Why They Hate W

[cintron]

not to mention the same dickheads that are popping holes in the pipelines, shooting our soldiers and ruining shit, ALSO detonated a bomb at the Red Cross and drove the UN out of town.

so if you think it's america's problem and america's the only one taking the heat, think again.

we stayed to fix problems while the rest of the United Nations skipped town for greener pastures.

[starvingartist]

Originally posted by cintron

man, no offense but i've had it with this argument. People are going to chant that about america no matter what we do because to the rest of the world we're one big greedy corporate oil grubbing monster.

you know what, fuck you. We're over there getting soldiers killed every day because we thought we had a duty to do in kicking a badboy dictator out who was causing us problems and acting like a jackass to the international community.

So when problems arise, it is the "duty" of the American Government to solve the problems as they deemed necessary, with the use of force, etc?

Originally posted by cintron

We aren't pumping their oil out of the ground and shipping it straight to our shores. We're going to buy it on the market just like everyone else. Then again, at the rate the terrorists keep blasting holes in the pipelines, i don't think ANY oil is going to get exported. Basically they're fucking THEMSELVES because that oil is what's going to get THEIR ass out of the massive international debt they need to pay,

Suddenly the U.S. is the master mind on how to solve national debt problems.

Originally posted by cintron

people diss america's efforts because they think we're there for our own good. I won't admit some things we do work out to our benefit - but name me one country who wouldn't do the same if they were in our shoes. I"d like to see France fork over 87 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infastructure and then say "no, we don't want anything in return. Nothing at all. We're doing what Jesus would do."

It is very niave to think that the U.S. is giving "handouts" to Iraq with no self interests in the forefront. If this were the case why would war, bombing cities, etc be employed for the sole reason of "helping". On top of that why would they choose Iraq of all the countries in the world with a dictator and "problems" to help. Why not make efforts to help other countries with similar or stronger needs.

Originally posted by cintron

motherfucker, we forked over 87 billion, and that's not paying for the "Steal from Iraq" fund. Maybe if more people believed that, or at least were patient and worked with the US to help build something meaningful over there, then this world could get somewhere.

The 87 billion which you speak of being used to "rebuild" Iraq is being used to primarily finance the American influence and fund the use of the Armyand its operations overseas. You make it sound as if 87 billion is being donated to a worthy cause made out to the Iraqi people signed by president Bush. Well I think you are very much mistaken. This war which was waged with no immediate threats coming from Irag will never be looked upon as a present, a handout, or as some righteous and nice gesture made by the U.S. government, or as some sort of symbolic peace offering to the Iraqi people. Finally, if you think the Iraqi people should be thankful, you are the epitomy of a close minded indoctrinated submissive American.

[cintron]

Originally posted by starvingartist

So when problems arise, it is the "duty" of the American Government to solve the problems as they deemed necessary, with the use of force, etc?

No, it's the duty of the United nations... which seemed to enjoy political infighting and foot-dragging more than actually getting anything done this time around. The UN was formed as a body to regulate its member nations - of which Iraq is a part. Unfortunately Saddam saw fit to flaunt the UN's resolutions.

I'm not sticking up for bush, but i'm going to stick up for his decision to hold Saddam accountable for his actions. By all means we could have just let him kept murdering dissidents [including children], building palaces and being shady about his weapons programs.

It becomes our duty [and the UK, and Spain, and Romainia] when other nations shun that responsibility. If you think we went about it the wrong way, hey i don't totally disagree with you. But i think if we'd just let things stay as they were, we might be in deeper trouble. Nobody can say with certainty whether Saddam would've done something with the WMD program that he DID have and that he WAS planning to build up after the UN sanctions were lifted. This is fact, not hearsay - when you bury nuclear records in your top scientists' rose garden, you no longer have a halo over your head. These are chemical, biological and NUCLEAR weaponry we're talking about. You can absolutely NOT allow someone to be shady about programs like that as if they were being shady about their taxes.

Originally posted by starvingartist

Suddenly the U.S. is the master mind on how to solve national debt problems.

please don't treat me as if i'm some schmuck wrapping myself in the american flag and calling the US blameless and perfect.

Iraq has a debt problem.

They owe billions. Make that tens to hundreds of billions.

They owe to OTHER COUNTRIES aside from us. Hence "national debt."

The only major product they can export at the moment to help pay that off is OIL.

Without oil flow, they dont pay off their debt.

You don't need to be an accountant to figure that out.

Originally posted by starvingartist

It is very niave to think that the U.S. is giving "handouts" to Iraq with no self interests in the forefront. If this were the case why would war, bombing cities, etc be employed for the sole reason of "helping". On top of that why would they choose Iraq of all the countries in the world with a dictator and "problems" to help. Why not make efforts to help other countries with similar or stronger needs.

Hey, bush isn't an angel. I know we're doing a lot of this in ways that benefit us back... but read my comment about free handouts.

You name one one country that would give ANYTHING out of the goodness of its own heart with NOTHING expected in return. [oh wait - we do that! hello foreign aid...]

You aren't lending a lawnmower to your neighbor. These are NATIONS we're talking about. There is diplomacy. Hence "one hand washes the other."

It's a rule as old as time - argue with me all you want, i'm just stating the facts.

then again - what the fuck? This isn't some 3rd party handing out charity on the street corner. That 87 billion dollars is MY MONEY. It's YOUR MONEY. It's our tax dollars. If congress says Bush gets to spend it, then we can't do shit - but wouldn't you rather have him spend it on someone or something that's going to help benefit us in the long run? If you say no, I commend you. You are more generous than I.

Originally posted by starvingartist

The 87 billion which you speak of being used to "rebuild" Iraq is being used to primarily finance the American influence and fund the use of the Armyand its operations overseas. You make it sound as if 87 billion is being donated to a worthy cause made out to the Iraqi people signed by president Bush. Well I think you are very much mistaken. This war which was waged with no immediate threats coming from Irag will never be looked upon as a present, a handout, or as some righteous and nice gesture made by the U.S. government, or as some sort of symbolic peace offering to the Iraqi people. Finally, if you think the Iraqi people should be thankful, you are the epitomy of a close minded indoctrinated submissive American.

The 87 billion being used to rebuild iraq is going towards the contracts that we have with development companies, the deals that have to be made with THOUSANDS of iraqi leaders [and subsequent greased-palms], the aid and food and water and electricity and oil and everything else that WE have to help restore. That isn't free.

You can rant all you'd like about this being a pointless war. That's one for the history books. Personally i think that the anti and the pro war crowds both have over-romanticized viewpoints.

It sounds so dramatic to portray the united states as the white knight, riding into baghdad to free the oppressed... but it also sounds equally dramatic to portray the US as the villain in disguise - the one who gives with one hand and robs you blind with the other. Smile for the cameras, oppress and steal behind them.

I think there's a balance that's needed here, which you - by labelling me as an "indoctrinated submissive American" - lack.

I truly believe we are in Iraq with the best intentions. I think the execution may be flawed and i think that the manner in which our bureaucracy influences the way in which we deal with the issue at hand, is causing a lot of the problems and setbacks that we're experiencing.

I think that Bush has NOT been entirely honest with the American people and i think that the administration has done a lot to sugar-coat issues in order to avoid even more negative publicity.

Don't think for one moment i'm going to stand here and praise everything [or even anything] about the way this administration is handling the situation.

I'm simply saying that we're there to do a job. We made a promise to the world and regardless of how we go about it, we intend to keep that promise.

Iraq is going to have free elections. They are going to have oil to sell on the world market. They are going to have governmental, municipal and logistical infastructure and we are not pulling out until that has been accomplished to a degree we find satisfactory.

so can the rhetoric. The US may be clumsy but dammit its good hearted and it takes care of its own.

If you side with the french and the german opinion that we're a bunch of war mongering greedy capitalists, fine.

You just remember that they have the luxury of saying that because WE shed blood to help keep THEIR nations free and we helped REBUILD everything when the fighting was done... [sounds eerily like Iraq, doesn't it?]

yet where are they now when we need them?

"Today, it is not easy for us, the sons of light, to combat the darkness. The important thing is to combat our fears. The impor-tant thing is that we, as God's men, not conform ourselves to today's world where indifference and egoism are still the roots of evil. Indifference is the greatest evil."

--José Roberto Bertasi

[starvingartist]

cintron, your latter post is more sound then the former. Even though I disagree with much, especially on what U.S. "intent" really is I respect your opinion. I just feel the U.S. is wrong for making itself the final authority on world politics, clearly attempting to oustretch its power and influence beyond American borders. Maybe I am guilty of being a bit cynical but It is not a result of falling victim to what you refer to as "conspiracy theories". It's cliche to say but absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are just 100s of countries which are not democratic, and this war just makes a bold statement to the rest of the world. That the U.S. is the final global authority on what governments are "right" , "just", and are willing to to fight a war to bring about necessary changes the U.S. deem necessary, etc. Just imagine if a Communist government waged war on us because they feel democracy is the wrong way to run a government, etc. I am just not comfortable with what the meanings of this war translate in theoretical terms.

[eccentricmofo]

Getting into specific aspects of how the world works and/or should work is making this whole thread go off in several directions, each side making valid arguments and points, yet with hardly any resolve.

The over-complexing of such is causing a brain fart to come along in mi noggen.

As far as my trick with dealing with complex issues, is to simplify.

My simple metaphor I have to offer.

The U.S. (modestly speaking) is that big bully-like older brother of the family (being the world). Granted the guy comes off as an ass most of the time but the underlying truth of it all is that he is looking out for the better interests of his little siblings.

(dont take this as me being cocky but we are better off then most countries)

Now with this responsibility comes some bad with the good. A little brother gets out of line, wallop him one upside the head. And so on and so forth. But in the end, there is still the undying caring aspect that goes without mention.

Aside from that kinda silly metaphor, you ever stop to realize that we all, yes even myself, maybe looking into everything too deeply?

Why are morals hardly ever discussed in the current events board? As far as why I think we got involved with Iraq..?

Simple... Saddam was evil, as far as it being our responsibility to get involved in other people's business? In general?

No, it is not our responsibility, but doesnt that make it more of a grandure gesture?

I dont know about you guys but whenever I see something wrong occuring...whatever it may be I get involved if I feel something wrong is going on. It may not be my business, but if I can help someone..fuck the consequences Im doing it.

I love my country for being that caring older brother, and just wish for everyone to look at things in the bigger picture. We arent perfect, but we arent evil either.

[cintron]

Originally posted by starvingartist

cintron, your latter post is more sound then the former. Even though I disagree with much, especially on what U.S. "intent" really is I respect your opinion. I just feel the U.S. is wrong for making itself the final authority on world politics, clearly attempting to oustretch its power and influence beyond American borders. Maybe I am guilty of being a bit cynical but It is not a result of falling victim to what you refer to as "conspiracy theories". It's cliche to say but absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are just 100s of countries which are not democratic, and this war just makes a bold statement to the rest of the world. That the U.S. is the final global authority on what governments are "right" , "just", and are willing to to fight a war to bring about necessary changes the U.S. deem necessary, etc. Just imagine if a Communist government waged war on us because they feel democracy is the wrong way to run a government, etc. I am just not comfortable with what the meanings of this war translate in theoretical terms.

yeah i realize. Then again, we really got into this whole deal over terrorism. WTC and WMD and Saddam and Al-Quaida...

and now i see that someone's blown up two truck bombs in Turkey, killing a british diplomat at their embassy, and a couple dozen others at a bank.

at some point we have to stand up and do SOMETHING. Attacks like this have been wearing away at us for decades. These truck bombs are eerily reminiscent of the embassy bombing in beirut - back in 83. A marine barracks and our embassy. Hundreds dead.

Then countless other attacks since then, the major ones being the USS Cole, that pan am flight over lockerbie scotland, possibly the TWA flight 800 off long island, the world trade center, both attacks [the bomb attack and the suicide attack]...

we just can't ignore it anymore and focus on our own borders.

Terrorists have proven that they'll bring aggression to us wherever we are. Even on home soil.

is this really what the world is degenerating into? a bunch of angry suicidal lunatics with rental vans and tons of plastic explosive...

[marksimons]

a few things.

this war was originally about Weapons of mass destruction. let us not forget that...

the reasons for war have been changed along the way, and that is very important.

going to war for moral principles is totaly different than for security reasons... and it's clear the iraq war has made security worse, for the iraqis, for the west, for the east...

also, this is notion of america the worlds policeman, well, it's a pax americana to help sustain american interests. it is the Project for a new american century that is ideologically driving this, a continuation of reaganite ideals. they want to secure america's interests first and foremost, not those of democracy and decency around the world. bury your head in the sand to this if you want, but look at the signatures on this document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

these are people who are deciding policy and direction.

these people don't act in the interest of americans at home, look at the tax cuts, the cuts in funding for veterans, the slashing funding for the Head Start kids thing, the energy policy, the record on jobs etc.

if the people running your country don't even give much of a shit about the worse of in your society, or even those in the middle classes, why on earth will they act for the purest moral reasons, not profit, when they engage in activities over seas.

the moral purpose, the 'chosen' status to lead the world, well that's rhetoric that is straight out of british imperialism...

the problem is that American strength could be a force for good in the world, but america is being mismanaged, look at all the high level coporate fraud that has been taking place over the last few years, that spills over into how government operates, the lobbying system in washington as developed over the last couple of decades has produced a generation of politicians who are closer to big businesses and special interests than ever, be they republican or democrat.

the reasons for the iraq war were many but whatever the spin put on it now, the primary reasons were oil supplies and american influence.

If they really cared about human lives and the iraqi country then the way they carried out the war would have been different. these people don't even bother to keep the numbers of civilian deaths.

what would you say to people who didn't care how many people died on 9/11 ? that they were collateral damage? the lack of ability to empathise with people is a very worrying personality train in some of the people in the bush administration.

I believe that america, with the UN, NATO and EU can work, and should work to do more in countries that need help. all western nations have been hypocrital and lacking in intervening when needed. but the current path of american policy is not the best way to ensure our security, it is profitable, will garner votes, and perhaps even thouse carrying out the policies believe what they're doing is right...

this issue is complicated, but the stakes are very high,and I really get worried by bush continuing to assert the right to pre-emptive war anywhere...

and the oil, coporations and trade things are imporant, and not just bitching about america for the sake of it.

global coporations do a very good job of screwing over a lot of nations, it is these actions, and the actions of governments that allow this to happen, both the governments of nations that have problems and are likely to be corrupt or lack power to fight the foriegn interests, and from the foriegn - western - powers that force weaker nations to accept terms that are far from 'free' trade.

these global trading issues help to create the huge swathes of poverty and also the repressive regimes that are supported by the west.

the people in the east, let's use the term arabs, are not stupid, they know that the repressive governments have been supported by the west in return for oil or whatever. they are justifiably skepitical of western claims to be acting for democracy when the track record in this area is very dodgy...

terroism is not solved by more firepower alone, this is not my own personal feelings talking, it is from the knowlege of the british dealings in northern island.

the english government has learned that you have to negociate, even if there are still terroist acts going on, if you do not negociate with people, who may not even be able to stop these acts, then you run the risk of letting terroists derail any efforts at peace. it plays into their hands.

terroism is not a new phenomenom, but the technical sophistication is increasing, but what we have to do is take away the conditions in which terroism can breed.

interestingly when I was at the united nations I found out that high infant mortality often goes hand in hand with high levels of terroism. the more desperate a situation, be it in palestine, iraq or wherever, the greater the chances of their being religious extremism and people recruiting for terroists.

america should not let fear and those eye for an eye, no negociate until terror stops, rule the day, otherwise Americans might have to end up getting as used to terror attacks as israelis have had do, and that situation would be good for no-one.

this is a good example of what I mean, in terms of rhetoric not matching action, and actions having a negative effect:

"While Bush promises that "we will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country," Major General Charles H. Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, promises that his forces are going to "use a sledgehammer to smash a walnut" in Iraq.

"General Swannack's metaphor is apt. U.S. fighter planes and helicopter gunships have been dropping 500-pound bombs on "suspected guerrilla positions" without warning and in neighborhoods populated by civilians. In a November 19 article, the Associated Press reported that even bigger bombs were being used, saying that U.S. planes dropped two 2,000-pound, satellite-guided bombs the night before about 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. A military spokesman said only that the target was "camps suspected to have been used for bomb-making." U.S. bombers also dropped 1,000-pound bombs on "terrorist targets," near the northern city of Kirkuk.

"When 2,000-pound bombs are used against targets in populated areas, not just the walnuts- or guerrillas and terrorists- are getting smashed. The AP spoke with a terrified housewife living near one of the bomb targets who said, "me and my children spent the night shaking. We do not want to be their targets.''

"But targets they are. Since the end of March, when Bush's war for their liberation began, thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. Iraq Body Count, an independent database of media-reported deaths, estimates that between 7,878 and 9,708 civilians have been killed in "Operation Enduring Freedom."

"These unintended casualties (called "collateral damage" in another war) add fuel to the guerrillas' fires, as they lash out against U.S. troops and international humanitarian organizations."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-15.htm