User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 110

Thread: 9/11 happened.

  1. #81
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    Iraq is a giant moral failure, because the USA has not taken any responsibility for removing the instability caused by the war.

    Saying anything else is just denial.
    We stayed in that quagmire for years taking responsibility, and we were subsequently asked to leave. Do you want us to go back in again?

    More like a difference of opinion; our actions were not inherently immoral for reasons I've already stated, and I think the most likely alternative scenario to our invasion was the steady deterioration of Iraq (I for one remember what was going on before the invasion, when we were lambasted for containing the Baathist regime and thereby 'causing' a human rights crisis to unfold, which I seem to remember included accusations of causing the preventable deaths of a million infants) until it eventually reached the point where Syria is now (where, surprise surprise, we are now damned if we don't by Syrian refugees). In other words, the most realistic counterfactual is even worse for Iraqis and the region, albeit far better for us.

  2. #82

    Default

    In all seriousness the US government, and its citizenry, are damned if you do and damned if you dont by most of the international left wing and all sides in the middle eastern bloodbath zones.

    No ones seriously posting about the actions of Russia and China with respect of the middle east and if you think they have not played major foreign policy games with that part of the world you've not been paying attention.

  3. #83
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In all seriousness the US government, and its citizenry, are damned if you do and damned if you dont by most of the international left wing and all sides in the middle eastern bloodbath zones.

    No ones seriously posting about the actions of Russia and China with respect of the middle east and if you think they have not played major foreign policy games with that part of the world you've not been paying attention.
    No one ever denied that china or russia is a major arms supplier, and inflammators. No one denies that Russia has intervened, or that russian state are hypocrites(about the chechnya question), or that USSR was a major player in creating these issues(their doctrine of spreading communism and installing communist governments, destabilizing developing countries, supporting communist proxies, their intervention in afghanistan, vietnam and so on). But the majority of the blame of today lies on western interventionist politics. The USA supports and protects belligerent states like saudi-arabia and pakistan that are powerbases for salafist organizations, who're responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, Syria, Algeria. Those salafists commit horrendous acts towards shiah muslims and christians all around middle-east. They're responsible for thousands of ethnic cleansing and agitator operations that has killed millions of people, and pretty much almost all significant ongoing violence for the past few decades is their handy work. Not to mention saudi arabia and pakistan being dictatorships and autocracies themselves. And have political forces that are anti-western in nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lowtech redneck View Post
    We stayed in that quagmire for years taking responsibility, and we were subsequently asked to leave. Do you want us to go back in again?

    More like a difference of opinion; our actions were not inherently immoral for reasons I've already stated, and I think the most likely alternative scenario to our invasion was the steady deterioration of Iraq (I for one remember what was going on before the invasion, when we were lambasted for containing the Baathist regime and thereby 'causing' a human rights crisis to unfold, which I seem to remember included accusations of causing the preventable deaths of a million infants) until it eventually reached the point where Syria is now (where, surprise surprise, we are now damned if we don't by Syrian refugees). In other words, the most realistic counterfactual is even worse for Iraqis and the region, albeit far better for us
    Your government could have used it's vast airforce stationed in saudi arabia, to help the iraqi uprising of 93'. They could have bombed military infrastructure, military installations, and iraqi army brigades and helped them get rid of saddam. But they choose not to, instead george bush senior, left them for dead for no rational reason. Swift action would have removed saddam, a guy who belonged to the baath, a group of arab nationalists cia helped get to power, who executed a coup that killed the rightful president abdel karim qassim in the 60s. Saddam of course was also helped and protected USA by their favorable media coverage, arms support and generous loans, up until he started fucking with kuwait and threatend arab gulf oil shipments.

    If the USA had actually helped the revolt in 1993', not only would the salafist al-aqaeda fighters not have existed, they would also no have blown civilians up weekly, killing hundreds of thousands. Iraq would probably a stable and decent state, and would have sorted out its internal secterian problems by now, since there would be no infiltration from islamic state of iraq and other al-aqaeda derivatives, there to provoke them. And you could have avoided the decade long embargo on iraq that killed nearly a million undernourished children, in the same event. But short-sighted, ignorant uncle sam, just chose to do the dumb thing.

    So yes, morally your countries failures are massive, and your sucessive governments are responsible for many failures. Sorry to say. USA governments make huge messes and destabilize the world, and then either don't solve them properly, or just let the rest of the world decay and degenerate. They play dirty proxy and profit games like everybody else. What is most ridiculous and morally reprehensible about it is that instead of being honest, they try to depict themselves as good guys who're looking out for great values. When interest and lip service do not coincide. USA is still a major player and still a super-power, it's about time the american government stopped acting like greedy, idealogue, irresponsible and short-sighted children.

    All i'm saying, if uncle-sam wants to play world police and righteous super power, he has to stop being crooked and dumb.
    "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. #84
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    ^ how's grinding your axe against US foreign policy working out for you?

  5. #85
    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
    ^ how's grinding your axe against US foreign policy working out for you?
    I'm not belligerent son, i'm not being anti-american(which is what you seem to imply) in the least. I'm just stating facts and throwing piercing criticism.
    "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. #86
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    I'm not belligerent son, i'm not being anti-american(which is what you seem to imply) in the least. I'm just stating facts and throwing piercing criticism.
    I'm not really implying anything, I was just asking how grinding your axe was working out for you.

    I'm also not your son sport.

    What strain of international relations thought do you adhere to? Are you a responsibility to protect kind of guy, or more of a pragmatist/realist?

    We had no reason to assist the '93 uprising. Not one single facet of US national interest was wrapped up in Sadam's adventures in violence. The invasion of Kuwait on the other hand presented a clear and massive breach of international law that was clearly more egregious than any of Sadam's acts against the Iraqi people including his use of gas against the Kurd's.

    The humanitarian violations you're talking about are the UN's concern, not ours.

    How can you argue that our hypothetical involvement in 93 would lead to anything but the same damn quagmire we ended up with in the '00's. Our military is not a peacekeeping or police force.

    They aren't made to build democracies... period.

    You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either the US is horrible for doing nothing, or horrible for doing something.

    So what type or foreign policy do you believe in, and for the record, what country do you live in?

  7. #87
    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

    I'm also not your son sport.
    But you are, since i need to teach you history and politics obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What strain of international relations thought do you adhere to? Are you a responsibility to protect kind of guy, or more of a pragmatist/realist?
    Irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We had no reason to assist the '93 uprising. Not one single facet of US national interest was wrapped up in Sadam's adventures in violence. The invasion of Kuwait on the other hand presented a clear and massive breach of international law that was clearly more egregious than any of Sadam's acts against the Iraqi people including his use of gas against the Kurd's.
    Of course they were, Saddam threatened US allies, and threatend to destabilize the region, and since he was usage oil deliveries as leverage. Only a heartless asshole like George W Bush Sr. encourages a rebellion then leaves them to die. USA could actually have done some good, and gotten ridden of the arab nationalists who came to power and were legitimized as good guys by reagan. Instead george herbert only cared about protecting oil deliveries and his rich friends in the gulf. Helping oppressed people to establish real democracies, isn't worth shit, without it being backed by profits.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The humanitarian violations you're talking about are the UN's concern, not ours.
    But they were US concerns, because they gave the man the damn power. Propped him up, and he turned on them. Not mentioning him committing ethnic cleansing and killing hundreds of thousands, meanwhile USA acts like a raging bulldog towards iran.

    It's kind of funny that you're talking as you're an extension of the US government.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    How can you argue that our hypothetical involvement in 93 would lead to anything but the same damn quagmire we ended up with in the '00's. Our military is not a peacekeeping or police force.
    Because the quagmire caused in the 00's mainly stems form insurgency formed by later 90s groups like al-qaeda. That is the main reason for the instability in iraq. The anti-shiah campaign by salafist al-aqaeda. No ever said that US had send any ground troops for a long period. They could have bombed military infrastructure and cut off shipments, meanwhile the people rise up against saddam and overthrow him. USA could have just sat back. Saddam didn't even have any cards to play at the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    They aren't made to build democracies... period.
    But somehow they always end up trying to protect them for some reason .


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either the US is horrible for doing nothing, or horrible for doing something.

    So what type or foreign policy do you believe in, and for the record, what country do you live in?
    My main criticism is this. It's unrealistic to expect USA to not intervene. Ideally there would be no super powers in the world and no nukes. But if they're going to intervene. Do it right, don't fuck shit up. That's all. USA doesn't have to bear the consequences of their interventionism, other people who die in impunity do. Like the poor iraqis, who you callously dismiss like they're garbage or have zero human value.
    "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. #88
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    But you are, sincei need to teach you history obviously.
    Like hell you do.

    What strain of international relations thought do you adhere to? Are you a responsibility to protect kind of guy, or more of a pragmatist/realist?
    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.

    Of course they were, Saddam threatened your allies, and threatend to destabilize the region, and since he was usage oil deliveries as leverage. Only a heartless asshole like George W Bush Sr. encourages a rebellion then leaves them to die.
    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.

    We don't callously dismiss anyone. Helping them just didn't further our interests. Just like bombing Syria wont serve them now.

    But they are your concerns, because you gave the man the damn power. Propped him up, and he turned on you. Not mentioning him committing ethnic cleansing and killing hundreds of thousands, meanwhile USA acts like a raging bulldog towards iran.
    You saying so doesn't make it so. Fighting Sadam in Iraq would not have furthered US interests.

    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.

    Because the quagmire caused in the 00's mainly stems form insurgency formed by later 90s groups like al-qaeda. That is the main reason for the instability in iraq. No ever said that US had send any ground troops for a long period. They could have bombed military infrastructure and cut off shipments, meanwhile the people rise up against saddam and overthrow him. You could have just sat back. He didn't even have any cards to play at the time.
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    My main criticism is this. It's unrealistic to expect USA to not intervene.
    Clearly it isn't given the way the Syria debate has gone.

    Ideally there would be no super powers in the world and no nukes.
    Last time I checked we don't live in a place called ideally.

    But if they're going to intervene.
    Just don't intervene without a reason to do so.

    Do it right, don't fuck shit up.
    Give me an example of someone intervening unilaterally and occupying without fucking shit up as you say.

    USA doesn't have to bear the consequences of their interventionism, other people who die in impunity do.
    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.

    Like the poor iraqis, who you callously dismiss like they're garbage or have zero human value.
    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.

  9. #89
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    Irrelevant
    How am I supposed to discuss this with you if I don't know where you're coming from?

  10. #90

    Default

    I really do think there's a lot of blame America first going on in this thread, as there is going on most of the time, I dont think the US has a foreign policy which is going to please a lot of perfectionist tendencies at home or elsewhere but its a government operating in competition with others which are much, much, much worse and there's no denying it, its not Greenpeace or Amnesty we're talking about and it definitely can not afford to be.

    Why is it so easy to believe that Russia and China's interventions and foreign policy were things of the past or belong in a past era of the USSR? They're as engaged and on message today as they were then and I'd say they are fighting much, much smarter these days than they were then, definitely in the case of China who I believe will, if they can, wait out any struggle between states like Russia and the US and much, much later prevail through things such as proprietorship and ownership of key resources, which is largely how their interests are being advanced presently.

    The Russians are crazy, dont mistake that for a moment, in order to defend the right of a dictator to chemically attack his own citizenry they moved naval vessels into proximity were they could challenge US and UK warships and submarines, that's insane, jackshit insane, and they've asserted its because they are prepared to stand up to "western idealism", WTF, its idealistic to expect that international law is enforced now? Chemical attacks are fine?

    That's the use of irradiated water to poison dissidents abroad, and no doubt bystanders, the chechen war (which is the left wing cliche), their handling of beslan and military aggression on the boarders of the EU, THAT was a flat out invasion, unmistakeable, with nothing like the rational of britain and America in Iraq and Afghanistan but intelligent analysts correctly perceived WAS intended to mirror those actions and send a message that Russia was prepared to utilise military might once more.

    The reasons none of this is reported in the west, the reason why the left and right tend to focus on their own governments are the source of potential threat, is that the media is on orders not to induce any domestic wig outs. The lessons learned from the cold war are that no population can really bare the full knowledge of national states being anything like the war footing that they are on for very long so they simply dont tell them about it. Let the conspiracy theorists work it out and rest of the population work away knowing nothing about it.

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