Home | Community | Message Board


Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme
    #4001537 - 04/01/05 06:33 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

We were really close during the Cuban missle crisis to nuclear war. Millions upon millions would have died. It was shear luck that got us out of that with no bombs. Let's imagine it did happen, now in hindsight...

If we would have listened to Patton and invaded Russia after double U, double U, 2. Then we could have thwarted the iron curtain from the get go.

If we let superpowers run rampant today and allow them to grow as powerful as us, then we are just asking for an escalation of conflict that could end in total annihilation. The U.S is losing (possibly lost) her opportunity to maintain world domination. The european union is just waiting until they are powerful enough to take the world stage, same with china, and even russia.

The only thing that is unsure is what will happen when these countries are in position of global supremacy. Could be pretty dire. Every empire/nation on earth that was in position of power used it to aquire new land or take over the world. We are the only people who adhere to our values of freedom and the sovereignty of other nations.

This idea could prove disasterous in coming decades and centuries when we are at the mercy of the chinese.

I have a problem invading iraq and doing nothing there that benefits us, I would not like to die for that cause.

However, If i knew the U.S was fighting for global supremacy, which could in the long run maintain peace for hundreds or thousands of years, I would be gung-ho for war.

Our leaders of today have compromised the unique position we were/are in and have shamed us from our true glory of global domination.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 months, 19 days
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: looner2]
    #4001609 - 04/01/05 06:56 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Looner is a good name for you.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekilgore_trout
Stranger
Registered: 10/18/03
Posts: 1,607
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4001678 - 04/01/05 07:19 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

i think its supposed to be satirical, if not its just as funny and indicative of prevalent ignorance.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: looner2]
    #4002009 - 04/01/05 08:46 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

The Roman Empire expanded so far that it couldn't logistically afford to administer all of it, so many regions of it fell to the Germanic invaders. The British Empire lost some of its colonies to revolution, and ended up giving up the others(but not before making a mess of the Middle East). Hitler's Third Reich, which was supposed to last for a thousand years, fell after only 12 years of expansion.

Global domination isn't all it's cracked up to be. It comes at a very high cost, both human and logistical. As for Patton's suggestion, if both Hitler and Napoleon before him couldn't pull off a Russian invasion, what makes you so certain it would've worked for us?

Also, you seem to imply that we went into Iraq for purely altruistic reasons while other empires invaded other countries with the express purpose of expansion. Not true. Empires have always paid lip service to some sort of higher motive. Empires throughout history have justified their expansion based on cultural or racial superiority(Nazi Germany), exportation of revolution(Soviet Union), national self-determination(Israel), or spreading the benefits of civilization(Roman and British empires).

I think it would be equally naive to assume that we are in Iraq purely for the benefit of the Iraqis. They have the world's second largest supply of oil, a natural resource which will become increasingly important to us in the near future, as supply diminishes and prices rise. I'm not saying there aren't people in the administration who genuinely care about the well-being of the people in Iraq, but that is a secondary concern. The primary goal is to secure our access to their oil.

Of course, the US is different than other empires in that it does not openly govern the places it expands to. Since the US claims to stand for freedom and democracy, it cannot assert authoritarian rule over other countries, except temporarily, as with the Iraqi interim government. Instead, we exert covert influence over elections to ensure that our interests are secured. We also fund guerrilla groups who support our interests against governments which are unfavorable to us, such as in Nicaragua, or help governments who support our interests fight off opposition groups, such as in Colombia.

All this has the same basic effect of imperialism, without creating a politically visible entity which could be called an empire. The American empire is the empire which dares not speak its name.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: looner2]
    #4002112 - 04/01/05 09:17 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Yeah... Let's pre-emptively kill off the world while we're at it... everyone alive today is going to die one way or another... it's going to happen anyway, might as well not delay the inevitable. :whatever:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekilgore_trout
Stranger
Registered: 10/18/03
Posts: 1,607
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4002340 - 04/01/05 10:24 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

i agree with paradigm, except i might have taken the chance to use the pun "invisible empire"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Silversoul]
    #4002831 - 04/02/05 12:18 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think it would be equally naive to assume that we are in Iraq purely for the benefit of the Iraqis. They have the world's second largest supply of oil, a natural resource which will become increasingly important to us in the near future, as supply diminishes and prices rise. I'm not saying there aren't people in the administration who genuinely care about the well-being of the people in Iraq, but that is a secondary concern. The primary goal is to secure our access to their oil.




I don't buy that at all. Iraq wasn't a significant supplier of oil to the US, but they were still pumping plenty of it under Sadaam. Plenty of Iraqi oil was out on the market.

We were attacked on 9-11. We made a decision to take aggressive action. Taking out Sadaam was a no brainer. It didn't have anything to do with oil. The first gulf war was more about oil than this one.

We made a choice to try and shape the world instead of waiting for more towers to fall. Sometimes you have to make some tough choices, and that was one of them. Thank God it was the right one.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4002891 - 04/02/05 12:31 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

What does being attacked by a terrorist organization have to do with us attacking a completely unrelated starving country that posed no real risk to us? How many other countries in that region pose many times more of a threat to the U.S. than Iraq ever did, yet we completely ignore them?

Canada poses a great deal more risk to us than Iraq did, yet we don't go up there killing all those seal-clubbers. Attacking Iraq was an emotional and arbitrary reaction because America got its ass handed to itself on a plate on 9/11 and couldn't find most of the real guys who planned it. We still haven't found them, so of course, we went with the next best thing: a scapegoat who we knew we could easily take out, and would distract us from the fact that many al Qaida members, and even Osama bin Laden (!) are STILL walking around out there! I'm glad America made the right choice, if by that you mean a good diversion from our failures.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: looner2]
    #4002917 - 04/02/05 12:35 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

A pre-emptive war to its most extreme logical conclusion would just be to put the whole nation underground and nuke the entire world, anyway. No humans, no threat.

And maybe in a few thousand years we Americans could rise back up, victorious in the fact that we had successfully avoided any possible war by killing all the competition. Of course, after Americans diffused back into the radioactive barren continents, reproduced and started new countries, we'd have to repeat the procedure, but hey, at least we're not getting attacked, eh?

That's why people don't take things to their logical extremes. What we call logical extremes are usually just far-reaching moderate plans.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Ravus]
    #4003021 - 04/02/05 12:51 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:

Canada poses a great deal more risk to us than Iraq did




I have to agree with you Ravus. You are right. You are also brilliant. I hereby retract all of my statements supporting the war. I would like to personally thank you for showing me the light.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4003035 - 04/02/05 12:53 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

:headbang:

Rock on my enlightened friend. You have been shown the way, and now you must follow the path to your own truths, free from the propaganda, free from the illusions, free from even my light that has shone into your mind.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4003168 - 04/02/05 01:24 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

JesusChrist said:
Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think it would be equally naive to assume that we are in Iraq purely for the benefit of the Iraqis. They have the world's second largest supply of oil, a natural resource which will become increasingly important to us in the near future, as supply diminishes and prices rise. I'm not saying there aren't people in the administration who genuinely care about the well-being of the people in Iraq, but that is a secondary concern. The primary goal is to secure our access to their oil.




I don't buy that at all. Iraq wasn't a significant supplier of oil to the US, but they were still pumping plenty of it under Sadaam. Plenty of Iraqi oil was out on the market.



But it's in our best interest(and by "our," I mean Halliburton's) to ensure that a US-friendly regime resides over those oil fields. It's not so much a matter of getting oil now as much as having cheap and secure access to it in the future, as the supply diminishes. I'm not saying that we just went into Iraq for oil, but I am saying that that had to have been one of the considerations for going in there, and that that is one of our main objectives now. Remember when the Baghdad museum got looted? Where were the soldiers guarding those national treasures? They were guarding the oil fields instead.

Quote:

We were attacked on 9-11. We made a decision to take aggressive action.



Unlike the average Fox News viewer, I fail to see the connection between Saddam and 9-11.

Quote:

Taking out Sadaam was a no brainer. It didn't have anything to do with oil.



Bullshit. There are plenty of bad guy dictators we could've taken out who are just as diabolical as Saddam(some of them are our allies). The real danger Saddam presented was the resources he controlled. By having all these rich oil fields, Saddam would be in an increasingly powerful bargaining position as the world's supply diminished. We couldn't allow someone like that to be in such a position.

Quote:

The first gulf war was more about oil than this one.



How do you figure? In the first gulf war, we left Saddam in power after driving his troops out of Kuwait, after which the UN imposed sanctions against him. In this war, Halliburton got a juicy new oil contract in Iraq almost as soon as that banner on the battleship declared "Mission Accomplished."

Quote:

We made a choice to try and shape the world instead of waiting for more towers to fall. Sometimes you have to make some tough choices, and that was one of them. Thank God it was the right one.



While I won't deny that some positive results have come from this conflict(though I don't think they outweigh the negative), you have to be fucking retarded(read: Fox News viewer) to think we "liberated" the Iraqi people out of the goodness of our heart, and considering the complete lack of WMD's found to date, it doesn't seem like Saddam was much of a threat to us. If he was a threat to anyone, it would be Israel, and they're more than capable of defending themselves.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Silversoul]
    #4003615 - 04/02/05 03:42 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:

But it's in our best interest(and by "our," I mean Halliburton's) to ensure that a US-friendly regime resides over those oil fields. It's not so much a matter of getting oil now as much as having cheap and secure access to it in the future, as the supply diminishes. I'm not saying that we just went into Iraq for oil, but I am saying that that had to have been one of the considerations for going in there, and that that is one of our main objectives now. Remember when the Baghdad museum got looted? Where were the soldiers guarding those national treasures? They were guarding the oil fields instead.





As for the looting:
Media blamed for exaggerating loss of antiquities

I don't think that we are fighting this war because of Halliburton either. Over 70% of Americans supported the war. Both Houses of Congress and the American President supported the war.

You may not view Sadaam as significant or as a threat. That is your choice. His state sponsored terrorism, and terrorism is our enemy. Dick around and quibble all you want about the details, or how we could have done things differently. The credit belongs to the man in the arena...

Quote:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat."

Teddy Roosevelt




America faced some tough choices and she took some strong actions. The people wanted that, the Congress wanted that and the President wanted that. I wanted that. And we have done a damn good job thus far.

Quote:


Unlike the average Fox News viewer, I fail to see the connection between Saddam and 9-11.





It might not be just Fox News brother. It might also have been the entire mainstream media as well as the Clinton administration.

-----------------------------------------------------
The Connection
"THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike."

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.

The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."


Quote:


There are plenty of bad guy dictators we could've taken out who are just as diabolical as Saddam(some of them are our allies).




I can't think of any nation that would have been a better target for operations after Afghanistan. "Plenty of bad guy dictators" might make good rhetoric, but give me two or three that would have had the strategic importance of Iraq. Give me a better target as an example and your argument would be a lot more believable.

Quote:

The real danger Saddam presented was the resources he controlled. By having all these rich oil fields, Saddam would be in an increasingly powerful bargaining position as the world's supply diminished. We couldn't allow someone like that to be in such a position.




I agree with you there. We couldn't allow Sadaam to keep defying UN Resolution and continue to spend his extensive resources on state sponsored terrorism.
Quote:


Quote:

The first gulf war was more about oil than this one.



How do you figure? In the first gulf war, we left Saddam in power after driving his troops out of Kuwait, after which the UN imposed sanctions against him. In this war, Halliburton got a juicy new oil contract in Iraq almost as soon as that banner on the battleship declared "Mission Accomplished."




"Halliburton" and "Mission Accomplished"? Are you such and independent libertarian free thinker that your whole summary of the war is the talking points of the left? Geesh. I expect more out of you than that.

I think the first war had more to do with oil because we didn't want Sadaam also controlling the oil fields in Kuwait.

Quote:


While I won't deny that some positive results have come from this conflict(though I don't think they outweigh the negative), you have to be fucking retarded(read: Fox News viewer) to think we "liberated" the Iraqi people out of the goodness of our heart,




How many government actions do you consider to be out of the "goodness of our heart"?

Isn't some component of welfare and public housing a selfish effort to get those dirty beggars off the streets and out of my neighborhood so that I don't have to look at them? Don't landlords make money off of Section 8? Some people support these programs for different reasons than others.

What about foreign aid? We give food to millions upon millions of the worlds hungry, more than any other nation. But isn't part of that aid really just a subsidy to the American farm sector? Isn't some of that aid given in exchange for influence peddling?

Public housing, welfare and foreign aid all have people who support them that have good and honest intentions. They also have support from people for completely different reasons of self interest. The liberation of Iraq has some positive consequences, which were well intended. It is in our self interest to combat terror and neutralize threats. The world is a safer place without Iraq's state sponsored terrorism.

Quote:

considering the complete lack of WMD's found to date, it doesn't seem like Saddam was much of a threat to us. If he was a threat to anyone, it would be Israel, and they're more than capable of defending themselves.




We found work done on biological weapons. Not a good sign for a dictator who sponsors terrorism. No stockpiles of chemical weapons though. We didn't have the post war intelligence that is available now before the war. Sadaam had 12 years to comply. Don't cry for me Argentina. It is nice now that people actually take us seriously. Look at Libya and Syria for examples of having the resolve to follow through. George Bush is a man of courage.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4003892 - 04/02/05 06:36 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

It didn't have anything to do with oil



Quote:

strategic importance of Iraq. Give me a better target



why is Iraq strategically important?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4003898 - 04/02/05 06:39 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

George Bush is a man of courage.




attacking people because you fear what they might possibly do to you in the future is not courage


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekilgore_trout
Stranger
Registered: 10/18/03
Posts: 1,607
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: infidelGOD]
    #4004068 - 04/02/05 08:35 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

i think that it is important to note that the oil for food scandal involving the un and iraq actually also involves the us gov't and many us corporations as well as those of other countries. they had oversight and veto power on the comittee, and american corps were banking off of it. the tv is not your friend. the us pushed to have sanctions imposed to keep iraq weak after a failed war for oil, which lasted until they could go in and try to take it again. all the while politicians and the corps they are linked to were profiting.

all this shit about bad war planning is false, the planning was pretty good considering the goals and the military resources. the politicians, military, and corporations, which are all linked rather conclusively, didnt give a fuck about rioting, looting, destruction, or what have you nearly as much as they did the oil. thats what their plans reflected, they protected the oil. plus any destruction means more dollars for the corps that got no bid contracts for rebuilding iraq after the chaotic destruction of riots and the varitable capet bombing of cities by the US military.

its not just about having a friendly gov't presiding over the oil fields as they are and wll be under us corp control, though under the name of something comparable to "iraq oil assosciated" or whatever. i think they might be actually keeping the pre-war name. i cant remeber the specific name though, but you get what i mean.

also, it is very important to note that prior to the war iraq and iran were both accepting euros for oil rather than the opec standard of us dollars. dire consequences for american profiteering. its no suprise we've turned our sights to syria as they would like to sell oil for euros as most of their goods are purchased with euros. do you now see why there was media engendering of anti-continental european sentiments or why europe was largelt against the iraq war and prefers talks with iran rather than invasion? it all comes down to money and oil. venezuela wants to diversify its oil sales to become less reliant on the us and in turn us dollars, perhaps turning to euros. they also are running and have been promoting exchanges of oil for goods such as cuban doctors and med supplies. by promoting i mean the pres. chavez promoting such currency by-passing barter at an OPEC conference. any suprise at the us backed attempted coup and incessant anti-venezuela propaganda which might be a prelude to military action? Also, by toppling these middle-eastern gov'ts leaders have been displaced who might vote in opec to change the currency standard.

just google "iraq accept euro" for more info and some good explanations about economic ramifications concerning exchanges, currency reserves, et cetera.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: infidelGOD]
    #4004079 - 04/02/05 08:47 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Iraq is strategically important because of its location in the totally fucked up Middle East and because it was (note the past tense) the largest source of state sponsoring of terrorism except for Iran.

Iraq is smack dab in the middle of Jihadist Central -- it borders Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with Egypt less than a hundred miles away.

Most rational people realize that the War on Terrorists cannot be won without addressing the root causes of terrorism. The Bush administration agrees with that assessment. But they know that the root cause of terrorism isn't the existence of Israel or American support for it, they realize the root cause is lack of freedom. The entire Middle East (except for Israel) is run by despots, dictators and fascist theocrats -- or worse, despots and dictators who pay lip service to theocracy. It's no wonder that part of the world generates so many desperate people, especially when you throw radical Islam into the mix.

It may never be possible to completely eradicate the attraction radical Islam holds for the desperate and the unhinged -- that's something the moderate Islamic religious leaders and moderate followers of Islam will have to address from within. But the allure of martyrdom is greatly reduced for those living in a country which gives the people freedom.

Iraq was the first in the region (apart from Israel and Turkey) to achieve political freedom. It won't be the last.

It will take time to drain that swamp, but Iraq was the logical place to start. Syria looks like it will follow suit in the next little while and the young Iranians will eventually make their play -- particularly if given moral support in the court of world opinion.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Egypt's President for Life, Syria's Ba'athists, Saudi Arabia's Wahabbists, and the Iranian Mad Mullahs are not the least bit pleased at facing the prospect of having a relatively secular republican democracy right across the border as an example for their own repressed constituents to observe.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekilgore_trout
Stranger
Registered: 10/18/03
Posts: 1,607
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Phred]
    #4004169 - 04/02/05 10:16 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

yes, iraq in a pretty good geographic location to be a base for future invasions but you forgot to add that bases there are also in shorter missle range from china, as with kazakystan (spelling?) where we are now supporting an uprsing. they just named a military base there after some pseudo-celebrity turned soldier that died there. saying it will "forever be known as . . ." robot model 555-55-5555 military base. when i heard that i was like, arent we supposed to be out of there within some time less than forever to get troops out and to let iraqis run their own show?

theres more to american involvement in the middle east than support for israel, your lack of sight beyond this is congruent with your lack of sight beyond scapegoating and attacking islam. there is support for the said despots by the us (some of the chems used against kurds by saddam (put in power by the us) were sold to him by us corporations with us oversight), destructive economic policy either as us policy or as multinational bank/trade org policies, a legacy of western intervention/expoitation/imperialism in most all of the countries named*, et cetera. the root cause may be a lack of freedom and prevalence of disparity, but we cannot say that the trinity of the us gov't, corporations, and military is not a major player in this.

we should not say that israel is an exception to middle east disparity just because there is an illusion of freedom, an unfreedom somewhat less than that of those persons under OVERT totalitarinism. The people still have no power, while there is a margin of state constructed choice, as in america. and lets not forget that sharon is a war criminal, and as i recall a witness against him was assassinated. am i correct? theocrats and persons paying lip service to theocrats? to me that sounds like america and israel as much as any of the countries youve named. radical islam? what about radical christians killing abortion doctors and planting nail-bombs in abortion clinics filled with pregnant women and loved ones, seems like god's will to them or at least based on their theology.

radical islam is not the only attractant of desperate persons. things that come to mind: all religions/philosophies/doctrines in any form of degree of extremity, the military, hard drugs from heroin to alchohol to crack, chocolate, cigarettes, coffee, sex, rape, music, love or pseudo-love, you should be able to continue from here. look at your own life and surroundings for a start, as i have.

i wouldnt call it an "allure" of martyrdom so much as a necessity given ample social contexts. opression, dispair, brutal inequality and expoitation are part of these contexts, but ive already stated that the multi-faceted sources of such conditions are not isolated to single parties controlling the pertinents countries gov'ts.

furthermore, US controlled elections where the foreign power exercises malevolent control in guiding the course and outcome of the elections is hardly true political freedom. true freedom, and thus political or religious freedom or what have you, is impossible without economic and military power and freedom on the part of the pertinent persons. here being the general populous, all the people. we know this is not the case, and will not be the case if the current conditions persist. this is not limited to control by the US and UK, as many other conditions will produce this, but these are the current conditions of which we speak.

gov'ts of neighboring countries should be nervous about us military bases and general military presence along their borders, esp. when their policies conflict with US economic interests.


*legacy of intervention/imperialism

iran 1953
syria 1956-1957
eisenhower doctrine 57-58 effecting all counries including lebanon, egypt, syria, and iraq through direct action
iraq 72-75
kuwait through complaceny concerning iraq and iraq through the gulf war

this does not include israeli actions

also it is important to note cheney, world bank presidential nominee wolfowitz, and bush sr.'s involvement in middle east politics and interventions through their careers. and i mean beyond the current war for wolfowitz and cheney and beyond "desert-storm" for bush sr.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: Phred]
    #4004796 - 04/02/05 01:58 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

you are incorrect.
the root cause of terrorism is radical Islamic fundamentalism
Iraq was the most secular middle east nation (note the past tense)
Iraq was not the "logical place to start"

and I thought the war was about pre-emptive self-defense against Saddam's WMD stockpiles. remember? can you at least acknowledge that you're just scrambling to make up excuses at this point?
now you offer up this particularly weak excuse that Iraq was the "logical place to start" (start what?) because of "its location in the totally fucked up Middle East". just pathetic.
but I'm sure the tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis will rest easier knowing that you think they had it coming.

Quote:

Iraq is smack dab in the middle of Jihadist Central -- it borders Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with Egypt less than a hundred miles away.



Turkey, Jordan and Egypt are three of the most moderate muslim coutries. but of course, you already knew that.

Quote:

Most rational people realize that the War on Terrorists cannot be won without addressing the root causes of terrorism.



you have to know the root causes of terrorism before you can address them. your ideologically shallow and uncritical assessments of the situation in the middle east will not help you get closer to those answers. if you're really so naive as to think that the root cause of terrorism is "lack of freedom"... you've been taken in by crude propoganda.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4004976 - 04/02/05 02:47 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

kilgore_trout writes:

theres more to american involvement in the middle east than support for israel, your lack of sight beyond this is congruent with your lack of sight beyond scapegoating and attacking islam.

Newsflash, buddy -- it isn't Christians or Jews or Buddhists from the Middle East carrying out terrorist attacks, it's extremist Muslims. That's a fact -- nothing to do with scapegoating. Note my careful distinction between moderate Islam and extremist Islam -- the kind pushed by the Wahabbists and the Al Qut'bs of the region. You would do well to read their actual words before dismissing my recognition of their agenda as "scapegoating".

Add to the mix the fascist tendencies of the pan-Arabists and Ba'athist leaders, the repression of entire populaces (especially women), the grinding poverty of the masses compared to the opulence of the kleptocrats in charge, and you have a surefire recipe for desperate people willing to take desperate measures.

there is support for the said despots by the us (some of the chems used against kurds by saddam (put in power by the us) were sold to him by us corporations with us oversight)...

Incorrect. You would do well to do some actual research on these matters before making your next post. Hussein was not put in place by the US, he seized power on his own. None of the "chems" used by Hussein were sold to him by the US. The US doesn't sell sarin or VX or mustard gas to anyone, nor do US firms. It is true that US corporations sold chemicals to Iraq capable of being used to synthesize more compounds than just pesticides. So did over a dozen other countries.

... destructive economic policy either as us policy or as multinational bank/trade org policies...

Once again, you would do well to research this topic before proceeding. The US doesn't dictate economic policy to Syria or Iraq or Egypt or Morocco or Libya or Jordan or Iran. Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran are all sitting on top of oceans of oil. Libya has a fair bit as well. The fact that the kleptocracies in charge of those countries appropriate the revenue this oil generates for themselves is not the fault of anyone other than the rulers themselves.

... a legacy of western intervention/expoitation/imperialism in most all of the countries named*, et cetera.

Oh, please. Can we talk about something a little newer than what happened a half a century or more ago? Those countries have had fifty to sixty years of selling oil to the rest of the world now. You'd think they'd be able to figure how to deliver potable water to their people or how to equip a hospital properly. But as long as you want to discuss ancient history, you will note it was the Europeans who were colonizing and partitioning that area, not the US.

the root cause may be a lack of freedom and prevalence of disparity, but we cannot say that the trinity of the us gov't, corporations, and military is not a major player in this.

Yeah we can say that.

We agree the root cause is a lack of freedom. You're dreaming in technicolor to pretend US policy has anything to do with the despots of the region denying freedom to their people. US corporations had their investments seized (nationalization of oil companies), and the US military did nothing other than free Kuwait -- and now Iraq.

we should not say that israel is an exception to middle east disparity just because there is an illusion of freedom, an unfreedom somewhat less than that of those persons under OVERT totalitarinism.

So sorry, but Israel is a democratic country. There are arab muslims holding government positions in Israel. Arab muslims can vote in Israeli elections. You really do need to do some reading before posting again.

what about radical christians killing abortion doctors and planting nail-bombs in abortion clinics filled with pregnant women and loved ones, seems like god's will to them or at least based on their theology.

Oh yes... anytime anyone points out the obvious problems with Islamic terrorism, someone is sure to bring up the bombing of abortion clinics. There have been less abortion clinics bombed in the world in all of time than car bombs set off by jihadists in a month in Iraq. Let me guess... your next bullet point will be the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.

radical islam is not the only attractant of desperate persons.

Correct. The Basques have terrorists. The IRA had them. Africans have been hacking each other to death forever. What is the common denominator? Lack of freedom. The Basques claim they are being oppressed and want their own state. The IRA wanted an end to England's oppression of Ireland. The Chechens, East Timorians, just about every African tribe on that poor benighted continent -- all want their freedom. It's no coincidence that free countries don't attack each other.

i wouldnt call it an "allure" of martyrdom so much as a necessity given ample social contexts.

Odd how few non-Islamic terrorists go the suicide bomber route.

furthermore, US controlled elections where the foreign power exercises malevolent control in guiding the course and outcome of the elections is hardly true political freedom.

To which elections do you refer? Here's a hint -- if you are tempted to say "Afghanistan's" and/or "Iraq's", do some research first to avoid looking a fool. I suggest you check the UN reports on the legitimacy of the process of those two elections first.

opression, dispair, brutal inequality and expoitation are part of these contexts, but ive already stated that the multi-faceted sources of such conditions are not isolated to single parties controlling the pertinents countries gov'ts.

You have claimed that somehow the US is doing the oppressing and the brutalizing and the exploiting, yes. Baldfaced declarations which fly in the face of reality are not proof. Those governments have near-total control of just about everything that occurs within their borders. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. Even Syria retains control within their own borders... it's Lebanon they're losing their grip on.

true freedom, and thus political or religious freedom or what have you, is impossible without economic and military power and freedom on the part of the pertinent persons.

Nonsense. What military power does Iceland have? Switzerland? Norway? As for economic prosperity, that comes only with political freedom, and it doesn't occur overnight.

As I said in my previous post, it takes time to drain the swamp. The essential first step to the process is setting the populace free.

Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* India Mulls Pre-Emptive Pakistan Strike, Cites U.S. Iraq War RonoS 323 2 04/15/03 03:06 PM
by Azmodeus
* pre-emptive strikes
( 1 2 3 all )
PGF 2,005 41 09/23/02 11:56 PM
by mntlfngrs
* Israel's pre-emptive strike on Iran - Hype or Reality spud 708 17 01/20/06 06:32 PM
by downforpot
* N. Korea talking "pre-emptive strike" Learyfan 802 17 02/09/03 06:33 AM
by Phluck
* Pre-emptive Strike Swami 857 12 02/02/03 11:22 AM
by Grav
* Pearl Harbor was a Pre-emptive Strike Swami 705 6 09/21/02 04:08 PM
by Swami
* Iraq war recap
( 1 2 3 all )
iglou 1,629 43 08/08/03 06:55 AM
by ololiuqui
* CANADA: Junior partner in global war carbonhoots 411 1 01/17/08 03:52 AM
by Noetical

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,688 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.211 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.