PDA

View Full Version : An Iraqi with something to say.



Vargas
29th January 04, 10:28 AM
Ran across an Iraqi web log with some interesting things to say about Howard Dean and "Get-the-US-out-of-Iraq" critics. I'm sure not all Iraqi's feel this way, but it was nice to hear someone from that area stick up for the grunts deployed over there.


Ambition that blinds.

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone. But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

What did Mr. Dean meant by this statement? I didn’t want to write about it from the beginning despite what I felt and the questions asked by some of the readers. I said, “this is an American affair and I might offend some of my American friends through expressing my opinion”. But the statement was too irritating and insulting and as I said before there’s no such thing as an internal affair anywhere in the world, not to mention the USA, the country in which the tiniest change in policy might well have a great impact elsewhere in the world. Anything that happens in America concerns everyone on this planet, and moreover as an Iraqi who his whole country’s future relies considerably on how the things go on in America I have additional reasons to care about such things.

To summarize my response I was not surprised, but it added to my confusion about the justification of the position of some Americans regarding this issue.
To have such approach from some Arabs and Muslims, it’s more than expected, still nauseating though. To have such an approach from some European countries is also (natural). But to come from Americans? Well, this is just more than I can understand.
I’d like to (debate with) Mr. Dean and his supporters on few points.

I’m not going to comment about the rightness of the statement with more than saying that only a (blind) man would believe it and only a man blinded by his ambitions would dare to say it, but when you say such words, don’t you mean in other words that the sacrifices made by the American soldiers are all in vain? And that these soldiers are not doing a service to the world, nor to Iraqis and not to America. In fact you are saying that since they didn’t do the world, America or us a favour then they’re only doing a favour to GWB and his administration.

Don’t you agree that by saying those words you accuse the American soldiers of one of two charges each of which is worse than the other;
You are saying that, either they are stupid enough to sacrifice their lives for the sake of GWB political future, or they are evil people who love fighting and killing and they are doing this only for money, in other words they’re no more than mercenaries. Saying that you only disagree with the way this issue is handled will also not change the fact that you are only harming your men and women on the battlefield.

By statements like these you deny any honourable motives for the great job your people are doing here. How in your opinion will this affect the morality of your soldiers? Feeling that their people back at home don’t support them and that they’re abandoned to fight alone in the battlefield.

And all of this for what? For staying in the white house for 4 or 8 years? Is it worth it?
And this is not directed only to Mr. Dean, it’s for all the Americans who support such allegations without being aware of their consequences. What’s it that you fight so hard for, showing your soldiers as s occupiers and murderers, the soldiers who I had the honour of meeting many, and when talking to some of them, I didn’t see anything other than gentleness, honesty and good will and faith in what they’re doing.

Your words and those of others were insults to the Americans, Iraqis and moreover to yourself, and I’m certain you don’t represent the number of Americans you fanaticise about. I’m sorry for being so rude, but I really tried hard to restrain myself from being more direct, and thus nearly as rude as you were. If I wanted to respond just as an Iraqi who is so offended by your words, my feelings wouldn’t have been expressed without using a language nastier than what I’ve committed myself to on writing on this blog.


Please consider this for a moment, does winning the elections and getting rid of GWB and the republicans worth the damage you’re inflicting on your men and women’s morality?

My heart goes with those brave people and the widows, orphans and mothers of the American soldiers who died while doing this great service for their country, ours and humanity.
I can’t imagine what their response would be to such thoughtless words motivated with nothing more than selfish ambitions.


-By Ali.



Here is the web log address:

[url]http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com



My favorite quote "You are saying that, either they are stupid enough to sacrifice their lives for the sake of GWB political future, or they are evil people who love fighting and killing and they are doing this only for money, in other words they’re no more than mercenaries"

Think about that next time you hear someone claim they hate the Bush Administration and despise our occupation, but support our troops. Can't be done, unless you willingly support drooling idiots and/or bloody-handed mercenaries.

Phrost
29th January 04, 10:46 AM
Excellent.

*Ducks and covers from the anti-war crowd here*

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 11:33 AM
You know, there is an entire wing of the critical crowd that is NOT anti-war, but which just wants to see things done a little differently. Just a friendly reminder.

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:35 AM
So what does that make me, pro-war? Just kidding :)


Seriously, though, I sometimes wonder, what's the use in being a super-duper, high-speed, military helicopter guy if I can't use my training and experience in the pursuit of a worthy goal? Yes, I've probably watched 'Tears of the Sun' one too many times, but the question still stands: What are you going to do with the short time you have here on this planet? Yes, 500+ G.I.s have died in Iraq. I feel horrible for the families that are left behind with their grief. However, people die every day, young and old, and in the end, no one lasts longer than about 100 years. So again, the question stands: What you going to do with the short time you have? Sit on the sidelines like a spectator or grab a glove and get in the game?

One caveat. This doesn't mean you have to be in the military to have a meaningful life (far from it). I have a lot respect for people in the Peace Corps, Americorp, Medics Sans Frontiers, Int'l Red Cross and UNICEF, because they are trying to do make a difference too. To a smaller extent, same thing applies to firemen, cops, teachers, civic leaders and, yes, martial arts instructors (the good ones, anyway).

But in the meantime, feel free to jump in with your ranting and raving. Because, by exposing me to adversity (usually in the form of homosexual innuendos and profanity-enhanced insults), you only make me stronger. So bring it on!!!! :)

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:36 AM
And yes, The Wastrel is Correct™, as usual. Dammit :)

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 11:45 AM
HARDYHARHAR!!!

MaverickZ
29th January 04, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
You know, there is an entire wing of the critical crowd that is NOT anti-war, but which just wants to see things done a little differently. Just a friendly reminder.

Impossible! Issues like this are always black and white. You're either for the war or against it.

Vargas
29th January 04, 12:04 PM
If you guys don't stop making sense, I'm going to have to go to some other forum.

You know, the one's where "fukc you you fukcin faagot!!!11" is considered a witty reply.

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 12:04 PM
Isn't that THIS forum?

patfromlogan
29th January 04, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
Seriously, though, I sometimes wonder, what's the use in being a super-duper, high-speed, military helicopter guy if I can't use my training and experience in the pursuit of a worthy goal?

What are you going to do with the short time you have here on this planet? So again, the question stands: What you going to do with the short time you have? Sit on the sidelines like a spectator or grab a glove and get in the game?





Well if I had my way I'd send you and the U.S. military might after Karimov, the jerk dictator of Uzbekistan. Taking down this torturing asshole would be a high priority to me.

"Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death."

But he runs a country that has, surprise surprise OIL! So he's the U.S.'s good buddy. (And the pipeline, the one that was dismissed as a reason for the Afghan War IS going through, by the way)

"US dignitaries who have visited Uzbekistan: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, General Tommy R. Franks, General Richard B. Myers, General Anthony Zinni, and numerous Senators and Representatives from both parties, including McCain, Lieberman, Daschle, Gramm, and Shelby.

Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov visited the US in March 2002, where he was warmly greeted by President Bush and Rumsfeld.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/karimov-bush-ap.jpg

Vargas
29th January 04, 12:07 PM
Well, yeah, but only on the weekends

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 12:10 PM
Pat,
Are you fucking kidding me? Hello Cognitive Dissonance!


Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

This is dwarfed by the numbers in Iraq. I think it's clear your position is based entirely on the fact that the Bush II White House has been warm to Uzbek.

Vargas
29th January 04, 12:17 PM
Gee, Pat, that Uzbek president sounds like, oh, I don't know, Fidel Castro? Don't get me wrong, if you're correct, I'd love to drop a team off on the Uzbekistan capital and do a snatch-and-grab on his ass. Unfortunately, you have to take out assholes like that one at a time. Multiple asshole removal is tricky, tends to spook all the other assholes (Don't think North Korean, Iran and Syria aren't getting nervous these days. Times, they are a-changin')

Phrost
29th January 04, 12:42 PM
I'd like to qualify my statement by saying that since I do my best not to get involved in political discussions around here, it's generally easier to lump people into "black or white" groups, politically, so as to avoid offending them and compromising my impartiality.

So there.

patfromlogan
29th January 04, 01:16 PM
YES! I'm off the Wastrel ignore list! Ha Ha.



So, as was brought out quite well by Robert A. Heinlein in Starship Troopers, how many deaths does it take to go to war? One, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand?

Do you agree with Madeleine Albright's classification of the 'good' torturing dictators; the ones on 'our side,' and 'bad' torturing dictators; the ones not on 'our side'? I happen to believe that the term "rogue” nation is vacuous nomenclature engineered by the U.S. DOD.

The thing is that in one situation the U.S. justifies dictator removal. If Karimov hasn't boiled enough to motivate U.S. policy, how about Indonesia? And by the way did the U.S. give the green light for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? How about Turkey and the Kurds; tens of thousand are reported to have been killed.



Here's a partial list of countries that US has militarily intervened post WW2. How many have democratic governments and are respectful of human rights?

Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1954-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s) Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-present), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (ongoing), Yugoslavia (1999)

Don't get me started on U.S./CIA help in the removal of democratic governments like Chile's.

The U.S. favorite regimes included: Marcos' Philippines, Shah's Iran, Saddam' Iraq, restored and protected sheikhdoms and monarchies in the Middle East, Diem's Vietnam, as well as the repressive military regimes of S. Korea. Military regimes in South and Latin America like those of Pinochett's Chile, death-squad-based governments like El Salvador, and Haiti of Duvalier. We supplied to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction and some of our technology to manufacture them, so long as he fought our punishing war against the post-Shah Iran.

History shows that the U.S. is quite willing to go to war to prevent democracy (abrogation of the Geneva Accords for elections in Vietnam and so forth).



Here a bit I got that I thot was interesting:
In Amman, Jordan, this summer, Jordanian Minister of Water Munther Haddadin addressed the plight of Iraqi children, who, for example, suffered almost a fourfold increase in low birth weights (4.5 percent to 21.1 percent) between 1990 and 1994. The rate remains steady today at 25 percent.

"You wonder why there are terrorists?" Haddadin asked, according to writer Jane McBee, who toured the Middle East with members of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. "What do you think these children will be in 10 years? Do you think they'll join the Peace Corps?"

Vargas
29th January 04, 01:25 PM
Ah, so since we aided dictators in the past, we're supposed to do nothing in the present and even less in the future? Hell, the way I see it, if we helped create some of these problems (Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc...), that's an even bigger arguement for us cleaning up the messes we made. Or maybe we should just disband the DoD, give the money to the U.N. and lash ourselves with guilt and remorse (while wearing sackcloth and ashes, of course). Yeah, that sounds reasonable. . .

patfromlogan
29th January 04, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
Hell, the way I see it, if we helped create some of these problems (Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc...), that's an even bigger arguement for us cleaning up the messes we made.

I agree. However the record is pretty poor on the "cleaning up" side of things. Establishing relations that tend to allow money to be made is the rule here.

see ya later, work time is yelling at me......

Vargas
29th January 04, 01:35 PM
Yeah, I gotta go to work too (dammit). Thanks to everyone for all the inputs, I'll post more later. . .

And Pat, you still want me, don't you? Admit it, you have a weakness for ghey wrestlers and their ghey arguements :)

Freddy
29th January 04, 01:38 PM
"History shows that the U.S. is quite willing to go to war to prevent democracy (abrogation of the Geneva Accords for elections in Vietnam and so forth)."

Well lets say its not the "U.S." its the rich and powerful that wants to go to war. And your average American citizen are pawns in the greater picture of it. Wow. If rich and the powerful owns much of the media you could immagine how society and public opinion can be so easily manipulated. I guess thats why the Russian Governement even had to take action agaisnt some thier own radio and television stations.

Freddy
29th January 04, 01:51 PM
It seems all governments make sure they have some sort of control over thier major media outlets.
We live in a world of manipulated masses.

Dochter
29th January 04, 02:26 PM
"Ah, so since we aided dictators in the past, we're supposed to do nothing in the present and even less in the future? Hell, the way I see it, if we helped create some of these problems (Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc...), that's an even bigger arguement for us cleaning up the messes we made. "

I totally agree with this statement, in fact I don't have an issue with undertaking military action per se because of it. My issue with the current regime, in part, is how they went about presenting their case for action both in the country and abroad. At home I feel a case could be made that the justification of military action was based on known lies. That is something that strikes me as having to be criminal in some way. My brother risking his life based on disinformation and lying to other branches of government is something, to say the least, I don't appreciate.

Saddam being removed from power I have no issue with, tying it to sept 11 I do.

The counter-argument, and unfortunate truth, is that the American people and government are not going to be willing to go to war solely for alturistic and humanitarian reasons.

Vargas
29th January 04, 02:32 PM
Dochter is correct (The Wastrel must be using that Vulcan mind-meld again, damn his bones :) )

Dochter
29th January 04, 02:46 PM
I'm right that our president should face criminal charges. That is what you were referring to huh?:D

Not to mention the complete fucking up of foreign policy regarding Iraq.

Ronin
29th January 04, 04:29 PM
Consistency would be nice, for a change.
If you are gonna come out and be the "police of the world" and the "sole superpower", then a consistent policy would be a good start.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 06:20 PM
Come on, Vargas, say it loud:
"We, Americans, are not the world's police. We haven't been elected by no one for that role, and, in fact, the only people who like us in that role are those who profit by death"
After you say it, why don't we wonder who the fuck the Iraqi was?

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 08:16 PM
If we're not the world's police, then fuck the hell off with your complaints about our policy. Because WE...DON'T...WORK...FOR...YOU.

Vargas
29th January 04, 09:57 PM
You might not realize this, Jolly, but cops aren't elected. They're hired. And right now, the U.S. is doing a little 'pro bono' work. So step aside, 'Pimp' (nice profile, if you want people to think you're 14), and let the grown-ups discuss this in peace.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 10:03 PM
Then, if you're not the world's police, and you have attacked a Nation in a war of aggression, that would make you a criminal nation, under the Nuremberg act, right?
And, Vargas, who hired the USA to attack Iraq, or Afghanistan? "Pro Bono"? Truly?
So, no one in the US will benefit from Iraq, right?

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 10:17 PM
That's right Jolly Roger, this is an evil country, and very soon we will be taking over the entire world and slinging non-Americans to unholy capital-producing machines. Watch...It will happen. And when it doesn't...well...don't let that change your politics by god! Conviction is much more important than accuracy.

The Wastrel
29th January 04, 10:24 PM
God I love this garbage rhetoric.


Then, if you're not the world's police, and you have attacked a Nation in a war of aggression, that would make you a criminal nation, under the Nuremberg act,

OHMYGOD! WE ATTACKED THE GLORIOUS NATION OF IRAQ AND POOR PRESIDENT HUSSEIN!!

You would do absolutely nothing without the political stamp of approval of the HOLY VIRGIN SANCTIFIED United Nations? Europeans were damn persuaded of the role of the US as the world's police in Serbia and Kosovo...Hey can you say "NIMBY"?

Vargas
29th January 04, 10:37 PM
Hey Christian, just to let you know, I emailed that guy on the Yahoo forum. I asked six or seven questions that only an 'operator' would know, so I'm waiting for his reply.


Sorry, don't let me stop the opening salvo, please continue :)

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 10:38 PM
Wastrel, calm down. I'm not saying that the Us is an evil nation. There are no evil nations (and, for one, President Bush uses the "Axil of Evil" rethoric).
The United Nations are, as a political entity, another group held by the upper layer of some countries.
What I'm saying is that the people in the US, the working class, are going to pay for the atrocities commited in their names.
It's the same with the German invasion of Poland. Where all the German people guilty of it? No, but they payed the price forsome leaders of that country.
The fact is that, without a clear link that Saddam Hussein attacked the US, any war that Bush began is a war of agression, and punishable by international law.
I think that we all agree that people like Saddam shouldn't be in power, but who gave the right to the US to take the resolution to start a war that cost many lives (many of them American), with the aim of taking oilfields?
The people who should be judged are those who benefited from this war, and those who made it possible. But sadly, those who are innocent will pay the price, too...
Have you noticed the Anti-American sentiment growing in the world? Do the American working class deserve it? No, but it affects them nonetheless.
I can't really say anything about your domestic policy (after all, I'm not Amercian), but if your foreing policy endangers other countries, how can you expect that we won't be worried about it?

PD: I think that the european states (and any others countries, including my own), who supported the Kosovo and Serbian interventions, are as guilty, and their politician SHOULD be judged accordingly.

Deadpan Scientist
29th January 04, 10:45 PM
Damn iraqi citizens, benefitting from this war of agression. I hope they all get the gas chamber.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 10:47 PM
You could use the gas that emanates from all the corpses that the war left

Deadpan Scientist
29th January 04, 10:50 PM
Actually, Hydrogen Cyanide gas is used in the gas chamber, and it's not a product of natural decay. Not to mention, there are a lot more benefitting Iraqi's than dead soldiers.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 10:52 PM
Yes, the dead civilians enjoy now the afterlife, not the hole in the ground, scorched by the sun that once was home for them...

Vargas
29th January 04, 10:53 PM
Jolly, listen to me very carefully, because this is an important point.

If the U.S. wanted oil from Iraq, it didn't have to invade. All it had to do was get rid of the economic sanctions and buy it right from Saddam, just like we buy it from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. No dead G.I.s, no billions spent on reconstruction, no pissed-off allies, no anti-war protests, just cheap oil and lots of it. Invading Iraq would be, without a doubt, the dumbest, most ass-backward way to get petroleum from the Iraqi oilfields. Christ, they're still arguing in Congress whether or not we should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And that's land that actually belongs to the U.S.!

Short answer: No, we didn't invade for the oil. It sounds catchy, but it doesn't even pass the common sense test.

Vargas
29th January 04, 10:57 PM
Also, even if the U.S. killed 10,000 Iraqi civlians (which I doubt, but that's the number you always get from the anti-war crowd), that's about 20,000 less than Saddam Hussein would have killed since April (According to Amnesty International numbers). So, there are about 20,000 Iraqis that are alive that would have been shot, shredded, hanged, electrocuted or otherwise executed in some grisly manner if the U.S. and it's 25 allies hadn't invaded. Doesn't mean we should be happy or satisfied with any civilian casulties. God knows the U.S. military bends over backwards to avoid that kind of thing. However, doing nothing would have cost even more lives in the long run.

Southpaw
29th January 04, 10:57 PM
Think about that next time you hear someone claim they hate the Bush Administration and despise our occupation, but support our troops. Can't be done, unless you willingly support drooling idiots and/or bloody-handed mercenaries.



This is ridiculous.

I'm surprised that you think so little of our military.

"Our troops" answer to the President of the United States. If he orders them to fly into Iraq and drop bombs on various targets, that's what they do. If he orders them to secure a city, well God damn it, we secure it. And we do it good. A clear chain of command is one thing that helps make the US military the best in the world.

I can certainly support our troops and despise our occupation. How can anybody NOT despise people being occupied? It's a blow to humanity. I hate that we are occupiers. I hate that we had to occupy Nazi Germany. No, it's not the same, but the point is despising the occupation is not the same thing as despising the occupiers. I have the utmost respect and support for the men and women serving in Iraq. They are brave, proud, and doing the job that their country has called on them to do. You can support people without supporting the decisions that put them in harm's way.

And I can certainly hate the Bush admin. and support our troops. I hate him for sending our troops into war without exhausting every other option. I hate him for sending our reservice men and women who we need here in our country to be cops, doctors, firefighters, etc. half-way around the world to shoot people or get shot at. I hate him for spending BILLIONS of dollars on Iraq when 30% of American children live under the poverty line. Believe me. There is no end the the things that I can hate the Bush administration for. But they have not one thing to do with me supporting our troops.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 10:57 PM
I quite understand that, and it's a good point. But the oil it's only part of the package...what about the increasing spending in weapons, the defense contracts, the military prescence that the US now has in the region, the fact that, even without WMD the American people feel that they where responding to a threat to their way of life?

Deadpan Scientist
29th January 04, 10:58 PM
Jolly, just curios:

Would you rather
1) Die from being tortured.
or
2) Die from a bomb blowing you to pieces.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
Also, even if the U.S. killed 10,000 Iraqi civlians (which I doubt, but that's the number you always get from the anti-war crowd), that's about 20,000 less than Saddam Hussein would have killed since April (According to Amnesty International numbers). So, there are about 20,000 Iraqis that are alive that would have been shot, shredded, hanged, electrocuted or otherwise executed in some grisly manner if the U.S. and it's 25 allies hadn't invaded. Doesn't mean we should be happy or satisfied with any civilian casulties. God knows the U.S. military bends over backwards to avoid that kind of thing. However, doing nothing would have cost even more lives in the long run.

I'm not saying that Saddam should continue in power.
It's a good thing that he isn't. But he should be deposed by his own people, not because a foreing power suddendly decided to attack him.
How can the Iraqi people, now that the US occupy Iraq, know true freedom?
They are being shot, and being held by the US. If they want the US out of their country, they can't have it.
Besides, even if the removal of Saddam it's a good thing, how many people will die for the benefit of a rich social layer (Even if it's Iraqi?)

PD: Brandeissansoo, I would rather not die at all.
However, let's put it this way.
Would you rather:
1) Die in a police shootout
or
2) Die in a invasion of the US perpetrated by another country thousand of miles away (say, China)

The thing is, as they said in another thread, the "It can't happen here" mentality

Southpaw
29th January 04, 11:07 PM
i pick bomb

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:09 PM
Amp, look at your last post. If you believe that Bush is, in fact, as bad as you make him out, then that means you think the U.S. military is made up of idiots and/or the easily fooled.


Why? Because everyone in the U.S. military is a volunteer. If I, or anyone else, feels that the war is illegal/immoral/evil or whatever, we can claim conscientious objector status and stay put right here in the states. The fact that thousands of adult men and women are over in Iraq at the bequest of George W. Bush means they are over there due to their own free will. Think about that real hard.

In other words, soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are NOT robots! In fact, we are obligated to disobey any illegal orders we get, even from the President himself. So, if GWB orders me to shot a civilian, I am required to disobey. If he orders me to bomb a military command post that I know is stuffed full of women and children, same thing applies.

So do me a favor. Take that patronizing "Oh, the troops aren't as aware and enlightened as I am, they don't see Bush for what he is" attitude and shove it up your ass. If we didn't think it was the right thing to do, we wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't debate on how things are being done (for instance, the diplomacy leading up to April was appalling mis-handled and the intel scandal should result in George Tenet getting his ass fired as CIA Director), but this idea that the U.S. military is just a bunch of easily-led sheep who are just securing more profits for Haliburton and making sure Bush gets re-elected is starting to piss me off.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:10 PM
Good for you!

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:26 PM
Okay, so what should we do now? You say Saddam being gone is good, fine. He's gone. Should the U.S. just pick up stakes and haul ass? Pull everyone out in 24 hours? Then total anarchy would ensue. Even the French are appalled at that idea. If you want to see lots of dead civilians, leaving Iraq in it's present state would definitely fulfill your wish. Remember, the U.N. pulled out too, after their compound got schwacked by a car bomb. There is NO ONE in Iraq except for the U.S., it's allies and the few NGOs with any balls. Yes, I agree, the U.S. should leave pretty soon. Not sure what that means, by next fall would be nice. However, you can't declare a date, because that can cause even more problems than it fixes. Look at Afghanistan, they finally signed a constitution, what, over 2 years after we took out the Taliban? So this nation-building stuff may take some time.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:30 PM
You know anarchy isn't completely evil...right? However, leaving Iraq with no government IS bad, because the type of anarchy overcoming the country would be ridiculously terroristical in nature. Clans would arise and people would run around killing, loitering and all around making trouble.

The U.S. should leave? YES! After the war they should have pulled out 2/3 of our forces and left the rest of the troops to help out the UN. Instead, we've pretty much taken over the show and the government founded in Iraq will inevitably become Democratic...and American Democracy IS the wrong kind of democracy, thus we must decide:

Iraq with Terrorist Clans
-OR-
Iraq run by Businessmen similar to the U.S. and forgetting about the little people.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:32 PM
But the control of the nation is on the hands of the US, meanwhile, and the explotation of the oildfields, etc. is being decided by the US.
I sure as hell don't want any deaths, but I think it would certainly be better if a international taskfoce, composed NOT of soldiers, and specially NOT from the US. After all, when you have the army of one country stay forcibly on another, it's called invading, it is not?
I think that there would be a lot less casualties if the people keeping the law wouldn't be American, who are percived as invasors.
In the other hand, with no economics sanctions, and no "no-fly" zones, how long do you think that the Saddam regime could have held?

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by The_Ghost

The U.S. should leave? YES! After the war they should have pulled out 2/3 of our forces and left the rest of the troops to help out the UN. Instead, we've pretty much taken over the show and the government founded in Iraq will inevitably become Democratic...and American Democracy IS the wrong kind of democracy, thus we must decide:

Iraq with Terrorist Clans
-OR-
Iraq run by Businessmen similar to the U.S. and forgetting about the little people.

Ghost, you've put it better that I could ever have.

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:34 PM
An international taskforce made up of non-soldiers? Please tell me you're joking.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:35 PM
I sure as hell don't want any deaths, but I think it would certainly be better if a international taskfoce, composed NOT of soldiers, and specially NOT from the US. After all, when you have the army of one country stay forcibly on another, it's called invading, it is not?


Agreed. However, I don't agree with you on the fact that the Americans are being the only ones targetted. We just happen to be the ones with the most soldiers in there, thus more chance of being shot at.

Honestly, anyone trying to help start up the country is going to be attacked. But the problem is that the people trying to run the program (U.S.) are the entirely wrong people for the job.

Dochter
29th January 04, 11:36 PM
In the other hand, with no economics sanctions, and no "no-fly" zones, how long do you think that the Saddam regime could have held?

already tried that for over a decade, no end in sight on that route.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:36 PM
An international taskforce made up of non-soldiers? Please tell me you're joking.

Ah...so you're one of the redneck americans who seems to think that an M-16 solves all diplomatic problems aye?

Southpaw
29th January 04, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
[B]Amp, look at your last post. If you believe that Bush is, in fact, as bad as you make him out, then that means you think the U.S. military is made up of idiots and/or the easily fooled.
Why? Because everyone in the U.S. military is a volunteer. If I, or anyone else, feels that the war is illegal/immoral/evil or whatever, we can claim conscientious objector status and stay put right here in the states.

Of course they are. They volunteered to join the US military, and took an oath to serve the president. Christ...aren't you a soldier or something? Shouldn't you know this shit? And I never said that this war was "illegal/immoral/evil or whatever." And it's certainly no not any more evil or immoral than most other wars. Let's be honest...it's war. Isn't all war pretty evil?

In any case, that's not the point. The point is simply that it is a lot harder to claim conscientious objecter status than you think. Pull that conscientious objector bullshit during a time of war and your ass might end up on Leavenworth.


The fact that thousands of adult men and women are over in Iraq at the bequest of George W. Bush means they are over there due to their own free will. Think about that real hard.

In other words, soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are NOT robots! In fact, we are obligated to disobey any illegal orders we get, even from the President himself.

Oh my god...not robots!

Who EVER said anything about illegal orders? You watch way too much TV.



So, if GWB orders me to shot a civilian, I am required to disobey. If he orders me to bomb a military command post that I know is stuffed full of women and children, same thing applies.


Are you truely that fucking stupid? If GWB declares a US city a state of emergency because of riots, you may be ordered to shoot any civilian breaking curfew. For Christ sake...you're a fucking soldier and you don't even know shit about the history of the military in this country. You talk that "disobey" order shit like somebody's who's never left the desk. See how many orders you are disobeying before getting locked up.



So do me a favor. Take that patronizing "Oh, the troops aren't as aware and enlightened as I am, they don't see Bush for what he is" attitude and shove it up your ass. If we didn't think it was the right thing to do, we wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't debate on how things are being done (for instance, the diplomacy leading up to April was appalling mis-handled and the intel scandal should result in George Tenet getting his ass fired as CIA Director), but this idea that the U.S. military is just a bunch of easily-led sheep who are just securing more profits for Haliburton and making sure Bush gets re-elected is starting to piss me off.

You obviously didn't understand a I said. There are plenty of troops just as enlightened as me, they just aren't hanging around your ass. You criticize me for accusing the military of being sheeps while you assume that the entire military loves Bush. You think every person over there supports this war? You're fucking delusional.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:37 PM
A president who says that backward nations are part of an "Axis of Evil" and he's doing God's job by liberating them, whether they want it or not, and call it democracy, even if 3/4 of the world are against it? Yes, it's quite a joke.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:39 PM
A president who says that backward nations are part of an "Axis of Evil" and he's doing God's job by liberating them, whether they want it or not, and call it democracy, even if 3/4 of the world are against it? Yes, it's quite a joke.


Once again...agreed. Completely, I found Bush's "Join us or prepare to be defeated" speech sounded a lot like Osama's exact cry to Muslims...interesting link wouldn't you agree?

Southpaw
29th January 04, 11:40 PM
We have a tendency to mistake capitalism with democracy.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:41 PM
We have a dendency to mistake capitalism with democracy.

Our entire country has this tendency. Even the president.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by The_Ghost

Agreed. However, I don't agree with you on the fact that the Americans are being the only ones targetted. We just happen to be the ones with the most soldiers in there, thus more chance of being shot at.



I agree completely. I meant that the Americans are the mayor casualties, but there are spanish, british, etc... casualties too.

Sorry for the confusion! :-)

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by The_Ghost
A president who says that backward nations are part of an "Axis of Evil" and he's doing God's job by liberating them, whether they want it or not, and call it democracy, even if 3/4 of the world are against it? Yes, it's quite a joke.


Once again...agreed. Completely, I found Bush's "Join us or prepare to be defeated" speech sounded a lot like Osama's exact cry to Muslims...interesting link wouldn't you agree?

Well, they have common friend, don't they? :)

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:43 PM
I agree completely. I meant that the Americans are the mayor casualties, but there are spanish, british, etc... casualties too.

Ah...now I understand what you mean to say. That makes a lot more sense.

For a moment let's look beyond our casualties...how many Iraqi casualties have there been thus far?

Vargas
29th January 04, 11:46 PM
Ghost, I have an honest question for you. Who would do a better job getting Iraq on it's feet? The U.N. left, didn't have the guts to stick around. No other country has the manpower to hold things together. So if not the U.S., who gets the job? If you pull out every American in Iraq, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the average Iraqi-on-the-street. And contrary to what you trendy college-types think, anarchy is bad, really bad. It's why people put up with the Hitlers and Stalins of the world. ("Sure, he tortured and killed my relatives but he brought discipline and order to the motherland") And I'm not talking about the romantic "Road Warrior" version, either. I talking about Somalia/Bosnia in the 1990s kind of anarchy. Thomas Hobbes knew it, so should everyone with a brain.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:48 PM
Well, in the war, they stopped counting casualties, so, now, who knows?

Dochter, you are right that they tried to wait for the regime, and it didn't fall. However, I don't think that a war, however good the fall of Saddam is, was unavoidable...but you are quite right in that a decade passed and Saddam stayed.

The_Ghost
29th January 04, 11:52 PM
And contrary to what you trendy college-types think, anarchy is bad, really bad.

Shit I'm not in college...so I know your not talking to me. Anarchy is really really bad? Compared to what? Compared to a large terrorist country oppressing another into a government it potentially might overthrow?

The U.N. left, didn't have the guts to stick around.

Could it be that perhaps they feared the U.S. getting aggrevated with them and ignoring policies and issues (might I remind you, we went into this when the UN told us not too). Perhaps they see how worthless it is to work when you have a largely terrorist country trying to run a smaller terrorist country.

Yes...I am calling the U.S. a terrorist country. I'm sure your redneck ass will post a two page note telling me how anti-patriotic and wrong I am. As much as you would love to think otherwise, we have all the tendencies of terrorist countries. Ever heard of the CIA? What, you think they're doing everything by the book?

Holy shit, let's not forget the the Nicragua incident where we obliterated the shit out of them and all they could do was ask the UN to call us off, when the UN did, we persisted. What was the civilian casualties for that murderous rampage (wasn't even a war). Look them up buddy...

Let's not forget the fact that our country is run by businessmen whose actual goal is to profit off that oil in Iraq. Then, with a government in place copying our own, they'll be able to extend business to a higher degree...

God I'm so blind.

Jolly_Roger
29th January 04, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
Ghost, I have an honest question for you. Who would do a better job getting Iraq on it's feet? The U.N. left, didn't have the guts to stick around. No other country has the manpower to hold things together. So if not the U.S., who gets the job? If you pull out every American in Iraq, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the average Iraqi-on-the-street. And contrary to what you trendy college-types think, anarchy is bad, really bad. It's why people put up with the Hitlers and Stalins of the world. ("Sure, he tortured and killed my relatives but he brought discipline and order to the motherland") And I'm not talking about the romantic "Road Warrior" version, either. I talking about Somalia/Bosnia in the 1990s kind of anarchy. Thomas Hobbes knew it, so should everyone with a brain.

Vargas, you are applying in your argument the same logic that you seem to despise in Hitler and Stalin.
"Yes, we trashed your country for profit, but if we go now, they will be more civilian casualties, so put up with us, that we will kill and torture your relatives, but we will bring discipline and order to the motherland".
You started this conversation saying that I was a child, and now you're implying that Ghost is "less mature" than you (as if age had much to do with that), and are avoiding answering the issue of the profit by defense contracts, and the police state implanted by fear that is being imposed in Iraq.
Why don't you stop running after false arguments, and admit that you, Vargas, like being a strong conqueror, that invades countries, and sees nothing wrong in forcing to do things your way?

Vargas
30th January 04, 12:00 AM
As for you Ghost, you have no idea what I've done or where I've gone during my 16 years in uniform. It wasn't behind a desk, though, let me assure you of that. When I was flying around Bosnia in 1996, looking at the bombed-out ruin that was Sarajevo, I was pretty fucking thankful that it wasn't my relatives shifting through the rubble, looking for something to eat. American democracy may 'suck' but things can certainly get a lot worse than that.

Funny you mention the 'illegal orders' issue. We actually talk about that subject quite a bit. Because if I tell my gunners to open up on anyone that looks hostile, I'm leaving myself wide open for charges of a war crime. However, if I don't give my crew that leeway, I (and they) might wind up dead. Hmm, war criminal or dead. Now there's a choice I really relish having to make. I wonder how many times you've had to ponder that kind of dilemna?

In fact, arguing with you dumbasses is obviously a waste of keystrokes. This thread was good while it last, but it looks like it's usefulness has come to an end. Hasta luego, muchachos.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:01 AM
Why don't you stop running after false arguments, and admit that you, Vargas, like being a strong conqueror, that invades countries, and sees nothing wrong in forcing to do things your way?

Well, we can't have that now can we? Heaven forbid he should hold traits similar to the very person who he was so much in support of kicking out in Iraq.

Southpaw
30th January 04, 12:04 AM
Ah...

And again the brain defeats the heart.

Goodbye.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by The_Ghost


Well, we can't have that now can we? Heaven forbid he should hold traits similar to the very person who he was so much in support of kicking out in Iraq.

I wouln't be surprised to see them chatting over a cup of tea...
"Saddam, you know what the problem is with your subjects?"
"Tell me, Vargie dear"
"They don't know what's good for them...if I had control of some soldiers, they would patrol the streets enforcing our law, and we would tell them that if the soldiers weren't there, they would be even more civilian casualties"
"Oooo, Vargie dear, that sounds sweet! Pass me the sugar, and after we finish the tea, we'll try it!"

Running away, Vargas?
Don't hide from the truth, embrace it.
Confucious tell us : "If you lie to yourself, nothing can happen".

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 12:06 AM
God, you guys are really fucking stupid. Seriously really stupid. You can only talk about the supposed virtues of anarchy from the comfort of your suburban home.


Ah...so you're one of the redneck americans who seems to think that an M-16 solves all diplomatic problems aye?


Force is the foundation of law. Refute this. Try. Please. I will enjoy this.

As to the capitalism and democracy thing. Let me just tell you, there may be no way to separate them. Read some Mancur Olson and get back to me.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:07 AM
Funny you mention the 'illegal orders' issue. We actually talk about that subject quite a bit. Because if I tell my gunners to open up on anyone that looks hostile, I'm leaving myself wide open for charges of a war crime. However, if I don't give my crew that leeway, I (and they) might wind up dead. Hmm, war criminal or dead. Now there's a choice I really relish having to make. I wonder how many times you've had to ponder that kind of dilemna?


Before I directly answer this let me say this....stop acting like a fucking pussy and pulling out the "I'm a war hero" card. Dude, my entire family is in the military, I have cousins stationed in Iraq. And I personally plan on joining the Army next year. So stop the shit and face the facts...

To answer this directly:
Though I completely agree with your instructions to your gunner. Which I could not see anyone holding against you. america is MUCH MUCH MUCH different. First off, we live a continent and ocean away from Iraq. So I seriously doubt every american was in a much more life and death struggle than we are every morning we usher off to work.

Secondly, do not take my words as being degrading to you or the service. I cannot blame, nor attack you for being the in the service of the U.S., hell I'm joining up as well. It's frustrating when you get a stubborn war veteran dictating politics to you just because he's been in a war. War does not make you an expert on all issues, nor does it even make you educated in those realms. HOWEVER, your position does demand respect and you've seen much more than me.

I'm not a fucking hippie running around declaring war is bad, I support the war that took place, I just think we went about it the wrong way.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:08 AM
Yes, force is the foundation of law.
But undue force IS the fundation of Tyranny

Besides, here in south america they have been some hellish dictatorships (like Chile's Pinochet, Argentina's Videla, or Peru's Fujimori), that have been as capitalist as a wall street broker, and encouraged open market economies, but where as far from democracy as you can get.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:14 AM
Force is the foundation of law. Refute this. Try. Please. I will enjoy this.

As to the capitalism and democracy thing. Let me just tell you, there may be no way to separate them. Read some Mancur Olson and get back to me.

Force is the foundation of the law? Refute it? Why the fuck would I refute it? I never said it wouldn't.

Also, I didn't say anarchism should take over the world, nor did I say countries should be run by anarchy. I can name one virtue of anarchy though: Freedom of Speech and actions. However, I also realize that anarchy has more problems than positives.

And Democracy and capitalism are TWO very different things, its just the US has incorporated both of them.

Democracy- A government run by the voice of ALL the people in a given country (pure Democracy is what were speaking of course).

Now last time I checked, the businessmen were running what we do and how things are run. Unless you, Wastrel, are saying that all 250+ million people are holding some sort of voice through these businessmen than you have to face the fact that democracy in america has so many fallacies it may no longer be called democracy.

In fact, what your saying through capitalist democracy is "Holy Evils", which is impossible to truly have. Looking at it from a black and white view, America is not a democracy. We just started as one.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:18 AM
Last time I checked, Marcus Olson lived in Maryland, not in Fujimori's Peru, where they opened the economy for total globalization, and shot dead parliament members, after they closed it so it couldn't pass laws against him, or in Pinochet's Chile, where the great increase in capitalism came along 6.000 dead.

Dear Pimpocrates, you are also falling in Vargas' trap.
You accuse Ghost of spewing theory from the safety of his suburban home, but the Economist that you name as justification never lived in a country ravaged by both savage capitalism AND undemocratic Juntas.
Do not follow Vargas' retreat, and please stay to discuss.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:37 AM
Well, it seems that both Vargas and Wastrel HAVE run away...pity they didn't want to discuss this issue further.
In the words of the wise Ghost:
"Double PWNZ! Biotch."

:-)

MaverickZ
30th January 04, 12:42 AM
this is gonna get ugly.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:43 AM
What it hasn't gotten ugly enough?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:45 AM
It would, if the pownedz one cared to reply...but...it seems they don't.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:46 AM
Vargas left the conversation, and no doubt Wastrel signed off (or went invisible). But I think he'll come back later when were all not looking anymore.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:48 AM
Using the "attack from the rear when you're not looking" ninja waza...

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:50 AM
If Wastrel does it...I'm calling Ashida Kim.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 12:52 AM
Perhaps HE'S calling Master Kim, so Kim-Sama can fight for them....
However, I got tired of waiting for the Powndz ones, and I will retire for the evening.
I bid you good night, fair people!

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 12:55 AM
Good night, I'm going to bed soon too.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 01:06 AM
Oh my. Jolly Roger googled Mancur Olson and somehow channeled his spirit!

At this point, neither of you cares what I or Vargas actually believe. Between Ghost's "redneck" comments and Jolly Roger's hysteria, there is no point in us getting in the way of your fantasy. Have fun.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 01:08 AM
That's what I thought Wastrel...when there is nothing left for you to say, you have to look at us. I'm open to anything new you might throw in my face (IF You actually had something of value left I'm sure you'd share it). However, Vargas left all ready.

And I made one redneck comment at Vargas...not at you. Get over it. Christ. Worse than a 5 year old.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 01:16 AM
Really? Why? What do you want to talk about Ghost? What do you think my politics are?

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 01:16 AM
I don't know what they are. I was hoping you could tell us.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 01:20 AM
You're the one who proposed a civilian international force. I think you have A LOT of explaining to do. Anyway, my fiancee is luring me to bed. So, as you are nowhere nearly as tempting as she is....GOOD NIGHT.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 01:20 AM
You're the one who proposed a civilian international force. I think you have A LOT of explaining to do.

If you think that...better look back and read again buddy. I never proposed that.

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 01:21 AM
I don't think I could ever be as tempting as her. Does that dissappoint you? Lol ;)

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:21 AM
So...the truth is out...
Wastrel fancied Ghost...I guess that either the woman, or the naked, oiled statue avatars were really a pic of you...
Come on, Wastrel, tell your fiancee that he shouldn't call you to bed in the midst of a fun discussion, anyone can roger you while you type...
So come on, baby doll, and join the fun! :-)


PD: It was I that mentioned the civilian international force. And my logic goes something like this...
Invading army, that bombed a country for money, and now tries to keep peace by shooting innocent people in cars = bad
Civilian force from OTHER countries, that cannot shoot happless bystanders = GOOD.

So, there you have it, Jolly Roger's take on Iraq reconstruction in a Nutshell, 3rd Edition (By O'Reilly, of course)

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:38 AM
Awwww, Pimpocrates, you're not being fun.
POSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPO STPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOST POSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPOSTPO STPOSTPOSTPOSTPOST
Where's that cute Wastrek who's always right?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:43 AM
The fact is that, without a clear link that Saddam Hussein attacked the US, any war that Bush began is a war of agression, and punishable by international law.

International law is a ghost. If there was truly such a thing, then people like Saddam and Pinochet could never rule for as long as they did.

There is little point in prolonging this as it has been completely confused. You and Ghost are enjoying pretending that Vargas and I are redneck monstrous imperialists. Enjoy yourselves.

If you truly want to discuss anything, first I would like to know what your argument is. My positions on the war are well-documented here. You might have wondered for a moment why so many people here refer to me as a "whacko liberal"...

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 11:08 AM
Tell me, Wastrel, who is that defines that international law is a ghost?
Why the US refused to participate in the new International Court?
My point is that there is a framework of laws that most (not all, but most) contries agree upon, but the US does not, as it gives it the liberty to pursue any war that might benefit it.
Wastrel, in your opinion, wasn't the Iraq war a war of aggression? Don't tell me what the US law says, but your own personal opinion.

PD: Let me tell you something. Carlyle WAS right, and Olson IS wrong. It is a Dismal science. I've seen too many countries ruled by economist (my own was ruled for 20 years, and look where it got us), and the final result is a quasi-feudal domain, rules by a "nobility" of means where the "serfs" slave all day long. Please, don't bring a theoretical answer like Olson, when you've never lived in a country where riots are everyday, people near you die, and there are days when siege state is declared, because economists rule the country.

patfromlogan
30th January 04, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
International law is a ghost. If there was truly such a thing, then people like Saddam and Pinochet could never rule for as long as they did.



Dear redneck monsteous imerialist (you forgot 'stooge of the ruling class') whacko liberal, as I'm sure you know (and probably hardly anyone else) the U.S. was found guilty of terrorism, and labeled 'war criminal' for mining Nicaraguan harbours in 1984, by the World Court. And ofcourse the U.S. helped get Pinochet into power in the first place. Oh, and Saddam used to be our new best friend. I'm all for international law. Saw a thing about how the assholes are covering their asses from liability for the enormous damage to the coast of Spain from the oil spill. Sad. (the spill got little coverage in the U.S. 'cause we were busy making war).

That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
[or for that matter first and second class nations]
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.

That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race - [or nationality, or poverty]
Dis a war.

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.

Bob Marley

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 02:39 PM
You and Ghost are enjoying pretending that Vargas and I are redneck monstrous imperialists. Enjoy yourselves.

Okay, so for all the shit people say you know....you still cannot read and comprehend. It was directed at Vargas and had nothing to do with you. But obviously my casual joke was too much for him and you. Thus I am compelled to apologize.

Sorry Wastrel (even though you had nothing to do with it...dumbass).

From what I can tell, you are one of two types of person:

1) The kind that has a lot to say, then when someone comes against your beliefs and views in a strong form you simply throw the conversation away (convenient and cowardice, but useful none the less).

or

2) Well...I have no number two, so I guess one applies to you no matter what.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 02:58 PM
Nope. You guys are just all over the place. I can't even figure out what the point is. What is being argued?

I diagree with Vargas that opposing the war means you can't care about the welfare of soldiers. I disagree with Vargas that soldiers can opt out of a war that easily. In this case, Congress authorized it, which means that any invasion thereafter would be a lawful order.

But I don't take kindly to Amp's arch college boy condescension. Nor to your anti-military comments. Redneck...M-16? All because he bothered to point out that an international civilian task force couldn't do a damn thing in Iraq without the power to enforce laws. (You are correct. You did not say that. Jolly Roger did. I got the two confused.)

You guys just jump immediately to painting us with your own personal brush. You're right. You're the ONLY ones who care about human welfare, poverty, equality. etc.

So again, what point are YOU making? ANd what point do you think I am making?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 03:00 PM
Pat,
What are you talking about? You are making no sense.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 07:30 PM
The point I'm making, as I stated above, is that international law is not a ghost, however much the US whishes it.
Besides, who told you that a civilian taskforce cannot enforce law? Policemen are civilian, are they not?

The_Ghost
30th January 04, 07:38 PM
My point was simple:

America is as much a terrorist nation as say Iraq or Afghanistan, but we hide behind Democratic Capitalism (as I stated before, a oxymoron). That the reason for war WAS unjust, but the ending result was definetely in favor for Iraq. However, the UN should have come in and taken over, not the US. So I agree with the war, but I don't agree with the route we chose to take.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by The_Ghost
My point was simple:

America is as much a terrorist nation as say Iraq or Afghanistan, but we hide behind Democratic Capitalism (as I stated before, a oxymoron). That the reason for war WAS unjust, but the ending result was definetely in favor for Iraq. However, the UN should have come in and taken over, not the US. So I agree with the war, but I don't agree with the route we chose to take.

I agreee 100%.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:08 PM
Jolly Roger,
What good is international law if it isn't binding or enforcable? The simple truth is that the UN is a political body. It doesn't make decision based purely on interpretations of law. What reemblance does the security council have to a judicial body?

So this civilian taskforce...policemen...Come on.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 09:30 PM
Ah...the "Big Guy" mentality,
So, according to your logic, since the U.N. or the International Court cannot force the US to abide by their laws, the US can do as they please.
In that view, the might of a country makes the law, because the U.N., or the rest of the countries cannot force it.
Isn't that view quite similar to Hussein's, or Hitler's (remember the "We don't accept judgment from countries weaker than ours" line?), Stalin's or Bush's?
Should we all then bow to the US, the country with the greatest capacity to anhilate life on earth?

And please tell me, why do you think a police taskforce is less useful to keep law than a military one?
Would you say that the US would be better policed by the Army? All the time under martial law?
Remember than we are discussing the better lawkeeping force, not the better colonialist occupation force.

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/images/kaypapers.jpg

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:36 PM
Why does what I said imply anything about RIGHT? Yes, because the UN does not have the ability to enforce the laws, the US CAN do as it pleases. That doesn't say anything about right.

If you rely on an international law which, in all truth, vanishes with a veto, you don't have a chance of ever making it meaningful.

So, how well-armed and equipped should these police be?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:37 PM
Are you guys actually socialists or communists?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 09:45 PM
Actually, I am a socialist.
Why, does that makes you uneasy?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:48 PM
Jolly Roger,

Here's a couple of things you need to know about me before you continue with your baiting.

1. I despise the Bush administration. They are a bunch of crony capitalists without the slightest conscience. And I will be voting to get rid of them, however futile that may be.

2. I believe they either deliberately lied about WMD intelligence, or were too eager to believe what they managed to scrape up.

3. There was no reason for them to try to arm-wrestle the UN so rapidly. Their diplomatic failures are embarassing.

4. The Iraqi people are not "free" in any real sense of the word. They are under occupation. They will not be free until they are choosing their own leaders and running their own country. If that does not happen in a reasonable amount of time, I will be in the streets right alongside Ghost and patfromlogan.

5. While I have considered that it might be possible that the situation in Iraq would be better with only some advisory body and some symbolic troop presence, I do not think the risk is worth it.


But you need to consider that the UN is not some holy-sanctified court that makes neutral decision entirely based on an interpretation of laws and norms. No, my friend. All permanent members of the Security Council exercise veto power. As unavoidable as this is, it also makes international law enforcement a political act. The only reason the UN was able to embark on a joint mission in Korea was because the USSR was not participating.

And people, there are no terrorist "nations".

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 09:50 PM
If you think that, why did you tell me to STFU when I said that the US has no right to police the world?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:50 PM
It doesn't make me uneasy, but for someone to just baldly assert that free enterprise and democracy are oxymoronic is moronic. Whatever problems the United States or any other Western Democracy might have do not imply the failure or evil of either of these systems.

In fact, it's not as if the failure of communism ever affected the opinions of any of its true believers.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:51 PM
There is no "right" Jolly Roger, between nations. What bothered me was the self-righteous tone you instantly took with Vargas. You never bothered to ask him what he believed. You just made assumptions.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 09:54 PM
By the by, socialism and communism are two diferent political systems.
And I don't think communism has failed, since it was never really implemented.
To say that it was implemented is the same as saying that the Iraqi people are free now...the Mao and Stalin regimes where that, dictatorial regimes who tortured and killed thousands of people, but the only thing that they made possible was the solidification of the state, insted of making it disappear, as it's the theorical communist state (which I don't belive possible, FWIW)

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 09:57 PM
Well, there's the rub. Communism was implemented, and it's simply not possible at the nation-state level.

I'm not a Washington consensus capitalist, by the way.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Vargas
Seriously, though, I sometimes wonder, what's the use in being a super-duper, high-speed, military helicopter guy if I can't use my training and experience in the pursuit of a worthy goal?

I assume something wrong?
This is what Vargas told us in relation with the topic.
A worthy goal? To attack people who never attacked you?
The deposal of Saddam was great, yeah, but there's nothing worthy, at least for me, in the way that it was done.
And there IS such a thing as International Right, and there's a court for it. However, the US has declined to abide by it's ruling.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:00 PM
You don't get it. Rights are granted. They don't *exist*. The US also does not participate in the ICC, it never signed.

So, the removal of Saddam was great, but not worthy?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel

I'm not a Washington consensus capitalist, by the way.

I know you're not, Wastrel, but you came at me the wrong way, when I was discussing something with Vargas, and afterwards you kept on trying to argue, even if our positions are quite similar.

But, hey, dear lord pimpocrates, what's life without a little spice? We pimps have to look out for each other!
:D

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel

So, the removal of Saddam was great, but not worthy?

Nothing, NOTHING is worth destroying a country, killing thousands of people, leaving cluster bombs all over, ravaging the land, and looting some of humanity's older museum pieces.
The war, we all know, wasn't made to dispose Saddam. No war is worthy, but this one even less so.
What I meant is that the removal of Saddam was the only good thing to come along amidst a thousand terrible atrocities.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:06 PM
You weren't "discussing" anything. Vargas is my friend, and I will come to his defence.

The problem is you build up a lot of rage and indignation over this issue and then when you think you've found a target, you unload. Vargas is not a stormtrooper, and neither am I.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:10 PM
Yes, I was, in a bullshido sort of way.
Besides, I know Vargas is not a stormtrooper. Stormtroopers aren't guilty as the ones who order them into action.
But Vargas was defending an imperialistic policy, that is causing untold suffering and death, and I always take a stand before that.
It's nice of you to defend a friend, but, Pimp-o-Master, look what you're defending!
Besides, oiled one, this IS bullshido. A scuffle is to be expected, and I've never saw you shy away from one before!

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:12 PM
And yes, I've built a lot of rage on seeing innocents being killed, families destroyed, countries ravaged, activists tortured and history raped to suit a rich elite's tastes and vices.
But that's just me.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:12 PM
Nothing, NOTHING is worth destroying a country, killing thousands of people, leaving cluster bombs all over, ravaging the land, and looting some of humanity's older museum pieces.
The war, we all know, wasn't made to dispose Saddam. No war is worthy, but this one even less so. What I meant is that the removal of Saddam was the only good thing to come along amidst a thousand terrible atrocities.

If the war wasn't about Saddam, tell me...Why did Bush call for his removal before the war started, and offer to avoid the entire thing if we would just step down? You think he was kidding?

How many thousands of terrible atrocities preceded the war?

And museum pieces? God, you blame the US for that eh? Do you equate the value of relics to political rights?

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:14 PM
And yes, I've built a lot of rage on seeing innocents being killed, families destroyed, countries ravaged, activists tortured and history raped to suit a rich elite's tastes and vices.

Sounds like Saddam's Iraq, no? Oh snap! Where was international law then? Nowhere.

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
If the war wasn't about Saddam, tell me...Why did Bush call for his removal before the war started, and offer to avoid the entire thing if we would just step down? You think he was kidding?

How many thousands of terrible atrocities preceded the war?

And museum pieces? God, you blame the US for that eh? Do you equate the value of relics to political rights?

Bwahahahaha!
You think he wasn't? As with the WMD? The plan was made BEFORE anyone thought about a war. Perhaps, Saddam should have told the world:
"Hey, since I trust Mr.Bush, I will step down from the pedestal of power that he and his pals help me build, and I will wander the road, avoiding this people who don't know that a little torture is good for them...perhaps, I'll return to Shaolin Temple, with my Master, KC Kaine, and I will become brother Furry Dictator Lion, Kung-Fu Master"

With as many atrocities that were commited before the war (and there' s no denying them), was a good idea to commit even more savage atrocities, and then hope for peace?

Yes, I blame the US for permiting the looting of Humanity's earliest pieces of civilization. The history of the western world was contained in Baghdad, and for the profit of some death&oil merchants, we have lost an important piece of our shared past...doesn't that matter to you?
That the history of our world is lost, because the greed of someone who cannot find Myanmar in a map?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Sounds like Saddam's Iraq, no? Oh snap! Where was international law then? Nowhere.

Are you truly listening to me?
Of course Saddam's Iraq was a terrible disaster.
Of course it was a place of torture, death and terror.
But now there's even more terror, torture and death, on behalf of multimillionaries who don't even reside on the same continent, and sit safely in another country.
International law SHOULD have intervened.
But while Saddam was in power, a popular revolution could have taken him off. The effect of the sactions leveled against Iraq was to make his position stronger, since he could show the people an outside enemy.
But now, how can Iraqis topple the US regime?
Any revolution they undertake can easily be destroyed, and those who rule the country are thousand of miles away.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:50 PM
Actually, I agree that sanctions were and are effectively pointless. They have never worked, except possibly in South Africa, but that's a very different case. My point about international law is that it does nothing, so stop relying on it to stop anyone from doing anything that you think is horrible. It never has.

What I don't understand is this, would the war have been right if the UN had participated?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 10:59 PM
No, not at all. Never are wars "right"...they always help the interest of a certain group.
But international law does stop wars. For example, the Argentina/Chile conflict in the mid-70's.
My point is that when a country unlilaterally decides that another country should be attacked, without a prior attack from that country, it IS a war of aggresion. Some international felons exists, like Liberian commanders, and more are being judged every day, since the International Court has been formed. The fact that the US does not abide by any other law than its own is creating a great opposition from many countries, which, in other time, would be divided.
I think that your next election will decide, for the next 20 years or so, the course of the world's event, and the blocs of power that will result from it.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 11:02 PM
You haven't addressed a single one of my points about the difficulties of international law. To top it off, you're saying that intl. law makes something right or wrong, but UN approval would have made no difference?

Jolly_Roger
30th January 04, 11:18 PM
I'm sorry, Wastrel. Perhaps, I'm failing to explain myself.
You've said that IL has it's flaws. Yes, any law has them. However, they are laws agreeded by most countries in the world. I'm not saying that it makes anything "Right" or "Wrong", since those quantitatives are quite subjective. However, they are a framework made by the consensus of many countries, instead of a framework made by a bully with REAL WMD at his disposal.
You've said that it doesn't stop wars. I'm telling you that it does, with an example.
I'm not saying that U.N. approval makes no diference. You just have to witness how badly the Bush administration sought it. But the approval, coming from a institution where only a group of countries have real power is, clearly, quite partial. It cannot supplant the approval of an institution in which all countries have an equal standing.
The real bone to pick, for you, it seems, it's the fact that the US is regarded in other countries as a rogue, outlaw nation.
Think of it this way:
If you live in a renassaince city, you'd live with many other citizens. You'd agree upon a code of conduct, which would apply whithin the city, to make living possible. However, beyond the walls of the city, a warlord lived. He, having a greater army that the city, controls the road, and can destroy the city at his whim. You'd be forced to pay him as he desired, many people who didn't want their homes destroyed would be drafted on his army (and some who sought advancement at the expense of their fellows), and you'd have to humor him.
One day, he decides to become a noble, and suddendly, his lieutenants began to call themselves minor nobility, and prance around your city. They would be dangerous as always, and they wouldn't still obey the code of the city, and, if someones disrespects them, or if it's convenint for them, they would just kill that person, and occupy their home, claiming that the law they follow gives them the right to do it.
How would you, a citizen of the city, feel?

The problem with the US ruling body, I think, is not only what it's doing to other countries, but the legacy of terror and death that's beign passed to the working people who lives in the US.

Southpaw
31st January 04, 12:24 AM
But I don't take kindly to Amp's arch college boy condescension.

You would think that living in the South would have taught me better manners.

I apologize for being condescending when explaining to Vargas that supporting the troops and being against occupation are not mutually exclusive ideas; and further enlightening him that not every single soldier in Uncle Sam's army is gung ho about leaving their family for a year to go occupy a middle eastern country.

I sometimes accidently sound condescending when arguing with people who are making such blatantly ridiculous ideas.

patfromlogan
31st January 04, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Pat,
What are you talking about? You are making no sense.

Well, I sure didn't expect a "redneck ass" to understand the fine points I was making.:rolleyes:


Originally posted by The Wastrel
You're the one who proposed a civilian international force. I think you have A LOT of explaining to do. Anyway, my fiancee is luring me to bed. So, as you are nowhere nearly as tempting as she is....GOOD NIGHT.

Hey, didn’t you get married? She’s called WIFE now, or The Wastrelette, if you prefer.


Originally posted by The Wastrel
Jolly Roger,

1. I despise the Bush administration.

...If that does not happen in a reasonable amount of time, I will be in the streets right alongside Ghost and patfromlogan.


I'm reading Molly Ivins, "Shrub, The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush." It's good one to read while dieting, kinda makes me loose my appetite.

Hey, don't hit the streets if you think you might want to work in a government post someday. You'll be blacklisted. They do keep track. They do take pictures. I know of a guy who was active in anti-Vietnam War movement and later tried to get into the State Dept and was told to get lost. Masters from Princeton, brilliant, a patriot that gave a shit about this country, multi-fluent, perfect Foreign Service type turned down because they want yes men. It’s been a repeating pattern; they got rid of all the ‘traitors’ in our government who foretold the inevitable with Mao (had to blame someone for ‘loosing China’), got rid of the Officers who told truth about loosing in Vietnam, and now they won’t make me Dictator of the Intermountain West, a job I suited for, if I do say so myself.


I think I'll start a thread on "The Shah Always Falls," by Lt. Col., Ret., Ralph Peters. It might give us areas to agree on.

The Wastrel
31st January 04, 10:00 AM
Pat,
I am engaged. The logistics of weddings are complicated. Apparently we need about three times the preparation time that the Bush team did for the second Iraq war.

Jolly_Roger
31st January 04, 11:47 AM
Well, that's because you don't have daddy helping you, or have manofactured a terrorist act to help you.
Belive me, have some terrorist threaten her, and you jumpin' to "save" her (armbarring them to hell) will increase the speed of marriage...

RockTiger
31st January 04, 03:21 PM
Cognitive dissonance......

I feel smart now.