User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 110

Thread: 9/11 happened.

  1. #91
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Like hell you do.
    You better believe it.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Wait.. this is my statement, and the one fundamental question from my post. Somehow I'm not surprised you didn't answer.

    I am a realist/pragmatist for the record.
    It has zero relevance, what i declare myself. Meet my arguments, there is no need for ontaking political ideas. If they're implied, you're welcome to make your conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    International war in the middle east, which is what Sadam's invasion of Kuwait was, destabilized oil markets and was a clear violation of Kuwaiti sovereignty. Given our ties in the region, the invasion of of Kuwait, threatened US interests in the region in a way that Sadam's actions against his own people did not. Sorry to be Machiavellian, but inciting the rebellion served its purpose to weaken Sadam, and made it easier for us to roll right over him during desert storm. We were never going to go into Iraq, or give the rebels anything but token support. Sometimes international relations just work out that way. Our national interest stopped at the Iraqi border.
    So you admit that the USA government used them as a strategic tool and then betrayed them and left them for dead. Cool shit.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We don't callously dismiss anyone. Helping them just didn't further our interests. Just like bombing Syria wont serve them now.
    Obviously it's not your governments interest. If selling weapons to their assailants would make them money, they'd do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You saying so doesn't make it so. Fighting Sadam in Iraq would not have furthered US interests.
    Of course it would. Spreading democracy and all that, plus the fact that USA would get to re-establish their buisnesses and get contracts. Infrastructure contracts, both civilian and military. Iraq would be in the USAs pocket. It would be a win-win for both iraqis and USA buisnesses.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We may have a measure of culpability for supporting the Hussein dictatorship at different times, but that doesn't change the fact that it was smarter to leave the Iraqis to their own devices. The expenditure of $ and lives would not have been worth it. Just like it was not worth it in 2003.
    How much money and soldiers lives did USA and nato spend in Libya?(another intervention that was initially sucessful, until they found out that they supported the wrong dudes) Compared to the trillions in logistics and thousands in soldiers lives, they spent occupying afghanistan and iraq?



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Middle eastern resentment of Western influence goes all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century. They would have been every bit as pissed at us in the early 90's as they were in the 00's.
    And proof of that is? It was the occupation of military forces on ground in iraq that caused resentment. Not the intervention itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The only difference was that we never realized how pissed at us the region was until the 00's. Regional insurgents would have been chomping at the bit to kill members of an American occupying force in the 90's.
    But you don't even have the occupy the country. That's what you don't seem to parse. Occupation isn't the only means. It is one means. It's the most ineffective means of intervention actually.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Overthrowing Sadam in the 90's would have created the exact same power vacuum it did in the 00's. And where are we today? Embroiled in sectarian violence, the Sunni and Shia at each others throats, not to mention the Kurds who might as well be trying to form their own country.
    That's what wouldn't happen. Because al-aqaeda wasn't organized back then, not in the same way they are today, with their infiltration capacity and their money. And lets be real here, the base reason for this isn't the shiah-sunni divide. It's what al-aqaeda does to inflame problems. All the bombings you hear about in the news in iraq? Al-aqaeda. In 1993 they weren't even there, al-aqaeda didn't have any active campaigns, they did not hav . Violent begets violence. Iraqi society didn't just implode the moment saddam fell. It took months and years of al-aqaeda attacks during their ongoing anti-shiah campaign, for things to turn ugly and violent. Which is initially what they planned in the first place. To create a civil war and destroy the pro-american government, and american occupation. Which is disasterous for the US.

    The kurds is another issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Time and again, when we occupy, and try to fix other countries problems, we just make them worse. When we are part of a team effort things go much better for instance Kosovo.
    Irrelevant factors. like i said, occupation is the least effective method in changing the status quo. The most effective is proxies. And if supported, even more effective. Occupations complicates things and creates resentment. Proxies... not very much. They tend to create an effective rule after a while.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You can get on the cross all you want about our duty to the people's of other countries, but our primary duty is to the American public.
    Are you george bush senior by any chance? The american public doesn't benefit zilch from going into iraq or afghanistan.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Clearly it isn't given the way the Syria debate has gone.
    That was avoided by chance. It wasn't actual policy. It was actually a mistake that turned into a diplomatic solution. Obama was going to intervene.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just don't intervene without a reason to do so.
    I don't know... money and supporting oppressed people. Sounds good to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Give me an example of someone intervening unilaterally and occupying without fucking shit up as you say.
    I never said that occupation solves problems. Occupations aren't neccesary even. Rwanda turned out just fine with support for tutsis.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That sentence is a slap in the face to every American serviceman and woman, and their families, who have sacrificed more than you could ever imagine.

    Shame on you for belittling their sacrifice.
    I'm not belittling their sacrifice. Most of them are kids from lower-class/lower-middle-class families who want to go to college and get free medical care. But get pulled into overseas wars, that's unfortunate. You on the other hand belittle the hundreds of thousands of iraqis, who got killed, the millions who got mutilated or homeless, because of the actions of george bush sr and his predecessors. Defending incompetent neo-con adminstrations and their allies and corporate friends like they're a personal extension of you or something.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post

    The Iraqi people are of vital importance to Iraqi interests.

    Regarding US interests, American blood and treasure requires primary consideration.

    IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO CARE ABOUT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.

    Especially in an international environment where US power is waning globally.
    Then don't support leaders who get involved and cause human disasters of several magnitudes. If you don't care about iraqis, and want no part in anything, don't prop up people like saddam, simple. If you do, you can atleast have moral decency to not screw shit up. I'm sure 1 american soldier is worth hundreds of thousands of iraqis.

    Sorry man, i don't believe american interests trumps other peoples lives. I couldn't give a fuck about what exxon mobile, BP or blackwater, or mcdonalds make more in profit. Not a single one of those corporate fuckers interests are worth more than hundreds of thousands of people.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  2. #92
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    And proof of that is? It was the occupation of military forces on ground in iraq that caused resentment. Not the intervention itself.
    About that history lesson. The middle east has resented the West ever since the (Crusades really, but for the purposes of this argument) break up of the Ottoman empire with the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partiti...Ottoman_Empire

    I'll get back to the rest when I care more.

  3. #93
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    About that history lesson. The middle east has resented the West ever since the (Crusades really, but for the purposes of this argument) break up of the Ottoman empire with the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partiti...Ottoman_Empire

    I'll get back to the rest when I care more.
    Please, leave this huntington neo-con bullshit out of this. I could take this argument back to romans with that reasoning and construct some absurd narrative about how middle-eastern races have always warred with white european races. Orient versus the occident, Islam versus the christianity. Non-white world versus the white world. If it's not cultures it's race, if not religion. It's this arbitrary dichotomy. This arbitrary us versus "the others" logic. There has been as many examples of this as contrary.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  4. #94
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    Please, leave this huntington neo-con bullshit out of this. I could take this argument back to romans with that reasoning and construct some absurd narrative about how middle-eastern races have always warred with white european races. Orient versus the occident, Islam versus the christianity. Non-white world versus the white world. If it's not cultures it's race, if not religion. It's this arbitrary dichotomy. This arbitrary us versus "the others" logic. There has been as many examples of this as contrary.
    You asked for evidence and are now angry that I have supplied it...

  5. #95
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    It was the occupation of military forces on ground in iraq that caused resentment. Not the intervention itself.
    And without the occupation, we would be demonized for abandoning the country to chaos and enabling civil war, just like we would have been demonized for non-interference in Iraq if we had been wise enough to stay out of it, just like you are demonizing us for not straying from the internationally agreed upon mandate of our mission during the first Gulf War (the necessity of our involvement in ejecting Saddam from Kuwait was already only barely tolerated in the region, and I'm highly doubtful Saddam could have been removed without boots on the ground during the first Gulf War, and absent later occupation there would have been civil war with every country in the region involved, which we would also get blamed for).

  6. #96
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    And without the occupation, we would be demonized for abandoning the country to chaos and enabling civil war, just like we would have been demonized for non-interference in Iraq if we had been wise enough to stay out of it, just like you are demonizing us for not straying from the internationally agreed upon mandate of our mission during the first Gulf War (the necessity of our involvement in ejecting Saddam from Kuwait was already only barely tolerated in the region, and I'm highly doubtful Saddam could have been removed without boots on the ground during the first Gulf War, and absent later occupation there would have been civil war with every country in the region involved, which we would also get blamed for).
    Focus with me here. In libya Nato had a decisive influence on the outcome. No demonization. The civil war in iraq..... this is like the 3rd time i've had to repeat it. Isn't because of a secterian divide. It was because of al-aqaeda operations targetting shiahs and provoking shiahs and turning them against sunnis. US goverment would have become less demonized if they had handled this properly, that's all i'm saying. It would actually be a sucessful foreign policy venture, them going out of their UN mandate and supporting doesn't mean anything in the long term.

    In 2003 and later, USA got demonized for fucking shit up, not because they removed saddam. There were alot of pathetic cries from all the sleazy friends of saddam from countries like france, serbia, germany, russia, china, who were pissed off because US government shat on their investments and debt returns. But in the long-term it wasn't the removal of saddam that was the main issue in tarring US's reputation. It was the war-crimes commited by US forces stationed in Abu Ghraib and high civilian casualities from al-aqaeda bombings, something which could have prevented with earlier intervention. By supporting the rebels, who then could have formed a federal iraqi government with the sunni arabs and the kurds. That mess could have been avoided with an intervention in 1993.

    Saddam could have easily been removed in 93'. His army was defeated, he had lost tons of his equipment. His army was in disarray, he was knee high in debt from military equipment purchases . The rebels suceeded in taking entire chunks of southern iraq, and northern iraq, until saddams forces regrouped and started using chemical weapons and aerial power. Destroying his airforce and bombing his troops in a short campaign would have been a much simpler solution than the complicated long-term occupation in 2003.

    Saddam should never have come to power, the baath party would never have gotten to power, if it weren't for the cold war politics. Cold-war politics enabled this. He should have been removed earlier. Because that would have been more beneficial too all parties, including US Interests.


    I'm not demonizing you, why would i be demonizing you personally speaking? That's like saying i demonize the entire american people or all african americans because i think 50 cent is a retard.

    Lets say i'm highly critical of geroge bush or george herbert sr, regan and another line of post-ww2 presidents and adminstrations, who have a tendency to fuck shit up and leave a trail of dead bodies when they do. You have to seperate "you" from "them". Because frankly you have as much say in those decisions as i do.

    I don't see how criticism of politics, is hatred for an entire nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You asked for evidence and are now angry that I have supplied it...
    I have no idea why you cited the treaty of sevres as some sort of definitive evidence showing resentment towards US power. US wasn't even a major player back then. But you referenced the crusades, which i see very commonly used in this "us" versus "them" logic line of arguments used by neo-con thinkers and anti-islam movements. Usually they cite islamic world as opposing the western world and so on. That is not definitive evidence, that's just a constructed historic narrative, which hyperfocuses on some events in history to create a manichean world view, a simplistic dichotomy. Sort of like the bullshit about socialist states, because of US enmity for the soviet union and vice versa. It's a simplistic black and white narrative, that doesn't tell the whole picture. You can also construct a parallel narrative that shows the exact opposite. It's all about fact selection and fact omittance. I don't know how you can use that as definitive evidence.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  7. #97
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    Focus with me here. In libya Nato had a decisive influence on the outcome. No demonization. The civil war in iraq..... this is like the 3rd time i've had to repeat it. Isn't because of a secterian divide. It was because of al-aqaeda operations targetting shiahs and provoking shiahs and turning them against sunnis. US goverment would have become less demonized if they had handled this properly, that's all i'm saying. It would actually be a sucessful foreign policy venture, them going out of their UN mandate and supporting doesn't mean anything in the long term.

    In 2003 and later, USA got demonized for fucking shit up, not because they removed saddam. There were alot of pathetic cries from all the sleazy friends of saddam from countries like france, serbia, germany, russia, china, who were pissed off because US government shat on their investments and debt returns. But in the long-term it wasn't the removal of saddam that was the main issue in tarring US's reputation. It was the war-crimes commited by US forces stationed in Abu Ghraib and high civilian casualities from al-aqaeda bombings, something which could have prevented with earlier intervention. By supporting the rebels, who then could have formed a federal iraqi government with the sunni arabs and the kurds. That mess could have been avoided with an intervention in 1993.

    Saddam could have easily been removed in 93'. His army was defeated, he had lost tons of his equipment. His army was in disarray, he was knee high in debt from military equipment purchases . The rebels suceeded in taking entire chunks of southern iraq, and northern iraq, until saddams forces regrouped and started using chemical weapons and aerial power. Destroying his airforce and bombing his troops in a short campaign would have been a much simpler solution than the complicated long-term occupation in 2003.

    Saddam should never have come to power, the baath party would never have gotten to power, if it weren't for the cold war politics. Cold-war politics enabled this. He should have been removed earlier. Because that would have been more beneficial too all parties, including US Interests.


    I'm not demonizing you, why would i be demonizing you personally speaking? That's like saying i demonize the entire american people or all african americans because i think 50 cent is a retard.

    Lets say i'm highly critical of geroge bush or george herbert sr, regan and another line of post-ww2 presidents and adminstrations, who have a tendency to fuck shit up and leave a trail of dead bodies when they do. You have to seperate "you" from "them". Because frankly you have as much say in those decisions as i do.

    I don't see how criticism of politics, is hatred for an entire nation.




    I have no idea why you cited the treaty of sevres as some sort of definitive evidence showing resentment towards US power. US wasn't even a major player back then. But you referenced the crusades, which i see very commonly used in this "us" versus "them" logic line of arguments used by neo-con thinkers and anti-islam movements. Usually they cite islamic world as opposing the western world and so on. That is not definitive evidence, that's just a constructed historic narrative, which hyperfocuses on some events in history to create a manichean world view, a simplistic dichotomy. Sort of like the bullshit about socialist states, because of US enmity for the soviet union and vice versa. It's a simplistic black and white narrative, that doesn't tell the whole picture. You can also construct a parallel narrative that shows the exact opposite. It's all about fact selection and fact omittance. I don't know how you can use that as definitive evidence.
    You have a talent for using many words to say nothing.

  8. #98
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You have a talent for using many words to say nothing.
    How are my words hollow? You have a talent for not understand or parsing facts. I'm sorry for not being able to deliver facts and reasoning like glenn beck or o'reilly, maybe that fits your style of reasoning better. Meet my arguments with counter-arguments, not personal attacks. What part of my argument is hollow? What do you want clearer and substantiated.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  9. #99
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    How are my words hollow? You have a talent for not understand or parsing facts. I'm sorry for not being able to deliver facts and reasoning like glenn beck or o'reilly.
    Because they highlight a lack of any understanding of international relations.

    Which is why I asked whether you were a responsibility to protect kind of guy (which you are). And why I was unsurprised that you didn't answer.

    You don't understand the middle east, or the concept of national interests. If you want to bitch about American foreign policy, have at it hoss. But spare us the hypothetical, well if the US had just done this everything would have turned out all rainbows and unicorns for Iraq.

    Because it wouldn't have. Any western presence in the ME pisses them off, something fierce. All they want is for us to leave and I'm happy to oblige with the exception of our support for Israel.

    We were bombing each other back in the 80's '83 Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing and '85 Beirut Car Bombing. Back to the Iran hostage crisis and before.

    You act as if ME animosity to the west is some new thing. Well its not.

    So like I've said, enjoy grinding your axe (fruitless though it is).

    Leave policy to those who understand the game.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You have a talent for using many words to say nothing.
    Perhaps he should run for public office.

Similar Threads

  1. What Happens at 100, by Rajah
    By Rajah in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 11:46 AM
  2. So it's actually happening?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 11:07 PM
  3. USA needs another 9/11?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 07:43 AM
  4. What happens to the young artists?
    By raincrow007 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 01:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO