I'm only assumeing he meant for the majority population of Islamic Iraqis. Then again, Christianity isn't part of the American government yet I'd be damned if it didn't seem that way.
Printable View
I'm only assumeing he meant for the majority population of Islamic Iraqis. Then again, Christianity isn't part of the American government yet I'd be damned if it didn't seem that way.
Good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Exactly how I feel. A prison should be constructed just for him and bin Laden. Incarcerated for life. Heck, maybe they'll think back and repent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
It does if it's important enough. Most labs take forever because they are lazy and have a que. If the prez orders a DNA test you can be sure it takes less time than a fucking microwave burrito.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
A secure prison. Solitary confinement.
None of this luxury bullshit that most high-profile prisoners get. A *real* prison, like serial killers get.
All he should get is an occasional book to read, basic sustenance, and a daily walk in a drab courtyard. Maybe let him write his memoirs, for historical record.
Exactly. It's not like he's some slob on Jerry Springer with an angry woman yelling "YOU MY BABY'S DADDY!" at hime.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
About damned time we caught the son of a bitch. I hope we get to let the people of Iraq try him and do with him what they want.
I know that sounds really dumb, but I mean, the guy was a complete and total asshat. The worst kind of asshat, too. Bastard. Finally! WOO!
Genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
As for the memoirs, wonder if it'd be as big as Mein Kampf?
Hey, He's captured :rolleyes: Go team..... :rolleyes:
"Hey, I'm apathetic, and couldn't give less of a shit about the end of a dictator's legacy!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!!!!!!
Will Saddam's capture prove to be a trap for Bush?
By Mathew Maavak
December 14, 2003—It was pretty much of a shock to learn of Saddam Hussein's capture so soon. Then again, come to think of it, no! George W. Bush's popularity is dipping badly and those niggling questions about Sept 11 are now gaining feverish momentum.
This capture comes timely for the incumbent, and the immediate propaganda value will be enormous. But has Bush walked into a trap? Pretty likely, and the next few weeks or months are going to be crucial. Saddam's fate must now either be decided quickly (through an Iraqi bullet to his head?) or be prolonged long enough after the 2004 elections, through a series of legal wrangling. If the second scenario works out, there is there every likelihood of an uncustomary "adherence to international law" with teams of amici curiae given a free hand to wrangle over his legal rights. It will buy lots of time, provided the man shuts up.
This capture runs against the grain of obvious logic. Saddam is no Manual Noriega and he will command far more attention than Slobodan Milosevic. The video clip of him being examined by a doctor was typical of both US bravado and myopia. With him in "expert" medical hands, there will be some very hard explaining to do if anything untoward happened—a death or an unusually cooperative ex-dictator known for his wily tricks. Maybe a Soviet-style psychiatric institutionalization might jog his memory, one that will suit his hospitable hosts.
According to the BBC, Saddam was found holed up in a tiny cellar, not the secret command bunker we were implicitly led to believe, on and off. An argument can be made that this 'spider hole' contributed to his elusiveness. He just needed a food chain, from very few sources. Still, it is not a good one. For one, it will smash the Saddam in-the-secret bunker image that his Fedayeen found to be way over-hyped. There is something wrong here. Saddam may have indeed chosen a six by eight feet hole for safety as he knew only too well about the pandemic Arab treachery and the US$25 million bounty, especially after his sons died under a hail of US bullets, and his sons-in-law earlier, with his own blessings.
In Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception, a planned Palestinian terror attack was once thwarted by the discovery of an out-of-place order for quality beef. The scent of a pre-attack feast was too strong to ignore. With thousands of US troops—many of them from elite units—combing through Tikrit, how this genocidal criminal avoided capture until now is a mystery. They only needed 600 for this operation. No one in Tikrit knew where he was? Follow the money the trail, follow the food take-aways! There was US$750,000 with him. The trails were aplenty; all were leading to the same man.
This is indeed good news for the Iraqis and bad news for the Americans. Thus far, he has served the raison d'etre for the war, a tenuous one, it can be argued. Now what? The propaganda value of a shadowy Saddam, capable of wreaking havoc was inestimable. Much of that locus standi has now vanished. The Iraqis can now rise up to say, "The dictator is gone. Thank you, now please leave . . ." Is this going to happen? No! The US wasn't there for Saddam, and I don't think it was there for the oil, either. Sabotaged oil pipelines do create a literal smokescreen and a justification for continued occupation. Now, we shall see the true face of Iraqi guerrillas—a combination of nationalists and Islamists that the American media conveniently blamed on mastermind Saddam.
The euphoria will die down; the pot shots will get more frenzied. A car bomb killed at least 17 people near Baghdad yesterday. The joyous staccatos seen in the city just show how many weapons of celebration are around. They can be trained in a different direction another day soon. Are these the first salvoes that will shatter the myth of a "liberation" project?
It was in the White House's best interest to have had Saddam killed during the capture. Maybe US soldiers were still sore after the turkey dinner fiasco, or they were zealously carrying out their duty. Hardly any sane person would have wept for Saddam under any circumstances. He could have been handed over—quite innocently—to the Iraqis for a summary, Ceausescu-style execution. Gen Douglas MacArthur's quick disposal of Gen Tomoyski Yamashita in WWII is no longer quite possible. Like Gen MacArthur's macho posturing during his first meeting with a humbled Emperor Hirohito, the sight of a medic clinically examining a beaten, disheveled Saddam, instead of a defiant maniac, was really a bad propaganda shot . . . So, this was the one who struck fear into the hearts of "freedom-loving" people until 24 hours back?
What can Saddam do? He just needs to open his big mouth, after a shave, a good brush and gargles with Listerine He will recount all those scummy collusions with the US, which went right through the Kuwaiti occupation. Why were those Shi'ites betrayed? Who talked to whom? What was the deal? What about the other deals? Clips of exhumed bodies from that bloody crackdown more than a decade back was shown alongside Saddam's ignominious capture on BBC. Another pictorial blunder for the coalition! Was the BBC acting sneaky again? Those bodies incriminate Saddam and the Anglo-American alliance.
In fact, the incriminating evidence will be immeasurable. Civilian deaths, supply of arms, the semi-proxy war on Iran, will all come out of the horse's mouth. For every allegation, Saddam can retort, "Tu quoque (you too)!" It's a time-honored legal tactic, valid and destructive to the point that Hermann Goering was able to put up a brilliant defense during the Nuremberg trials. The man, much known for his follies and bizarre vanities, was just cured of a morphine addiction before being marched into the defendant's box. Even dope heads can pile up rebuttals to every allegation. Goering's statements are now memorable; they still linger in the minds of those caught in this New World Disorder. A defense by any tyrant can be slow poison. It can dent the gratitude of "liberated" peoples for ages to come. The Soviet General R.A. Rudenko's rape of Poland, and the subsequent Katyn forest massacre can make many Europeans skeptical about any war of liberation. Nazi war criminals repeatedly pointed to this famous allied cover up in their defense. How this led to many of them missing the hangman's noose is a little uncertain.
If Bush needs to win the next election, he needs to silence Saddam, Guantanamo-style, in seclusion. That will raise suspicions. Any medical mishap or anomaly will also raise suspicions. Not a very good situation, is it?
How are they going to answer their former ally, when every meeting with Donald Rumsfeld alone is going to be recounted in detail? Bribe and intimidate all those who can corroborate those shady minutiae? One possibility but a lot of it is already out in the public domain. If the dictator was ever that good in understanding power, he would have prepared for this day long back, with stashes of documents secreted away for his eventual defense. There is a likelihood, as early newscasts indicate, that Saddam might be handed over to the Iraqis, neither the ones brutalized nor the rational ones, but the ones most likely to parade him to the execution grounds, a brief stop before the onward journey to one of his former palaces, where, they will set their collaboration with US authorities firmly in stone. The sands of Arabia are a bit too fickle for that.
There is another possibility that whoever thought this through had done his homework very well, and the timing was impeccable. If true, students of propaganda will be using this incident as a case study for decades to come. Yet, it's too early to say anything for sure . . . We don't know all the facts yet.
That's interesting.
I hadn't thought about Saddam telling of all his past dealings with the US.
A tricky situation, indeed.
Wow, I was reluctant to believe it so I came over here to check. Figured I'd find Stone and Almaci at it... Haven't been watching the news or been online much lately due to work. But yeah, it's great news. I hope the trial doesn't turn into somekind of circus though...
Shouldn't everyone who's for human rights, anti-dictator, anti-mass-murderer go nuts regardless of ideology? Hell, even Howard Dean was being bipartisan on this... But I think he's just starting his "move to the center" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
You "suppose?" Do you mean you would've preferred him shot dead on the spot or is it bittersweet since it helps Bush somewhat?Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
I'm sure everyone terrorized by Saddam for some 3 decades is happy as well. The Israelis, the Kuwaitis, the Kurds, the Shiias... Iranians included... Hint hint... Really, that's such a smug statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Well, better hope Bush doesn't get Bin Laden between now and next year... I mean, that would really raise his chances of winning the next election... Wouldn't want that, would we? Heh.
So, let's see, the Left-wing mantra/taunts have been, "Bush can't find Bin Laden; Bush can't find Saddam; Bush can't find the WMDs; and Bush can't find jobs for Americans... Ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho..." Well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad. It's interesting how any failure is attributed to Bush, but a success, well, then it's just, "Well, duh, Bush didn't actually capture him, our military did... I credit our military men and women who risked their lives..."Ha! That didn't take long. What site did you pull this garbage from? Of course, Bush was waiting for his approval rating to drop and then spring this up on the American ppl... Wish I had thought of that. Wait, Bush can't be _that_ smart though... I know, it was Karl Rove's idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
I think a lot of people could go down if he did, but does it really matter? Donald Rumsfield has not only associated with the man but his strategic plans for our military are flawed and not in the best interests of ourselves or anyone for that matter. Who knows what could happen if Saddam spilled the beans and brought everything back to global attention, I'm actually interested to find out.
He has facts to tell I'd like to hear them. I'm not interested in his story nor would I buy any sympathy anyone would sell - Just the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
What fiasco?Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
Anyway, all this left-wing apathy, and bullshit like what DOVESKI posted, just makes me laugh. It reminds me of maybe a month ago, when I was watching a news report about the economy and how it was picking up. And they were talking about how the Democrats really dont want the economy to pick up. So, yea, its great for them if Joe Sixpack can't buy Christmas presents for his family because he got laid off, its great if Johnny Lunchpail cant find a job for six months, and hey, lets hope and pray that even MORE Americans (the people they want to serve) lose their jobs over the next 11 months! That way, they can get THEIR FUCKING GUY in office! Yea, rock on, job loss!
So basically we captured a horrible dictator, and yea, left-wingers are like "so what?"... "its no big deal!"... "*I suppose* it's a good thing"... no fuckhead, you suppose nothing. This is a great thing, undoubtedly. Whether or not you are Republican, Democrat, anything. It's awesome.
But the failure for some Democrats to recognize this actually says a lot, it says they dont give a fuck about progress in Iraq. Well, they do, but really because they dont want to see any progress. If anything they want it to get worse, and who gives a fuck about the people who are there, right?
Shit, it will be great if more American troops die, more Iraqi babies die, more Baathists stay alive, and terror attacks continue. That way, they can get THEIR DUDE in office! Yea!
Fuck that.
I'm a liberal, but I am glad Saddam has been captured.
The guy's a jackass, and deserves what's coming to him. It's even better that he's alive, so he actually has to FACE what's coming.
I just wish he could have been gotten without blowing up half the country in the process.
Well, they are just the other side of the same coin man. Everyone in Washinton, it seems, has genuinely patriotic goals (most of them) but they only care about making sure thier program continues. They lose sight of human expence and who can say that Republicans care a whole heck of alot about that either? They're cut from the same cloth and I'm not tooting any sides horn. I never have ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
The capture is a great thing, though the relevance in reguard to actions in the middle east continueing is yet to be seen - methinks it'll be small.
There are dumbass, fuckwit, self infactuated wankers on both wings of the political goose. Same as there are intelligent wonderful caring people on both "wings". Don't generalise, it makes you look like an angry dick for brains.. oh...Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
/m\peace/m\
chill out holmes. i just posted something interesting, you come up with all this left wing, republican, democrat bullshit dogma. damn...were you just sworn into the Young Republicans or something, its like a fucking cult.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
by the way i posted a link about progress in Iraq in some other retarded Almaci thread on this board, and no one even looked or commented on it they were to busy arguing over dumb shit, ego flaming TNLers.
Oh and heres the link, its from 60 minutes and it does shed light on the US fuckin up, dont get your panties all tied up, just the facts. were giving former baathists jobs as police seargents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in586841.shtml
I said "blah blah blah" not because I discount his opinion, or because I disagree with him, but because his outlook of it being bittersweet has been expressed far too soon for my liking. Even Howard Dean let Bush have his day and commended the wonderful bounty that is Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by ViciousJazz
I respect his right to an opinion, I just wish he would wait until tomorrow to take anything away from such a marvelous feat. And for those of you saying he wasn't doing anything by hiding, his confirmed capture will stop some people from fighting. Sure, a bunch of people will be more violent for a short time, but after that, its hard to stay motivated when you realize that the man you are supporting is never coming back.
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw.../shoephone.jpg
If only he would have used his powers for niceness, instead of evil.
Suppose you're right. Don't mind me. Been having a bad day :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
That was the coolest show ever. Movies kinda sucked though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
There were movies?
Man... I remember when YTV used to show Get Smart at 1am. Many years ago...
Two, I think..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
put a smile on my face when i saw a bit of the news earlier today right before i went to sleep. caught the motherfucker hiding in a makeshift grave. as much as i'd like to see it put to use, i'd very much like to see them torture the hell out of him. put him on public display or something so people can pelt him with rocks.
and you'd still lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Heard this super-late last night, just before I went to bed, and it probably kept me up another half-hour with giddiness. I started to think we'd never catch either Hussein or Bin-Laden, the fact that we just unexpectedly got one of them like this out of nowhere was a very pleasant suprise.
Hopefully after the US gets whatever information they can out of him, he'll be put to trial for his crimes by the Iraqi people and he spends the rest of his days in some dank hole somewhere.
Today will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Saddam, it will soon see the end of the rebellion...
http://www.ugavine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vader.jpg
Not disagreeing about why most labs take forever...but I'm pretty sure the actual test takes some time. It's not as simple as something like a pregnancy test.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
Thanks Nightwolve for making me feel special. I thought my post had been lost to no reply. :p Does anyone really think this is going to change the situation over there? It's obvious that Saddam was doing nothing and I doubt that those responsible for the bombings and attacks will stop now that he has been caught. They are fighting against the US, not for Saddam. I don't see why I should be happy about this, at least to the extent that everyone else on this board seems to be. I'm glad he's out of power now, but he's never really done anything to me or this country, except be partner to it on occasion. I think a lot of people are going to be happy because this seems to justify this American invasion, not that a evil dictator is out of the way. And I know someone is going to pull out the "Aren't you Iranian? Shouldn't you be glad he's captured?" That really has nothing to do with it. As I said, it's a good thing he's been captured, I SUPPOSE, because hopefully now Americans will get back to more important things, like this country.
SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Dude I was ready to declare my hapines with his capture yet what was I greeted with when I entered the thread?
Fucking Yoshi acting in his usual fucking retarded way.
It was a direct unprovokated attack at me personaly, what the fuck was I suposed to do you twit?
They got him. Another blood-soaked regime bites the dust, and it's high fucking time that Saddam reaps what he has sown. Lock him up and melt down the key.
You can't spell Saddam without S-A-D. Fair enough, since he's a sad motherfucker.
No matter what your views on this war are, this is great news.
However, I'm a bit worried about letting Iraq try him. If you were the Judge, would you be comfortable sentancing a ruthless leader to death in his own home town, home to many of his extreme followers?
I wouldn't worry, if the Iraqi courts fail, he'll be tried in an international court for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
You're quite welcome :). It aggravated me abit so I was forced to respond :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. You were perhaps expecting instant results? Right now, having one less uncertainty, his whereabouts, IS a good thing. Baath Loyalists, if in the fight, may be somewhat demoralized. I'm uncertain either way, but you seem to be certain none of 'em are Baath Loyalists fighting for Saddam. Right then, they're all just nationalists fighting against the imperialist occupier... That would explain them sabotaging their own oil pipelines and power plants. Really looking out for their fellow Iraqi countrymen there...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
I mean, some Iraqis can at least express relief; less fear of reprisals, which in turn could increase their cooperation... If it doesn't change, hell, it doesn't change... The troops will have to work harder at cracking down on those responsible for the attacks. Their morale will at least go up...
Well, don't forget to remind everyone we once worked with him... Of course, Russia and France's hands are clean, it's just us. I mean, it would only be the 100th time I've read that from you and Almaci... Has that been some kind of attempt to hold the current president Bush accountable for past American foreign policy? Or does that attempt to take away from the fact Russia and France were his partners in the here and now, so us calling them on it makes us hypocrites? I dunno, is Bush not allowed to reverse a past policy of supporting a scumbag because what? That would be hypocrisy? What, him having done this it's upsetting because of the inconsistency it creates in ~20 years of American foreign policy? I'm just really curious as to your motives for posting that. We did boot him from Kuwaitt, so it's not like there was a concern we'd be "buddies" with him again. If the motive is the hope that the US never repeats such policy decisions, then fine, it's commendable and I'm just overreacting. But you bring it up when this current president is doing the exact opposite. It's like, are you then complimenting Bush for the action of deposing Saddam and not "partnering" with him? You see why it gets confusing...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Gee, SC, ya know, many mass-murderers around the world never really did anything to me personally or this country (which I disagree with about Iraq), but that doesn't seem to prevent me from expressing happiness at their demise ;). It's confusing though, you say not as happy as the rest of us. How "happy" do you think we are? It just seems like you can't lay down your ideological opposition for a second, even with the fact that a ruthless mass-murderer will hopefully never be able to hurt anyone again. I suppose I'd have to walk in your shoes to understand that...
Some yes, some no... I don't know how one arrives at "a lot" or any figure for that matter. So, this is what bothers you about his capture? Who cares if they're happy for reasons you don't like; an evil dictator IS out of the way. Unless of course it turns out to be his body-double ;). Anyway, even if we found the WMDs, I doubt you would be satisfied regarding "justification." I think you simply lay that argument out to change the mind of those that supported the war... But man, one day of no nitpicking was just not possible it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Well, I'm ready to give up on trying to understand your response man. And, I really don't get how you could say being an Iranian has nothing to do with it. You've brought up that the US once partnered with him, which was against Iran, but you seem to express more resentment against the US than him. That fact must make it more personal for you, I would think...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Alright, so, you suppose it's a good thing if it leads to Americans getting back to more important things? And so, if it doesn't, it's not that much of a good thing? :) That is of course a great benefit to his capture, but I dunno, the condition of "getting back to more important things" you're placing to qualify it as a "good thing" doesn't seem right. That's a benefit, not a condition to me... It's as simple as he's one less scumbag out of power.
Really, I think you're just trying to downplay the significance of it cause of Bush. Your indifference is odd. Well, whatever, I'm exhausted of this now ;). I think after all the arguing on this board before and after war started, I lost some of the enjoyment I'd feel now... Almaci's endless ranting, second guessing, bickering, bumping of 5 war-related topics in one day, etc. worked in devalueing what simply should be a happy day. Not to mention the rest of the anti-war ppl in media... If that was the goal, it worked to an extent. You can't feel that much happiness with all the apathy, pessimism, gloom and doom, snickering that they produced (assuming you had time to follow the news alot)... I really can't help but agree with Yoshi's response... Why depose ruthless genocidal dictators if you're gonna produce relentess anti-war protesters around the world like that? That block traffic, block supplies to troops, argue every fucking day of their miserable fucking life, exhausting/aggravating/agitating the fuck out of everyone else? The threat posed to ppl's sanity around the world is greater than what Saddam did, frankly ;). No, I changed my mind, it is a bittersweet day.
Well no one is going to be fighting for Saddam now. Anyways, I think the area is becoming a breeding ground for fundamentalism, spurred on by the American occupation. So yeah, the ones fighting are nationalists fighting against imperialism. That's the whole idea behind what they're doing. And I suppose destroying their countries infrastructure would be along the lines of "we'd rather they be destroyed than let the US have them." Then again, that's just speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
I'm not French or Russian so there's the explanation for that. And you act as if this "past" policy is so long ago. Most of the people back then are the ones involved now. As you know, I'll always be skeptical of the reasons for this war. It's just sad that the US is just going to continue screwing with a foreign policy record that is already bad enough.Quote:
Well, don't forget to remind everyone we once worked with him... Of course, Russia and France's hands are clean, it's just us. I mean, it would only be the 100th time I've read that from you and Almaci... Has that been some kind of attempt to hold the current president Bush accountable for past American foreign policy? Or does that attempt to take away from the fact Russia and France were his partners in the here and now, so us calling them on it makes us hypocrites? I dunno, is Bush not allowed to reverse a past policy of supporting a scumbag because what? That would be hypocrisy? What, him having done this it's upsetting because of the inconsistency it creates in ~20 years of American foreign policy? I'm just really curious as to your motives for posting that. We did boot him from Kuwaitt, so it's not like there was a concern we'd be "buddies" with him again. If the motive is the hope that the US never repeats such policy decisions, then fine, it's commendable and I'm just overreacting. But you bring it up when this current president is doing the exact opposite. It's like, are you then complimenting Bush for the action of deposing Saddam and not "partnering" with him? You see why it gets confusing...
Like I said, I'm glad he's been captured. I'd feel the same way about any "evil" dictator. And that's what he is, not a mass murderer, it's not like he personally killed all those people. But he did give the go ahead so... Anyways, I'm not going to go out praise the lord that he's gone because only Iraqi's can truly feel what it's like to have him as a leader. I'll be happy like that when Bush is gone. ;)Quote:
Gee, SC, ya know, many mass-murderers around the world never really did anything to me personally or this country (which I disagree with about Iraq), but that doesn't seem to prevent me from expressing happiness at their demise ;). It's confusing though, you say not as happy as the rest of us. How "happy" do you think we are? It just seems like you can't lay down your ideological opposition for a second, even with the fact that a ruthless mass-murderer will hopefully never be able to hurt anyone again. I suppose I'd have to walk in your shoes to understand that...
At this point, finding WMD is irrelevant. It's obvious that our government had no idea what they were doing when they entered. I doubt any weapons will ever be found. We went to this war under false pretense for, in my opinion, alterior motives. But we've already had that discussion.Quote:
Some yes, some no... I don't know how one arrives at "a lot" or any figure for that matter. So, this is what bothers you about his capture? Who cares if they're happy for reasons you don't like; an evil dictator IS out of the way. Unless of course it turns out to be his body-double ;). Anyway, even if we found the WMDs, I doubt you would be satisfied regarding "justification." I think you simply lay that argument out to change the mind of those that supported the war... But man, one day of no nitpicking was just not possible it seems.
Try not to overanalyze what I'm saying. I'm tired of listening to politicians rant and rave about terrorism, homeland invasion, war in iraq, blah, blah, blah. My life hasn't changed for the better at all because of this. It's disappointing that as soon as Bush2 was elected, he what everyone knew he would do. Cut taxes for the rich, increase spending, especially for defense, and take us into a war for no reason. And what do we get out of this? Another colony for us to exploit? Perhaps, things will be different, but until I see it, I'll forever be the eternal pessimist. That's just who I am. :) Thanks for not turning this into a whining argument like so many of these turn out to be.Quote:
Alright, so, you suppose it's a good thing if it leads to Americans getting back to more important things? And so, if it doesn't, it's not that much of a good thing? :) That is of course a great benefit to his capture, but I dunno, the condition of "getting back to more important things" you're placing to qualify it as a "good thing" doesn't seem right. That's a benefit, not a condition to me... It's as simple as he's one less scumbag out of power.
SC
No, actually that doesn't explain what Nightwolve was talkin about at all.Quote:
I'm not French or Russian so there's the explanation for that.
It's difficult for me to take you seriously with statements like that. :rolleyes:Quote:
I'd feel the same way about any "evil" dictator. And that's what he is, not a mass murderer, it's not like he personally killed all those people.
Instead of always focusing on the negative aspects, (no one is an eternal pessimist), try thinking of something positive these mysterious "politicians" have done in the past two years. I can think of about a dozen, and I'm not even trying.Quote:
I'm tired of listening to politicians rant and rave about terrorism, homeland invasion, war in iraq, blah, blah, blah. My life hasn't changed for the better at all because of this.
:eek:
Color me stupid, (you probably have already *sigh*), but I didn't know we'd be going to war when Bush was elected, I just assumed it would be a four year long headache until Al Sharpton was elected in '04... ;)Quote:
It's disappointing that as soon as Bush2 was elected, he what everyone knew he would do. Cut taxes for the rich, increase spending, especially for defense, and take us into a war for no reason.
What? Oh, you mean like Canada? Ok, I get it know.Quote:
And what do we get out of this? Another colony for us to exploit?
DOVESKI, its not "dogma", nor am I a member of any Republican Party organization. I just find it funny that Democrats and other left-wing people (and I mention that because they are the ones doing it) are responding to good news like economic growth and the capture of Hussein with:
01. Apathy
02. Despair b/c now it means Bush might win in 2004.
Which are both really strange reactions to good things.
Like I said, in that news report, the democrats were basically saying that they hope that the economic recovery of that month was just a blip on the radar... for them, people getting jobs and the economy growing is bad news because its good for Bush. Likewise with this capture of Saddam. If all terrorist attacks and all confusion in Iraq were to end tomorrow, tears would come to the eyes of Democrats across the entire country. Even though that would be unequivocally good.
It's just funny, that's all.
Oh boy, way to much here to get into right now, my time is short.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Suffice to say I was ready to make a non politicised post and then was greeted with THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS FUCK YOU.
Seriously.
And I dont second guess,
Let it go. Other members on this board have already apologized for Yoshi's statement. He may be too big of an asshole to say anything else in this thread, but there is no need for you to have a damn fit over it.
So in conclusion, despite what conspiracy theories you may think are being hatched against you:
NOT EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD HATES YOU OR YOUR OPINIONS!!!
Yert they continue to blame me for this thread losing focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Overdrive
See, what I think happened was just their anticipation of you posting that caused the thread to lose focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
In other words, you have such power that you can bend them all out of shape without even saying a word.
Don't you mean "pathetic"? I do care about Saddam's end, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's back in office by summer, knowing how America is. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycrow
Oh, by the way, fuck you crow :D
That's an odd thing to say, even joking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron
I would be surprised if he is still alive by summer, to be honest.
Why should I be upset that the French or Russians were partner to Saddam? I'm not a citizen of their country, I am a US citizen so that's why I bring it up. Sounds simple enough to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Overdrive
Tell me some positive things, everything I can think of has only been an idea that has yet to be implemented, another promise gone to the wayside. Plus what's positive to you will probably not be to me.Quote:
Instead of always focusing on the negative aspects, (no one is an eternal pessimist), try thinking of something positive these mysterious "politicians" have done in the past two years. I can think of about a dozen, and I'm not even trying.
:eek:
That's you and the rest of the naive American citizenry. (Man did that sound elitest...sorry to steal your thunder Bahn. :p) I saw this coming a thousand miles away. Bush had plans for this mess even before 9/11.Quote:
Color me stupid, (you probably have already *sigh*), but I didn't know we'd be going to war when Bush was elected, I just assumed it would be a four year long headache until Al Sharpton was elected in '04... ;)
Don't take me seriously if that's what you want. I don't take you seriously or this board for that matter. Just a fun place to discuss, which gets lost on some people.
SC
Dead links usually don't lighten my mood. :(
Aw Crap....I'll just attach it.....Here youse go...
I just ignore him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
1. Economic recovery my ass...the markets may be up but unemployment is still high and rising. People give more of a shit about whether they're employed than how much rich people are earnng on their portfolios.
2. That Bush would lead this country into war if elected was strikingly obvious to anyone who watched any of the 2000 GOP Convention.
agreed! =)Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
BUT!!!
I believe both sides are guilty of of being asswads, ex. like you said hardcore Democrats ARE smirking when people are getting killed in Iraq, but we'd be fooling ourselves to think Republicans would not be doing the same if the situation was reversed, politicians will be politicians, their bottom line is self interest. It just irks me when people who side with the right act as if the politicians they support can do no wrong (in my personal experieces, right wingers tend to pull this routine more often than lefties, my big bro is hard core Limbaugh listening Republican, his mind is shut, I come here and I see someone like Stone pulling the same routine...now my pop is a registered Democrat but will vote either way depending on the individual, it is open to free dialog). Eh, just some observations.
L8!
Ah! See... I get that from you and Almaci... True justice to you would be when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. were rounded up and brought to Europe's "World Court" me thinks... I know you kid, but I think that's the kind of humor you like ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Well, I guess that's cool. More believeable than what comes out of Almaci. I won't press it. If it's not like, "NO MORE BUSH! NO MORE BUSH! Please God, not another 4 years of Bush!! Oh wait, I'm an atheist liberal, I don't believe in God, but if he does exist, please, please not another 4 years of Bush... Give me 4 years of the other kind of 'bush', but not Bush!!!" then fine :p. But, I suppose there'd have to be a left-wing president in office that I really didn't like to understand this. It's odd to see interventionists turn isolationists and vice versa though. The world's been upside down since 9-11... The French say we're arrogant... The French!! The Germans don't know what war is; they never heard of the concept... The republicans just passed a 400 billion dollar bill for medicare; are expanding government like never before. And, the democrats are complaining about deficits... It's been a little too much lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
You could have a portfolio, too, if you wanted. It's not like only "rich people" play the stock market.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Hell, I'd probably have one if I cared. I hate the friggin' stock market.
Unemployment has been dropping for 4 months, Burgundy. November's unemployment rate was at an 8 month low.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Bush got elected as an isolationist. It was one of the things I disliked about him. His stance changed after 9-11.
Eat a sack, I'm about as conservative as Lieberman. There are a lot of situations where I'd vote for Lieberman before Bush. Hell, I would've considered voting for Dean if it was the real, 1999, New England Demirepublican Dean running, not 2003-Shower-Me-With-Your-Love-Hard-Left-So-I-Can-Win-35%-Of-The-Electorate-In-2004 Dean.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
hahaha, could have fooled me, i guess you just hate arabs then. =)
from The Daily Show:
"After months and months of searching, we finally found the guy... who had nothing to do with September 11"
I see the logic, but even if he had nothing to do with Al Quieda I'm sure he didn't mind funding a terrorist every now and then and maybe even training his own.
My main concern is this:
Now that Saddam has been bagged (yay!), what's Bush going to do? The diversion in Iraq has been brought to conclusion. What about the main bad guy here? The one who blew up the Twin Towers and attacked the Pentagon?? Now Bush is going to spend the next 10 months dodging questions about Bin Laden and responding with "we got Saddam." Osama has been at large for over two years and nothing has been said about him. Afghanistan is in shambles and the gov. has been skirting around the issue. Saddam's capture will help Bush in the short term, but unless new advances are made in the hunt for Bin Laden (you know, the guy who started the war on terror?) Bush is going to be in trouble.
Don't misread me though. I'm glad we got Saddam but it's kind of like beating up the drunken neighbor who's been mouthing off for 10 years, while the neighbor who poisoned your cat, dented your car, came on to your daughter, and tried to rob your house remains at large. Sure, the drunk abused his kids and wife, but he wasn't that much of a threat to you. Now that the little man is gone, what are you going to do about the real threat?
If we want Osama we might have to knock is some doors and the international community won't like that, I say fuck them because they usually have their priorities mixed up and it wasn't their countries that got hit by this attack but it's still a matter of concern.
Melf is the master of simplistic wit... I think Almaci's last post will be my new sig.
SC
We get the idea; Saddam was a nobody that destroyed his WMDs long ago, and suddenly supposed global human rights supporters don't give a fuck about Iraqis... But, what would YOU like Bush to do? We have 11k US troops in Afganistan with more NATO support along (not sure about their involvement tho). So, would you like him to have those troops cross into the Pakistani border? Should he divert back another 10k, 20k, or 30k troops to improve the search odds? Do you really, really want that bastard caught right now like I do? I mean, some say he had nothing to do with 9-11... A popular theory floated around in Arabdom was that 4,000 Jews stayed home that day. Some say we doctored the confession tape of Bin Laden... Pretty convincing arguments were made from what I saw . . . I dunno, I hear other points of view that we're the bullies, and Bin Laden was just looking out for the Palestinians cause he loves them with all his heart; just trying to protect 'em from the evil Jews that don't seem to wanna die out easily... I just don't know who or what the real threat is these days, ya know...? Are we sure Bin Laden is even alive? Implied in your whole post is that he's alive and planning his next attack. Should I be afraid? I know we only got half of his top guys with lots of help from Pakistan, so I don't doubt the rest could be up to something... Maybe I'm looking at this whole thing wrong... Maybe it's BUSH that's the real imminent threat, eh? Think about it, yo!!! And, maybe, just maybe, the regime-change really needed to take place over here and NOT, NOT over there.... Woah, damn, I scare myself sometimes... OMG! Stone, save me from this severe fringe left-wingness... It's Almaci, he's inside my head and I can't get him out =\.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Anyway, um, here's my prediction if Bin Laden was captured: Let's see, we'd have the International Red Cross and the ACLU come out and demand to check his cell to ensure he's got his cable-tv access, his koran, plus all the rights afforded to him by the Geneva conventions (that illegal combatant status will just not do). We'll have democrats along with the hard Left shift to the next issue of attack and discuss how we need to worry about the next potential 1000 Bin Ladens that he's created. That, we need to track down all the followers he's inspired; cells he's setup around the world, etc... "No, no, folks, it's a somber day of celebration as we must prepare for the true work ahead of us... We've gotta internationalize internationalize internationalize now more than ever (hint hint: France, Germany, Russia)!!!! We've gotta work better with our allies to track terrorist funds, put more pressure on the Saudis and not buddy up with 'em like the Bush oil cronies have been doing... With Bush's squandered sympathy after 9-11, to the fervent anti-Americanism worldwide we're at now, will his capture really make a difference? Where will he be tried and by whom? Will the Arab world erupt in extremist fervor if he's convicted??? Could this all actually backfire on the Bush administration and the US?"
I think the shoe fits as far as the reactions by patriotic Bush-hating liberals whenever we've had successes (who don't like their patriotism questioned)... So yeah, Bush will be in trouble now cause he'll dodge the issue of Bin Laden you say... Ok, democrats still got their ace up in their hole with, "Where's Bin Laden Mr. Bush? Hmmm?? Eh?? Where? The American inquiring minds want to know..." However, given the Clinton administration's failed attempts at capturing Bin Laden, should we trust a new democrat for the job? I imagine your point is Bush isn't up to the task... So, who is then? Is Howard Dean, if elected, gonna turn things around and march some troops right up into the heart of Pakistan to get him?? I'd like to know what the alternative plan is, if any, since "Bush failed to 'find' him..."
Repeating "Bush can't find Bin Laden" over and over is not much of a fucking plan! Oh sure, we can make great snide remarks and have a good laugh about Bush catching the wrong guy, fine, but is there a solution anywhere here? No. Zip. Nadda. So, I guess I got your message man.. Bush sucks; he got the wrong guy; Iraq is Veitnam II and was a diversion to the 'bad' economy so that's that, I suppose... The "coalition of the unhappy" wants everyone else to feel the same way, boohoo. Equality in misery. Well, okie doke, thx. I learned my lesson, I'll never ever ever ever ever vote republican. To borrow that Dick's comment here, "Bush, a miserable, miserable failure..." Ya know, cause I'm sure Mr. 'Dick' Gephardt couldn't 'fuck' things up any worse than Bush has... Nobody could, har har friggity har.
[/rant]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
You see in Gohrons world Terorism is not a problem if the US is suportive(the terorist attacks against Turkish targets in the 80s by Armenian terrorists, the financial backing and support Basque seperatists and IRA received from within the US etcetera) of the terrorist acts, its only a problem when the US is attacked.
Nevermind the fact that the entire world mobilised behind the US after 9/11 and agreed on the invasion of Afghanistan, that doesnt matter, Gohron here has these ideas in his head whereby the US is the poor little victim and the rest of the world wants to kick the poor old US down in the dirt, the rest of the world in his view of course has never had to deal with terrorism so how could they understand what the US is going trough.
No sir Turkey didnt have the PKK and Armenian fractions to deal with, Greece didnt suffer from The November 17th group, and surely The Shining path are just a bunch of south american philosophers, IRA are choir boys etcetera etcetera.
Almaci.Quote:
the terorist attacks against Turkish targets in the 80s by Armenian terrorists, the financial backing and support Basque seperatists and IRA received from within the US etcetera
Read this slowly.
A...COUNTRY'S...FOREIGN...POLICY...CAN...CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
We have made mistakes in the past by supporting regimes that support terrorists, or by allowing American citizens to support terrorists (IRA donations, so on).
We made a mistake by leaving Saddam in power. We may have made a mistake by collaborating with Saddam in the '80s. I don't know, because I can't rewind time, and see what would have happened had we not opposed the USSR's support of Iran.
Our country's foreign policy is shifting. Cheney realized the mistakes of Bush I's administration in leaving Saddam in power. Cheney then began to push Bush II towards removing Saddam. We are, hopefully, moving towards no longer supporting any regime that uses terrorism.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
A COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN CHANGE.
(I don't support terrorism. But, as an aside, I have a hard time believing that you're bitching about what the Armenians did to the Turks. It's like an Iraqi bitching about Kurdist separatists.)
On your next U.S. tour, make sure to avoid Glendale, California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
I live next door to Little Armenia in Los Angeles, and I know a few people who would compare Almaci's comments to a German complaining about Jewish terrorists during WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Planet
Seriously dude, you don't have to be so obnoxious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Our foreign policy acts with an agenda in mind. Power and money happen to be this agenda, and the US is prepared to take any steps it is able in order to achieve this. Any misguided beliefs that our foreign policy shifts due to a sudden "revelation" or "change of heart" are foolish. So while yes, foreign policies CAN change, rest assured it happens because it is no longer seen as a viable source of income and/or power.
Hey the Turks aint peachy clean at this but neither are Israeli´s with regards to Palestinians yet you deem them terrorists right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Anyways you are here telling me that THIS administration is different that it doesnt do the bidding for corporate America like administrations before it, that it DOESNT support totalitarian regimes at the expense of democracies like the ones before them?
Seems like that IS what you are claiming, in that case tough im sure the presidents of Taiwan and Venezuela would disagree, that the Turkish parlement disagrees and im sure numerous others as well wich we will only find out about in the coming years.
Face facts you little dipshit, this administration has supported nation building, an attempt at overthrowing a democraticaly elected regime in South America in favour of a millitary dictatorship(it failed), blasts of at Taiwan in favour of Chinese bussuines intrests and is a corporate stoogie like no other administration before(yeah let enron execs roam free and put Martha stewart in jail).
Youre smarter then this, youre just looking to score a few cheap points with the less eloquant right wing freakazoids on these boards, as you have been doing for a while now.
I think I speak for many people when I say that seeing Martha Stewart in jail would be absolutely wonderful.
Hey terorism is terorism, slaughtering innocents is slaughtering innocents, no matter what a nation might have done to you to go around and slaughter innocents from that nation or another is undefendable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Planet
Yet here we have people seemingly thinking that its OK to do that.
So tell me why you guys arent supportive of African americans and Native Americans killing Caucasian americans then, or not supportive of Palestines blowing themselves up near Israeli targets?
Gee the hipocrasy here is so thick youd need a shinsu knife to cut trough it.
How about Kenny boy then who caused tens of thousands of people to lose billions, who cost those people the pensions they had worked decades to aquire, who repeatedly lied to his shareholders and employees and who secretly sold of his shares at full price while stopping his employees from doing the same to safeguard their meager savings?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
All while he was flying around with Bush in his private jet.
Okay Almaci... Ill be dead honest right now.
I dont want to discuss this topic with you.
Then shut the fuck up or dont reply to MY messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Go fuck yourself. I replied to the message I wanted to respond to, and you asked me a question, and I answered it. Im not the one who is out of line here.
Huh? My post only said to avoid Glendale. But given your post, I'll be happy to drop you off there. Hell, I'll even provide you with a bullhorn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Yeah, I do, for the purposes of this board, Almaci is a dense near-illiterate idiot. You need to tell him things a few times before he understands them.Quote:
Seriously dude, you don't have to be so obnoxious.
That's bullshit, there's a difference between "peachy clean", "not peachy clean", and "being the perpetrators of 'Holocaust: The Prequel'. How many Armenians did the Turks kill? 1 million? It was WWI's version of the Holocaust, with Christians instead of Jews and Muslim Turks instead of Germans. There were a lot of Americans back then who wanted to do something to help the Armenians while the Turks were slaughtering them - in that case, isolationism won, and Armenians got butchered as a result.Quote:
Hey the Turks aint peachy clean at this but neither are Israeli´s with regards to Palestinians yet you deem them terrorists right?
I don't support terrorism. I would rather America had saved Armenians from the Turks in the same way that we saved Iraqis from Saddam. However, there were people who could be called terrorists amongst the Jews in Germany, and amongst Americans in pre-Revolutionary America.
The difference between
-Jews, Revolutionary Americans, and Armenians.
and
-the Iraqi 'freedom fighters' using kids for cover in a gunfight, or those Palestinian terrorists?
Motive? Methods? Something you wouldn't understand, with your completely-fucked world view.
EAT...A...DICK. You're a worthless piece of shit who joins the worst aspects of the extreme left and extreme right, supports terrorism, evidently denies Armenian genocide, and seems to support Iran's islamofascist government.Quote:
Blah blah you're smarter than this
I don't believe in the death penalty, ever.Quote:
Hey terorism is terorism, slaughtering innocents is slaughtering innocents, no matter what a nation might have done to you to go around and slaughter innocents from that nation or another is undefendable.
However, I'd rather see a murderer get executed by the state than someone who shoots a criminal who is trying to rape the shooter's wife, and, hell, I'd rather see the guy who defended his wife get executed than a woman get stoned to death for taking her burqua off. Degrees.
There are degrees of wrongness - Armenian terrorists vs. Turks is at one level, Palestinians vs. Israeli soldiers is at another, Al Qaeda vs. American officeworkers. The methods are wrong, the motives might be right.
What do you believe, Almaci? When is terrorism okay? Do you think that terrorism is never right? Do you think it's okay in some cases? Does that include Palestinian terrorism? What about the World Trade Center attack? Justified because of American hypocrisy?
Stupid slaughters have gone on for ages and ages.
America was full of natives until they were killed-off with war and disease.
No people on this planet are "clean".
The biggest problem is people constantly fighting and holding grudges over "the sins of the father".
From this point on, any personal attacks here are going to result in an immediate ban. Either keep it civil or take it to Fight Club.
I'm especially addressing Yoshi, Almaci, diffusionx and Stone.
The slaughter of Armenians happened between the two worldwars after an insurgency instigated by France and the UK who were driven out of Anatalia by the rebel forces of Ataturk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
How exactly does that warrant terrorist actions in the 80s?
Actions designed to get an Armenian homeland on what has been Turkish soil for 8 decades now.
They knew they had no hope against the dictatorships of Iran or the Soviets so they took the target wich they deemed soft, Turkey.
Mind you after the fall of comunism in the former soviet Union they did get independance, independance wich they later chose to waive.
Dont gimme that crap that happened BEFORE the second world war, under that reasoning European Jews would have a right to start killing innocent Germans worldwide to establish a Jewish land on German soil.
Its as retarded as the other shit yer spouting here right now.
And no terorism is NEVER alright, gee youd think youd get the message after me having said as much dozens of times before.
I figured, since I'm not one of the boad conservatives, might as well post this:
There isn't a Republican alive who can honestly point the finger at Clinton when referring to Bin Laden, unless they're willing to take down two of their presidents and a shitload of congressmen with them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Clinton fucked up with Osmama, yes he did. But that's the point. He basically continued a failed policy regarding the Taliban that began over 20 years ago. He was one of the people responsible, but he sure as hell wasn't the only one.
Why not? Haven't we "marched right up into the heart" of two countries already? Didn't Bush say we would find him no matter what? How convenient to downplay the fact that Bin Laden is still out there. Suddenly he's not so important right now. I don't know if he's alive, but then, you don't know that he's not. And since we haven't the foggiest clue where he is or what he's doing, I guess we'll never know.Quote:
So, who is then? Is Howard Dean, if elected, gonna turn things around and march some troops right up into the heart of Pakistan to get him?? I'd like to know what the alternative plan is, if any, since "Bush failed to 'find' him..."
Funny how you put the word failed in quotations. I can't see how the state of Afghanistan or the hunt for Bin Laden can be put another way.
I've reread my post and couldn't find just about anything you referred to here, so you're sarcasm and wit was wasted.Quote:
Repeating "Bush can't find Bin Laden" over and over is not much of a fucking plan! Oh sure, we can make great snide remarks and have a good laugh about Bush catching the wrong guy, fine, but is there a solution anywhere here? No. Zip. Nadda. So, I guess I got your message man.. Bush sucks; he got the wrong guy; Iraq is Veitnam II and was a diversion to the 'bad' economy so that's that, I suppose... The "coalition of the unhappy" wants everyone else to feel the same way, boohoo. Equality in misery. Well, okie doke, thx. I learned my lesson, I'll never ever ever ever ever vote republican. To borrow that Dick's comment here, "Bush, a miserable, miserable failure..." Ya know, cause I'm sure Mr. 'Dick' Gephardt couldn't 'fuck' things up any worse than Bush has... Nobody could, har har friggity har.
There's no solution? Aren't you defending the man in charge? You mean he doesn't have a solution?
You're right though. We'll probably just humor Bin Laden for a few more years, let him bomb wherever he wants, and then blame the Democrat in power for not finding him. That's basically always been our policy anyway. So much for accountability!
I'd be much more forgiving of Mr. Bush's failure to find bin Laden or confirm his death if he found the WMD, he had a viable long-term plan for Iraq, he was willing to pull out of Iraq now, he hadn't alienated the rest of the world, he wasn't connected to corporate failures that have cost Americans their life savings, he managed to turn the domestic economy around significantly, or his adminstration stopped attacking civil liberties at home.
His successes since his "election" include the successful invasion of a totally inferior nation and finding its former tyrant in a rathole. Both of which may be a wonderful thing for Iraq but really don't benefit a single American at all save for the ones serving in Iraq who shouldn't even be there anymore.
Wow for once I'm not the one embroiled in a name-calling fest. But it's sad to see the same people whining about how these discussion turn to crap resorting to the same style they themselves dislike.
Anyways, does anyone actually see this thing ending? Finding Saddam could have been a good thing for Bush if he now decided to pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis start governing themselves, but he won't. This occupation will continue until he's either voted out next November or he finishes destroying this country after his second term.
On a side note, did anyone see that report on the number of companies that are exported jobs overseas? That's what I'm talking about when I say there are more important issues than disposing of some two-bit dictator.
SC
Why do you guys want us to leave (not counting the monetary and human life costs)? Would it be good for the Iraqi people? Will they be able to govern themselves if we pull out now?
I'm not being a smart-ass; I really don't know.
I didn't make the list? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence. I just don't see how any of this is improving the lives of any American who doesn't have an interest in whatever reconstruction contracts we have over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Don't you know? It's our burden. It's not supposed to help us.. it's to help them! Our burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's not how administrations operate. We don't send young men out to die completely for the sake of another country. It's obvious that there's something here for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
It's our BURDEN you see.
OH....THAT kind of burden. I get you now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
If we leave now, what sort of government do you think will develop in Iraq?Quote:
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence. I just don't see how any of this is improving the lives of any American who doesn't have an interest in whatever reconstruction contracts we have over there.
What sort of foreign policy will that government have towards America?
How will the government use its oil money in regards to that foreign policy?
Honestly, Burgundy, you think the country would be better off without us there? Can you posit a situation where a lack of US presence in Iraq would improve the country?Quote:
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence.
Moving our bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq (and on Syria's border, heheh) is a better tactical situation for us to be in.
Democratic capitalist countries don't attack other democratic capitalist countries. 1 more democratic capitalist country means 1 less country that would like to attack us.
Manufacturing actually went up about 2% in November. Better jobs are being created to replace the jobs being sent overseas. The idea that emigration of crappy jobs to lower skilled workers in China is some sort of massive problem or threat to Americans is a low-level myth that got blown out of proportion by uneducated right-wingers who listen to talk radio and educated left-wingers people who read Noam Chomsky, IMO. Despite our disagreement, I respect your opinion and honor your inner Buddha.Quote:
On a side note, did anyone see that report on the number of companies that are exported jobs overseas? That's what I'm talking about when I say there are more important issues than disposing of some two-bit dictator.
Fair criticisms, although I'd argue that the domestic economy has been turned around significantly, that saying Bush had "alienated the rest of the world" is a gross overexaggeration (look at France forgiving Iraq debt even though we shut them out of reconstruction contracts), and that pulling out of Iraq now would be a colossally stupid mistake.Quote:
I'd be much more forgiving of Mr. Bush's failure to find bin Laden or confirm his death if he found the WMD, he had a viable long-term plan for Iraq, he was willing to pull out of Iraq now, he hadn't alienated the rest of the world, he wasn't connected to corporate failures that have cost Americans their life savings, he managed to turn the domestic economy around significantly, or his adminstration stopped attacking civil liberties at home.
Outside of that, imagine a time when we do find Bin Laden. I'm guessing you'll make a post somewhere along the lines of:
Right?Quote:
I'd be much more forgiving of Mr. Bush's failure to find WMDs if he had a viable long-term plan for Iraq, he was willing to pull out of Iraq now, he hadn't alienated the rest of the world, he wasn't connected to corporate failures that have cost Americans their life savings, he managed to turn the domestic economy around significantly, or his adminstration stopped attacking civil liberties at home.
s successes since his "election" include the successful invasion of a totally inferior nation, and finding two former tyrants in ratholes.
Well, now that US occupation of Iraq is a fait accompli it's obviously better for the country if we stay there. We did remove their entire governmental infrastructure by waging an unprovoked war, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
But that's not the point burgundy was trying to make. He thinks that neither the invasion nor the US mission in Iraq holds any benefit for Americans, and I'm inclined to agree.
"Better" in that it pushes the region closer to war? What's your logic here?Quote:
Moving our bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq (and on Syria's border, heheh) is a better tactical situation for us to be in.
Yes, and is it worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a decades-long reconstruction project without foreign help, and with no guarantee of success, to remove a threat that never existed in the first place? Not in my opinion.Quote:
Democratic capitalist countries don't attack other democratic capitalist countries. 1 more democratic capitalist country means 1 less country that would like to attack us.
Wait. Aren't those two descriptions somewhat somewhat redundant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I would imagine their infrastructure now is stronger than it was the week before we attacked. Saddam wasn't exactly a master civil politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Saddam violated about 18 different UN treaties/decisions/fiats, all of which authorized war - whether or not the UN voted for war, the US was following through on previously agreed-upon UN resolutions. The country was defying US requests and defying UN requests. I still don't understand why people think we ought've waited until a bomb with "Iraq's" engraved on it fell on an American to get rid of the bastard.
We need a military base in the area, removing our bases from Saudi Arabia gives us one less reason to cater to the Saudis, and a base next to Syria exerts more pressure on Syria than a base in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
"Better" in that it pushes the region closer to war? What's your logic here?
Fair enough. Are we debating about cost now? What if we could've done the mission at half the price? Accomplished all of the things we've accomplished by liberating Iraq at half the cost?Quote:
Yes, and is it worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a decades-long reconstruction project without foreign help, and with no guarantee of success, to remove a threat that never existed in the first place? Not in my opinion.
Do you mean "redundant" or do you mean "noncompatible" or something like that? I don't know how the descriptions could be "redundant"; even I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two groups are wittingly buddies of each other.Quote:
Wait. Aren't those two descriptions somewhat somewhat redundant?
However, the two groups are definitely compatible - go read a copy of "Counterpunch" alongside "The American Conservative" and see how many issues they agree on. Listen, force Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchahan to not talk to each other god, guns, and gays, combine them, and you'd have a hell of a 1-2 ticket if you needed the frontispiece of a new American political party.
We're moving towards a world where candidates like John McCain and Dick Gephardt run against a ticket consisting of guys like Buchanan and Chomsky.
Liberty vs Authoritarianism.
Stone: I'd be more excited about a bin Laden capture because unlike Saddam he has attacked America in the past and he remains a threat to do so. Would that change my opinion of Bush's terrible domestic policies or my priorities? No.
Perhaps the neoconservatives are really just nice guys who want nothing but a bright future for Iraq. Last I checked, though...0% of Iraqi citizens are American voters.