Most Iraqis think life is better since invasion... [Archive]

Maleko

Mar 16th, 2004, 11:55 AM

My life would be better, and continue to get better, if I had a few million dollars, but that wouldn't justify murder or theft would it?

Besides, who made it our job to decide who should be leading whom?

Granted Saddam was far from an angel, and did some horrendous things to "his people", but really, what business is it of ours? And why didn't we help the insurrection after gulf 1 instead of sending our brothers,sisters,aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters to die, like we said we would?

Now with Syria and Iran in the gunsights, when does "liberation" turn into "imperialism"? If we call it liberation, and install puppet govts, does that make it all better? I can't "prove" that the American govt is going all imperialstic, but my gut says it is or will very shortly.

One last thought, would you rather have earned your freedom, or have someone hand you their version of freedom?

MetalMilitia

Mar 16th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Assassination would've made it well worse than anything going on right now. That would've given them MORE of a cause to rally behind the former dictator. As for the ohter dictators that we would have to take out, there are too many to count. Most of which are equally as bad as Saddam, if not worse.

Secrertary Rummy gave me a good laugh on 'meet the nation'.... caught in a lie, or just a very bad memory on his part.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

I'm glad Mr Hussein is gone and all, but this is gonna be a black eye to all of our nationals leaders, until they come out AND CLARIFY all of this mess... Yet, no one comes out and says anything. It's like a big pink ****ing elephant sitting in the living room with you, but no one says anything about it. I'm glad the press is FINALLY starting to ask these people DIRECT questions.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 16th, 2004, 2:11 PM

Yeah, got a laugh from that Rummy interview, very Cheney-esque. Good counterpoint on the assassination thought, but it would've answered the regime change agenda. Albeit with unknown outcomes, with better or worse as a gamble.

It was all propaganda anyway. We wanted the oil, SH didn't want to sell us any, we took him out, now we can buy some.

MetalMilitia

Mar 16th, 2004, 2:24 PM

I used to think about securing the oil resources, thats why I called it Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL for short)... Now i goto the gas pumps today, and it's $1.65 a gallon, an we are at highs all over the nation. If we are stealing their oil, it's not affecting the nations resource problem.

I think we played the WMD card to get a great foothold in middle eastern territory. We have more control and vast options in the region, and will continue to for decades. Peroid.

Now if you look at this from an ironic viewpoint... we weren't in any danger from the Iraqis or more importantly Saddam. Now that we have PLACED our soldiers in harms way, they are in danger. Strange huh?

-MM-:crs:

Wesh

Mar 16th, 2004, 2:25 PM

We wanted the oil, SH didn't want to sell us any, we took him out, now we can buy some.

yes maybe theres something about it :thumbs: but if he had WMD's then it wouldent have been fun if he still was a dictator. And the people who where suffering under SH do not suffer that much anymore...

lotrfan55345

Mar 16th, 2004, 2:26 PM

I read an article about an Iraqi person who went back to Iraq on a local magazine called "The Rake". When he came there, his relatives said things did not get any better, it got more unstable. More looting and such. Also the "main highway" of Iraq that the Americans "repaired" crumbled away just after two weeks time.

Wesh

Mar 16th, 2004, 2:29 PM

Rome wasent build on 1 day...

-> Iraq wasent rebuild on 1 day...

substand

Mar 16th, 2004, 9:57 PM

And why didn't we help the insurrection after gulf 1 instead of sending our brothers,sisters,aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters to die, like we said we would?

Maleko- It's my contention that we should have helped them. We never specifically stated we would, though that is not a good reason, because we led them to beleive we would. At least we ended up doing so, even if it was over a decade later. I wish we would have back then.

One last thought, would you rather have earned your freedom, or have someone hand you their version of freedom?

If you want to use this argument, surely you cant use the first and keep a straight face. I used to think that all nations should fight for thier own freedom and the US (and others) should not use thier resources to help... However, then I remembered that to break away from George III, even my fellow Americans needed help from the "we planted trees so the Germans could march in the shade" French... and then there's the fact that the Iraqis had tried by themselves, thinking we would help them... And they got Saddamized, and decimated... The obviously needed our help (or someone's)

You just can't use both arguments at once, they're contradictory.

lazserus

Mar 16th, 2004, 10:07 PM

I think there were other options. Like an outright assassination.
That's a strange solution coming from you. I suppose we should have just violated the Geneva Convention and all UN law. Because, it's against policy to assassinate world leaders. Regardless, do you think and assassination really would have worked? Once we invaded Iraq, Saddam fled. He spent the entire time hiding, not ruling. The Saddam supporters would have still fought back. The only solution would have been to just leave Iraq alone, and that would have been a huge mistake. War was inevitable.

the "we planted trees so the Germans could march in the shade" French
That's hilarious.

Maleko

Mar 16th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Maleko- It's my contention that we should have helped them. We never specifically stated we would, though that is not a good reason, because we led them to beleive we would. At least we ended up doing so, even if it was over a decade later. I wish we would have back then.

If you want to use this argument, surely you cant use the first and keep a straight face. I used to think that all nations should fight for thier own freedom and the US (and others) should not use thier resources to help... However, then I remembered that to break away from George III, even my fellow Americans needed help from the "we planted trees so the Germans could march in the shade" French... and then there's the fact that the Iraqis had tried by themselves, thinking we would help them... And they got Saddamized, and decimated... The obviously needed our help (or someone's)

You just can't use both arguments at once, they're contradictory.

Lending them tactical information, sending arms, and other assistance, is NOT the same as sending sons and daughters to die. We had no problem sending arms and other aid to Osama (and various others around the world, Castro is another that springs to mind) in Afghanistan, but we did have a problem with sending American citizens at that time. We told (I do believe it has been acknowledged that we did in fact offer them assistance, but I could be wrong on that point, also "leading them to believe" and saying so is just a matter of semantics) those people that we would assist them with arms and such, then backed away and let them die.

I don't see anything contradictory at all. In both statements the point is that assitance was needed and if not offered, implied. Assistance is one thing, doing the job for them another. When/if you have children do you plan on doing their homework, or helping them, and which one teaches them better? Both statements support helping as needed, and both statements support the people involved doing the majority of the work.

What I'm trying to say is that it is much better for ALL involved to send a helping hand, rather than doing the work for them. Just like our parents tried to teach us, something you earn is more precious than something your given. We had an opportunity to lend a hand in them accomplishing freedom, instead we let them die, and then freed their children.

substand

Mar 16th, 2004, 11:03 PM

That's a strange solution coming from you. I suppose we should have just violated the Geneva Convention and all UN law. Because, it's against policy to assassinate world leaders. Regardless, do you think and assassination really would have worked? Once we invaded Iraq, Saddam fled.

Laz- While I agree that what you said is correct, I don't hold _too_ much stock in parts of the Geneva Conv. Moreover, even if we had assasinated Saddam, from what I have read, there exist(ed) around 2000 leaders in Iraq (mostly specifically from the Ba'ath party (rub-a-dub-dub)) that needed to be "eradicated"... so even if we pursued the assasination option, we've got much more than Saddam to deal with...

substand

Mar 16th, 2004, 11:23 PM

Lending them tactical information, sending arms, and other assistance, is NOT the same as sending sons and daughters to die. We had no problem sending arms and other aid to Osama (and various others around the world, Castro is another that springs to mind) in Afghanistan, but we did have a problem with sending American citizens at that time. We told (I do believe it has been acknowledged that we did in fact offer them assistance, but I could be wrong on that point, also "leading them to believe" and saying so is just a matter of semantics) those people that we would assist them with arms and such, then backed away and let them die.

I aggree, we should have gone in when we said we would way back in the day... of course we did not- but that does not mean we cannot correct our mistakes. In addition, I will not argue the point that we aided the mujahedeen in afghanistan (including Osama) - (it was through the Pakistani Intel service)... however, I would like to point out that we did do because it was the soviets we were fighting, and we NEVER engaged them directly, mainly to avoid nuclear war.

The other thing about the helping hand- I agree. And I think they would have offered a helping hand (besides all the Iraqi soldiers surrendering, and besides them pulling down the statue of Saddam on April 9, 2003 (where we helped with our tanks as we noticed they could not do it themselves), but for the fact that we left them out to dry in 91, so I could certainly see how they might think we'd do it again. And with the fear we might not help, coupled with the strict reprisals from Saddam when we didn't help before, perhaps they thought we'd waffle again.

substand

Mar 16th, 2004, 11:25 PM

when I said we never engaged the soviet's directly, i was excluding the JFK Cuban Missile Crisis... obviously in that case we "engaged" them, but i meant specifically militarily against the soviets.

lazserus

Mar 17th, 2004, 10:57 AM

even if we pursued the assasination option, we've got much more than Saddam to deal with...
That's why I said war was inevitable.

Lending them tactical information, sending arms, and other assistance, is NOT the same as sending sons and daughters to die.
You act like we were sacrificing children to a war that was futile. Have you ever been in the military? Do you happen to know anyone in the military? If you do, then you'd know it's a VOLUNTEER military. Anyone who joins the military and complains because they have to go to war should have never signed up. That's like a fireman signing up to ride the truck, not to put out fires. The people who died were US soldiers. They did what they were trained to do and they fought the way they were trained. If you want war with out real casualties, stick to video games, because it doesn't happen in real life.

Also, we did help the Iraqi people. Sure we did a lot of work, but what do you expect? We're just going to let them have our tanks? Don't be ridiculous. We have the technology, the training, and the equipment - we didn't have the 20 years to teach them how to use the equipment. If we just give them our shit, we waste money and we set them up for failure. All we would do is repeat what we did in the early 90's.

Donsun

Mar 17th, 2004, 2:07 PM

The answer is simple. If the story is true and the iraqies are happier and feel thier better off then yes the war was justified. I have friends in the military who are there right now. They also feel they are better off. However if we can't finish the job properly then it might be all for nothing. After the troops have been gone from the country for a while they should ask the question again.

MetalMilitia

Mar 17th, 2004, 2:37 PM

The news coming out of Iraq has be dominantly bad.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A powerful car bomb destroyed a five-story hotel housing foreigners in central Baghdad on Wednesday night, killing at least 27 people and leaving a jagged crater just days before the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

The attack on the Jabal Lebanon Hotel wounded 41 people. Rescuers pulled bodies from the rubble and searched for other victims, said Army Col. Ralph Baker of the 1st Armored Division. Americans, Britons, Egyptians as well as other foreigners were staying at the hotel, said Baghdad resident Faleh Kalhan.

Flames and heavy smoke shot skyward, igniting trees, nearby buildings and at least eight cars - one of which was hurled by the blast into a store. The explosion blew bricks, air conditioners, furniture, wires and other debris hundreds of yards from the hotel.

Six dazed and wounded people stumbled from the wreckage. A father cradled his young daughter, who was limp in his arms.

We can do everything in our power to help these people, but if there going to be others within their population that want to **** it up for them.... there is no cure for stupid.

lazserus

Mar 17th, 2004, 4:58 PM

A powerful car bomb destroyed a five-story hotel housing foreigners in central Baghdad on Wednesday night, killing at least 27 people and leaving a jagged crater just days before the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.
There's not a single place in the ME that isn't like that. That's something that will never go away.

Maleko

Mar 17th, 2004, 6:09 PM

There's not a single place in the ME that isn't like that. That's something that will never go away.

So much for a successful start to the war on terror huh?

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 17th, 2004, 6:11 PM

>That's a strange solution coming from you.

yeah, i know, it was a bit OTT. But I was thinking that because we did it before [Vietnam, Chile], that we'd do it again, if we really wanted regime change and not a foothold in the ME to act as a gas station attendant while depriving Europe of its major source of petro. And sure, the Baath party would have had to find another Dick-tator to treat their people badly, but maybe he would have sold us some oil?

>Because, it's against policy to assassinate world leaders.

uhhh, yeah, I thought so too, but it didn't stop us from firing missiles guided by remote drones to take out some alleged Al Qaeda leaders in Yemen. It may be our "official" policy, but I don't think the CIA play under the same rules.

>War was inevitable.

and this is where our opinions differ. it was unnecessary. per Powell and Rice, SH didn't have any WMDs. It was cooked up to justify a pre-emptive strike. Where are the WMDs now, a year after we came in?

>>"we planted trees so the Germans could march in the shade" French
>That's hilarious.

ditto.

>Lending them tactical information, sending arms, and other assistance,
>is NOT the same as sending sons and daughters to die.
>We had no problem sending arms and other aid to Osama

and that's how we have historically fought the enemy, by arming their opposition. it seems to have worked. but this time, we needed bases in the ME since the Saudis no longer wanted us in their country and Israel needed an active ally, not just financial support.

we were justified in '91. We are illegitimate/illegal in '01.

> I don't hold _too_ much stock in parts of the Geneva Conv.

esp since we violated it when we paraded POWs in the U.S., scorched their earth with DU shells, and robbed their ancient museums before letting the looters in.

>If you do, then you'd know it's a VOLUNTEER military.

I know, I know, and they even pay for college. But you still have to do what you're ordered to do else go to Levinworth (sp?).

>The answer is simple. If the story is true and the iraqies are happier
>and feel thier better off then yes the war was justified.

so is 57% a majority? mostly. technically.

>There's not a single place in the ME that isn't like that.
>That's something that will never go away.

so why don't we leave them alone so they leave us alone? Oil? *laughs to self*

lazserus

Mar 17th, 2004, 6:42 PM

it didn't stop us from firing missiles guided by remote drones to take out some alleged Al Qaeda leaders in Yemen.
Terrorist leaders are not classified as world leaders. Assassination attempts on cult leaders isn't prohibited in the Geneva Convention. ;)

Where are the WMDs now, a year after we came in?
There's a lot of military intel that says they're probably in Syria now. We caught a LOT of Saddam supporters high-tailing it to the Syrian border with weapons. They had a huge stockpile right up against the border in Al Qaim. We got there too late and a lot of the stock was missing, while Iraqi cargo trucks bolted for the Syrian border. We couldn't do anything about it, because it was too close to Syrian air space.

But you still have to do what you're ordered to do else go to Levinworth (sp?).
It's not as bad as you think. Insubordination isn't common, but not unknown in the military. Most of the time if you're a huge problem you get discharged, and it doesn't look good on your record. You get discharged from the military (and I don't mean honorable or medical) you'll be working at McDonald's for the rest of your life.

so why don't we leave them alone so they leave us alone?
Because it doesn't work that way. They oppose western culture. There were terrorist attacks in the US long before we went to the ME. They don't oppose us because we intrude, they oppose our entire way of life. Remember, terrorists are always religious zealots who classify westerners as infidels.

Kohler

Mar 17th, 2004, 8:38 PM

I didn't say it was a 'bad' thing. I think there were other options. Like an outright assassination. We've done that recently although, historically, it wasn't allowed.

I'm sure if we ousted the NK dictator, most N.Koreans would be happy he's gone too. Same with Communist China. Change their regime and I'm sure we'd have millions of happier Chinese.

Not a good argument IMO.

If we ousted the North Korean dictator every living thing on the planet would die... except the damn cockroaches.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 18th, 2004, 1:14 AM

>>Terrorist leaders are not classified as world leaders.
>>Assassination attempts on cult leaders isn't prohibited in the Geneva Convention. ;)

maybe so, but what was that drama all about at the beginning hours of GW2?
something about hitting an SUV with a tomahawk with SH allegedly in it in hopes of ending the conflict early?

and still, i've read that we did try to off him [SH], but had as much success as we did with Castro/Cuba. We trained him, after all. You can't tell me that the U.S. follows Geneva Conventions when historically and currently,
they don't appear to give it any respect. with or without UN approval.

How many foreign leaders of democratic governments do I need to list before you get my point that the U.S. does assassinate foreign leaders? Not with our own guys, of course, with people and causes we fund with our tax dollars. History. Even currently, we didn't kill him, but we escorted Aristide to Africa and recalled an ambassador of some Caribbean island for speaking to him.

>There's a lot of military intel that says they're probably in Syria now.

this is the same intel that told us he had some WMDs? the "faulty" intel?
same sources? we've got satellites focused on their movements, had their WMDs in our crosshairs and aerial photographs, according to Powell to the UN, even followed their chemical trucks to where they buried them,
which later turned up false.

Now these WMDs, of which there are tons, some nuclear devices, as well as drones and missiles capable of hitting us and our allies within 45 minutes, are in Syria? are you serious? If they were there, proof? we saw them at the border and didn't blow them up? we didn't think they were going to go over?
who are you trying to convince, me? or you?

(Respectfully, with no insult(s) intended.)

>It's not as bad as you think.
>Insubordination isn't common, but not unknown in the military.

i didn't say it was bad. i said they had to do what they were ordered to do.
if they knew what we now know, they'd still have to obey orders.
they are doing their duty, their job. but the pre-emptive war is under false pretenses. you can't sleight them for it, you blame their Commander-in-Chief for misleading them.

>They oppose western culture.
>There were terrorist attacks in the US long before we went to the ME.

I disagree. Name one, pre-911, Islamic/AQ terrorist attack? Come to think of it, name one domestic airplane hi-jacked by terrorists? I can't think of any. You have some insight you'd like to share? I don't seem to have access to the same data.

IMO, they oppose western culture for intruding on theirs.
By your logic, we'd hate Islamic culture because it conflicts with ours.
Do we? Or just some groups within our country?

>If we ousted the North Korean dictator every living thing on the planet would die...
>except the damn cockroaches.

*lol*
i partly disagree. they have what? 10 nukes? 100? and we have how many in response?

they would be utterly obliterated and we'd lose a few cities that their pitiful missiles would be able to hit, that is, if they had any.

IMO, they have them as a deterrent to our interloping and for sale to the highest bidder. which technically made them the bigger threat. so we went into Iraq, which didn't have nukes, but had a bunch of bio-chem warfare suits leftover from their war with Iran.

Chances are good, SH depleted his supply of WMDs that we supplied during the 80's against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds [Halabja] that didn't support him.
If he had any in '91, he would have used them. If he had any in '01, he would have used them. But since we were bombing his troop movements between wars, chances are good, he didn't have any.

I leave it up to your own research.

lazserus

Mar 18th, 2004, 9:45 PM

this is the same intel that told us he had some WMDs? the "faulty" intel?
Different intel. And just because you don't believe Iraq had WMD's doesn't mean they didn't. You forget, we helped them build some of them.

Now these WMDs, of which there are tons, some nuclear devices, as well as drones and missiles capable of hitting us and our allies within 45 minutes, are in Syria? are you serious? If they were there, proof? we saw them at the border and didn't blow them up? we didn't think they were going to go over? who are you trying to convince, me? or you?
Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Yes, there's a large possibility there are WMD's in Syria, some of which came from Iraq. We've watched Iraqis run for the border with weapons. Syria was sympathetic to SH and the Iraqis had quick and easy access to the borders. Proof? I have no more proof than you do, but if the Iraqis are doing it with other weapons so easily why couldn't they with WMD? Why didn't we blow them up? Let me say it again a bit bigger so you'll read it this time: THEY WERE WITHIN SYRIAN AIRSPACE. If we started shooting at them we'd have Syria up our asses. We didn't need any more trouble than we already had. One conflict at a time. I don't have to convince myself. I know people who are there, my friend.

I disagree. Name one, pre-911, Islamic/AQ terrorist attack? Come to think of it, name one domestic airplane hi-jacked by terrorists? I can't think of any. You have some insight you'd like to share? I don't seem to have access to the same data.
Apparently we don't have access to the same data. I use the internet for research -- type in "past terrorist attacks" in any search engine and you'll get an abundance of results. No terrorist attacks prior to 9/11? You're completely oblivious. Tell that to my girlfriend and her mother, and you can then explain to them how a number of their friends mysteriously exploded in an embassy bombing in Kenya. Majority of past attacks have been in embassies or COMMERCIAL AIRLINES.

I'll list just a handful. You can look up the violent details yourself:

Air India Flight 814
Egypt Air Flight 990
WTC bombing in 1993
The Pan Am 103
Khobar Towers Bombing
THE BOMBINGS OF UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN KENYA AND TANZANIA
Hijacking of TWA 847

Those are just a few. Guess what?

By your logic, we'd hate Islamic culture because it conflicts with ours.
I never said anything about westerners hating Islamic culture. I said terrorists hate our culture.

substand

Mar 19th, 2004, 1:50 PM

I disagree. Name one, pre-911, Islamic/AQ terrorist attack? Come to think of it, name one domestic airplane hi-jacked by terrorists? I can't think of any. You have some insight you'd like to share? I don't seem to have access to the same data.

Indeed, 1 pre-9/11 Islamic terrorist attack on domestic soil was 1993 WTC bombings.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm lists fatal hijacking events involving a U.S. carrier or a flight arriving or departing the U.S. where at least one passenger was killed.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 19th, 2004, 4:33 PM

Laz,

I really thought you were talking about DOMESTIC terrorist attacks. Not Int'l attacks that involved Americans. We have no control of foreign countries or their airport security.

Air India Flight 814 - Kathmandu to Delhi,
http://www.sholay.com/stories/highjacking1.htm
"
Indian airlines said there were 178 passengers aboard flight IC-814 and 11 crew. Passengers included 150 indian nationals, four Indian children, Eight Nepalese, Four Swiss, Four Spaniards, Two
French, a Japanese, A Canadian, A Belgian, An Austrian, An Italian and A U.S. National, according to airport officials in india and
Kathmandu.
"

Egypt Air Flight 990 - Edwards Air Force Base to Egypt (?)
http://www.welfarestate.com/flight990/
http://www.welfarestate.com/flight990/edwards.txt
http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/04/egyptair.muslims/index.html
"The Muslim Public Affairs Council, a non-profit civic organization based in Los Angeles and Washington, drafted the letter after Mideast reports suggested an elite Egyptian military unit, including high-ranking officers, was on the plane.
...
Bacon said he had not seen the letter from the Muslim group, but emphasized: "I don't think there is any reason to suspect terrorism (in this case), as opposed to other causes."
"

Nothing there, not Muslim terrorists attacking Americans.

WTC bombing in 1993 - Gov't sponsored terrorism doesn't count.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html
"
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.
"

I was thinking you were going to cite the OKC bombing, but McVeigh wasn't Muslim either.

The Pan Am 103 - London to New York City
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964010410/102-2857684-0056159?v=glance
http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Incidents/Lockerbie/LockerbieSubList.html
"
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah of Libya were charged in both the US and UK for the bombing.
"

FBI involved again? This one could be considered domestic, but depending on how much you know about it, it may or may not be considered a Muslim attack on Americans because they hate our culture of "freedom"

Khobar Towers Bombing
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9805/22/khobar.towers/
"The United States is reacting with caution to comments by Saudi Arabia's interior minister that a deadly bombing attack on U.S. military personnel in 1996 was the work of Saudi nationals, not terrorists from other countries.
"

Saudi Nat'ls attacking foreign troops on their soil. What are we doing there? Protecting our interests, of course, keeping the flow of oil by keeping the reigning monarch/dictator, in power.

Hijacking of TWA 847 -Athens, Greece to Lebanon
"
Complicated negotiations finally led to their release on June 30, after Israel independently began to release the imprisoned Shiites. The four terrorists successfully escaped into Beirut, although one was later apprehended in Germany and convicted of air piracy and murder.
"

Int'l Terrorism is not a strike to Americans for living a differing way of life. This was leverage to get America/Israel to release prisoners. Israel is another American blindspot and source of policy hypocrisy.

THE BOMBINGS OF UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN KENYA AND TANZANIA

Yes. I agree. These are attacks on America, for meddling in their countries. OBL aerial attack on one of them should have clued us in on what he was capable of. It didn't.

I'm still having trouble understanding why Muslims would attack us because of our cultural ethos. I see them attacking us because of our meddling and telling them how to run their countries and dictating their policies.

[edited insert]
ahh, just figured out what you meant. i think. your statements were mutually exclusive portraying an implication of Muslim attacks in America because they oppose our culture. My misunderstanding.

>They oppose western culture.
>There were terrorist attacks in the US long before we went to the ME.
>They don't oppose us because we intrude, they oppose our entire way of life.

By saying them seperately, but in a singular context, I mis-read you.

Bush did the same thing in the SOTU.

I still disagree with you.

lazserus

Mar 22nd, 2004, 1:12 PM

These are attacks on America, for meddling in their countries.
How dare you say something like that. You really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You're so caught up in being anti-America that you're completely blind of the world around you. You make it sound like those people deserved to die. You're no better than those zealous maniacs running around blowing up families in shopping malls because of their nationality. I'd like to see if you actually have the intestinal fortitude to sit down and tell someone like my girlfriend's father that he's meddling in Kenya. Do you have even the closest idea of why we're in places like Kenya? I doubt you do, or you wouldn't say the things you say.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 22nd, 2004, 7:41 PM

>You're so caught up in being anti-America that you're completely blind of the world around you.

I think I’m fairly patriotic for speaking out against the powers that mislead. I thought it was quite “American” to question the establishment. We had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, at one time. And while I still have Freedom of Speech, I will share what I know to as many as I can, before they take it away with Patriot Act III.

>I'd like to see if you actually have the intestinal fortitude to sit down
>and tell someone like my girlfriend's father that he's meddling in Kenya.

Hmmm…that would be like telling a U.S. soldier that their doing Dubya’s dirty work. Not a good idea, go for the leaders, not those who follow their orders. Further, I’m not sure they’d want to listen or know about. Some things are better left unknown to some people. How else can they live? Find purpose and fulfillment in what they do? Everyone has to work for a living. Would you quit your job if you knew what you were doing was wrong? Not likely, some people have a lifestyle to support. Concientious objectors don't make good soldiers.

>Do you have even the closest idea of why we're in places like Kenya?

Is it IMF involved?
Something to the effect of land resources for humanitarian aid?
An international loan to be used for developing countries?
http://www.cepr.net/IMF/McKinney.htm
http://www.cepr.net/IMF/jubilee_2000.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2285063.stm

I didn’t really want to keep digging, but here’s what I found for Kenya..
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/crs98091.htm
“
On August 7, 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. At least 252 people died (including 12 U.S. citizens) and more than 5,000 were injured.
“

“
The United States has bombed terrorist targets in the past in retaliation for anti-U . S. operations (Libya, in 1986 following the Berlin Disco bombing…
“

hmmm… misguided retaliation… Victor Ostrovsky, By Way of Deception,
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html

Our own ally tricked us into bombing one of its enemies. I guess it was okay to be tricked, after all, “the enemy of my friend is my enemy”, right? [/sarcasm]

I don’t know why Kenya was bombed. I do remember reading that OBL/UBL had a hand in it by allegedly funding the bombing/bombers. If not then, he certainly did recently.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776059233.html?from=storyrhs

But his objective has always been to remove American influence and military from the Arabian peninsula. And while he was in Sudan, Clinton turned down multiple offers to arrest him. And later, Dubya had executive orders not to pursue him.

Funny that? Politicians, spin doctors the lot of them.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 22nd, 2004, 7:51 PM

Maleko

Mar 22nd, 2004, 10:25 PM

you know, i'm beginning to think, our association with and support for Israel, is what got us embroiled with the AQ to begin with. looking over all these terrorist attacks, it seems that we're caught in the crossfire and used.

thoughts?

Israel uses us, we use others, other nations use terrorists, terrorists use Israel, and so on. Politicians use clergy, businesses and clergy use consumers, consumers use politicians, ad infinitum. In almost every level of society from global politics, to business dealings, to personal relationships, we are a society of manipulators. Those people that are better at manipulating people rise to the top and are called "leaders". People that aren't interested in the "grand game" are called followers (or as I like to call them sheeple). And finally, the people who see the game for what it really is, are called "social outcasts", or freaks and live on the fringe of society.

The whole world is based on manipulation. Usually manipulation in the desire for money, and power. There is no freedom, there is only the semblance thereof. There are no "rights" only things that are promised, but only given when it's convenient. There is no justice, only more rules for a different game. There will never be any of these things without a new society rising up from the ashes of the old (current) one.

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 24th, 2004, 4:34 PM

lotrfan55345

Mar 24th, 2004, 4:42 PM

that's a pretty bleak, stark, disturbing observation. must have caught you on a painfully honest day. most people [like me] would get an ulcer if they had to go day to day thinking like that.

Look at me.... and im still 12! :respect:

Maleko

Mar 24th, 2004, 5:03 PM

>people that are better at manipulating people rise to the top and are called "leaders".

i disagree. my naivety tells me leaders are chosen by the people around them. but then reality sets in and i see, its not what you know or who you are, but who you know and what they can do for you.

Your "reality based" comment bears out the manipulation. Especially the "what they can do for you" (and the reverse what you can do for them) points out just how manipulative society really is. The fact that you don't see it as manipulation just goes to show how deep it runs.

I question the use of the word "naivety", as I would call it wishfull thinking as opposed to being naive. I was taught in school that the govt was chosen by the people, for the people. But I have not seen that in my lifetime. I see people getting chosen as the "lesser of two evils" as opposed to the best person for the job. I see a country (and Yes Mickey I do think it is the best country, however far from a perfect country) who has more people not voting because (as several of my friends have put it) "does it really matter? they are both the same just packaged differently."

>The whole world is based on manipulation.

that's a pretty bleak, stark, disturbing observation. must have caught you on a painfully honest day. most people [like me] would get an ulcer if they had to go day to day thinking like that.

I just call it like I see it. I hear and see the manipualtion occuring constantly around me. Yes it sickens me, but I have yet to find a way to fight it. As that old public service commercial says, "knowing is half the battle", and 1/2 a battle is better then no battle.

>There is no justice, only more rules for a different game.

that would most certainly describe what's going on now, the 911 commission seems to be hinting at what many suspected. time for our own, homegrown, democratic, republic, regime change. lets hope those Diebold machines are out of the picture. :D

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 25th, 2004, 9:52 AM

"GO JOE!!!" [errr...too much cartoons...]

>as I would call it wishfull thinking

hmmm, thanks, a much better perspective than mine. i agree.

>I see people getting chosen as the "lesser of two evils"
>as opposed to the best person for the job.

yep, like right now.

>does it really matter?

you can't give up hope, its our only ally. although if we did get a good or purposeful president, we'd likely have another JFK incident. anyone that doesn't "play the game" seems to be taken out of it, IMO. i voted and have encouraged others to, its our only "say". :toast:

substand

Mar 25th, 2004, 8:03 PM

I think every executive leader in any country is almost always going to be either "evil" or the "lesser or two evils" ... In democracies, it is necesary to compromise. Sure, in places with so many parties like France, it might be possible to have as PM someone who represents your view wholeheartedly (assuming all the parties could get together and elect as PM an ideologue from one of the parties) ... but even then he will only not be "evil" to his own party.

Kamikaze

Aug 21st, 2004, 4:32 PM

That's why I said war was inevitable.

You act like we were sacrificing children to a war that was futile. Have you ever been in the military? Do you happen to know anyone in the military? If you do, then you'd know it's a VOLUNTEER military. Anyone who joins the military and complains because they have to go to war should have never signed up. That's like a fireman signing up to ride the truck, not to put out fires. The people who died were US soldiers. They did what they were trained to do and they fought the way they were trained. If you want war with out real casualties, stick to video games, because it doesn't happen in real life.
Now that is the most refreshing, yet totally obviously truthful, news ive heard in ages. Amen to that, just to re-iterate ^^^ this wise man, wtf do people expect when they join up for the army? Especially an army that is involved in a lot of shit at any given moment???:toast:

EmanuelGoldstein

Aug 23rd, 2004, 9:19 AM

Most Iraqis think life is better since invasion...
...And expect it to get better in the future

Surely we can now all agree the war was a good thing?

A bit from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/2...l?th=&pagewanted=print&position=) on the feelings of Iraqis.

"Allawi is a Shia like us, but he's killing more Iraqis now than Saddam ever did," said an oil-tanker driver from Baghdad, ticking off all the cities experiencing combat, with Najaf at the top of the list.

"The corruption is worse than ever," said another man from Baghdad, a Sunni Muslim who was hoping against the odds to be allowed into Jordan to search for work. "Officials used to be afraid when they asked for a little baksheesh, but now it's open and they demand more," he said, referring to traditional payoffs....

....On the Jordanian side waited Samir Tomolan Hussein, an ethnic Palestinian who has lived in both Iraq and Jordan and whose tale exemplified the complex challenge to the Americans.

"Before the war, under Saddam, nothing like this kidnapping ever happened," Mr. Hussein said. His bitterness about American policy had already been stoked, he said, when the appliance store he owned in Baghdad was looted right after the invasion, costing him his life savings and forcing him to work these days as a bus driver in Amman.

----------

Yeah those Iraqis sure sound like they think their lives are better since the invasion. The one guy had his life improved so much his entire life savings and buisiness are gone, it can't get much worse for him.

substand

Aug 24th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Emmanuel Goldstein-

it is worse for some, especially sunnis, however it is better for others. It is sure to get better in the future. While warprotesters are fond of using the here and now as example of how things are "worse" now, I've yet to hear anyone argue on "how it will remain worse in the future." And by future I dont mean September. It goes without saying that the country will be better overall once it is stable and in the future. It was/is also well known that Saddam held different factions in check with his brutality. So just because you can come up 4 examples of how life is worse currently, and I can come up with 4 examples of how it is better currently, and we can come up with examples until the cows come home- it is all irrelevant. You cannot dispute that life will be much better than it was, given time. If you can, please do. In the process, please also attempt to explain to me how every "western" country is now currently worse off than it was prior to the advent of nationalism, or the magna carta for that matter.

humanhybrid

Aug 24th, 2004, 1:02 AM

it is worse for some, especially sunnis, however it is better for others. It is sure to get better in the future. While warprotesters are fond of using the here and now as example of how things are "worse" now, I've yet to hear anyone argue on "how it will remain worse in the future." And by future I dont mean September. It goes without saying that the country will be better overall once it is stable and in the future. It was/is also well known that Saddam held different factions in check with his brutality. So just because you can come up 4 examples of how life is worse currently, and I can come up with 4 examples of how it is better currently, and we can come up with examples until the cows come home- it is all irrelevant. You cannot dispute that life will be much better than it was, given time. If you can, please do. In the process, please also attempt to explain to me how every "western" country is now currently worse off than it was prior to the advent of nationalism, or the magna carta for that matter.
Your right Substand, when all the oil is safely managed and sold in the world markets. And when the mosqes and temples are converted to churches and when Mcdonalds, burger kings etc. are built and the customs and cultural heratage are but a memory. I guess here the "western" world is the perfect way of life for you. Nationalism is corrupt, wasteful, self serving and negligent to the needs of the earth, the enviroment, the very place we breath oxygen. But that is the very way of western culture. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5732.htm Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

substand

Aug 24th, 2004, 1:44 AM

Your right Substand, when all the oil is safely managed and sold in the world markets.

is that a bad thing like you make it sound with all your other references?

And when the mosqes and temples are converted to churches and when Mcdonalds, burger kings etc. are built and the customs and cultural heratage are but a memory.

no one's talking about replacing mosques with churches... and i didn't bother to check Burger King, but certainly jobs and capitalism can benefit the world, including the muslim world. And McDonalds does business in countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, and UAE. All nations similar to Iraq in more ways than one, and all who seem to have effectively retained their "culture." I mention those, but almost forgot about the "little" mexicos, chinas, italies etc here in the US and the way they've retained their own cultures, even when visiting McCorporations within them.

I guess here the "western" world is the perfect way of life for you. Nationalism is corrupt, wasteful, self serving and negligent to the needs of the earth, the enviroment, the very place we breath oxygen. But that is the very way of western culture.

I dont know if I'd call the western way of life "perfect," but I think its self evident that its the best of out of the current models we have to compare it to.

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5732.htm Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

lets not turn this into an envirothread past your stuff above and my limited replies to it.

humanhybrid

Aug 30th, 2004, 1:10 AM

1 YEAR & 141 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. Protesters march against President George W. Bush march down New York's Fifth avenue August 29, 2004. The marchers, estimated by the United for Peace and Justice coalition to reach more than 200,000, passed Madison Square Garden, the convention site for Republicans as visitors converge on New York for the gathering that will end with Bush's re-nomination for president. REUTERS/Jeff Christensen

36 million live in US poverty Aug 27 06:56 AAP A new report says about 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty in 2003 as the ranks of the poor swelled to almost 36 million.

The US Census Bureau's annual poverty report says despite the economic recovery, the percentage of the American population living in poverty rose to 12.5 per cent.

It was the highest figure since 1998 - from 12.1 per cent in 2002.

The widely cited scorecard on the nation's economy shows one-third of those in poverty were children.

The poverty line is set at an annual income of $13,600 ($US9,563) or less for an individual, or $26,500 for a family of four with two children.

http://afr.com/articles/2004/08/27/1093518046210.html
lets not turn this into an envirothread past your stuff above and my limited replies to it Lets do! Because that is the result of your Substands "the best of out of the current models we have to compare it to". http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5732.htm DARE TO CLICK?

Strife

Aug 30th, 2004, 8:19 AM

My families' income has been around $8000-9000 for the passed 11 years or so. :nono:

substand

Aug 30th, 2004, 11:24 PM

1 YEAR & 141 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ

and still you think it was ever or solely about WMD. And somehow you relate it to poverty in the US, as if there was no such thing as the current deficit. And you relate it to poverty as if the freedom these ppl in poverty enjoy, say the poverty they enjoy allows them very often to own a car and/or TV is horrible compared to the poverty of those living under despots who have nothing. Not to say that we shouldn't attempt to find solutions to the problem, so that all Americans can own a vacation home, flatscreen tvs, 2-3 automobiles, etc... but to go from nationalism and freedom to environmentalism to war to poverty to the fucking smurfs... are you as schizo as you seem?

lets not turn this into an envirothread past your stuff above and my limited replies to it

Lets do!

Ok, lets. But the question is "are iraqis better without saddam than with him" and "will they be in the future?" So if you want to make this an environmental thread, then explain how they will be better or worse off.

Oh, and I really wish your "I guess freedom is a good thing" sarcastic shit was still here... I'd love for everyone to see your true colors, Sir Stalin.

My families' income has been around $8000-9000 for the passed 11 years or so.

Damn strife, do you go to free internet? Sorry to hear! Thats hard to do, even making only $5/hour in the US and working full time you'd get 10k per worker!

humanhybrid

Aug 31st, 2004, 1:41 AM

and still you think it was ever or solely about WMD. No I admit your right, I left out those damn christian values thing "capitalism in the guise of democracy"
And somehow you relate it to poverty in the US, as if there was no such thing as the current deficit. Well I guess every responsible president should have a HUGE current deficit for the children of this country, perhaps it shows how much of a cowboy he is.
And you relate it to poverty as if the freedom these ppl in poverty enjoy, say the poverty they enjoy allows them very often to own a car and/or TV is horrible compared to the poverty of those living under despots who have nothing. A car to serve the corporate intrests and a TV to program them. OK!!
Not to say that we shouldn't attempt to find solutions to the problem, so that all Americans can own a vacation home, flatscreen tvs, 2-3 automobiles, etc... but to go from nationalism and freedom to environmentalism to war to poverty to the fucking smurfs... are you as schizo as you seem? Now your out of line my freind, STAAAY FOCUUUST!!!!!

Strife

Sep 1st, 2004, 12:01 PM

Damn strife, do you go to free internet? Sorry to hear! Thats hard to do, even making only $5/hour in the US and working full time you'd get 10k per worker!

Now that I think of it, let me redo the math. Now this is all averaged out because I'm not too sure on the exact amount of cash.

O.k., first of all no one works in my house except for my step dad who earns a crappy amount for his check per week, but he spends his money on his personal use (beer, auto repair, etc.). That bastard... :btchn: My mother on the other hand gains about $500 a month off social security I believe? Oh, and welfare is about $200 a month, and we're at the point right now where theres barely anything good to eat in the fridge. Pffft. It seems like the average is about $8400, so I lied.

How do I manage to keep the internet running now? Well, I quit my job about a month ago, and my mother could hardly manage the bill on my dsl, so it'll be disconnected soon. :uh:

substand

Sep 1st, 2004, 10:03 PM

strife- sorry your situation is so bad! Is your mom on Social Security disability? Maybe if so, she could get a job working somehow online from home and you could keep your dsl for her and you guys could make some more money... there are many telecommute jobs like that- I could even help you find one if you wanted me to, I'm around stuff like that a lot... sorry about your stepdad being a cock too... perhaps you could get another job and help your mom out, if you are old enough or go to college too and get much better... then you could keep dsl and everything... maybe we could even put a little collection on here for you to help in the mean time? I'll put in the first 50 bucks, and hopefully everyone else will pitch in as well... I'm serious- mods, if you can set this up, please do!

substand

Sep 1st, 2004, 10:11 PM

No I admit your right, I left out those damn christian values thing "capitalism in the guise of democracy"

I suppose maybe I'm wrong in thinking that you are not answering the question of how iraq will be worse off in the long term. I forgot who I was talking to. I just realized that "capitalism" is your response.

You'll have to excuse us regular people though, we have not the brain capacity that you and your friends' collective brain has, so we need an explaination of how you can better spend our money for us and the Iraqi people- after all, we are only idiots.

So, if you could please come down from your ivory tower and explain it to us rabble, we could actually proclaim you our king and hold you on high, and you would no longer have to presume your royal heinous.

DontBeAfraid

Sep 2nd, 2004, 5:22 AM

Subs, strife is just living in the lower end of the system that you want to expand so stop with the fake sappy crap..... His case isnt rare and our the tax break for the righ could have been better spent putting food in his fridge or money in his college fund than putting a new 25k car in the garage of some asshole thats not even going to notice his new car....

dutchie

Sep 2nd, 2004, 6:31 AM