Let's Hate America, it is the fun thing to do.
- Thread starter 65racecoupe
- Start date
to say that saddam had WMD is speculation. it is equally strong reasoning to say that if saddam had WMD, he would have used them when the US invaded. we went after saddam because he was evil and crazy - would not such a man make use of his WMD when in desperation?
the terrorism that we were victimized by is a subnational threat. there is no national government that we should even consider invading in the fight against terrorism, with the exception of iran. the war on terror, just because it uses the word "war," does not mean we have to launch full-scale military invasions. in fact it is poor statecraft to do so. i do say with the exception of iran, though, because iran's government is highly factional, unlike iraq's which had a dictator. in iran the military would have direct control over its nuclear arsenal. iran's military has proven links to external terrorist organizations such as hezbollah. saddam hussein DID NOT have ties to al qaeda, he saw them and other subnational extremists as a threat to his power. a recent congressional report confirmed that saddam saw al qaeda as a threat.
the war in iraq will end in the same way vietnam did, although it might not be as catastrophic of a humiliation, since the USSR is not around to fund the indigenous opposition. many people, before 1972, harped on the necessity to "stay the course" and finish the job. in the end we were forced to admit that we had meddled in someone else's business. why in the **** would we not learn from this lesson about american empire? only tyrants are supposed to seek to expand their territory and build empires. america's justified version of empire building may even be worse than that.
the complexity of the middle eastern situation demands a more thought-out and cautious approach. the neoconservatives have a foreign policy agenda that stretches WAY beyond the war on terrorism. here is proof:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
note the signatories at the bottom of the page. this was written in 1997. they are cold warriors who need to be voted out of office ASAP.
the terrorism that we were victimized by is a subnational threat. there is no national government that we should even consider invading in the fight against terrorism, with the exception of iran. the war on terror, just because it uses the word "war," does not mean we have to launch full-scale military invasions. in fact it is poor statecraft to do so. i do say with the exception of iran, though, because iran's government is highly factional, unlike iraq's which had a dictator. in iran the military would have direct control over its nuclear arsenal. iran's military has proven links to external terrorist organizations such as hezbollah. saddam hussein DID NOT have ties to al qaeda, he saw them and other subnational extremists as a threat to his power. a recent congressional report confirmed that saddam saw al qaeda as a threat.
the war in iraq will end in the same way vietnam did, although it might not be as catastrophic of a humiliation, since the USSR is not around to fund the indigenous opposition. many people, before 1972, harped on the necessity to "stay the course" and finish the job. in the end we were forced to admit that we had meddled in someone else's business. why in the **** would we not learn from this lesson about american empire? only tyrants are supposed to seek to expand their territory and build empires. america's justified version of empire building may even be worse than that.
the complexity of the middle eastern situation demands a more thought-out and cautious approach. the neoconservatives have a foreign policy agenda that stretches WAY beyond the war on terrorism. here is proof:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
note the signatories at the bottom of the page. this was written in 1997. they are cold warriors who need to be voted out of office ASAP.
65racecoupe
Member
- :
- Turbo (soon) Yellow 2002 P5
Vietnam and Iraq should not be compared. We disposed of a dictator in Iraq, we attempeted to dispose of a system in Vietnam (communism).
We went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were basically the govt, but in a subnational way. We went to Iraq to stop Saddam and have some control in the middle east.
America is not building an empire. We are the strongest country the world has ever known, we are just trying to stay that way.
We went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were basically the govt, but in a subnational way. We went to Iraq to stop Saddam and have some control in the middle east.
America is not building an empire. We are the strongest country the world has ever known, we are just trying to stay that way.
Donas64 said:
Maybe I should clerify, this is a quote from Wikipedia. I didn't write this.
Components of Chvez's Bolivarianism
In recent years, its most significant political manifestation is in the government of Venezuela's president Hugo Chvez, including changing the 1999 Constitution and Venezuela's name to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and other ideas such as the Bolivarian Schools, Bolivarian Circles, and the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. Often, the term Bolivarianism is used specifically to refer to Chvez's rule. The central points of Bolivarianism, as extolled by Chvez, are:[citation needed]
1. Venezuelan economic and political sovereignty (anti-imperialism).
2. Grassroots political participation of the population via
popular votes and referenda (participatory democracy).
3. Economic self-sufficiency (in food, consumer durables, et cetera).
4. Instilling in people a national ethic of patriotic service.
5. Equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues.
6. Eliminating corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution
I never said HC was Gods gift to humanity. I just said he was a better man that bush. I can sure see why the American machine would be threatened by him. Between Pat Robertson and Exxon Mobil, it's a wonder has hasn't been assassinated yet. PR already stated that we should "take him out" on his infomercial.
MinivanHunter
Member
1st Gen said:
LOL
political participation? only if it is pro-Chavez, otherwise you end up in prison like Carlos Ortega
his new plan of taking land from people who legally own it and giving it away to others that he knows sort of goes in opposition to #6
Pat Robertson was right in what he said.
Im really curious what there is to defend with Bush Incorporated.
Theyve made mistakes you say. I dont think they see it that way. I think they see it as a means to an end. Youre the one that sees mistakes.
I like the argument that says okay, we got caught lying about why we went into Iraq. Were there now so lets make the best of it and stay the course. That is BS! If the first step of the journey is in the wrong direction, what makes you think another 5 years in the wrong direction will get you there? If you draw a line through all their actions and statements, they have established themselves as a non-credible source of information concerning their own actions as well as being antagonistic towards the peace effort.
The fact, THE FACT that the region is now teaming with insurgents completely blows away any idea that we were ever there for the safety of the Iraqi people. On the one hand, were going there to free the people from a tyrant, but on the other hand, were taking the war to them. What?
Invading Iraq was probably the single best thing we could have done for Osama and AlQuada. Bush Inc. had to know that or they would not have been lying to get us there. Again, a means to an end. What reason do they have to create chaos in this oil rich region? Arent Afghanistan producing record crops of poppies again, and what about the pipeline from the Caspian Sea?
Am I the only one that saw the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam during the same time that Sadam was gassing his own people?
Just how old is Baghdad anyway? A thousand years, two thousand? Dont you think they would have some priceless artifacts in their national archive? Their museums, their hospitals, everything was looted. The city was neutered of its national treasures because of what we did and we did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Im not bashing on Bush Inc, Im hold them responsible for this outrage. They knew there were no WMDs because the weapons inspectors told them there werent any. They new the anthrax was a bogus because were the ones that sold it to them. They knew the yellow cake uranium was bogus because they made it up. What the hell more do you need?
Im sure you all know about the depleted uranium that America has been using in our munitions. Hey, lets contaminate the entire county with radiation why dont we. Anyone remember Gulf War syndrome?
These people have more reasons to hate us than we will ever know about. If my outrage offends your sensibilities, then maybe youre not being sensible.
I just read a link this morning about the Civil war going on there. The so called government is just considered another faction, and the weakest of the lot too because they have no moral authority. If America wasnt propping them up, they crumble like a hunk of blue cheese. This isnt the first time this has been highlighted but its kind of a moral buster here at home so we dont get much of it on TV. Its kind of like seeing the coffins of our dead soldiers in that regard.
Theyve made mistakes you say. I dont think they see it that way. I think they see it as a means to an end. Youre the one that sees mistakes.
I like the argument that says okay, we got caught lying about why we went into Iraq. Were there now so lets make the best of it and stay the course. That is BS! If the first step of the journey is in the wrong direction, what makes you think another 5 years in the wrong direction will get you there? If you draw a line through all their actions and statements, they have established themselves as a non-credible source of information concerning their own actions as well as being antagonistic towards the peace effort.
The fact, THE FACT that the region is now teaming with insurgents completely blows away any idea that we were ever there for the safety of the Iraqi people. On the one hand, were going there to free the people from a tyrant, but on the other hand, were taking the war to them. What?
Invading Iraq was probably the single best thing we could have done for Osama and AlQuada. Bush Inc. had to know that or they would not have been lying to get us there. Again, a means to an end. What reason do they have to create chaos in this oil rich region? Arent Afghanistan producing record crops of poppies again, and what about the pipeline from the Caspian Sea?
Am I the only one that saw the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam during the same time that Sadam was gassing his own people?
Just how old is Baghdad anyway? A thousand years, two thousand? Dont you think they would have some priceless artifacts in their national archive? Their museums, their hospitals, everything was looted. The city was neutered of its national treasures because of what we did and we did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Im not bashing on Bush Inc, Im hold them responsible for this outrage. They knew there were no WMDs because the weapons inspectors told them there werent any. They new the anthrax was a bogus because were the ones that sold it to them. They knew the yellow cake uranium was bogus because they made it up. What the hell more do you need?
Im sure you all know about the depleted uranium that America has been using in our munitions. Hey, lets contaminate the entire county with radiation why dont we. Anyone remember Gulf War syndrome?
These people have more reasons to hate us than we will ever know about. If my outrage offends your sensibilities, then maybe youre not being sensible.
I just read a link this morning about the Civil war going on there. The so called government is just considered another faction, and the weakest of the lot too because they have no moral authority. If America wasnt propping them up, they crumble like a hunk of blue cheese. This isnt the first time this has been highlighted but its kind of a moral buster here at home so we dont get much of it on TV. Its kind of like seeing the coffins of our dead soldiers in that regard.
maybe empire building isn't the right phrase. but its not the war on terrorism. it's overzealous, overconfident americanization. its something beyond saddam's tyranny and potential WMD, this much you have to admit. cold war policies expired in 1989. the war in iraq is poor statecraft, no matter what else it is.
vietnam and iraq have a fundamental similiarity which justifies comparing them. they both involve overzealous american foreign policy. you, 65racecoupe, do not know what the purpose to history is. nor do the cold warriors who impose our way on life on foreign nations. war is a hell of a thing - you should have a clear, necessary reason for entering into it. not somethig vague or flimsy, like ensuring american superiority. american superiority is well-entrenched and unprecedented; you have not established the necessity of expanding it.
vietnam and iraq have a fundamental similiarity which justifies comparing them. they both involve overzealous american foreign policy. you, 65racecoupe, do not know what the purpose to history is. nor do the cold warriors who impose our way on life on foreign nations. war is a hell of a thing - you should have a clear, necessary reason for entering into it. not somethig vague or flimsy, like ensuring american superiority. american superiority is well-entrenched and unprecedented; you have not established the necessity of expanding it.
Last edited:
65racecoupe
Member
- :
- Turbo (soon) Yellow 2002 P5
Doodsmack said:
We are not expanding our might, we are keeping it.
I sure as hell want to live in a world where the U.S. is number one. If we aren't, then China, Russia, or Iran could possibly move to the front, and that would be terrible.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say about my history knowledge. I will take it as unknowledgable?.....
I do have a hard time comprehending the Vietnam War, to be honest. The world was so different then, that I just can't compare the two, other than the American dis-enthusiam as a whole (is that a word?)
Oh, and Pat Robertson is crazy. I don't like religious zealots.
BTW, my reason for defending Bush and the administration is simple, incase it got lost in the shuffle here....They realize there is an enemy and they don't put their head in the sand and ignore it. They go after it. The thoughts I have on GAY MARRAGE, STEM CELL RESEARCH, and a few other things fall by the wayside when it comes to national security and U.S. foreign military might.
I just wish they would be more agressive and also do some work in Africa. I would volunteer again in the Military if I could go to Sudan.
if saddam was still around, we would still be number one (by far). iran poses no threat of becoming a world superpower.
you're right, there is an enemy out there. an enemy we were victimized by on 9/11. and you know what? it's al qaeda, and other subnational islamic extremists. bush didn't keep his head in the sand - he got too confident and went after them without any caution or prudence. saddam didnt attack us. all middle easterners are not terrorists. if you want to call saddam a terrorist, you are broadening the definition of terrorism as an excuse to justify the war. there is indeed an enemy out there, and he's roaming free because we wasted our resources on another enemy. there are so many more pressing threats than saddam it's ridiculous. all your excuses for the iraq war are tangential to the war on terror, and/or speculative and flimsy.
and you say we aren't expanding our might? are we not establishing a dependant client state in the middle east? conservatives like you and the cold warriors in office are overconfident and unwise.
you're right, there is an enemy out there. an enemy we were victimized by on 9/11. and you know what? it's al qaeda, and other subnational islamic extremists. bush didn't keep his head in the sand - he got too confident and went after them without any caution or prudence. saddam didnt attack us. all middle easterners are not terrorists. if you want to call saddam a terrorist, you are broadening the definition of terrorism as an excuse to justify the war. there is indeed an enemy out there, and he's roaming free because we wasted our resources on another enemy. there are so many more pressing threats than saddam it's ridiculous. all your excuses for the iraq war are tangential to the war on terror, and/or speculative and flimsy.
and you say we aren't expanding our might? are we not establishing a dependant client state in the middle east? conservatives like you and the cold warriors in office are overconfident and unwise.
- :
- -- 03 P5 / 23 CX-5 --
C - ****
H - hermaphrodite
A - asshole
V - virus
E - extreme blowhard
Z - zipper monkey
H - hermaphrodite
A - asshole
V - virus
E - extreme blowhard
Z - zipper monkey
Doodsmack said:
I don't think that anyone claimed that all middle easterners are terrorists. At least I know that I don't make that claim. There are many decent people in that part of the world just trygin to live their lives and practice their religions in peace only to have it hijacked by a bunch of radicals who are trying to bring them all down.
As for Sadaam Hussein, even though he did have terrorist ties and did fund terrorism, I don't believe he was directly responsible for 9/11 either. Was he the one I would have gone after if I was in charge? Probably not. But am I glad that he is out of power? Most certainly so. Do I think that Iraq will be a beacon for Middleeast stability in the future? Its not guaranteed but I pray and hope so.
My problem with most of the Anti-war movement is that a lot of those in the movement seem invested in Americas defeat. There is a self-loathing, guilt ridden, blame America for EVERYTHING attitude that pervades their opinions that just bothers me. It's all well and good to play monday morning QB but non us us have ever been a president and I don't think we can comprehend the pressure and politiking that goes on in that office. LET ME BE CLEAR: There are some who truly oppose the war for legitimate reasons and I respect them. And then there are some who simply think that America is responsible for all the worlds evils and those people, I have no time for.
My stance on the war is: Iraq was not the best target thats true. But we are there now. Should we examine how we got there? You betcha! It's essential so that we don't make the same mistakes again. But we HAVE done good in that country, there have been free elections, there is a young govt. in place and I think that in the future the country has the possiblity to be better of and an ally in the war against islamic radicals.
But I see that there are Americans who are seeking and hoping for Americas defeat. Who hate that their country is a super power, who refuse to decline that America has been a HUGE force for good in this world and even today continues to do things to help and aid people all over the world. I say that we are there and we should be in it to win it, or the lives of all the men and women who died fighting would have been in vain.
War is hell, good people die, young people die, but even if the target was slightly off the mark, I'm glad America decided not to bury its head in the sand any longer as it has in the past and realized that something has to be done. These people have to be fought. They can't be allowed to spread their terror unopposed.
Sadaam may not have been directly involved in 9/11, but he funded and aided terrorists and he ignored the U.N which made him a valid (if questionable) target.
And I'd like to point out that though overconfidence and a lack of wisdom are not good traits, neither are cowardice or defeatism.
Last edited:
Corporations are playing both sides against the middle. Exxon Mobil among others needs the Middle East for supply, but they also need the west for demand.
For an example of war profiteering.
During the cold war, certain figures in the DuPont family were instrumental in antagonizing the conflict with Russia thus accelerating and prolonging the nuclear arms race. They were the ones selling us the materials to make all those bombs and ICBM's with so they were only too happy to accommodate our war effort.
We are easily manipulated because we're prideful and full of our own ego. It's seems we'll believe anything that supports the premise that America is #1 and everyone else is jealous and/or evil.
In this case, we dont have the moral high ground which is another way of saying that were wrong, but the consequences of our not backing this bogus war of terror is that Americas oil supplies will become more scarce and expensive. China is buying the rights to oil reserves all over the world right now. They want power so America better lead, follow, or get out of the way. Our very way of life hangs in the balance in an indirect way.
If we had a policy that would allow us to aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources, besides coal, we wouldnt be in this predicament. I say besides coal because it is a horrible polluter. Mercury in you fishes anyone? We need to tell our government just what we want, but we have to be organized to do that. Unfortunately, were more polarized now than at any time in my lifetime, and maybe at any time in our history. The solution to this problem is use less oil. Carter had it right with his policies of conservation. Now we have car makers making pickups that you can pull trains with and cars that go a 160MPH! I like fast cars too, but there place in our country and in our society is coming to an end.
We cant stop China from becoming more powerful than us, unless were all willing to stop shopping at Wal-mart and such, and even then it may be too late. Between the trade imbalance, the national debt, and the currency exchange, we give them soooo much money.
For an example of war profiteering.
During the cold war, certain figures in the DuPont family were instrumental in antagonizing the conflict with Russia thus accelerating and prolonging the nuclear arms race. They were the ones selling us the materials to make all those bombs and ICBM's with so they were only too happy to accommodate our war effort.
We are easily manipulated because we're prideful and full of our own ego. It's seems we'll believe anything that supports the premise that America is #1 and everyone else is jealous and/or evil.
In this case, we dont have the moral high ground which is another way of saying that were wrong, but the consequences of our not backing this bogus war of terror is that Americas oil supplies will become more scarce and expensive. China is buying the rights to oil reserves all over the world right now. They want power so America better lead, follow, or get out of the way. Our very way of life hangs in the balance in an indirect way.
If we had a policy that would allow us to aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources, besides coal, we wouldnt be in this predicament. I say besides coal because it is a horrible polluter. Mercury in you fishes anyone? We need to tell our government just what we want, but we have to be organized to do that. Unfortunately, were more polarized now than at any time in my lifetime, and maybe at any time in our history. The solution to this problem is use less oil. Carter had it right with his policies of conservation. Now we have car makers making pickups that you can pull trains with and cars that go a 160MPH! I like fast cars too, but there place in our country and in our society is coming to an end.
We cant stop China from becoming more powerful than us, unless were all willing to stop shopping at Wal-mart and such, and even then it may be too late. Between the trade imbalance, the national debt, and the currency exchange, we give them soooo much money.
Donas64 said:
America has terrorist ties too. Whats your point?
Your claim that anti war movements are looking for Americas defeat would be an inaccurate assessment, in my case anyway. I dont think my government has our best interests at heart. I dont think they answer to the American people anymore. They answer to big money interests, and in a capitalist society where the dollar is worshipped above all else, good and right are not always the same thing. We the people are no more than an annoyance to be placated.
I dont wish for our defeat, but I dont see successes for America on this road. We are in fact making our problems worse by our actions. This road is helping someone, but not us. Were sure footing the bill for it though. New leadership is what I want and I want it 6 years ago.
Last edited:
