. There was a link there to Hotpotatomash.com, interesting stuff on the blog. http://www.hotpotatomash.com/ | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1268 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- I believe you have not posted your educational background as I asked for because it would reveal you have no particular academic background in the Near East, or knowledge acquired from having lived there. My sense is that what you opine from comes from what you read in newspapers like the New York Times. That's okay, everyone has the right to an opinion, but certainly doesn't cause me to take that opining seriously. For example you ask me for direct proof that Syria and Iran would fund and direct domestic terrorism against the U.S. unless we had troops in Iraq, which is total nonsense. Iran is the # 1 state supporter of terrorism in the world today and Syria has been similiarly recognized and subjected to U.S. sanctions accordingly.The Iranians were behind the Marine barracks bombing that killed over 200 Marines in Lebanon done by Hezbollah. Domestic terrorism dovetails nicely with their desire to remove the U.S. from their spheres of interest and get the U.S. talking with them on their terms. About 100,000 plus U.S. troops in the area gives them pause. I could suggest some things you should be reading from academic sources about the geopolitical aspirations and goals of both Iran and Syria being facilitiated by supporting terror, but you appear uninterested. As for the U.S. public being willing to accept domestic terrorism such as the Israelis are subject to, you need to get real. Short of a wmd attack, god forbid, it just won't happen. Plus the usual suspects will urge us to "talk" to them and have " dialogue" if we have bombs go off in public places. Twokitties- I said what I was writing was cynical observation, it's not where I "am coming from". And I would love to be able to fundamentally disagree with my points since, I too would like us to live in an ideal world. Sadly it's not going to happen. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 431 Registered: 5-2005 |
Right you are. Since we invaded Iraq, it's clear to anyone with half a brain that Iran has toned down its anti-Israel and anti-U.S. rhetoric, completely abandoned its nuclear aspirations, and stopped instigating attacks in the Middle East. Thank God for GWB and the Iraq War! Stay the course. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1269 Registered: 4-2006 |
Winston- All major revolutions in history have been bloody, and so is Iraq. You have fits and starts, successes and failures. Your evaluation is being premised on your politics, mine is more considerate of the history of revolutions. They are messy and chaotic and not consistent with our American mentality that demands immediate results. Given the political processes ongoing among the Iraqis themselves you cannot say it has been a failure. We have allowed the majority sh'ia to run the country, which has not been lost on other sh'ia, even the Hezbollah members who favor making the organization a purely political and Lebanese directed (i.e. not by Syria and Iran) using Iraq as a model. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Iraqi sh'ia and strongly influential among the Lebanese and Iranian sh'ia and is and has been helpful counterbalance to Iranian influence in those areas. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3679 Registered: 5-2004  |
If Iraq is a revolution in progress, as you imply above, who are they revolting against, exactly? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1270 Registered: 4-2006 |
Gop Man- Iran has increased it's rhetoric because it feels threatened. It wants nukes regardless of the US being there or not. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1768 Registered: 10-2004 |
That is not what I asked nor what you stated. Your statement was
I asked you for proof of this deterence, you have none. Great fvf, we can agree Iran is a state supporter of terrorist organizations and a direct supplier of military equipment to some. The point you have missed intentionally is the direct answer to my
You have none. I didnt argue that Iran was a moral entity only that you made a premise that was full of ish. Once again I say to you the my education, my knowledge of the world and my background are none of your business. Please try to stick to the topic at hand. You needn't worry about who I am. As far as what resiliency Americans have vis a vis terrorism and the will to survive, you can underestimate us if you want. I know better. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1271 Registered: 4-2006 |
kathleen- Are you channeling that gibberish from Mel Gibson? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10304 Registered: 4-1997 |
No. Iran increases its rhetoric because that's what plays to their voting base. All politics is local. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1272 Registered: 4-2006 |
Rastro- The arab strongman form of leadership, and a more representative and responsive form of government for arab societies than presently exists. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2291 Registered: 8-2003 |
Iraq was not a revolution. And besides, even if you expect it to be "messy and chaotic," how is that a rationale for the U.S. to stay? if anything, your contention that a bloody mess is to be expeted under such circumstances would be strong evidence that we should leave and let the Iraqis sort it out on their own. your arguments have all the outward appearances of logic, but they don't answer the question that people like me are asking. what real evidence is there that the U.S. made things better in Iraq, and what real evidence exists that our continued presence there is making anything better? you have had no answers to that other than assertions that have no objective evidence to support them. you accuse me of letting my "politics" guide my conclusions. Wrong - I'm letting the events influence my conclusions. You on the other hand, are coming to optimistic conclusions in spite of all the evidece. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1273 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Your premise was nonsense. Like the bloods and South Orange police thing you made up in another thread. Attacks in the US would be far more effective than the attacks that they have already made against the US abroad. Having been willing to attack the USA already, you have the burden of showing why they wouldn't attack us here. "Proof" as you wish to make it would require actual attacks and a direct trace back. You want me to be the CIA? Hoops, you need to look at the totality of the statecraft and motivations of these two countries. The Hezbollah agents in this country work at the direction of Iran. You have to be willing to read things other than the Times and Kos for your background information. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 432 Registered: 5-2005 |
That's what I meant. thank God for GWB and the invasion of Iraq! Thank God Iraq feels threatened. But I'm not sure about your last point about the nukes. I'm afraid that doesn't gibe with your contention that 100,000 troops gives the Iranians pause. So I'm going to have to disagree with you on your last post, but I agree with your first. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1769 Registered: 10-2004 |
Nice non-answer. You made a false statement, got called on it and want to rehash the bloods analogy. The issue is not why they wouldnt attack us here fvf, the issue is why they would be LESS likely with our troops in Iraq. Thats the point and its one you cant answer because it would cause you to actually look at the meaning of the words you type. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1274 Registered: 4-2006 |
Winston- I understand and appreciate your points. First I believe it is much better for the Iraqi people in that they no longer have to suffer Saddam Hussein. All dictators bring order, and the Iraqis have not had any experience with representational government for 20 odd years plus. No doubt it is going to be damn messy. As I understand it there is a timetable for the Iraqi army to replace US units. Second the way political events in Iraq are being used in the arb world suggests there is some success there. And that is the audience this whole thing is geared to, not ours. You would have to evaluate how arab intellectuals, religious figures, and governments are responding to Iraq. It has put a great deal of pressure on autocratic arab regimes and stimulated much debate and thought among the arab intelligensia. Plus you are expecting that an arab country would act and respond as a western country would in terms of your assessing what is " success" or "failure". I don't want to rehash the points I have made before in other threads. Maybe a thread on whether there is anything good to show from Iraq would be a good idea. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1770 Registered: 10-2004 |
Great news coming out of Iraq alright. Those Iraqis are sure reaping the benefits of the end of tyranny. Iraq Casualties Iraqis Killed and Wounded | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1276 Registered: 4-2006 |
GOP Man- The 100,000 & troops give Iran incentive to consider a solution where they do not become a nuclear nation. There would be NO incentive otherwise. They however are banking on the europeans continuing to be the weenies that they are, the Russians and Chinese supporting them for oil or money making projects, and the US being too preoccupied by events in Iraq that they are creating. Hoops- I officially throw my hands up in the air from reading your obtuse posts. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3659 Registered: 5-2001  |
You heard 'em, Hoops. Hands are in the air. It's official.  | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1771 Registered: 10-2004 |
 | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3680 Registered: 5-2004 |
"The arab strongman form of leadership, and a more representative and responsive form of government for arab societies than presently exists." That is what WE are trying to impose upon them. Who is revolting against whom? They are not revolting against an idea, they have to be fighting against people. To be a revolution, the people that the "populace" is fighting have to be in control. Quelling an insurgency is not a revolution. Being the insurgents is. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1278 Registered: 4-2006 |
Guys I am throwing my hands in the air because you are too obtuse to get it. It's not surrender, it is annoyance. Rastro- Not at all. It is a political revolution. How many different ethnic groups and parties participated in the election? The population has control, the country is being run by the majority parties representing the majority of Iraqi residents. The insurgents represent a minority of the population. They are not Che Guevara exactly, as they are fightining based on religious sectarian basis. In applying your government standards you seem to think Iraq is a western european country like Belgium. It ain't. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1772 Registered: 10-2004 |
Absolutely.  |
