Why Aren't Americans More Pissed About This???

[scott_harpell]

Oh and bithces... I told you all about the oil deal with the Russians and French etc a helluva long time ago. Wonder why they opposed the war.

[Squid]

Harpell:

 

Ok, you're right. Good job.

 

savor that.

 

It still doesn't justify the war in the first place, and definitely won't sway my vote.

[scott_harpell]

Can I ask you if you supported the Kosovo conflict?

[selkirk]

poor example, Kosovo wasn't a unilateral action that pissed off the rest of the world.

 

Granted Sadam was a bad guy. He killed his own people. Iraq is better off without him... and in the end is that enough justification for the war? That's the way it's being spun now but it's not why we went to war. If genocided and asshole dictators were enough to prompt unilateral invasion and nation building by the US than we've got a lot of countries to take over.

[Squid]

Yeah, I did, as I believed that we were going in to prevent genocide.

Since then, I was challenged by some posts by the late G-rung to look into the causes and execution of that war- in retrospect, our participation in that war was less of an effort to prevent the loss of civilian life than it was an effort to secure future access to Baltic oil.

 

Still, what is on our plate NOW is how to deal with the shit-hole we've created in Iraq. Bush is dim and stubborn- unable to recognize that his policies aren't working, unwilling to try alternative strategies.

Speaking of which, what do you think of his post-war plan? I believe that he was honestly surprised that we weren't whole-heartedly embraced after the fall of Saddam, and has been unable to formulate a new approach since then.

[scott_harpell]

poor example, Kosovo wasn't a unilateral action that pissed off the rest of the world.

 

 

Well perhaps the reasons that the "World" did support the action was because they were illegally importing oil from Qusay.

[scott_harpell]

Squid, I think you are trying to lump all Iraquis into one. There are some that do support the U.S.'s actions, but they will be killed for it if the religious authorities find out about it. Religious clerics who oppose the Jihad against the Americans are killed everyday.

[scott_harpell]

Do you not believe that genocid was being committed in Iraq?

[chucK]

Good story here (salon.com, gotta watch an ad first, then it's all free) about a guy volunteering for the Dems in PA.

 

describing watching the debate:

 

"The group consensus is that [bush] is a man who should be the president of the local Elks Club. He would be great: Personable, simple and well able to handle the demands of the job, organizing dinners, roasts and the occasional charity drive. Our glee is tempered by the sobering fact that this mean-spirited, incompetent figure, shriveling like the great and powerful Oz, is in fact the most powerful man in the world, and that the debate will have consequences that will affect the entire world."

[chucK]

And note that JFKerry said this

"[W]e don't know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction. So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe?"

 

Source? I found it on AndrewSullivan.com, but not attributed to Kerry. Who is plagiarizing whom? Or is this "quote" just BS?

[foraker]

 

When are we going to North Korea? We *know* they have nukes and we *know* they are belligerent towards just about everybody.

 

http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/107/voll0502.htm

[chucK]

Do you not believe that genocid was being committed in Iraq?

\

 

Scott,

I think a lot of people are just plain pissed that this was the second or third justification used for the war; that is, Bush just flip-flopped around and lied and lied to get his way. Unfortunately, now, in hindsight, we see that the whole endeavour is much messier than those dufus's believed and thousands of young Americans have paid with their lives or body parts.

 

It is still unclear what the true reasons for launching this disastrous exercise were. Please don't tell me you think that George Bush felt he needed to sacrifice American lives and lots of money to help out the Iraqi people. We both know that that is merely the only justification left that has not been debunked.

 

I guess your point is, is that we are all hypocrites because we supported bombing one country in the name of human decency, but did not support invasion of another under the same pretenses.

 

What about you? You seem to be supporting the invasion of Iraq, but not the bombing in the Balkans. Does that make you a hypocrite? Or did you not support the invasion of Iraq?

[scott_harpell]

Perosnally, I don't support either. I am all for us going back to our isolationist past.

[Squid]

It's not so opaque why we're in this war.

Please visit the website of Project for a New American Century.

Since the late '90's this group of neo-cons has been pushing for war with Iraq, ostensibly to eliminate the threat of WMD's.

 

However, this group has held that American security depends on access to Middle East oil. Towards that end, the group has advocated establishing a set of military bases in the Middle East.

 

- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal

 

 

- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control

 

 

- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq;

 

 

- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gul - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

 

The founding members of PNAC include Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Jeb Bush signed on by 1998.

 

Invading Iraq and establishing bases in the middle east have long been part of this group's plan for world security.

 

Here's a outside link on PNAC here

[j_b]

I told you all about the oil deal with the Russians and French etc a helluva long time ago. Wonder why they opposed the war.

 

and

 

Well perhaps the reasons that the "World" did support the action was because they were illegally importing oil from Qusay.

 

then

 

you are trying to lump

 

so, on the one hand, you imply that the world was bribed into opposing the war because 270 people are on a list of saddam's oil handout and, on the other hand, you claim to not be a lumper?

 

btw, nobody has seen the famed list except for the paper that published it. i am not implying that such list does not exist but it'd be nice to have independents see the original documents (notably to record everyone that was on it if it does exist). i am not surprised that some people take handouts (sometimes they call it 'fee') but it will take a more than that to show this is what motivated opposition to the war.

[slothrop]

It is interesting that neo-con strategy revolves around ousting Saddam and establishing US bases in the Middle East, both of which would enable Islamic fundamentalism to flourish. With Saddam out, a major secular government in the area is gone (the only one except Turkey?). For all his evil deeds, Saddam did not side with the Islamist ideal. The US bases in Saudi Arabia were already sticking in the craw of various Islamist types, but actually invading a country to establish a foothold for the infidel military... now that's really going to piss people off.

 

But I guess the neo-con response to that would be: kill 'em all, we've got the better army. Doesn't sound like a recipe for stabilizing the region. This strategy is a bit different than the realpolitik of supporting dictators (like Saddam) as long as they keep things stable.

[j_b]

to be honest sloth, i have a hard time imagining they didn't know it would result in a huge mess in which we'd be stuck for years/decades. virtually everybody with any expertise told them so beforehand, so why did they do it?

[Squid]

Yeah, it basically ignores human nature. It's as if they formulated these plans with all the thought of a game of Risk : "So, if I put my base here that means that I own this region and all it's resources are at my disposal."

[Dave_Schuldt]

What aren't Americans more pissed about This!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

That's pretty funny, a whole department devoted to nothing but conspiricy theoriers!

Edited October 8, 2004 by Dave_Schuldt

[klenke]

Some data for you:

Liberal commentary in this thread outnumbers NeoCon commentary by about 10 to 1. A few posts are on the fence or say nothing at all (like this one).

 

Debunk the other viewpoint! Debunk the other viewpoint! It doesn't fit my perceptions! It doesn't fit! Can't be true! Can't be!

[chucK]

 

Klenke,

We already know that you're much more interested in goat-f&*king. If you've got something so much more interesting to say than us, why don't you contribute?

[slothrop]

Jeez, klenke. Some of us are trying to discuss things, you know, reach into that gray area and mix it all around a little. Although the current fad is to see only two sides to each issue, there's a lot more to a debate than us vs. them.

 

Why are you so bitter and apathetic about politics, anyway?

[klenke]

Here I come to save the daaaaay...

I'm not bitter, I'm not apathetic. I just don't care.

[MattLinden]

poor example, Kosovo wasn't a unilateral action that pissed off the rest of the world.

Again, we must be fair and not hyper partisan. The war in Kosovo was fought without UN approval, precisely because the U.S. couldn't get it. I believe at that time it was Russia and China who were leading the opposition. It was multi-lateral only in name. The U.S. had to provide virtually all of the weaponry and effort. (That war was famous for exposing the uselessnes of European defense forces.) There needs to be some other reason to justify being for "Kosovo" and against "Iraq" than getting the approval and help of other countries. That one was during a Democrat’s term as president, and one was during the term of a Republican most all posters here hate isn’t a good reason. In any case, I certainly don’t live my life deciding what is right based on what the majority of others tell me, and I certainly don’t think a president and our leaders should determine what is right based on a vote of other countries' leaders. Even more specific, the morally bankrupt U.N. is a very poor arbiter of what is right. Look how well they are doing in Darfur with the obsessively multi-lateral consensus approach.

Edited October 8, 2004 by MattLinden

[Dru]

Does anyone really think the ethnically persecuted in Darfur would be better off if, say, the USA had invaded Sudan already instead of the world trying this UN approach? Look how well you guys did providing huimanitarian aid in Somalia!