User Tag List

First 91011

Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: 9/11 happened.

  1. #101
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Perhaps he should run for public office.
    His country can have him.

  2. #102
    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
    Because they highlight a lack of any understanding of international relations.
    Uhm not really, my understanding is pretty much backed by facts. Just because i don't ascribe and don't think "what is", the status quo and the way of conduct of contemporary politicians, and etablished politics doesn't mean say anything. I have a critical POV, i don't ascribe to comtemporary politics or platforms. Because they stink. Neo-liberals stink.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    What does some arbitrary term like "protect kind of guy" even mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    Problem is that on my mothers side they're middle-eastern. I have extensive experiences with middle-east, middle-eastern literature, middle-easterners and middle-eastern politics, I'm not some rich WASP republican whose exposure to news and facts comes from fox news or some international relationship courses they took at some right-wing college.

    I think i have good grasp of what national interests are. I can understand the relationship between economics and politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    But spare us the hypothetical, well if the US had just done this everything would have turned out all rainbows and unicorns for Iraq.
    How many times do i have to repeat it. The problems stemming from post-war Iraq aren't caused by some inevitable secterian conflict that causes implosion, that would happen no matter what with the regime change. It's today mostly caused by a belligerent foreign insurgency which didn't exist in its current form back in the 90s. One of the national problems iraq faces is that whenever there is a political settlement between parties in iraq, the Islamic state of Iraq do a bombing which puts the community cohesion back to square one. They have a deliberate strategy of dividing the country and turning the communities against one in another, in order to keep the country from rebuilding and becoming secure and developing country. They're looking to provoke a full-scale civil war, and turn most of the sunni states against the shiahs. This has to do with the anti-shiah ideology of the salafists, the fact that shiahs are considered heathens and idolators by salafists like al-qaeda because of the ancient old disagreement within islam. They also fear that a secure and strong iraq would risk to strengthen shiahs in the region, since the regime shift has left iraq in the hands of the majority shiah. Saudi arabia has also been working diligently against iraq, trying to retain sunni hegemony over the country, since day one.

    This is what you seem to have a hard time to understand. In iraq they didn't start killing each other the minute saddam fell. They're not all crazy tribalists who hate each other. That's fantasy world talk, that's the talk of the people who're truly ignorant about the history of middle-eastern countries. There was animosity between sunnis and shiahs prior to baath partys seizure of power, but under abdel karim qassim:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim

    the communities within iraq were at relative peace and had certain stability. Politically the different communities were "unifying". Reforms instituted by the nationalist democratic party improved the situation greatly in iraq. This is confirmed by any books from serious academics on iraq. Even after the rise of the pan-arabist baath party, which was a ethnocentric, facist left-wing, pro-arab party, it remained fringe group, until the cold war politics arrived to the region. The party itself had gripes with religious shiah arabs because their alleigance was to iran-orientated shiah scholar leader aytoallahs rather than the pan-arab unity project, and because they held the historic narrative that shiahs were remanents of persian safavids. US backing the baath party and USSR backing the communisty party, with nationalists like abdel karim qassim remaining non-aligned.

    Abdel karim qassim was non-aligned, until he changed his policy towards a soviet favorable stance and nationalized iraqi oil because of failed negotiations. The iraqi oil wells were assets of american and british oil companies at the time. So naturally US backed his enemies, the baath party. Who took power after the ramadan revolution in 1963,. Iraq hasn't been well since.

    You should read about this, instead of saying i don't understand international relations:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_act...Iraq#Iraq_1960
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Revolution




    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    Why would it piss them off? And why would you support israel?



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    Why would they hate you?


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You act as if ME animosity to the west is some new thing. Well its not.
    Where does it stem from?



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Leave policy to those who understand the game.
    Roflmao, yeah.
    "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."

  3. #103
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    What does some arbitrary term like "protect kind of guy" even mean?
    The fact that you don't know is clarifying.

    Responsibility to protect doctrine.

    The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility.[1][2] R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of mass atrocity crimes.[3] The R2P has three "pillars":[4][5]

    A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
    The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
    If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

    In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is grounded in international law.[6][7] R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist, i.e. mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VII powers, to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the R2P process. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.
    Problem is that on my mothers side they're middle-eastern. I have extensive experiences with middle-east, middle-eastern literature, middle-easterners and middle-eastern politics, I'm not some rich WASP republican whose exposure to news and facts comes from fox news or some international relationship courses they took at some right-wing college.

    I think i have good grasp of what national interests are. I can understand the relationship between economics and politics.
    You understand the ME culturally, but not how they fit into international relations and the global power balance or even what either of those terms means really.

    I'm glad your opinion of me is based on the color of my skin, and the kind of family I was born into.

    What did you study in college, what training do you have on which to base your opinions?

  4. #104
    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
    The fact that you don't know is clarifying.

    Responsibility to protect doctrine.
    I don't believe in responsbility to protect, to me that's just a political tool in the hands of people who want to abuse it, UN itself is a partisan organization, its political neutrality is a joke. I believe in "play fair and don't fuck up shit for others for the sake of corporates" doctrine.
    "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."

  5. #105
    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 understand the ME culturally, but not how they fit into international relations and the global power balance or even what either of those terms means really.
    Don't think, i don't understand the POV of super-power, just because i criticize their actions. I know that there is lobbyism, industries, investments in political capital all around. I can understand that keeping saddam as a buffer against Iran was something feasible, i can understand that iraq changing it's exchange currency towards euro cause a drop in pay-off. I can understand that Saudi-arabia would rather have saddam than. I can understand USA is afraid of russia and china backed iran expanding its influence in the middle-east, and gaining access to iraq.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I'm glad your opinion of me is based on the color of my skin, and the kind of family I was born into.
    Sorry, but most of the people who use those arguments and that sort of logic, have a certain background. Birds of the same feathers flock together so to speak. There is a range of political stances the majority of americas WASPs adhere to, so it's a simple matter of generalization.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What did you study in college, what training do you have on which to base your opinions?
    I have a bachelors degree in history and a minor a international relations.
    "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."

  6. #106
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    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.

    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.
    The goddamn site ate my last attempt to reply, so I'll keep this short:

    I have to disagree, Al-Qaida elements inflamed things further, but the sectarian divide was already seething, and they were working hand and glove with Sunni factions in the first place.

    First of all, I believe the uprisings took place in 91, maybe even parts of 92, not in 93. Second, Saddam still had most of his elite troops and about half his equipment, every nation in the region (and most beyond) would have opposed us (including the nations with bases through which to project our military power), the three broad factions had mutually exclusive goals, a recent history of conflict to inflame passions, and no experience cooperating peacefully except through force and domination, and no one to serve as a buffer between them. Last but not least, every country in the region (and outside Kurdish factions) would have intervened in favor of their chosen faction, so even an earlier intervention based on air support would have resulted in a bloodier and prolonged civil war, with the high probability of a wider regional conflict. Oh, and we'd get blamed for virtually all of it, of course. And in any event, our lack of military support for the post-war uprising has no bearing on whether our intervention in 2003 produced better results than the most likely counterfactual scenarios, as such would be based on circumstances from 2003 onward.

  7. #107
    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

    I have to disagree, Al-Qaida elements inflamed things further, but the sectarian divide was already seething, and they were working hand and glove with Sunni factions in the first place.
    What evidence of sources do you have? If this was the case.... why was there sunni arab tribes siding and fighting alongside the shiahs and kurds in 1993'? Why was the membership of most parties during the 50s early 60s composed of both shiahs and sunnis? This was especially true for the communist party, which had membership from all religious backgrounds and all ethnicities. If this was true.. why were some sunni arab tribes against saddam?

    I agree that some of the saddam loyalist groups, like his fedayeeen were working with al-aqaeda, those who survived the war. And were absorbed or cooperated with the al-aqaeda in iraq, and were merged with local sunni islamist groups like ansar al islam. But this had nothing to do with the majority of the people. The fedayeen and baathists were rooted and forced to flee the country. They were broken early on. But saying that these guys represent all sunnis is sort of stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    First of all, I believe the uprisings took place in 91, maybe even parts of 92, not in 93. Second, Saddam still had most of his elite troops and about half his equipment, every nation in the region (and most beyond) would have opposed us (including the nations with bases through which to project our military power)
    Not really, Saddam had already fallen out with most of his allies in the west-asian world. The entire gulf region was against him because of his incursions into kuwait and his refusal to pay his debts. Pan-arab unity had already lapsed, and he had a fallout with the syrian alawite regime and wasn't really best friends with the egyptian government under mubarak who were pro-USA, especially after anwar sadats actions with israel. Iran hated his guts. Lebanon is mostly christian maronite and lebanese shiahs, they had no strong ties to saddam. Only jordan and turkey would complain if he fell really. The rest couldn't give a shit. So that's another myth you're pertuating. The salafists who're a fringe bloc in the middle-east are fighting western forces, because they wanted to establish another enclave state, like taliban afghanistan, and because they see western forces as some sort of neo-crusaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    the three broad factions had mutually exclusive goals, a recent history of conflict to inflame passions, and no experience cooperating peacefully except through force and domination, and no one to serve as a buffer between them.
    No such thing as three broad factions. That's a simplistic way of going about it. There were three "main" ethno-religious/ethnical groups within the region. But there weren't clear-cut alleigances and interests. Sometimes Kurds sided against other kurdish factions with saddam, those were called jash. Alot of shiah arab nationalists(who were actually the majority of the army and the baath party) sided against the conservative religious shiahs, there were sunni arab who sided with religious shiahs against the sunni elite of the baath party. It's all a complicated interplay of politics, like everywhere else. There is also frequent intermarriage between sunnis and shiahs. So your simply in the wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Last but not least, every country in the region (and outside Kurdish factions) would have intervened in favor of their chosen faction, so even an earlier intervention based on air support would have resulted in a bloodier and prolonged civil war, with the high probability of a wider regional conflict. Oh, and we'd get blamed for virtually all of it, of course. And in any event, our lack of military support for the post-war uprising has no bearing on whether our intervention in 2003 produced better results than the most likely counterfactual scenarios, as such would be based on circumstances from 2003 onward.
    Calling it counterfactual is an easy way to deny that it would be strategically better, your own arguments are counterfactual, so you're contradicting yourself. What most likely would have happened is that there might have been low-key skirmishes, and early conflicts. But as that calms down there would be a federal solution or they'd introduce the lebanese model political system. Obviously Iran and saudi arabia would exert their influence(US could however put pressure on the saudis f.ex). But there wouldn't be as near as much violence. The baathists in iraqi society would be shattered after a year or so, rather than rejeuvnated by reinforcements from al-aqaeda. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but it would be better than the iraqi occupation 2003'. It would look more like lebanon rather than the chaos that is al-aqaeda infested iraq of today.
    "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."

  8. #108
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nicolita View Post
    I live in the US and was 15 and felt the same way. I mean, it was scary and sad for sure, but I never once thought it didn't make sense. It sucks feel so ashamed of and opposed to our foreign policies. That was seriously why I voted for Obama. He seemed to be taking a more peaceful and diplomatic international stance, and here he is trying to bomb Syria. I hate it all so much.
    Taking the diplomatic approach can also create animosity between nations. Obama has tried to reconcile Great Britain with Argentina over the Falklands. In this, Obama appears to be anti-British by refusing to take the British side of the conflict.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #109
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    What evidence of sources do you have?

    Calling it counterfactual is an easy way to deny that it would be strategically better, your own arguments are counterfactual, so you're contradicting yourself.
    That goes for both of us....I suspect we are both remembering long-ago research that we no longer have immediate or easy access to (I know I am), though I will say that the Communist and similar non-ethnic factions had very little power or influence, and that three 'broad' factions means just that, any coalition of forces with a power-base is going to contain a multitude of internal factions, and rival coalitions will have some support from the other's power base.

    "Counterfactual', in this context (usually preceded by 'the'), clearly refers to what most likely would have happened in the event the United States did not invade Iraq in 2003, or did attempt to militarily support the Iraq uprisings in 1991. The use of the term in these kind of debates is so ubiquitous that I did not think I needed to specify which definition of the word was being used. In any event, Lebanon had far fewer international and non-state actors with interests that were as vital as in Iraq, no oil to fight over, and no 'broad' group occupied any contiguous territory that would have been particularly viable as an independent state.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    One time someone at my church called 9/11, and they threatened to put him in juvenile hall if it happened again. A bunch of police showed up with guns expecting danger, since he didn't respond when they asnwered.

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