The Official Iraq War thread (lyrics, techno, country, house)

[sleepy jack]

YouTube - Toby Keith - Courtesy Of The Red, White And Blue (The Angry American)

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

GOD BLESS AMERICA

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Who gives a shit? Thousands of parents have had their children taken
from them and killed for a lie. They were killed to better the lives
of corrupt politicians, you should care. Apathy is America's problem.

I agree with part of that, I think poor planning on our part has played a big role on the casualties we've had. We were under equipped, under funded, didn't have enough men, the way we executed the war was horrible. That much I agree with.

We aren't spreading democracy to the Middle East, you're ignorant to
history so the fact that you disagree with with my assertion that the
US doesn't support democracies doesn't really matter to me. Had you
maybe, read a book, something, you would agree as well. You don't
though, so you've got to let a 16 year old kid on a music forum school
you on history. It's pretty sad.

My history aint too bad, I know Nicaragua, Cambodia, Israel. I don't think any of that accounts for current events in Iraq.

Iraq is the Iraqi's problem, not ours. They posed no threat to us.

Ok, according to you, we invaded their land just for oil and we left a big mess, so its their problem now? We have no responsability for it at all?

Do you understand the meaning of 'imperialism'? The British didn't
plan on pulling out of India. The Belge didn't plan on pulling out of
the Congo. We don't plan on pulling out of the area we stole from
Mexico in the 1850's, imperialism doesn't work like that.

But we DO plan to pull out of Iraq eventually. Or did someone forget to inform you about that?

Yes, capitalism has always been the root of imperialism. Lands were
invaded and used to supply natural resources for the invading
countries industrial machine. That is how it worked back then, and it
is how the US works now. We are ruling the Iraqis with an Arab facade.
The fact that you think 'arab facade' is fiction again shows your
ignorance to history. Read.

Calling Israel a facade is history. I'm talking about Iraq.

Good for you, I'm not sure that democracy has a thing to do with you
collecting disability, that is more a socialist aspect of our country
than democratic.

The idea of socialism is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I don't see being unemployed and not paying taxes but getting disability is socialist. In fact, I'm the kinda guy a socialist would dispise just because of my status.

What about it changed? In the 1850's we did it with Mexico.
In the 1950's we did it with Iran.
In the 1980's we did it in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and that was
Reaganite politics, which George Bush practises.
Our policy didn't change. If it did, explain how.

Bush is different from Reagan on a number of issues. Especially on Free Trade.

One example? Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, we refused to support Fidel
Castro overthrow his dictator in Cuba because his dictator allowed US
companies to control Havana and make tons of money.

We refused to help Fidel Castro? OMG, how horrible.

Like we ever expected democracy from that son of a bitch.

Thats 4 examples,
and those are off the top of my head. I'd find more if I took the time
to search it. We hate democracies that aren't US supported, and when
you have the US controlling your democracy, it isn't really a
democracy. We overthrew Mossadeq because Iran set an example,
Nicaragua set an example, it is possible to have a functional
democracy without the US pulling the strings. That is why we overthrow
them.

Almost every current goverment in the world identifies itself as a democracy (Saudi Arabia is one major exception). So why not go to war with the entire world? Why not go to war with the EU? We're not pulling their strings are we?

We are not in the democracy business. We are in the business of
installing pro-American leaders who will allow us to exploit their
countries. Why do you think we hate Hugo Chavez so much? He won't let
the US exploit Venezuelan oil. We can't have that, which is why we try
and assassinate him.

Sure, thats our reason, but Hugo is someone with a horrible human rights record and a soft spot for terrorism, I won't lose any sleep over his assassination.

You fail to realize that history is important, mostly because you're
enormously uneducated in history so you cannot see that the things
which happen in Nicaragua in the '80s, what happened in Iran in the
'50s, is happening today.

You refuse to give even one example because you dont have one. Your understanding is simple, if we invade a country, its just like every country we have invaded, that is your reasoning.

The circumstances are exactly the same. The
wording is essentially the same. Switch 'communism' to 'terrorism' and
change 'White-Man's burden' to 'spreading democracy'.

Its not the same. Even so, who cares? It has nothing to do with the main point which is that Saddam was a problem and we did a good thing by removing him from power.

Its the same
thing boo boo. But good job at not realizing how much of a role
history plays, you play right into the governments hands. If the
people in the 80's hadn't forgotten the Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan
would have had a lower approval rating than GW now. If you actually
knew your countries history you'd be skeptical, but the comments you
make later in this post, which I will reply to, just prove how
ignorant you are to your own country's history.

I know about the Trail of Tears, slavery, Cambodia, Nicaragua. I know it all god f*cking dammit. Nicaragua didn't slaugter thousands of its own people. Cambodia were not a potential threat to US homeland security. Nicaragua and Cambodia didn't lie to the UN about developing WMDs. Yet you draw such paralels, you're the one who dosen't know sh*t about history.

You highly doubt it? The only reason it was a mistake was because the
public found out about it. The politicians were making out like
bandits, why wouldn't they do it again? I mean, they already have.

Prove it.

Fiction? Are you really THAT ignorant to history? Lord Curzon, the
British foreign secretary said after WWI. "We must create an 'Arab
facade' ruled and administrated under British guidance and controlled
by a native Mohammedan, and as far as possible an Arab staff." This
should all, he continued, "be veiled by constitutional fictions."

Your remark "we will start an arab fecade in Iraq". Thats what I called fiction.

This is exactly what we are doing today. The Iraqi council consists of
25 men, all appointed by the Director of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance Paul Bremer. So the government is ruled by 25
men, all appointed by an American representing American interests. Arab
facade? Of course it is. If you're too naive to see that, fine, but
don't say what I've written is 'fiction'. Aran facade is the exact
word used by Lord Curzon after WWI. Learn some history boo boo.

Lord Curzon wasn't talking about Iraq. DO YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF REALITY?

What do you know of the 25 men, their policies, their interests? Do you distrust them just because they were appointed by an American?

I think its good that an outside source appoints them anyway. I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Iraqis appoint them. You do too.

We don't harbor terrorists? Again, your ignorance to history digs you
into a hole here.

Orlando Bosch- Former CIA-backed terrorist who is responsible for the
bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner which killed all 73 people on
board, including 5 North Korean Olympic fencers, also responsible for
the bombing of a Polish civilian airliner, for which he was arrested
in 1968 in Venezuela. While on parole, he fled to the United States
with the help of the US Ambassador to Venezuela, when he arrived in
Florida he was arrested by the INS for violating parole, however, when
he threatened to reveal information about his work with the CIA,
George H. W. Bush pardoned him. He now lives in Miami, Florida. He has
been described by the CIA as an 'anti-Castro terrorist umbrella
organization' and the former Attorney General Dick Thornburg called
him an 'unrepentant terrorist'. The government protects him though,
which I suppose obliterates your point outright. But there's more.

Emmanuel Constant- Founder of FRAHP, a Hatian death squad responsible
for the deaths of over 4000 Hatians who supported ousted president
Jean-Baptiste Aristade. When Aristade was restored to power he fled to
the US, where he was arrested. However, once again he threatened to
divulge information about his workings with the CIA in the 90's, Bill
Clinton ordered him to be freed. Now he lives in Queens, New York.
That is twice that your point has been proven incorrect because of
your ignorance to history.

Two copy and pasted examples, not a big demographic of people now is it? I DARE you to say thats worse than the terrorists being harbored in Venezuela or Iraq. Or hell, Canada and the UK.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

The idea that Iraq should have been dealt with may be somewhat valid.
The point that it should have been dealt with by us, however, is
absurd.

We're the biggest superpower in the world and more than anyone we could get it done. Who in the f*ck else would you suggest? Poland?

Anthony Arnove, ed. Iraq Under Seige, 2nd Edition (South End Press, 2002)

Carl Kaysen et al, War with Iraq (American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, Committee on International Security Studies, 2002)

Links would be more appropiate.

That threat was dealt with. I'm not defending Saddam, he was a brutal
tyrant. He wasn't our business however. It isn't our job to police the
world. None of this is why we went in there in the first place. We do
not care about Iraqi civilians. We've killed 150,000 of them, they're
not our concern in Iraq. Companies like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin,
Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Raytheon Company, and
Science Applications International Company, companies which government
officials and their buddies have major stock in, benefit HUGELY from
war. They make money like you wouldn't believe. War means big money
for them.

Thats a no brainer. I agree with you completely.

Are you some kind of soothsayer? Us leaving Iraq, and thus
eliminating American casualties from the equation by removing them
from the midst of the ruthless religion/civil war taking place in Iraq
is worse than what is happening there today? It is already in a bloody
civil war, people are dying by the hundreds everyday. Their is warfare
in the streets of the city, it doesn't get worse than that.

Right now, we're trying to keep whats going on in Iraq under somewhat of a giant glass, leaving would simply be removing that glass and allowing the civil war to escalate to god knows where.

One thing we should do the we aren't doing the way we should is securing Iraqs borders, to prevent terrorists from coming in, and a lot of them are coming in, this is a problem we should have dealt with much earlier. Another horrible decision on Bushs part.

Well, if it weren't for human reproduction capabilities, Stalin never
would have been born, so I guess that means that sex is a bad thing by
your logic. Luckily, as I have already said, your logic is absolutely
terrible. Healthy countries need revolution. It's what brings about
change.

Revolution is good in the right hands, muslim extremists is not the right hands.

After 9/11, many Iraqis ran to the streets ran to the streets to celebrate, the idea of them appointing their officials scares me sh*tless.

The good old days? Many of those on that list revolted AFTER the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which was NOT a bad thing. The people
were living in poverty under the Czar, they were still on the
serf-system, a system which the rest of the world outgrew 600 years
earlier before the renaissance and after the Crusades. They were
better under the Czar? Thats a ridiculous statement. They were fine
under Lenin, and unfortunately, against all the revolutionaries
wishes, Stalin gained power. Stalin, as a singular ruler, was
undoubtedly bad for Russia, but in the late-60's, even Russia
realized how much of a demon Stalin was. Now the country is a
super-power, under the Czar they were a faltering medevil state. I
don't support Stalin, or like him, but the Communist leaders were
better for Russia than the Czars were.

In general communism is better for them, but Stalin was worse than any Czar. Whatever, that was just an example. Lets drop this.

It is almost tiring to have to mention constantly the fact that you
cannot follow a train of thought. The Crusades were never used as
reason to establish that Iraq wasn't a threat. I don't know how you
are reading these posts, but that wasn't even insinuated. In
conjunction with that statement I said religion should NEVER be in
position of power. Iraq was not under Sharia rule. Iran is, but we
didn't invade them. Your so illogical its ridiculous.

Go way back, I said we should have dealt with Iran first.

How do you know they'll hate us more if we leave? They hate us now,
who cares if they 'hate us more'?

Ever heard the saying putting more fuel into the fire?

The point is, we cannot be
absolutely sure of the alternative to staying there, but we are there
now, and it will not be worse. American casualties will be eliminated,
thats a good thing. We will stop throwing money into this useless war,
that is a good thing. Well, I take that back. That would be a good
thing for the citizens of American, but for the leaders who are making
money like crazy, it would be a bad thing, which is why we stay.

Fine. You win, lets pull out of Iraq. And if another 9/11 happens a few years down the road, don't try and ask me to forgive you for being wrong.

Going into Iraq to control their natural resources was a terrible
idea. Just because they dress it up by saying 'Saddam was horrible!"
doesn't make it a just-war. We were the agressors upon a country which
posed no threat to us. Nazi's were hung for that at Nuremburg.

Funny how everyone denies that Saddam intended to have a powerful offensive millitary. Even though its a fact.

No, I won't stop with historical comparisons. History is more relevant
in examine the present than anything else. The context, the language,
the execution, it is all exactly the same as it was during the
imperialist times. You're not supposed to be well-educated on
imperialist times for just this reason, you will be too blind to draw
historical comparisons and view the outcomes of those desicions.
Ignorance is bliss however, you're a shining example.

You don't draw your examples well however. I bet if we invaded North Korea you would say its just like Nicaragua too.

The only thing that has changed since 9/11 is the fear Americans have

Gee. How irrational of us.

which the government exploits, enormously successfully I might add.
They've got you justifying their ridiculous wars through fear.

The goverment has no control over my opinions. Why do they care if I support them or not? I'm a libertarian who thinks drugs and prostitution should be legal. Not the kinda guy a Republican would want working for him.

Nicaragua is an example of a democracy we overthrew.

But Iraq was not a democracy, and it wasnt a poor country that posed no threat. This is why they are different.

Yet we are supposed to believe its a good thing for the US to bring
democracy to the Middle East, its some moral obligation we have. Kinda
like White-Man's Burden in the 19th century

Again, no matter how evil our intentions were, it should have been done, nothing is going to change that.

If we are so interested in spreading democracy, then why do we
overthrow them when they are established without our help? You answer
that with your logic. The reason we overthrow them is because they set
the example that you can have a democracy without the US pulling the
strings.

Yeah, we pull the strings of every democracy in the world, keep telling yourself that.

Thats a bad example as far as the US is concerned, the more
countries whose strings we can pull the better. We'd rather have a
pro-US ruthless dictator, than an anti-US democratically elected
president. That is a fact.

Ok, lets go to war with France.

How does the UN not deal with things? What have they NOT dealt with?

And I'm the one who dosen't know his history.

Umm. DOES DARFUR RING A BELL? How about Srebrenica? The UN did NOTHING.

If a country wants to establish a Marxist economy, whats wrong with
that? Its no better or worse than an Adam Smith economy. When the UN
doesn't feel the need to 'deal with' something, that doesn't mean that
the US has to become vigilantes and deal with it ourselfs. Our leaders
should be tried for what they've done.

So, the UN are not at fault for anything? The reason we act the role of world police as you put it is because the UN dosen't do its job. I wish they would. I don't like how we deal with foreign affairs any more than you do.

It won't be a facade? It already is, remember Paul Bremer?
What has Israel got to do with this at all?

Is Israel not another one of those fecades you talk so much about?

Geez your logic sucks. Your ignorant to history, and you look like a
fool when you say 'fiction fiction' and then are proved 100% wrong.
How is that for talking points?

Orlando Bosch? Emmanuel Constant? Are these fictional characters who I made up?
If you don't feel like a fool then there is some kind of disconnect
between synapses in your brain.

Ok. You did prove me wrong about protecting terrorists from the FBI. The people who are harboring them obviously should be held accountable.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Really, so the fact that we are continually being told that we could
be attacked at any minute. No one is safe, put your faith in the
government. Relinquish your civil liberties in the name of fighting
terror. People only do that when they are scared. When you can get
people to agree on giving up their right to privacy in the name of
fighting terror, you've launched a successful propaganda campaign.
Enjoy your kool-aid.



The British media? This was American media pal, unless

ABC, CNN, FOX, etc. etc. are considered British media to you. The BBC
didn't distort the info at all.
In America you're supposed to be scared though, which is why they make
it seem like these gasoline filled Mercedes' would have demolished
London or something. It would have fucked up the interior of the car,
not much else. You'd never hear that though.



The reason you think its about security is because you aren't smart
enough to distinguish propaganda from truth. That's your problem.

1. I don't have any faith in the goverment, how many times does it have to be said? I don't like how we are handling Iraq one bit. All we are arguing about is me thinking Saddam should be removed from power. I'm such a Nazi.

2. I don't trust American news media, BBC are more trust worthy than others, I didn't know who first reported the events there, I just assumed it would be by, you know, british media. Was our spin on it that different from what was being reported in the UK?

3. You insult me too much, I'm trying to be nice here for once. Still no excuse for you to be such a provoker and disobey your own rules.

[cardboard adolescent]

must... kill... everything...

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I agree with part of that, I think poor planning on our part has played a big role on the casualties we've had. We were under equipped, under funded, didn't have enough men, the way we executed the war was horrible. That much I agree with.

Okay.

My history aint too bad, I know Nicaragua, Cambodia, Israel. I don't think any of that accounts for current events in Iraq.

Nicaragua, and our overthrow of their democracy, is one example of many that can be given which display our disregard for developing democracies, actually our contempt for them. This rebuts the reasoning which YOU think is justifiable for war in Iraq, spreading democracy. Maybe democracy would be good for the Middle East, but that isn't our goal over there. That is why Nicaragua is relevant.

I have not mentioned Israel at all in any of my posts, I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

Ok, according to you, we invaded their land just for oil and we left a big mess, so its their problem now? We have no responsability for it at all?

Well, we invaded their land to control oil, the number one natural resource on the planet, yes. That in and of itself was a bad decision. The way the war was handled was another bad decision, which has resulted in a country that is far less-safe than it was under Saddam. Hard to imagine, sure, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Next, you continue to assert that the Iraqis will hate us more if we leave.
They want us to leave more than anything! Polls show that nearly 66% of Iraqis want us to leave EVEN IF it leads to increased danger for them.

You can view all the Gallup/Pew polls, none of them reflect the sentiments you seem to be echoing, that the Iraqis will hate us more if we leave.

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

But we DO plan to pull out of Iraq eventually. Or did someone forget to inform you about that?

No, we don't. If a republican president is elected you can bet your button dollar that our occupation will continue for many more years. It means too much money for them to just leave. These warmongers aren't moral people, they don't care how much it costs Americans in tax money, all they know is that the companies which they invest in are making billions of dollars in this war that is going to be passed onto them. It would mean big losses for them to just pull out. What in the world could possibly make you believe they are looking out for the interests of the average American citizen? Because they've always looked out for us before? I think every example I've provided contradicts that, but you still don't think historic examples (even if they are only 20 years old) are relevant.

Calling Israel a facade is history. I'm talking about Iraq.

I never called Israel a facade, neither did Lord Curzon was talking about the land between the Tigres and Euphrates, which..if you look at a map, is Iraq..

Obviously this was 75 years ago, and the Iraqis had since gained some independence from Western rule, but now they are right back under it. They are being led by 25 men appointed by and American who is looking out for American interests. What do you call it? They're all American appointed. That is exactly what Lord Curzon was talking about after WWI.

The idea of socialism is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I don't see being unemployed and not paying taxes but getting disability is socialist. In fact, I'm the kinda guy a socialist would dispise just because of my status.

No, receiving money for disability is a socialist feature of our economy. If we were purely capitalistic then you would be screwed, because as a disabled person you would be terrible labor, and therefore would not be hired. And since we are totally capitalistic, there would be no compensation check in your mailbox from the government, because in capitalism there is no government intervention. You would be at the mercy of money hungry employers who would not waste their money and lower their efficiency to accommodate a disabled person. Anytime you receive a check from the government to compensate for money you would not be able to earn in a normal capitalistic state, it is a socialist aspect. This is completely off topic however.

Bush is different from Reagan on a number of issues. Especially on Free Trade.

Maybe so, but not on foreign policy, even George Bush would describe his foreign policy as 'reaganite'.

We refused to help Fidel Castro? OMG, how horrible.

Yeah, we did refuse to help Fidel Castro, and that has led to major problems for the US. He came to the US for help FIRST. But we liked Batista, even though he was a tyrant, because he let us establish American companies there, and again, our leaders in Washington profited. Therefore, it was not beneficial for us to help Castro overthrow him, even though Cubans were living in poverty, because we would loose money. This was during the Cold War, when it was essentially 'The US and the USSR'. Even though he pleaded with us for help, we denied him, so he turned to his only other option, the USSR, who gladly supported him. Of course, McCarthyism took over, and since Castro had been funded by the USSR, we demonized him. The demonization continues to this day. Had the US helped him, the standard of living for the average Cuban would be miles high and Cuba would likely be a democracy.

Also, Castro has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, why do you hate him so passionately again? Again because you believe the propaganda that the government dishes out.

Like we ever expected democracy from that son of a bitch.

Wow, you sure do seem to hate Fidel Castro. He has no ties to terrorism, in fact imprisons terrorists, he had huge prisons in the 60's dedicated to locking up people who tried to assassinate him, I guess that is the worst you can say about him. What fuels your hatred other than this left-over red scare business? You don't know why you hate him, you hate him because the US government hates him, which testifys to your rationality and critical thinking skills when it comes to your justification of the War in Iraq.

Almost every current goverment in the world identifies itself as a democracy (Saudi Arabia is one major exception). So why not go to war with the entire world? Why not go to war with the EU? We're not pulling their strings are we?

One, this is untrue. Two, the reasons we don't attempt to occupy France like we occupy the Philippines, is the same reasons the English didn't occupy Germany like they occupied India.

1. There really is no excuse for an invasion of France. We can't say are spreading democracy, just like the English couldn't have justified occupying Germany through White-Mans burden. Secondly, imperialism doesn't focus on established, well defended states. Had India been a part of Europe, had established Monarchies ruling it, the British would never have thought to attempt to control it. Just like we couldn't ever get away with invading any country in Western Europe. We'd be struck down immediately on all grounds, and probably face the biggest alliances of countries AGAINST us that history has ever seen. With Iraq, or the Philippines, or 1850's Mexico, you don't face these problems. They're easy targets. Saddam couldn't defend himself.

Sure, thats our reason, but Hugo is someone with a horrible human rights record and a soft spot for terrorism, I won't lose any sleep over his assassination.

Haha. As you would say, 'good fiction, good fiction'. You must have made this up, because I cannot find a single source that validates it. Even the US government, who would like nothing more than to remove Chavez from power, admits they are no links between him and terrorism. He openly supported the US War on Terrorism. I give you some credit for stating these blatant lies so confidently, but boo boo, please. There is no connection between Chavez and terrorism.

Next, about his 'horrible' human rights record. Where is it? You just made up a little reply that sounded firm enough that no one would care to check you on it I suppose. Completely false, there are no marks on Chavez's Human Rights Record.

Again, the US demonizes him, so you have some seething hatred for him, to the point that you would support his assassination. Its ridiculous, can't you get some opinions of your own?

You refuse to give even one example because you dont have one. Your understanding is simple, if we invade a country, its just like every country we have invaded, that is your reasoning.

That is mostly because, we haven't supplied any reasoning that would point to a conclusion other than imperialism. When we invaded Texas and Arizona and New Mexico, when they belonged to Mexico, it was imperialism. When we liberated all those carribean countries from Spanish control, only to continue to occupy them, and install our own leaders, that was imperialism. Now, we've invaded Iraq and installed our own leaders in a move that is clearly imperialism. You said I didn't give any examples in response to a post where I gave three!

[sleepy jack]

Its not the same. Even so, who cares? It has nothing to do with the main point which is that Saddam was a problem and we did a good thing by removing him from power.

How is it not the same?

In the imperialism age, the aggressors used moral-obligation reasoning to justify their occupation. (The obligation to spread civilization to these colored people, aka 'White-Man's Burden) Their true intentions however, were to gain natural resources bases (cotton) to fuel their industrializing homeland. (Western Europe/America)

In the modern age, the aggressors use moral obligations reasoning to justify their occupation (the obligation to spread democracy). Their true intentions however, are to gain natural resource bases (oil fields) to fuel their industrialized homelands. (America)

I know about the Trail of Tears, slavery, Cambodia, Nicaragua. I know it all god f*cking dammit. Nicaragua didn't slaugter thousands of its own people. Cambodia were not a potential threat to US homeland security. Nicaragua and Cambodia didn't lie to the UN about developing WMDs. Yet you draw such paralels, you're the one who dosen't know sh*t about history.

Iraq was not a threat to US security. Iraq wasn't even a threat to Kuwati security, and their a shit country which borders Iraq and has already been invaded by Iraq once. The US is a massive military force, thousands of miles away from Iraq, and have never once been invaded by them.

How were they a threat to the United States? It just got painted like he was a threat in a propaganda campaign to get people to support the war there, JUST LIKE WITH NICARAGUA, but wait, Nicaragua is a completely different situation right?

Prove it.

Um, hello? Lord Curzon's quote is widely available on the internet. How else can I prove to you that the public found out? Am I supposed to prove to you that controlling the biggest oil fields in the world, or having massive pull in multiple parts of the world is beneficial to leaders? I think just an explanation is sufficient enough to prove it.

Your remark "we will start an arab fecade in Iraq". Thats what I called fiction.

Ah, okay.

We already have, how is it fictional? 25 American appointed 'Mohhamedans' who drafted a US-supervised 'constitutional fiction'. That is Curzon's definition of an Arab facade and it is good enough for me.

Lord Curzon wasn't talking about Iraq. DO YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF REALITY?

What do you know of the 25 men, their policies, their interests? Do you distrust them just because they were appointed by an American?

I think its good that an outside source appoints them anyway. I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Iraqis appoint them. You do too

Actually Lord Curzon WAS talking about Iraq, granted though, it was the Iraq of 70 years ago.
I never insinuated that Curzon was talking about 2003 Iraq anyway. I'm telling you that we (and by we I mean 'the west') have done it before, and it is certainly not above us to do it again. In fact, we've already done it again.

Of course I distrust them because they were appointed by Americans. We are spreading democracy right? What democracy is ruled by 25 leaders appointed by a different country?

Also, in an earlier version of your post, instead of it saying

'I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Iraqis appoint them'

You said

'I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Muslim extremists appoint them'

Well, for one, Iraq is not filled with Muslim extremists. Two, you are missing the whole point of a democracy. Aren't the people supposed to be in charge? I mean, a few posts ago you said it was good of us to bring democracy to the Middle East, and now you are saying that you would rather not the Iraqi's be democratic. Contradiction?

Two copy and pasted examples, not a big demographic of people now is it? I DARE you to say thats worse than the terrorists being harbored in Venezuela or Iraq. Or hell, Canada and the UK.

Even if the examples were copy pasted, which they weren't, paraphrased, yes, copy pasted, no. But even if they WERE, how would that detract from the fact that the US is harboring these two terrorists? Is it even relevant that they were copy pasted? The point is just as valid.

Secondly, no one in Venezuela is harboring terrorists knowingly. Nor are they in Canada or the UK. Quit being ridiculous. You should really check your Chavez facts before you characterize him as a terror loving villian. He supports the US war on terror.

Originally Posted by boo boo

We're the biggest superpower in the world and more than anyone we could get it done. Who in the f*ck else would you suggest? Poland?

I suggest the Iraqis, the people who would be naturally inclined to deal with it anyways.

Links would be more appropiate.

Yeah, people get information from sources other than the internet sometimes. They're called books and articles, they are very informative. I gave you perfectly formatted sources, from a book and an article, I don't have a link to some website for you. Sorry.

Thats a no brainer. I agree with you completely.

Okay, why would they want to leave when it is making them billions of dollars? Consciousness? Don't be silly.

Right now, we're trying to keep whats going on in Iraq under somewhat of a giant glass, leaving would simply be removing that glass and allowing the civil war to escalate to god knows where.

boo boo, they want us to leave. US presence is fueling the fire, the insugents admit that. They are the fire.

One thing we should do the we aren't doing the way we should is securing Iraqs borders, to prevent terrorists from coming in, and a lot of them are coming in, this is a problem we should have dealt with much earlier. Another horrible decision on Bushs part.

Maybe, but like I said, that really isn't our interest there.

Revolution is good in the right hands, muslim extremists is not the right hands.

Oops, I thought you said Muslin extremists in the last post where I said something about an earlier version of your post saying Muslim extremists, I must have been getting it confused with this one. Either way you imply that the Iraqis are Muslim extremists and should not be allowed to control their government, which contradicts your main justification for going into the war, democracy and the overthrow of Saddam.
After 9/11, many Iraqis ran to the streets ran to the streets to celebrate, the idea of them appointing their officials scares me sh*tless.

In general communism is better for them, but Stalin was worse than any Czar. Whatever, that was just an example. Lets drop this.

Dropped.

[sleepy jack]

Go way back, I said we should have dealt with Iran first.

We shouldn't DEAL with anyone. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is giving interviews to TIME Magazine, he isn't about to launch a nuclear strike against the US. He is developing nuclear technology, just..like..every single US ally..is. The only difference is, he isn't a US ally. Only the US and people who will side with them are allowed to have big guns. Naturally, if we got into a war, we'd want the advantage of Nukes of the other country.

Ever heard the saying putting more fuel into the fire?

Yeah, Coalition forces are that fuel.

Fine. You win, lets pull out of Iraq. And if another 9/11 happens a few years down the road, don't try and ask me to forgive you for being wrong.

Iraq was a complete deviation from the War on Terror. I'm an advocate of eliminating terror cells, but we went into Iraq boasting claims of al-Queda links, which he didn't have. He wasn't harboring terrorists, he wasn't a good man, but he was not harboring terrorists. Had we stuck with the course of the 'War on Terror' we'd still have the world with us. We didn't though, we went into a war with Iraq for personal reasons that were only disguised as War on Terror.

Also, we've been nothing but threatened by terrorist attacks since 9/11. I dunno about you, but I though way less about being attacked by terrorists BEFORE this war on Terror to make us more secure. As long as you're scared, you'll do anything, which is how the government was able to get Americans to give up their civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act. Everyone was scared and the government did nothing but perpetuate that fear and then exploit it.

Funny how everyone denies that Saddam intended to have a powerful offensive millitary. Even though its a fact.

Really? You don't remember with the Gulf War, the elite Special Force the Iraqi's supposedly had, the reason we sent thousands of men into Desert Storm? That elite special force that..we never encountered. Had he somehow thrown together an elite warrior unit in the 12 years after Desert Storm? Well, no. Because when the US invaded Iraq we were not met by an army whatsoever. Makeshift militias were what the US encountered, Saddams elite army didn't show up, Saddams..army didn't show up..did Saddam even have an army?

You don't draw your examples well however. I bet if we invaded North Korea you would say its just like Nicaragua too.

We don't have any reason to invade North Korea. Also, you keep bringing up Nicaragua as a comparison to every country we've invaded. Nicaragua was a formative democracy we crushed. North Korea is not a democracy. If we invaded and claimed it was to spread democracy, I would compare it to Nicaragua. We don't care about developing democracies, so saying we went to North Korea to develop one would be a total lie. Also, we DIDN'T invade North Korea. There is a reason for that too. I mean, he actually has nuclear weapons. We just thought that Saddam maybe could have had a couple of like..weapons that were possibly Nuclear. But yet we chose to invade him, because Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the Middle East. North Korea has nothing.

Gee. How irrational of us.

It is irrational fear. A constant, persistant threat looming over your head, even if it isn't really there, affects your judgment tremendously. Like I said, you're justifying a silly, absurd War because of that threat. A threat which hasn't manifested itself.

The goverment has no control over my opinions. Why do they care if I support them or not? I'm a libertarian who thinks drugs and prostitution should be legal. Not the kinda guy a Republican would want working for him.

But Iraq was not a democracy, and it wasnt a poor country that posed no threat. This is why they are different.

Iraq was a poor country that posed no threat. You just weren't supposed to believe that.
And you complete contradict Reagan there. Reagan DID tell the people of the United States that Nicaragua was an imminent threat, just like Bush painted Iraq as an imminent threat.

Maybe it's just me. Do you not understand that Nicaragua and Iraq were not being directly compared by me until I made the above statement, which is a direct comparison? The reason Nicaragua was mentioned was to rebut the theory that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. If we cared about spreading democracy, we wouldn't overthrow them when they formed.

Do you understand that? I don't care whether or not you agree with it, but with that ordering or words do you understand the reason that I brought Nicaragua up. Could I somehow make the point anymore clear to you? Are you going to accuse me of making faulty comparisons because "NICARAGUA ISN"T LIKE IRAQ, ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY" Do you understand where the comparison lies? Do you understand that I am comparing our actions in NICARAGUA with our JUSTIFICATION of War in Iraq. Do you get it? Democracy is not something we care about because we haven't supported them in the past. That refutes our claim that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. Is this understandable to you? Do you get it? Should I make it more clear? Will you stop refuting points that I didn't make? Will you please? Do you understand? How many more times do I have to say this for you to get it? Do I have to talk like you are a 4 year old child for the rest of the post or can you comprehend the comparison? Just tell me, I can continue like this if you really need it.

Again, no matter how evil our intentions were, it should have been done, nothing is going to change that.

Saddam should not have been in power, agreed. But we should not be the ones to take him out.

Yeah, we pull the strings of every democracy in the world, keep telling yourself that.

Didn't say that. Formative democracies in regions where we can easily dominate (AKA not Europe), are the ones whose strings we like to pull. If one attempts to form without US backing, we, at the very least, attempt to overthrow it.

Ok, lets go to war with France.

We would be obliterated by every country in Europe collectively. We would also be hard pressed to come up with justification for it.

And I'm the one who dosen't know his history.

Umm. DOES DARFUR RING A BELL? How about Srebrenica? The UN did NOTHING.

The UN does nothing but send money to Darfur. Sure, they could have paid attention a little sooner, but rich white people don't care about human rights violations in Africa. Nor the Middle East for that matter, which would also serve to refute our absolute desire to bring a better life for Iraqi people.

So, the UN are not at fault for anything? The reason we act the role of world police as you put it is because the UN dosen't do its job. I wish they would. I don't like how we deal with foreign affairs any more than you do.

The US is not the World Police. That is that. Wether George Bush agrees with what the UN is doing or not, he has no authority to break international law and take matters into his own hands. He is not Rambo, George Bush is not John McClane, he is subject to the same laws that all the other countries in the UN are.

Is Israel not another one of those fecades you talk so much about?

If anything the United States is a caucasian facade for Israel.

Ok. You did prove me wrong about protecting terrorists from the FBI. The people who are harboring them obviously should be held accountable.

Well, those people are the highest officials in our White House.

[James Earl Jones]

im going to send my poor friends off to the iraq war and kill off all of my brain cells so i public speak like a monkey with a diIdo in his mouth.