FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Panel Says - Bush Policies against Iraq has failed





indianinworld
A latest Study by a Panel says, Bush Policies against Iraq has failed in the Course of the time, since US has invaded Iraq.

The report says that violence has been increasing day by day and over 2900 US troops has lost their lives and figure is still growing day by day. Just for the information that - Till date, Over one lakh fifty thousand troops have been deployed and they are active in Iraq.

For more news, visit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Keep Smiling Smile
AutoTechGuy
You know, this just ticks me off to no end.

Why? Because everyone focuses on what goes WRONG in Iraq, and never focuses on what goes right.

Now I'm not saying to downplay human life, but people tend to compare this to Vietnam, but look at the numbers... 2900 is NOTHING compared to that war. Heck in WWII it wasn't uncommon to lose that many troops in a DAY!

The real problem with this war is that the US and coalition troops cannot do the things they want to do.. because it may involve loss of innocent Iraqi lives. If anything we should be applauded for our efforts in keeping those to a minimum.. We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.
indianinworld
Personally i would tell that Bush and his Administration has won the Stage Like Play in Iraq. No other Adminstration / Countries would have managed this Situation.

No wonder that Bush and his couterparts failed to manage it.

Sad
palavra
i watched news in cnn

an important group of wise men and women in america declared very clearly, bush and his team failed in iraq.
Star Wars Fanatic
The full study report can be found here: http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

Which, by the way, never says Bush failed, in fact, it said he did some very good things, however, it did say that at this point,

Quote:
There is no guarantee for success in Iraq.


No matter what we do, if we withdraw now, it would be one of the worst actions we could do. What they recommend, and what I support, and in fact said a little while back (though not exactly), is too send more troops into Iraq, train the police, and then withdraw, and have a lot of the troops out by 2008.

I suggest you all read the entire report for yourselves, as getting it from any news agency could be bad, as they tend to twist the truth a little bit. Although there are 84 pages, and I haven't even finished it, lol.
S3nd K3ys
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
The full study report can be found here: http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

Which, by the way, never says Bush failed, in fact, it said he did some very good things, however, it did say that at this point,

Quote:
There is no guarantee for success in Iraq.


No matter what we do, if we withdraw now, it would be one of the worst actions we could do. What they recommend, and what I support, and in fact said a little while back (though not exactly), is too send more troops into Iraq, train the police, and then withdraw, and have a lot of the troops out by 2008.

I suggest you all read the entire report for yourselves, as getting it from any news agency could be bad, as they tend to twist the truth a little bit. Although there are 84 pages, and I haven't even finished it, lol.


Agreed. Read the report yourself and make up your own mind instead of relying on "CNN's wise people" Laughing Laughing

This "report" is a complete Propaganda piece. Carefully crafted and bipartisan in that it gives each member equal time and great latitude in standing together, arm-in-arm, to bash the President while offering absolutely no solution.

The only thing missing was the camp fire and S'mores.
Montressor
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
No matter what we do, if we withdraw now, it would be one of the worst actions we could do. What they recommend, and what I support, and in fact said a little while back (though not exactly), is too send more troops into Iraq, train the police, and then withdraw, and have a lot of the troops out by 2008.

I also feel that more troops in Iraq would allow current forces to accomplish their current tasks easier. I believe that main concern to adding more troops is that it would reduce the ability of the U.S. to respond to other situations in the world (humanitarian efforts like natural disaster relief in other countries (and our own), possible Iranian or Korean aggression, maybe aid in the Darfur region, who knows). Not only would we have more troops tied up in Iraq (and Afghanistan), but those troops would be in non-combat operations as support forces, they would not be actively training for conflict and as such would not be able to respond as well to a crisis. The other (related) concern is recruitment, if we send more troops to Iraq and wish to maintain our ability to respond to crisis situations, we would have to increase the amount of troops we have, which is unlikely to occur unless a draft is enacted.
Which is an entirely different discussion (perhaps it should be started on another thread).
As for the Barker Panel, I agree that it is mostly a way for politicians to pat each other on the backs, bash Bush, and gain air-time. Even so, I think some of the recommendations (especially the ones we are already trying to implement) could help lead Iraq in a positive direction. As far as "failure", it's not yet a failure, and the damage done can be at least be relieved if not somewhat reversed. It will, however, become a failure if we abandon Iraq.
palavra
S3nd K3ys wrote:
[Agreed. Read the report yourself and make up your own mind instead of relying on "CNN's wise people" Laughing Laughing


.


as long as i know cnn did't pick up these people.
they are wise people of usa.

but i know it is not an easy job for even this amount of wise people.

because destroying is easy even for a child,but to built something is difficult.

"one mad man throw a stone into a well , 40 wise men cannot bring it back."
Star Wars Fanatic
palavra wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
[Agreed. Read the report yourself and make up your own mind instead of relying on "CNN's wise people" Laughing Laughing


.


as long as i know cnn did't pick up these people.
they are wise people of usa.

but i know it is not an easy job for even this amount of wise people.

because destroying is easy even for a child,but to built something is difficult.

"one mad man throw a stone into a well , 40 wise men cannot bring it back."


He wasn't talking about the people in the Iraq Study Group, he was talking about CNN's coverage of the report.

So far, Bush hasn't said what actions he will take, if any, so keep in mind people, that as you read the report, they are just suggestions, and not all of them will be implemented.
palavra
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
He wasn't talking about the people in the Iraq Study Group, he was talking about CNN's coverage of the report.
.

trust me
i can understand which part belongs to cnn , which part does not. Wink

comments of financial times is more critical than cnn. Read it.
Quote:

So far, Bush hasn't said what actions he will take, if any, so keep in mind people, that as you read the report, they are just suggestions, and not all of them will be implemented.

of course i know!i don't expect bush understand anything at first time.
wise men should repeat it again and again. Cool
Bikerman
AutoTechGuy wrote:
You know, this just ticks me off to no end.

Why? Because everyone focuses on what goes WRONG in Iraq, and never focuses on what goes right.

Ermm...and the things going right would be...?
Quote:
Now I'm not saying to downplay human life, but people tend to compare this to Vietnam, but look at the numbers... 2900 is NOTHING compared to that war. Heck in WWII it wasn't uncommon to lose that many troops in a DAY!

Thank heavens you are not downplaying human life. 2900 deaths is nothing? I suppose the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths is a mere detail ? Incidentally I make the current loss rate in Iraq around the level of the losses in Vietnam in 1965-66 if you adjust for medical and technological improvements.
http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

Troop Losses by period
Period...............................US..UK...Total..Avg...Days
Dec 2005-present..............770..28....816...2.28...358
Jan-Dec 2005.....................715..13....746...2.35...318
June 2004-Jan 2005...........579..25....631....2.92..216...(turnover of sovereignty-Elections)
May 2003-June 2004..........718..27....803...1.89..424...(sovereignty turned over.)
Mar 2003-May 2003...........140..33....173...4.02....43..(start of war-end of major combat)
Totals............................2922..126..121..2.33..1359

Quote:
The real problem with this war is that the US and coalition troops cannot do the things they want to do.. because it may involve loss of innocent Iraqi lives. If anything we should be applauded for our efforts in keeping those to a minimum.. We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.

Hmm...I see it differently I guess. The real problem is that the US/UK lied about intelligence, fabricated a threat where there was non, waged an illegal war on a defenceless enemy, and have effectivelydestroyed a relatively stable country, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, destabilised the entire middle east, hugely increased the influence and power of Iran and all this for no political or military gain whatsoever.
As for being 'applauded' for your efforts...I think that is pretty sick.
Yes you could have nuked Iraq and finished it really fast...so what ?That would have been criminal genocide wheras at the moment we are only talking criminal stupidity..

Regards
Chris
S3nd K3ys
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

He wasn't talking about the people in the Iraq Study Group, he was talking about CNN's coverage of the report.


I was talking about both. The panel was comprised of people that are not in the military field, so to speak. Just as a burger flipper could not tell me how to machine a space level microwave housing on a four axis CNC, I wouldn't expect anyone on that panel to be able to tell the military how to run a war.

I mean, Iran has been killing Amiericans for 30 years and now this panel wants the US to beg for help from them?

Uhhh, no.

Quote:
if you adjust for medical and technological improvements


Laughing Laughing Laughing I just peed my pants. Shocked
Star Wars Fanatic
Bikerman wrote:
AutoTechGuy wrote:
You know, this just ticks me off to no end.

Why? Because everyone focuses on what goes WRONG in Iraq, and never focuses on what goes right.

Ermm...and the things going right would be...?
Quote:
Now I'm not saying to downplay human life, but people tend to compare this to Vietnam, but look at the numbers... 2900 is NOTHING compared to that war. Heck in WWII it wasn't uncommon to lose that many troops in a DAY!

Thank heavens you are not downplaying human life. 2900 deaths is nothing? I suppose the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths is a mere detail ? Incidentally I make the current loss rate in Iraq around the level of the losses in Vietnam in 1965-66 if you adjust for medical and technological improvements.
http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

Troop Losses by period
Period...............................US..UK...Total..Avg...Days
Dec 2005-present..............770..28....816...2.28...358
Jan-Dec 2005.....................715..13....746...2.35...318
June 2004-Jan 2005...........579..25....631....2.92..216...(turnover of sovereignty-Elections)
May 2003-June 2004..........718..27....803...1.89..424...(sovereignty turned over.)
Mar 2003-May 2003...........140..33....173...4.02....43..(start of war-end of major combat)
Totals............................2922..126..121..2.33..1359

Quote:
The real problem with this war is that the US and coalition troops cannot do the things they want to do.. because it may involve loss of innocent Iraqi lives. If anything we should be applauded for our efforts in keeping those to a minimum.. We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.

Hmm...I see it differently I guess. The real problem is that the US/UK lied about intelligence, fabricated a threat where there was non, waged an illegal war on a defenceless enemy, and have effectivelydestroyed a relatively stable country, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, destabilised the entire middle east, hugely increased the influence and power of Iran and all this for no political or military gain whatsoever.
As for being 'applauded' for your efforts...I think that is pretty sick.
Yes you could have nuked Iraq and finished it really fast...so what ?That would have been criminal genocide wheras at the moment we are only talking criminal stupidity..

Regards
Chris


Yes, people have died, but this is a war, and not an illigitimit one. And certainly not an illegal war.

Quote:
Thank heavens you are not downplaying human life. 2900 deaths is nothing?


You say this war was illegal, does it mean that the 800,000 Iraqis that died under Saddam were nothing?
And yes, they should be applauded for their efforts, they willingly sign up for the army, and go into a war zone so you can be safe from terrorists, and so that Iraqi citizens can feel safe, however, I am sure you will say, "How can they feel safe when Iraqis are dieing?" And yes, they are dieing, but like I said, it is a war, people die in war, and, contrary to what you said, the US and UK didn't start this war.
Bikerman
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Yes, people have died, but this is a war, and not an illigitimit one. And certainly not an illegal war.

It is absolutely illegitimate and, in the opinion of most international lawyers in the UK at least, illegal.
The UK went to war on the specific mandate that WMD and not regime change was the aim. That was stated explicitly several times. The history which has emerged since shows that to be a complete lie and, therefore, a blatant con of the electorate and other politicians. This is the reason Blair will be resigning sometime soon and the reason why he is now a total lame duck as a PM - he has nobody's trust and very few people's support.
Quote:
You say this war was illegal, does it mean that the 800,000 Iraqis that died under Saddam were nothing?

Saddam was the leader of the state. What he did to his own population was certainly a matter for concern but, under international law which the US supports and is keen to maintain, a head of state cannot be prosecuted abroad for actions in their own state...
Quote:
And yes, they should be applauded for their efforts, they willingly sign up for the army, and go into a war zone so you can be safe from terrorists, and so that Iraqi citizens can feel safe, however, I am sure you will say, "How can they feel safe when Iraqis are dieing?" And yes, they are dieing, but like I said, it is a war, people die in war, and, contrary to what you said, the US and UK didn't start this war.

The US and UK absolutely started the war...how can you possibly claim otherwise ? Who do you think did ? The Martians ?
There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war so that argument, like the others,. is bogus.
You seem to know very little about this conflict other than the fact that you support it....Can I suggest you do a bit of reading into the history, progress and causes.

Regards
Chris
S3nd K3ys
Bikerman wrote:

It is absolutely illegitimate


I disagree.

It was legit to take out Saddam, and the direction things went after that were not expected by most. Terrrorists know they need to hold Iraq if they want any chance of thriving.

The fact is that we're better off in Iraq considering how badly terrorists want Iraq and it's resources to continue their cowardly attacks, and the threats from Iran are real and coming to a head rather quickly, so I think it's completely legit. We've held that country together from attacks by Iranian and other militias for three years and rebuilt much of it, and created a democratic government.
Star Wars Fanatic
Bikerman wrote:
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Yes, people have died, but this is a war, and not an illigitimit one. And certainly not an illegal war.

It is absolutely illegitimate and, in the opinion of most international lawyers in the UK at least, illegal.
The UK went to war on the specific mandate that WMD and not regime change was the aim. That was stated explicitly several times. The history which has emerged since shows that to be a complete lie and, therefore, a blatant con of the electorate and other politicians. This is the reason Blair will be resigning sometime soon and the reason why he is now a total lame duck as a PM - he has nobody's trust and very few people's support.
Quote:
You say this war was illegal, does it mean that the 800,000 Iraqis that died under Saddam were nothing?

Saddam was the leader of the state. What he did to his own population was certainly a matter for concern but, under international law which the US supports and is keen to maintain, a head of state cannot be prosecuted abroad for actions in their own state...
Quote:
And yes, they should be applauded for their efforts, they willingly sign up for the army, and go into a war zone so you can be safe from terrorists, and so that Iraqi citizens can feel safe, however, I am sure you will say, "How can they feel safe when Iraqis are dieing?" And yes, they are dieing, but like I said, it is a war, people die in war, and, contrary to what you said, the US and UK didn't start this war.

The US and UK absolutely started the war...how can you possibly claim otherwise ? Who do you think did ? The Martians ?
There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war so that argument, like the others,. is bogus.
You seem to know very little about this conflict other than the fact that you support it....Can I suggest you do a bit of reading into the history, progress and causes.

Regards
Chris


Concerning the War on Terror, it is just that a war on terrorism, which was started by terrorists, and you don't care about lives of Iraqi citizens, so your previous arguement about downplaying human life is now coming back to bite you. And we did find WMDs in Iraq,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(though that may not be legimate)
There is also evidence that he used chemical WMDs on his own people. And yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the war was started, Saddam himself supported terrorists.
Bikerman
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Concerning the War on Terror, it is just that a war on terrorism, which was started by terrorists, and you don't care about lives of Iraqi citizens, so your previous arguement about downplaying human life is now coming back to bite you. And we did find WMDs in Iraq,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(though that may not be legimate)

FOX NEWS!? ROFLMAO

So give me one example of terrorism in Iraq pre invasion then ? A single 1 will do. Of course you cannot because there were non you would be aware of.

Don't lecture me about not caring about the lives of Iraqis - you don't know what you are talking about and it is insulting to have to read your tripe. I was demonstrating against the gassing of the Kurds in 1986-1990 on protest marches and rallies across the UK. as a member of Amnesty. At the time Saddam was a buddy of the US administration and although they knew all about his chemical weapons use, they kept it quiet by vetoing two UN resolutions condemning it and, even worse, sold him weaponised Anthrax, Botulinum and other chemical and biological weapons material. His chemical and biological weapons came from the US, UK, France and I've been watching the situation in Iraq for 20 years and I don't need ignorant and insulting comments from you unless you can show me what YOU have been doing to help and support the population in Iraq over the last decade or two. You could at least take the trouble to read your own biased press on the issue - even they have issued some bits of information about this....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Here are some sources which might educate you as to the build up and precursors for the invasion.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/path_of_war_timeline.htm
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/iraqtimeline1.htm

Here's a copy of the Butler official report (a whitewash for sure, but even this establishment report tells a tale)..
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/butler.pdf

Here's a report on world terror in 2004. Note the terrorism attributed to Iraq before and after the invasion.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/2004-MIPT-Terrorism-Annual.pdf

Quote:
There is also evidence that he used chemical WMDs on his own people. And yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the war was started, Saddam himself supported terrorists.

As for the chemical WMDs - yes I know, see above.
As for the terrorists - prove it...evidence ? Examples ?
Saddam is known to have rejected approaches from Al-Queda several times and to have personally snubbed a request from Osama Bin Laden on at least one occasion. He was never a 'real' muslim and Iraq was one of the most secular and non-muslim fundamentalist states in the Middle East. There is some evidence of support for Palestinian groups - as there is with most Arab countries in the region - but no serious links with international terror.

If you want to bomb terrorists then why did the US not bomb Saudi-Arabia where most of the 9/11 hijackers come from ?
Errrrmmmm.......I wonder.....

Here is a report by a US journo on Iraq before and after
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/now&then.html

And finally here is a transcript of a radio talk by Chomsky on the issue of the war on terror which is fairly easy to read and should be within your scope..
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/Newwar-Chomsky.htm

Chris
Montressor
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Concerning the War on Terror, it is just that a war on terrorism, which was started by terrorists

A difference of perspective, we can (and do) blame the terrorists for striking the U.S. and the terrorists can (and do) blame the U.S. for imperialistic practices. Both perspectives are true, but neither perspective warrants the actions taken by either side.
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
and you don't care about lives of Iraqi citizens, so your previous arguement about downplaying human life is now coming back to bite you. And we did find WMDs in Iraq,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(though that may not be legimate)
There is also evidence that he used chemical WMDs on his own people. And yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the war was started, Saddam himself supported terrorists.

And the EPA not cleaning up a dioxin (which hasn't proven lethal to humans, but defiantly can kill horses) spill is grounds for Mexico to invade? Admittedly failing to clean up a toxin spill is not the same as gassing Kurds. However, all governments are not perfect, and all governments do things that hurt the public. The legal way to accuse another government for hurting its own citizens too much or too deliberately (called crimes against humanity) is to try them in international court, not invade them. You say WMD, yeah we at least believed that they existed (and incidentally Saddam needed for people to believe that they existed to keep Iran at bay), but a preemptive strike (one done without full intelligence or a positive confirmation that the weapons did exist) is also illegal. Once again, an international court needs to decide on action, not any individual government.
Also as pertains chemical weapons of mass destruction, I seem to remember that we went in for nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the government is pointing to these chemical weapons to help keep the public eye off the fact that there were no nuclear weapons there.
Star Wars Fanatic
Bikerman wrote:
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Concerning the War on Terror, it is just that a war on terrorism, which was started by terrorists, and you don't care about lives of Iraqi citizens, so your previous arguement about downplaying human life is now coming back to bite you. And we did find WMDs in Iraq,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(though that may not be legimate)

FOX NEWS!? ROFLMAO

So give me one example of terrorism in Iraq pre invasion then ? A single 1 will do. Of course you cannot because there were non you would be aware of.

Don't lecture me about not caring about the lives of Iraqis - you don't know what you are talking about and it is insulting to have to read your tripe. I was demonstrating against the gassing of the Kurds in 1986-1990 on protest marches and rallies across the UK. as a member of Amnesty. At the time Saddam was a buddy of the US administration and although they knew all about his chemical weapons use, they kept it quiet by vetoing two UN resolutions condemning it and, even worse, sold him weaponised Anthrax, Botulinum and other chemical and biological weapons material. His chemical and biological weapons came from the US, UK, France and I've been watching the situation in Iraq for 20 years and I don't need ignorant and insulting comments from you unless you can show me what YOU have been doing to help and support the population in Iraq over the last decade or two. You could at least take the trouble to read your own biased press on the issue - even they have issued some bits of information about this....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Here are some sources which might educate you as to the build up and precursors for the invasion.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/path_of_war_timeline.htm
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/iraqtimeline1.htm

Here's a copy of the Butler official report (a whitewash for sure, but even this establishment report tells a tale)..
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/butler.pdf

Here's a report on world terror in 2004. Note the terrorism attributed to Iraq before and after the invasion.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/2004-MIPT-Terrorism-Annual.pdf

Quote:
There is also evidence that he used chemical WMDs on his own people. And yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the war was started, Saddam himself supported terrorists.

As for the chemical WMDs - yes I know, see above.
As for the terrorists - prove it...evidence ? Examples ?
Saddam is known to have rejected approaches from Al-Queda several times and to have personally snubbed a request from Osama Bin Laden on at least one occasion. He was never a 'real' muslim and Iraq was one of the most secular and non-muslim fundamentalist states in the Middle East. There is some evidence of support for Palestinian groups - as there is with most Arab countries in the region - but no serious links with international terror.

If you want to bomb terrorists then why did the US not bomb Saudi-Arabia where most of the 9/11 hijackers come from ?
Errrrmmmm.......I wonder.....

Here is a report by a US journo on Iraq before and after
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/now&then.html

And finally here is a transcript of a radio talk by Chomsky on the issue of the war on terror which is fairly easy to read and should be within your scope..
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/Newwar-Chomsky.htm

Chris


Here is a link for some info on Saddam's connection with terrorists:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

And also, I haven't done anything to help Iraqis besides support this war, although, I haven't been alive nearly as long as you.

And I personally don't support many of the press, because I know they are biased, however, they do have information that is partially accurate.

And a few of your links don't work, just to let you know, maybe you could get the correct links for me.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/2004-MIPT-Terrorism-Annual.pdf
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/path_of_war_timeline.htm

I also don't support what the Clinton admin did, but what they did, is not what the Bush admin is doing, they are doing something about the situation, and they took care of Saddam. And I apologise about insulting you, but if an average person did not know what you have done, they would think what I did. From what you say, it certainly appears that you don't care.

And I don't know why they haven't bombed Saudi Arabia, perhaps because they are working on Iraq right now, perhaps because of the oil, I am not sure, but we do as a nation have limits to the amount of people we have. So we can't attack every terrorist stronghold (or people who support terrorists) on the planet.
Bikerman
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Here is a link for some info on Saddam's connection with terrorists:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Have you read it ? It makes my point for me.
Quote:

And also, I haven't done anything to help Iraqis besides support this war, although, I haven't been alive nearly as long as you.

Well perhaps you might refrain from casting insults about not caring.
Quote:

And I personally don't support many of the press, because I know they are biased, however, they do have information that is partially accurate.

And a few of your links don't work, just to let you know, maybe you could get the correct links for me.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/2004-MIPT-Terrorism-Annual.pdf
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/path_of_war_timeline.htm

Done.
Quote:

I also don't support what the Clinton admin did, but what they did, is not what the Bush admin is doing, they are doing something about the situation, and they took care of Saddam. And I apologise about insulting you, but if an average person did not know what you have done, they would think what I did. From what you say, it certainly appears that you don't care.

Wheras somebody who supports the killing of tens of thousands of Iraq civilians is deeply caring ? Your average person must be a lot different to the average people I know...I repeat one more time, it had nothing to do with terrorism. Read the links - read your own source which says pretty much what I did....links to some Palestinian groups and nothing much else.
Read the report on world terrorism I provided and you can even get the world rankings....
Quote:

And I don't know why they haven't bombed Saudi Arabia, perhaps because they are working on Iraq right now, perhaps because of the oil, I am not sure, but we do as a nation have limits to the amount of people we have. So we can't attack every terrorist stronghold (or people who support terrorists) on the planet.

Why bomb Iraq when the terrorists were Saudi in the first place. After 9/11 surely Saudi should have been the target immediately if the terrorists were the real concern ? Since Iraq had nothing to do with it, it seems odd to start a war there does it not ?
It would be as if the UK bombed France every time an IRA bomb was detonated.....

Regards
Chris.
Montressor
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

And I don't know why they haven't bombed Saudi Arabia, perhaps because they are working on Iraq right now, perhaps because of the oil, I am not sure, but we do as a nation have limits to the amount of people we have. So we can't attack every terrorist stronghold (or people who support terrorists) on the planet.

Why bomb Iraq when the terrorists were Saudi in the first place. After 9/11 surely Saudi should have been the target immediately if the terrorists were the real concern ? Since Iraq had nothing to do with it, it seems odd to start a war there does it not ?

The obvious answer being that we wanted to bomb Iraq not Saudi Arabia. Perhaps our government needed to be seen doing something, so go after one of the weaker nations in the area instead of our political "ally" who supplies a significant chunk of oil to the world. If the people later say "wait a minute, he wasn't connected to 9/11" justify it by emphasizing that he was a brutal dictator and that we went in for the good of the people.
We didn't go into Iraq to free the people, we justified our invasion (at the time) by claiming links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Now that that is a completely worthless argument we justify ourselves by saying "hey, Saddam was worse".
Bikerman wrote:
It would be as if the UK bombed France every time an IRA bomb was detonated.....

Regards
Chris.

Now that's an idea Wink
Bikerman
A couple of extras for you

US support and complicity in Saddam's chemical weapons usage
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://www.zmag.org/middletimeline.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010220Iraqgate.html

Regards
Chris
Bikerman
Montressor wrote:

The obvious answer being that we wanted to bomb Iraq not Saudi Arabia. Perhaps our government needed to be seen doing something, so go after one of the weaker nations in the area instead of our political "ally" who supplies a significant chunk of oil to the world. If the people later say "wait a minute, he wasn't connected to 9/11" justify it by emphasizing that he was a brutal dictator and that we went in for the good of the people.
We didn't go into Iraq to free the people, we justified our invasion (at the time) by claiming links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Now that that is a completely worthless argument we justify ourselves by saying "hey, Saddam was worse".

I concur absolutely....I don't personally believe there was any covert conspiracy along the lines some people suggest and agree that Iraq was just unlucky because it was weak enough to attack, possessed significant oil reserves and was an old enemy of the Bush family...
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
It would be as if the UK bombed France every time an IRA bomb was detonated.....

Regards
Chris.

Now that's an idea Wink


LOL....there are those that might think it a fine idea Smile Personally I say Vive La France, vive La Diffrance
S3nd K3ys
Bikerman wrote:


So give me one example of terrorism in Iraq pre invasion then ?


You're in denial, Chris. Wink

He terrorized his own people Laughing
Star Wars Fanatic
Bikerman wrote:
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:

Here is a link for some info on Saddam's connection with terrorists:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Have you read it ? It makes my point for me.

Not entirely, it does say in the section "Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?"
Quote:
Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities.


Bikerman wrote:
Wheras somebody who supports the killing of tens of thousands of Iraq civilians is deeply caring ? Your average person must be a lot different to the average people I know...I repeat one more time, it had nothing to do with terrorism. Read the links - read your own source which says pretty much what I did....links to some Palestinian groups and nothing much else.
Read the report on world terrorism I provided and you can even get the world rankings....

I think I confused you with that statement, lol, what I was trying to say is, because of what you said above, it would appear that you don't care for Iraqi citizens, unless that person knew about what you have done (or at least what you say you have done) to help them.

And I personally consider Saddam to be a terrorist, he terrorized Iraqis, he tortued and killed them, and he also
Quote:
commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities


Bikerman wrote:
Why bomb Iraq when the terrorists were Saudi in the first place. After 9/11 surely Saudi should have been the target immediately if the terrorists were the real concern ? Since Iraq had nothing to do with it, it seems odd to start a war there does it not ?
It would be as if the UK bombed France every time an IRA bomb was detonated.....

Regards
Chris.


Because, we saw Saddam as a threat, also, in case you haven't noticed, since 9/11, we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, so the Iraq War is having an effect on that.
Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:

You're in denial, Chris. Wink

He terrorized his own people Laughing


First, domestic political affairs are settled in international court, not by some superpower who feels like a benevolent big brother to all the nations of the world.

Second, technically speaking you could say that modern conservatives everywhere are tending to terrorize their own people (whether though actual physical terrorism, or just your wimpy mental/emotional terrorism). All terrorism is just that, meant to terrorize. If you're afraid of someone, then someone terrorized you. It doesn't have to be a physical abuse or even a verbal abuse, if you have some reason to be afraid, then you have been technically "terrorized". So people who were afraid of Iraq (since we had no real reason to be terrified of them), have been terrorized by those who claimed that they had reason to be afraid... kind of confusingly stated, but if you think about it, you can but agree that Bush has used terrorism, not necessarily to the same degree as the Islamic radicals, but he certainly has used it.
Montressor
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Because, we saw Saddam as a threat, also, in case you haven't noticed, since 9/11, we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, so the Iraq War is having an effect on that.
Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.


Yup, we've had no large scale terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the war in Iraq, after all, why bother going to America to terrorize Americans if they conveniently provided some to blow up in your own neighborhood...

Once again, attempting to liberate (and failing to do so) a country is no longer a duty of the U.S. government (a pattern though, see Cuba, Philippines, Vietnam etc), it is the responsibility of an international tribunal, which incidentally was a notion that the U.S. full heartedly supported...
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:

First, domestic political affairs are settled in international court,


Oh, you mean like the United Nations and the 17 articles that Iraq violeated? Oopsie!! Laughing Laughing
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Montressor wrote:

First, domestic political affairs are settled in international court,


Oh, you mean like the United Nations and the 17 articles that Iraq violeated? Oopsie!! Laughing Laughing

Most definitely, the U.S. undoubtedly violated a few U.N. articles and mandates as well does that give Russia the right (since they view themselves as the defenders of all things good just as we do) to invade?
Star Wars Fanatic
Montressor wrote:
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Because, we saw Saddam as a threat, also, in case you haven't noticed, since 9/11, we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, so the Iraq War is having an effect on that.
Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.


Yup, we've had no large scale terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the war in Iraq, after all, why bother going to America to terrorize Americans if they conveniently provided some to blow up in your own neighborhood...

Once again, attempting to liberate (and failing to do so) a country is no longer a duty of the U.S. government (a pattern though, see Cuba, Philippines, Vietnam etc), it is the responsibility of an international tribunal, which incidentally was a notion that the U.S. full heartedly supported...


Interesting, I didn't know that, however, he had been doing that for several years, why had that international tribunal done anything about is? Someone should have done something sooner.
S3nd K3ys
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Montressor wrote:
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Because, we saw Saddam as a threat, also, in case you haven't noticed, since 9/11, we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, so the Iraq War is having an effect on that.
Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.


Yup, we've had no large scale terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the war in Iraq, after all, why bother going to America to terrorize Americans if they conveniently provided some to blow up in your own neighborhood...

Once again, attempting to liberate (and failing to do so) a country is no longer a duty of the U.S. government (a pattern though, see Cuba, Philippines, Vietnam etc), it is the responsibility of an international tribunal, which incidentally was a notion that the U.S. full heartedly supported...


Interesting, I didn't know that, however, he had been doing that for several years, why had that international tribunal done anything about is? Someone should have done something sooner.


Good point. And what about what's going on in Africa? The US has been condemmed for not going in there. Yet we're condemmed for going into Iraq. Proof that no matter what, the US is going to be wrong just because it's the world superpower.

Laughing Laughing Laughing
Montressor
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Interesting, I didn't know that, however, he had been doing that for several years, why had that international tribunal done anything about is? Someone should have done something sooner.

Possibly because we undermined the power of the tribunal by ignoring them, and sidestepping them. The U.N. can only be effective as its members let it. An interesting comparison can be made between Darfur and Iraq. The U.N. was willing to help the people and seek out possible solutions, but in both cases did not invade because of the sovereignty of the countries involved. In other words, the U.N. respects individual nations and people groups and does not resort to imperialism as much as the U.S. does. A debate on the benefits and negative effects of imperialism vs. "the U.N. style" would be interesting, but would undoubtedly dissolve into arguments about philosophical differences... pity

The U.S. being wrong is also a philosophical debate (also pertaining to imperialism and who defines what is "right" in an international community) which we obviously differ in and are unwilling to discuss... also a pity

Interesting reference to Rwanda (makes you wonder how the future will see the conflict in Darfur), but it only proves that the U.N. system failed, just as the U.S. system has failed (see my previous references). Perhaps another system could be proposed here...
Bikerman
[quote="Star Wars Fanatic"]
Not entirely, it does say in the section "Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?"
Quote:
Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities.

Yes - During the Gulf War....in other words, when the US was bombing the hell out of it, Saddam tried to hit back....hardly suprising I would say.....
Would you like a list of US terrorism over the last few decades which has been far more destructive and malicious ?
Here you go :-
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/USInterventions.html
Now who, I wonder, will do the decent thing and stop this terrorist state?
Quote:

I think I confused you with that statement, lol, what I was trying to say is, because of what you said above, it would appear that you don't care for Iraqi citizens, unless that person knew about what you have done (or at least what you say you have done) to help them.

Which is what I thought you meant and I still don't understand how you arrive at that. Do you think most Iraq citizens think the US is doing the right thing and showing how much they care ? They don't.
As for what I have done and said....I'm not really concerned with what you believe, I am not usually in the habit of fabricating stories when posting in public fora, since such postings are visible to all and can come back and bite you; but you believe what makes you happy.
Quote:

And I personally consider Saddam to be a terrorist, he terrorized Iraqis, he tortued and killed them, and he also commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities

Yes...as stated he did so when under attack from the US....so it's fine and dandy for the US to bomb the hell out of Iraq but if Iraq tries to hit back then that is terrorist attrocity ? Hmm....
As for torture and killing....the US should keep fairly quiet about torture I think, given the history.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20051124&articleId=1315
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/20/afghan10992.htm
http://www.progress.org/2005/torture5.htm
http://www.hnn.us/articles/32497.html
Quote:

Because, we saw Saddam as a threat, also, in case you haven't noticed, since 9/11, we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, so the Iraq War is having an effect on that.

LOL...you are a very confused person.
You remind me of the 'elephant stamper' in the local boozer. A guy in a local pub stamps his feet several times before he orders his first pint. When asked why he responds that it is in order to frighten away any passing Elephants who might stampeded the pub. When it is pointed out that elephants are not native to the UK and there have been no stampedes in living memory, his response is 'Yep, works everytime'.
Quote:

Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.

Yea yeah....whatever you say...

Chris.
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
Also, the War in Iraq was not started because of terrorists, although that was a small part, it was started to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and because he had WMDs.


Bikerman wrote:

Yea yeah....whatever you say...
Chris.


There's that denial again Chris Wink

On a side note,

Quote:
(CBS) CHICAGO A 22-year-old Rockford man with an ambition to become a terrorist has been arrested by federal authorities on allegations that he planned to set off grenades in garbage cans in a mall in Rockford.

Derrick Shareef, of Rockford, was arrested on Wednesday by FBI agents from the Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Force, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

He was apprehended after meeting with an undercover agent in a Rockford store parking lot to trade a set of stereo speaksers for four hand grenades and a handgun, the U.S. Attorney's office said.


Speakers for a gun and some 'nades? Shocked
Montressor
The fact that he may or may not have had WMDs is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against his own people is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the Gulf War is irrelevant

The real question is: can the U.S. invade another nation because the U.S. didn't like that nation or felt threatened by that nation?
The answer is no

We cannot act like the guardians of the world, and we are no longer a superpower that can do as we please. We are fighting an enemy that is partially of our own creation because we have thought of ourselves as the guardians of the world and have acted as the superpower of the world. If we had not been so imperialistic in the past, there would be fewer people disliking us now. Latin America hates the U.S. because we don't view them as sovereign nations (see the Monroe Doctrine), we think of them as our little "protectorates" in a sense. Is it any wonder that they hate us now since we've never viewed them as fellow people? Is it any wonder that the world increasingly dislikes us because we refuse to let them be, we insist on messing with their affairs?
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
The fact that he may or may not have had WMDs is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against his own people is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the Gulf War is irrelevant

The real question is: can the U.S. invade another nation because the U.S. didn't like that nation or felt threatened by that nation?
The answer is no


Wow. Just wow.

So if you eliminate the REAL REASONS we went to war with Iraq, then ask if it's justified because of OTHER REASONS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR GOING TO IRAQ, I guess you're right, it's not.

Shocked Shocked Shocked

That's like Con saying there's no good info from google.

Is there a gas leak in your house?
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Montressor wrote:
The fact that he may or may not have had WMDs is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against his own people is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the Gulf War is irrelevant

The real question is: can the U.S. invade another nation because the U.S. didn't like that nation or felt threatened by that nation?
The answer is no


Wow. Just wow.

So if you eliminate the REAL REASONS we went to war with Iraq, then ask if it's justified because of OTHER REASONS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR GOING TO IRAQ, I guess you're right, it's not.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. The reason that they might have had WMDs and the reason that they committed acts of war against the U.S. while at war is partially because we provoked them though our overt use of imperialism.
All these things were used to justify the invasion, they were not the true reasons for the invasion (which is why you didn't address the latter half of my post).
Furthermore our actions will only provoke more efforts to obtain WMDs and more acts of terrorism against us. Should we then take over the world to prevent any rogue nations and foreign terrorists from attacking the U.S? That's what we would eventually have to do to stop foreign terrorism (then it would all be domestic acts of violence instead Wink ) by using the current methods.
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Montressor wrote:
The fact that he may or may not have had WMDs is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against his own people is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the Gulf War is irrelevant

The real question is: can the U.S. invade another nation because the U.S. didn't like that nation or felt threatened by that nation?
The answer is no


Wow. Just wow.

So if you eliminate the REAL REASONS we went to war with Iraq, then ask if it's justified because of OTHER REASONS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR GOING TO IRAQ, I guess you're right, it's not.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. The reason that they might have had WMDs and the reason that they committed acts of war against the U.S. while at war is partially because we provoked them though our overt use of imperialism.
All these things were used to justify the invasion, they were not the true reasons for the invasion (which is why you didn't address the latter half of my post).
Furthermore our actions will only provoke more efforts to obtain WMDs and more acts of terrorism against us. Should we then take over the world to prevent any rogue nations and foreign terrorists from attacking the U.S? That's what we would eventually have to do to stop foreign terrorism (then it would all be domestic acts of violence instead Wink ) by using the current methods.


Just because you 'wish' those were invalid reasons does not make them invalid. Honestly, what a wonderful candy-filled lollipop world you live in.

As for our actions provoking more terrorists, you're absolutely correct, our action of not taking stronger measure towards Iran over the last 30 years has provided them the fuel to recruit more. These extremists don't understand compasion like the rest of civilization. They see it as weakness and will get/act stronger in the face of a weak opponent.

Look how nice and cooperative Iran was in 2001/2002 when they were afraid they were going to be included in the attacks on Afghan. Then when they realized they weren't at immediate risk, they stuck their tounges out at us and started their crap again.
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Just because you 'wish' those were invalid reasons does not make them invalid. Honestly, what a wonderful candy-filled lollipop world you live in.

Just like wishing them to be valid doesn't make them valid.
And no, I'm not the one living in a "wonderful candy-filled lollipop world", I live in a world where my own country is attacking another and thereby fueling more incentive for terrorists to commit acts of terrorism against the country that I love. You, however live in a world where you can blame everything on someone else, and further claim that that someone else isn't even human. You live in a "wonderful candy-filled lollipop world" where those non-human people keep stealing candy from the perfect U.S., and I live in a world where we are all stealing each other's candy... not quite so wonderful a world
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
I live in a world where my own country is attacking another and thereby fueling more incentive for terrorists to commit acts of terrorism against the country that I love.


Rolling Eyes

9/11 happened before we went to Iraq. And Iran has been attacking us for 30 years. And we're not 'attacking' or 'occupying' Iraq. After we threw out the dictator, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians and other's started pooring in trying to take over and use the country for terrorism.

If you want to ignore that, that's fine. But just because you don't think we're justified in protecting our interests and the interests of the Iraqi people to keep their new government, doesn't mean everyone else has to go along with you.

Remember, we're there helping the Iraqi government and trying to rebuild it and protect it, not to conquer it like the terrorists.
horseatingweeds
Quote:
imperialist


The US is not an imperialist. An example of an imperialist nation was Great Britain before WWII and FDR not helping Churchill maintain the empire, before that Britain controlled many colonies throughout the world. “Make the world British” and the people where proud and supported their great empire.

The US citizens have no stomach for even self defense let alone colonialism. Blowing up the two tallest building on the planet buys you three months of patriotism. Everyone agrees that ‘freedom’ isn’t free but there is an assumed discount below whole sale, despite the fact that the freedom and greatness we now enjoy was purchased above retail.

It all comes down to our ingrained sense of entitlement. For F*UCK sack we’re at war and having military recruiting trouble with people complaining about taxes (the same ones that vote democrat) and gas prices.

Sorry about the rant.

Montressor wrote:
Should we then take over the world to prevent any rogue nations and foreign terrorists from attacking the U.S?


Also, the idea is not to attach every country that is a threat. The idea is to free all of the rouge nations’ people, allowing that nation to grow and prosper, employing its young men rather than leaving them to be recruited by terrorist touting ‘these people are causing your pain.’
Moonspider
Montressor wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Montressor wrote:
The fact that he may or may not have had WMDs is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against his own people is irrelevant
The fact that he may or may not have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the Gulf War is irrelevant

The real question is: can the U.S. invade another nation because the U.S. didn't like that nation or felt threatened by that nation?
The answer is no


Wow. Just wow.

So if you eliminate the REAL REASONS we went to war with Iraq, then ask if it's justified because of OTHER REASONS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR GOING TO IRAQ, I guess you're right, it's not.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. The reason that they might have had WMDs and the reason that they committed acts of war against the U.S. while at war is partially because we provoked them though our overt use of imperialism.
All these things were used to justify the invasion, they were not the true reasons for the invasion (which is why you didn't address the latter half of my post).
Furthermore our actions will only provoke more efforts to obtain WMDs and more acts of terrorism against us. Should we then take over the world to prevent any rogue nations and foreign terrorists from attacking the U.S? That's what we would eventually have to do to stop foreign terrorism (then it would all be domestic acts of violence instead Wink ) by using the current methods.


Sorry, but that sounds too much like, "My husband beats me, therefore I must be doing something wrong. Maybe I should just sit in the corner and mind my own business and my abusive husband might leave me alone. Or maybe I need to serve him more, be more proactive in meeting his needs. I should not just give him whatever he wants, I should anticipate what he wants and plan my entire life around serving him. After all, I'm the reason he is angry all the time. I'm at fault for his beatings. It's all my fault, not his."

I don't buy it. The United States has become a litigious nation of victims.

Respectfully,
M
horseatingweeds
Moonspider wrote:
I don't buy it. The United States has become a litigious nation of victims.


I really wish I could argue with this one.

With regard to litigation, however, it is an essential part of our justice system. I think it much more descriptive to describe us as self entitled. It is especially a the young people including my age range. Everyone gets out of college, or even high school, and wants a living handed to them.

I scares me because that is not how our nation got so great. Sacrifice is what got us here. That and a fancy government that doesn’t absorb its people progress.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Quote:
imperialist


The US is not an imperialist. An example of an imperialist nation was Great Britain before WWII and FDR not helping Churchill maintain the empire, before that Britain controlled many colonies throughout the world. “Make the world British” and the people where proud and supported their great empire.

Hmm....as a Brit I certainly agree about our Imperialist past but don't agree that the US is not imperialist - the US took over exactly where we left off and has noticably adopted many UK strategies and tactics as it progresses.
Let's first start by defining terms so we know what we are debating.

Imperialism is defined variously as :
1) A centre-right definition would be : The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2) A Leninist definition would be 'the highest state of Capitalism'. He wrote that
Quote:
"If it was necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism,"

Business requires the organized power and resources of the state to secure their interests and defend their monopoly positions.


3) A centerist definition would be :
Quote:
Imperialism may be defined as the effective domination by a relatively strong state over a weaker people whom it does not control as it does its home population, or as the effort to secure such domination… [On] a political level, imperialism may be said to exist when a weaker people cannot act with respect to what it regards as fundamental domestic or foreign concerns for fear of foreign reprisals that it believes itself unable to counter… When imperialism manifests itself directly its presence is unambiguous enough: A political authority emanating from a foreign land sets itself up as locally sovereign, claiming the final right to determine and enforce the law over a people recognized as distinct from that of the imperial homeland.


You can pick any of those 3 you like and I will happily argue on that definition that the US is indeed imperialist and demonstrably so.
The wishes, concerns and ambitions of the population are of minor importance in all three definitions. Personally I tend towards the Leninist definition as I think it is the most relevant to a post-indistrial society, but all three definitions certainly apply to the US.
Quote:
The US citizens have no stomach for even self defense let alone colonialism. Blowing up the two tallest building on the planet buys you three months of patriotism. Everyone agrees that ‘freedom’ isn’t free but there is an assumed discount below whole sale, despite the fact that the freedom and greatness we now enjoy was purchased above retail.
As I said, the wishes of the US citizenry are not really the issue.
US imperialism is realised by economic and military mechanisms...previously the former was the most important, latterly the second has become the dominant instrument.
US foreign policy actually sets out US imperial goals quite plainly and starkly, beyond any real doubt or question.
There is a considered and thoughtful analysis of US foreign policy on the Z-Net site by Steven Shalom. Whilst Z-Net is certainly 'alternative' and some would probably say 'loony left', I personally find many of the contributions intelligent, considered, and informed. Its up to the reader to make their own mind up but here's a link in case anyone wishes to test it.
http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/ForeignPolicy/default.htm

The World History Archive has the following on this issue :
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/index-ad.html
(this is another left-leaning site but even though the analysis is unashamedly and quite openly stated to be from a working class perspective and POV I have respect for the honesty and academic integrity of the site author).

Regards
Chris
horseatingweeds
Let’s just equate the question of ‘Is the US an imperialist’ to ‘what is the definition of imperialist’ and file it with the debates on the definition of terrorist, atrocity, and oppression. Shall we Chris?

It is true that the US has economic and military influences throughout the world. However, these influences are almost always beneficial to those being influenced. Of course with the exceptions of generations ravaged by war and also those populations that have any progress from these influences absorbed by oppressive of corrupt governments.

I suppose this same argument could have been made for British imperialism, although needing a bit more effort.
Mannix
How I see it:

We went into Iraq for a few reasons:
1.) It was profitable.
2.) Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.
3.) Saddam is an evil man who tortured and killed millions of Iraqis.

In that order.

Are we imperialist? Yes. Why do the Iraqi's want us out? Because it's their country and they want their sovereignty back. Are we being hypocrites for citing Saddam's regime's torture as justification for this war? Yeah, but we arn't trying people to cieling fans and turning it on until their backs break. Though why then wouldn't we go help when genocide is taking place? Low economic incentive.

Let's be real, we arn't in Iraq only because Saddam was an evil dictator, we're there because Iraq has massive oil reserves, war is good for the economy, and Saddam made the mistake of screwing with us. Think of all the other atrocities that have occured in the last century in which we didn't help, we certainly knew about what was going on in Cambodia, and we sure as hell know what's going on in Darfur. We arn't policing the world, we're fleecing it while saying we're just there to help. Sure what comes out it sometimes good, but usually it doesn't come out so well.
horseatingweeds
Mannix, what in the world makes you think war is profitable?

I know it is said a lot, but this is because stupid people like to talk.

Your right about not having a choice about the matter, this is a point often ignored. Might have weapons – wouldn’t let us check.

I hope you can discover how war is profitable. Maybe we can get a business together buying huge amount of material and destroying it. Wink
Montressor
horseatingweeds wrote:
Mannix, what in the world makes you think war is profitable?

I hope you can discover how war is profitable. Maybe we can get a business together buying huge amount of material and destroying it. Wink

War is not profitable as a whole. It is not profitable for people to have things destroyed. It is, however, entirely plausible that a select few can benefit by selling the machinery of war. As an example I provide this http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=%5EGSPC,%5EIXIC,%5EDJI, a stock percent change tracker for Halliburton during the past 5 years with comparisons to the Nasdaq , the S&P, and the Dow. Halliburton happens to be a defense contractor that has (at least appeared) to have made a fair amount of money in the past few years. It might be possible that this money was made off of contracts awarded to this contractor in Iraq... just a thought. In which case, the war has been profitable for someone. You might want to check up on Blackwater too while you're at it. We are spending a huge amount of money in Iraq, and somebody somewhere is bound to turn a profit on all that spending.
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Let’s just equate the question of ‘Is the US an imperialist’ to ‘what is the definition of imperialist’ and file it with the debates on the definition of terrorist, atrocity, and oppression. Shall we Chris?

It is true that the US has economic and military influences throughout the world. However, these influences are almost always beneficial to those being influenced. Of course with the exceptions of generations ravaged by war and also those populations that have any progress from these influences absorbed by oppressive of corrupt governments.

Again I completely disagree. The same argument WAS and still IS made about British imperialism but only the unquestioningly patriotic or the terminally indoctrinated actually buy into it.
US interventions in the last few decades...beneficial....hmmm. OK...Let's examine the claim.
Let us put a limit on considerations for the sake of brevity and to allow decent room for consideration - should we say post WWII as a boundary ?

In the years since 1945 there have been around 70 US interventions abroad ranging from CIA insurgency and 'rabble-rousing' to full blown military invasion.
Here is a summary table showing the individual interventions.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/USInterventions-table.html

Here is a more complete listing with details for each
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/USInterventions.html

And here is a complete slide show on the matter if you feel like a more leisurely peruse

http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/USInterventions/pages/pages/Slide1_PNG.htm

It is pretty hard to argue that this represents actions which are 'almost always beneficial to those being influenced', I would say....

Chris
palavra
horseatingweeds wrote:
Mannix, what in the world makes you think war is profitable?


yes , war in iraq is profitable for some americans that produce weapons and trade oil, and they support this war.
S3nd K3ys
palavra wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Mannix, what in the world makes you think war is profitable?


yes , war in iraq is profitable for some americans that produce weapons and trade oil, and they support this war.


Yep, that's me. I make shit that kills terrorists and I love it!

I can protect my family and feed them at the same time.

Laughing
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Yep, that's me. I make shit that kills terrorists and I love it!

I can protect my family and feed them at the same time.

Laughing

S3nd, please refrain from posting comments that add nothing to the debate...

As far as imperialism and "war profiteering" (an actual term used to label companies/countries/people who profit off of war), I shall give you a few examples of people profiteering though war without being directly involved in the manufacturing of arms a little closer to the U.S. than Iraq:

Cuba - We wanted more land, so we picked a fight with the weak Spanish. Another side cause, the sugar plantations and the wealthy (white) plantation owners who wanted to be part of the U.S. The result - Cuba hates us and turned communist...
Panama - We wanted a canal, so we helped incite a revolt then protected the "legitimate" new government of Panama (against the real legitimate government of Colombia). This had a huge positive impact on shipping, cutting costs tremendously because you could skip going around all of South America, and as such many businesses in the U.S. benefited. The result - Colombia still hates us...
Hawaii - Sugar, and those white guys again. The plantation owners didn't want tariffs on their sugar so they petitioned the government to invade Hawaii and started a revolt so that the U.S. could do that "legitimately". The result - us white guy now have a fun vacation place, there still are people in Hawaii who wish to return to a sovereign state and the beautiful nation of Hawaii is no more, it is now culturally dominated by the other states (Cultural Hegemony) and losing its uniqueness quickly.
Just one more - the Philippines - Now this one matches horseatingweeds' claim that imperialist nations benefit the nations that they are dominating. We held control of the islands because we wanted to civilize the people and convert the savages to Christianity (which incidentally the Spanish already did). The result - years of fighting and many dead on both sides, eventually we gave them back their nation, they probably are still a little bitter about it.

Ever hear of "White Man's Burden"?
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Yep, that's me. I make shit that kills terrorists and I love it!

I can protect my family and feed them at the same time.

Laughing

S3nd, please refrain from posting comments that add nothing to the debate...


I try to. Unfortunately for you that was relevant to a comment about war in Iraq making people rich. Well, it may not make me "rich", but I make good money at it and am doing a service to my fellow countrymen and women.

Oh, and by "I love it", I mean my job in general, CNC Programming, as I've stated before.

Wink
Montressor
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Montressor wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Yep, that's me. I make shit that kills terrorists and I love it!

I can protect my family and feed them at the same time.

Laughing

S3nd, please refrain from posting comments that add nothing to the debate...


I try to. Unfortunately for you that was relevant to a comment about war in Iraq making people rich. Wink

I did not say it was irrelevant, but that it added nothing to the debate, two entirely different things. If you had stated that you find not problem in earning money off of a war you support, that would have been both relevant and adding something to the debate. Stating what you did, however does not add to the debate in that it incites people to respond with like inflammatory comments. In other words, you may have been relevant and have added to the argument, but you've detracted from the debate. I was simply asking that you refrain from doing so in the future.
afriot
There's nothing new in the report except someone actually put it in writing. Iraq was a mistake, but leave right now would be a bigger mistake. You can't fight in a war where the opponent thinks this is a holy war. It's just too hard.
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
I was simply asking that you refrain from doing so in the future.


OIC.

Sorry, but it's not up to you to determine if what I posted was relevant to the statement made.

Also, they have enough to do without having to remind you not to back-seat moderate, which is against the rules.

Mkthks. Wink
Montressor
Forgive me, I was just a little frustrated at having a fairly nice debate and having someone break in saying something similar to "I like to kill terrorists". I'm truly sorry that it was backseat moderating, and would like to ask for your forgiveness.

Now back to the topic,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Well, it may not make me "rich", but I make good money at it and am doing a service to my fellow countrymen and women.

I respect your opinion and how you feel about helping the fellow people of our country, but also realize that many Iraqi suicide bombers feel the same way. They (personal opinion again) are not doing so in the right way, but they do view their actions as helping their nation to free itself from the occupation of another nation. You feel your actions and the actions of our nation are helping free our nation of terrorism. I believe that the act of invading and occupying Iraq helped fuel more terrorism, I also think that helping stabilize their country will help reduce the overall terrorism threat to out nation. So yes, I think that the invasion of Iraq did not help quench terrorism, but I do think that helping the new Iraq could help reduce terrorism.
Soulfire
And now for the opposing side:

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were “an insult to the people of Iraq.”

Really? But isn't that the point! Let's do what we can to make Bush look bad, regardless of any side effects.

Quote:
President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution.”


I'd encourage people to read the entire article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16134560/
Bikerman
Soulfire wrote:
And now for the opposing side:

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were “an insult to the people of Iraq.”

Really? But isn't that the point! Let's do what we can to make Bush look bad, regardless of any side effects.

Quote:
President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution.”


I'd encourage people to read the entire article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16134560/


I don't think that the report is primarily designed to embarass Bush - after all Baker is an old ally of daddy is he not ? I suspect that what may be happening is the construction of a new consensus aimed specifically at allowing US 'withdrawal' in the medium term (although I predict that the US will maintain a military presence just as it still does in Saudi after the last war).

Chris
palavra
Soulfire wrote:
And now for the opposing side:

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were “an insult to the people of Iraq.”

Really? But isn't that the point! Let's do what we can to make Bush look bad, regardless of any side effects.

Quote:
President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution.”


I'd encourage people to read the entire article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16134560/

i think you know
this iraqi president has only 10-15% support of his people and hate of remaining.
S3nd K3ys
Montressor wrote:
F
I realize that many Iraqi suicide bombers


Um, if I'm not mistaken, most sucide bombers in Iraq ARE NOT IRAQI.

They are trying to take over Iraq, we're trying to keep Iraq for Iraqis.
horseatingweeds
bickerman wrote:
Let us put a limit on considerations for the sake of brevity and to allow decent room for consideration - should we say post WWII as a boundary ?


Bickerman, I think we have run over this possum before. Much of what you sight was not an effort to promote capitalism. It was to fight the red menace that was understood to be taking over the world.

lol Your time line is also a little convenient. Before WWII the US practiced protectionism, let alone colonialism. After the big number two, the country realized it was a world power with the responsibility of not allowing the world to slip back into a third.

Montressor wrote:

We are spending a huge amount of money in Iraq, and somebody somewhere is bound to turn a profit on all that spending.


Well, sure. Yes

This, however, is not what Mannix is suggesting.

palavra wrote:
yes , war in iraq is profitable for some americans that produce weapons and trade oil, and they support this war.


Many Americans - weapons?

Also, many people from many other countries. Like those German ninnies who re-supplies Sadam with new trucks after Bush senior blew them all up. I wish I had a link but this is just inside information. Regardless, this again has nothing to do with going to war. Additionally, when it comes to US equipment, it disappears during training too, wears out.

People that trade oil don’t like war. Yes, the price often goes up but this is for fear of supply loss, so no. It scares the crap out of people.
domyth
You know, this just ticks me off to no end.

Why? Because everyone focuses on what goes WRONG in Iraq, and never focuses on what goes right.

Now I'm not saying to downplay human life, but people tend to compare this to Vietnam, but look at the numbers... 2900 is NOTHING compared to that war. Heck in WWII it wasn't uncommon to lose that many troops in a DAY!

The real problem with this war is that the US and coalition troops cannot do the things they want to do.. because it may involve loss of innocent Iraqi lives. If anything we should be applauded for our efforts in keeping those to a minimum.. We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.

___________________________________________________

Aha ... Very Happy
palavra
domyth wrote:
We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.

Aha ... Very Happy


but it already costed of many many innocent lives of iraqis.
last time a british org. told more than 600,000 people died.
Star Wars Fanatic
palavra wrote:
domyth wrote:
We could have ended this a long time ago if we wanted to, but at the cost of MANY MANY innocent lives. Now imagine the field day the media would have if THAT was the case.

Aha ... Very Happy


but it already costed of many many innocent lives of iraqis.
last time a british org. told more than 600,000 people died.


It is no where near that number, it is around 60,000, lol, and if you think about it, there might have been another 600,000 Iraqis dead if Saddam had stayed in power.
horseatingweeds
Yeah, one thing we all have to admit, Sadam was a lot better at killing Iraqis than Bush.
S3nd K3ys
horseatingweeds wrote:
Yeah, one thing we all have to admit, Sadam was a lot better at killing Iraqis than Bush.


True, but the iranians, syrians, and other radical islamics that have moved in are killing at an astounding rate every day. How long before they catch up with saddam?
horseatingweeds
Not long if Iraq doesn’t cut out this sectarian revenge killing BS and start acting like a group of adults.
palavra
horseatingweeds wrote:
Not long if Iraq doesn’t cut out this sectarian revenge killing BS and start acting like a group of adults.


this is a difficult situation.
i think if federal government of usa collapse ,all the other states in usa start to fight each other.
Montressor
horseatingweeds wrote:
Not long if Iraq doesn’t cut out this sectarian revenge killing BS and start acting like a group of adults.

It took us 200+ years to mature to the democracy we are, you expect Iraq to make the same changes we made in half a decade? Our democracy had a civil war, is theirs' not allowed to? Can we really demand that they mature in such a short period when we were unable to do so ourselves? I do not fully support the invasion of Saddam's Iraq, but I full heartedly wish for a new Iraqi government to flourish, and it can not yet do so without our help, which includes the use of our armed forces (under partial Iraqi command) as an active combat-ready policing force in Iraq, as well as a long term commitment to help train and equip Iraqi police and armed forces to maintain peace in the country.

There are people in Iraq that wish for democracy, and there are people in Iraq who don't want democracy. You cannot force those who don't want it to accept democracy; there is no way to force freedom. You can only help them understand what liberty is and hope that they mature. Just as the elders instruct the youth, and the youth ignore the instruction of their elders, the older democracy can instruct the younger one, but the younger one has to make its own decisions (called sovereignty).

A somewhat related quote:
Samuel Johnson in The History of Rasselas wrote:
But his young companions had gained so much of his regard by their frankness and courtesy, that he could not leave them without warning and remonstrance. "My friends," said he ..."Let us, therefore, stop, while to stop is in our power; let us live as men who are sometime to grow old, and to whom it will be the most dreadful of all evils not to count their past years but by follies, and to be reminded of their former luxuriance of health only by the maladies which riot has produced."
They stared a while in silence one upon another, and, at last, drove him away by a general chorus of continued laughter
Montressor
palavra wrote:
this is a difficult situation.
i think if federal government of usa collapse ,all the other states in usa start to fight each other.

Bring it on, California can take any one or group of you!!! You can't beat our Governator!!

On a side note, if the federal government were to collapse, then we would have no national debt...

That is an interesting thought when you consider that California is (or was at some point in time) the 6th largest economy in the world, would California then become one of the new superpowers created from the theoretical fall of the United States? Perhaps we would annex portions of other western states and form New California.

You can't fully compare the U.S. to Iraq, and as such Iraq shouldn't be treated as a "young" U.S. We can't demand of Iraq what the U.S. gained, and can't expect a flourishing democracy in a short time. They face many similar problems (concentrated power in a few, semi-autonomous "states" etc), but also face some things that we never had to ("imported" terrorists, all we had to deal with were some Indians, which we killed, sometimes called genocide...).
Star Wars Fanatic
Montressor wrote:
palavra wrote:
this is a difficult situation.
i think if federal government of usa collapse ,all the other states in usa start to fight each other.

Bring it on, California can take any one or group of you!!! You can't beat our Governator!!

On a side note, if the federal government were to collapse, then we would have no national debt...

That is an interesting thought when you consider that California is (or was at some point in time) the 6th largest economy in the world, would California then become one of the new superpowers created from the theoretical fall of the United States? Perhaps we would annex portions of other western states and form New California.

You can't fully compare the U.S. to Iraq, and as such Iraq shouldn't be treated as a "young" U.S. We can't demand of Iraq what the U.S. gained, and can't expect a flourishing democracy in a short time. They face many similar problems (concentrated power in a few, semi-autonomous "states" etc), but also face some things that we never had to ("imported" terrorists, all we had to deal with were some Indians, which we killed, sometimes called genocide...).


Good point, however, were that to happen, I think Mexico would soon take California over, as there are over 3 million illegal immigrants in California alone.
horseatingweeds
palavra wrote:
this is a difficult situation.
i think if federal government of usa collapse ,all the other states in usa start to fight each other.


The federal government doesn’t do anything to keep the States from fighting silly.

The States are highly dependent on each other and have a great deal of commerce between them. This is one of the keys to Iraq, building commerce.

Once this starts to happen there will be more jobs and fewer board young men.
S3nd K3ys
horseatingweeds wrote:

Once this starts to happen there will be more jobs and fewer bored young men.


Fissed. Wink

Also, you're partially correct, but the outside influences need to be destroyed (removed?) first.
palavra
Montressor wrote:
palavra wrote:
this is a difficult situation.
i think if federal government of usa collapse ,all the other states in usa start to fight each other.

Bring it on, California can take any one or group of you!!! You can't beat our Governator!!

On a side note, if the federal government were to collapse, then we would have no national debt...

That is an interesting thought when you consider that California is (or was at some point in time) the 6th largest economy in the world, would California then become one of the new superpowers created from the theoretical fall of the United States? Perhaps we would annex portions of other western states and form New California.

You can't fully compare the U.S. to Iraq, and as such Iraq shouldn't be treated as a "young" U.S. We can't demand of Iraq what the U.S. gained, and can't expect a flourishing democracy in a short time. They face many similar problems (concentrated power in a few, semi-autonomous "states" etc), but also face some things that we never had to ("imported" terrorists, all we had to deal with were some Indians, which we killed, sometimes called genocide...).


when the "dissension " starts nobody can predict when it will end.
in that case ,even california may be separate to northen and southern california. Cool
Montressor
palavra wrote:
when the "dissension " starts nobody can predict when it will end.
in that case ,even california may be separate to northen and southern california. Cool

I don't know, if the federal government fell some states may create a new federation (or several federations) to maintain power and hegemony, in which case the strong state of California might just happen to take over some neighboring states. As I see it, a federation for the western states, one for the Midwest, one for the North Atlantic and one for the South Atlantic and Gulf states, with the Independent Republic of Texas, and the Theocratic State of Utah thrown in the mix, maybe Alberta will finally break with the rest of Canada and join up... Just some thoughts.

Perhaps the new federal government(s) would have more power (to offer more security to the citizens) or be quite leftist like us out here on the left coast.

As far as the Mexico bit, why would they want to try to take us over? After all, one of their largest sources of international funds flowing into Mexico is money sent back to families from legal and illegal immigrants to the U.S. I don't think a Mexican-Californian war would be profitable for anyone. Could you imagine them dealing with Berkeley like Oaxaca?
indianinworld
Why not the Death Tolls of Iraqi Troops taken into consideration ?

The death toll of iraqi soliders ?? Why people have been discussing only about the US and UK troops. Atleast they are in out of their mother land and they are in a Foreign Soil for a Cause.

Does anyone have any idea on the toll of Iraqi Soldiers and Policemen ?

Shocked Since 2003, Over 12000 Iraqi Policemen have been Killed in Iraq apart from the loss of US and UK troops. However there is no proper estimate (atleast approximate) on the death toll of civilians.


Keep smiling Smile
Bikerman
horseatingweeds wrote:
bickerman wrote:
Let us put a limit on considerations for the sake of brevity and to allow decent room for consideration - should we say post WWII as a boundary ?


Bickerman, I think we have run over this possum before. Much of what you sight was not an effort to promote capitalism. It was to fight the red menace that was understood to be taking over the world.
lol Your time line is also a little convenient. Before WWII the US practiced protectionism, let alone colonialism. After the big number two, the country realized it was a world power with the responsibility of not allowing the world to slip back into a third.

Is it necessary to indulge in insult by changing my name as you do? Surely we can debate in civilised manner without recourse to such childish behaviour?
As to the substance - I chose WWII rather than a later point - but I would largely accept your point that before WWII the US was more protectionist than colonial - largely because it was protected by two large oceans and at the time had little to fear from outside.
As to most of the intervention post WWII being concerned with fighting the red menace - you know my opinion on that and the examples I gave contain many instances when that particular 'justification' would be very hard to apply.

Regards
Chris
ibay
I don't think that failure of Bush's policies is enough reason for Americans to sneak out from all the mess they created in Middle East.
Iraqis have been suffering from American interference for a long time now. It is no secret that Saddam was allowed to take power and strengthened because of his anti-communist and anti-Iran nature. His hatred for communism can be proved by the fact that he once killed a communist when he was a young man.
And when Baath party was struggling for power, communists were also contending for power.
American air force experts used to visit Iraq to train Iraqi Pilots on techniques of dropping chemical weapons from planes, those American trained pilots killed thousands. The western media never raised such hue and cry that we hear today. With support from American Gov. Saddam knew he could commit any crime and get away with it, that explains why most of his crimes were comitted before the 1990 Gulf War, except for supressing Shia uprising in the 90's.
The sufferings of Iraqis didn't stop at that, they were made to suffer the consequences of sanctions on Iraq. Approximately 1 million children died due to lack of medicines in the first decade of sanctions. The only justification Americans could provide for the decades of manslaughter was the targetting of a man and his regime that they once fed, supported and used.
The shameless terror still hasn't ended, now they blame the deaths of more than 6,00,000 iraqis on saddam, al-qaida and their WMDs.
Now that Iraqis got a chance to take revenge from those who have been a source of their sufferings for decades, the perpetrators must not be allowed to sneak away. Most of the Iraqi insurgents have been successful in keeping the spirit of the freedom fight without getting into sectarianism,
with Americans resorting to their usual tactics of creating hoaxes (al-qaida) and dividing the insurgency on sectarian lines. There have been allegations that Americans have created underground groups to attack Shia holy places and kidnappings, not a new thing for Americans.
To those who find it hard to beleive that USA wants to divide Iraq and continue the sectarian fighting and kidnappings: A nation wages war on another nation to destroy it, and not to build it!
Related topics
Just an article that got my attention...
A soldier's rant
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Justification for War in Iraq
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Why is the USA in Iraq?
It's official... the US is losing the war in Iraq
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
The Supreme court rules
Bush Broke the Law?!?
How is religion harmful to society?
Tony Blair
Congratulations President Obama
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.