Bush Diplomacy in Action

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is encouraging news, but to address an issue...

 

If money can accomplish what military force can, why not?

            -=Mike

Why the fuck does MY money have to fund so much democracy, which is expensive either way you do it? Go find somebody else to bill the next time some people need to be liberated or nail it to the UN's door at night or something.

 

 

Seriously, I know you like to make a big "so I guess the left DOESN'T care about human rights after all" thing about Iraq, and no, I don't care about human rights when it comes to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars that I must pitch in for, an estimate that does an injustice by itself in putting no value on the lives lost.

 

That's why I'm so tired of this "America must place the throbbing cock of freedom in the vagina of every dictatorship we can find and shoot our wad of democracy" rhetoric. Fuck no, that's expensive.

 

And of course, in the end, they will not use the money they charge for the war on paying off the war, but will buy some new toys, instead leaving us with an even higher national debt as they leave office.

 

I guess this is a part of my larger complaint with government, but I'm just tired of letting them get away with it over and over again.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why do you hate freedom, liberty and democracy, Jobber?

 

Also, why do you hate children, puppies and kittens?

 

And before I forget, when did you stop beating your wife (er, husband)?...

[Guest MikeSC]

This is encouraging news, but to address an issue...

 

If money can accomplish what military force can, why not?

            -=Mike

Why the fuck does MY money have to fund so much democracy, which is expensive either way you do it?

Well, you can either spend some money NOW --- or spend A LOT more later trying to fix the problem that ignoring uncomfortable problems has caused us.

 

Can you think of a better usage of your tax dollars than to try and eliminate the SOURCES of terrorism?

Go find somebody else to bill the next time some people need to be liberated or nail it to the UN's door at night or something.

You would bitch if we were attacked. You bitch if we do something to avoid being attacked.

 

This is a brilliant investment of money and our resources --- pro-active action is very much needed.

Seriously, I know you like to make a big "so I guess the left DOESN'T care about human rights after all" thing about Iraq, and no, I don't care about human rights when it comes to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars that I must pitch in for, an estimate that does an injustice by itself in putting no value on the lives lost.

Then you have no right to EVER bitch about our history of doing bad things, because you clearly oppose us doing the right thing if it, in any minor way, inconveniences you. Why did we support regimes that were less than good for a nice chunk of the 20th Century?

 

Because it was convenient for us to do so.

 

And rather than recognize the clear problems such short-sighted thinking created, you call for more of the same.

 

And I lack the energy to go back and check, but I sincerely hope you weren't one of the peanut gallery bitching that Bush didn't pursue diplomacy enough --- because you're bitching about him doing things...DIPLOMATICALLY.

That's why I'm so tired of this "America must place the throbbing cock of freedom in the vagina of every dictatorship we can find and shoot our wad of democracy" rhetoric. Fuck no, that's expensive.

So, basically, you support human rights --- provided that you don't have to do anything to actually make it happen.

And of course, in the end, they will not use the money they charge for the war on paying off the war, but will buy some new toys, instead leaving us with an even higher national debt as they leave office.

And, damn them, they will do EXACTLY what you want them to do after the fact. Bastards!

I guess this is a part of my larger complaint with government, but I'm just tired of letting them get away with it over and over again.

Then your entire claim to give the mildest shit about human rights is basically utter bullshit.

 

Because you clearly won't do the first thing to bring it about.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually Mike, I'm not really complaining so much about this, because if nothing else it's an investment to make sure we won't have problems in the future, just like you said.

 

I'm talking about that whole Iraq boondoggle and it's "Oops, out of money, time to go ask Congress for billions again" thing. I'm not even speaking out so much against the war itself but how it was done, with us footing nearly the whole bill.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually Mike, I'm not really complaining so much about this, because if nothing else it's an investment to make sure we won't have problems in the future, just like you said.

 

I'm talking about that whole Iraq boondoggle and it's "Oops, out of money, time to go ask Congress for billions again" thing. I'm not even speaking out so much against the war itself but how it was done, with us footing nearly the whole bill.

We're spending money on something that MIGHT actually make things better.

 

That's more than we can say about almost all of our social program spending. I'd rather spend it on that than such economic boondoggles as the Medicare drug plan.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Let's not forget the Great Society. Maybe if we gave the Iraqis food stamps and cheese Ted Kennedy would be more understanding...

[NoCalMike 0]

Let's not forget the Great Society. Maybe if we gave the Iraqis food stamps and cheese Ted Kennedy would be more understanding...

Well one thing we aren't giving them is a minimum wage and/or rights to unionize...... I wonder if some corporations had any influence on that decision for Iraqs new "Democracy"

[Guest BDC]

The Pakistan situation vexes me.

 

I'm pretty much convinced that we know where Osama bin Laden is, and that he's in Pakistan.

 

Well.....when I say "know", I don't mean, we can point out EXACTLY where he is on a map. I don't think it's as simple as pointing to an X.

 

But I think we probably have some good intel that he's in certain sections of Pakistan, but for whatever reason (likely that we're trying to keep on Pakistan's good side so they'll aid us in the war on terror) we don't press the issue with them.

 

Just wanted to toss in that I think this is more about them being friendly with us when they and India get cranky with each other, but I could easily be wrong.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

We're spending money on something that MIGHT actually make things better.

 

That's more than we can say about almost all of our social program spending. I'd rather spend it on that than such economic boondoggles as the Medicare drug plan.

              -=Mike

But enough is enough. You might spend some money on charity and hope you'll make things better, but if the charity starts maxing out your credit card you'll want them to stop.

 

The only self-interest Americans had in this war was to prevent WMD from being used against them, that Saddam might sell them to terrorists. Since then we did not only find no WMDs, but then found out that N. Korea has WMDs and is desperate and crazy enough to want to sell them for best offer, no background check necessary, terrorist groups feel free to apply.

 

The whole "saving Iraqis and spreading freedom" thing was really really really secondary or even teritary to the security issues of the war. Since the embarassment of No WMD + N.Korea, the government has tried to save face by emphasizing this blooming democracy stuff as much as possible. You are such a willing sucker for the Bush Revisionist History, that you honestly believe we went to war so women can vote and all that other good stuff. I'm floored.

[Guest MikeSC]

We're spending money on something that MIGHT actually make things better.

 

That's more than we can say about almost all of our social program spending. I'd rather spend it on that than such economic boondoggles as the Medicare drug plan.

              -=Mike

But enough is enough. You might spend some money on charity and hope you'll make things better, but if the charity starts maxing out your credit card you'll want them to stop.

When a company starts up, they run up massive debt to get the business off the floor --- recognizing that the investment NOW will pay huge dividends LATER.

 

You can't focus on the short-term picture.

The only self-interest Americans had in this war was to prevent WMD from being used against them, that Saddam might sell them to terrorists. Since then we did not only find no WMDs, but then found out that N. Korea has WMDs and is desperate and crazy enough to want to sell them for best offer, no background check necessary, terrorist groups feel free to apply.

And we also know that Saddam was actively pursuing them, had actual ties to terrorist groups, and was in an area that tends to be a bit of a hotbed for terrorist activities...it made a bit more sense to prevent him from getting them than dealing with N. Korea who already had them.

 

As they say, it's easier to avoid cancer than it is to cure it.

The whole "saving Iraqis and spreading freedom" thing was really really really secondary or even teritary to the security issues of the war.

Yup, but the benefits of what Bush was trying to do --- introduce democracy into the Islamo-facist Middle East --- could well benefit us in ways we never dreamed possible.

 

People with a voice in their future don't really tend to become homicidal bombers.

Since the embarassment of No WMD + N.Korea, the government has tried to save face by emphasizing this blooming democracy stuff as much as possible. You are such a willing sucker for the Bush Revisionist History, that you honestly believe we went to war so women can vote and all that other good stuff. I'm floored.

And you're so blinded by your loathing for Bush to even recognize that things are working out PRECISELY how he planned it than it's even sadder.

 

And how PRECISELY is N. Korea Bush's embarrassment, since it was Clinton's bang-up foreign policy team that allowed them to develop them in the first place?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Pressure from the Egyptian populace is as much responsible as any diplomatic pressure, but still, this amounts to basically no change at all. At the end of the day Mubarak's lock on power is iron-clad.

[Guest MikeSC]

Pressure from the Egyptian populace is as much responsible as any diplomatic pressure, but still, this amounts to basically no change at all.

Yeah, hold on to that pipe dream. I'm sure it's a coincidence that it comes on the heels of the Iraqi vote. Just a big ol' coincidence.

At the end of the day Mubarak's lock on power is iron-clad.

Democracy is a process, not an event.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

It's all for show. I'm sure the Iraqi election did have an effect - namely, convincing Mubarak of the importance of appearing democratic (and before you take that the wrong way, like I know you will, that wasn't a criticism of the Iraqi election).

[Guest MikeSC]

It's all for show.

Of course it is. I am just amazed at how openly you will desire for misery if it might possibly hurt America.

I'm sure the Iraqi election did have an effect - namely, convincing Mubarak of the importance of appearing democratic (and before you take that the wrong way, like I know you will, that wasn't a criticism of the Iraqi election).

It only took England, what, several HUNDRED years to develop democracy from the signing of the Magna Carta?

 

I imagine Iraq will pull it off in much less time.

 

Ditto Egypt.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

It's all for show.

Of course it is. I am just amazed at how openly you will desire for misery if it might possibly hurt America.

I'm sure the Iraqi election did have an effect - namely, convincing Mubarak of the importance of appearing democratic (and before you take that the wrong way, like I know you will, that wasn't a criticism of the Iraqi election).

It only took England, what, several HUNDRED years to develop democracy from the signing of the Magna Carta?

 

I imagine Iraq will pull it off in much less time.

 

Ditto Egypt.

-=Mike

No country is going to go democratic while combat forces of an occupying nation is still within the borders. Whatever "elected" government does result is nothing, and should be regarded as nothing but a sham and a glorified puppet government.

 

But what about Germany? What about Japan?

 

Forward combat forces were withdrawn from those two nations before elections were set to go forward, replaced by peacekeeper troops save for the military bases that exist to this day.

 

But still, they were occupied and they turned out fine.

 

Yes, but they were both also victims of the doctrine of total war. Their entire infrastructure was leveled, and cities that defined to a culture what it ment to be that culture (Dresden, Germany; Hiroshima, Japan) were nearly burned from the face of the Earth. There was little to no resistance in either of these nations after the ending of combat operations because it was widly known among the women, children, and whatever small precentage of the male fighting population that was left that any sort of resistance would be met with immeidate and overwhelming force. If they didn't believe that they merely had to look to what remained of Tokyo and Berlin.

 

They were also developed countries (great powers even) before the occupation. Iraq was barely a country.

 

Iraq will not "pull it off" in less time, and will more than likely never pull off becoming a functioning, self-sustaining country. A State has had a next to impossible time of devloping in that region, as the area and its abundant natural resources have been under the forces of the Persians, Alexander The Great, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Arabs, Ottoman Turks, British, and now Americans. That country has never really had a history of being anything else besides anyone's puppet and America is just continuing that everlasting trend.

 

The newly elected "government" of Iraq, if anything, spurns influence from Washington for influence from Terhan and Damascus, and so even if the US leaves Iraq right now and call it stable it will see a future as being a puppet of a greater Arab empire which, by the by, is the dream of Osama Bin Laden.

 

Also, an interesting quote that came out of you-know-who's mouth recently:

 

"We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria,"

 

How people can read that and not fall off their chairs laughing is completely beyond me.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's all for show.

Of course it is. I am just amazed at how openly you will desire for misery if it might possibly hurt America.

I'm sure the Iraqi election did have an effect - namely, convincing Mubarak of the importance of appearing democratic (and before you take that the wrong way, like I know you will, that wasn't a criticism of the Iraqi election).

It only took England, what, several HUNDRED years to develop democracy from the signing of the Magna Carta?

 

I imagine Iraq will pull it off in much less time.

 

Ditto Egypt.

-=Mike

No country is going to go democratic while combat forces of an occupying nation is still within the borders.

Germany and Japan did. S. Korea has as well --- especially considering that we never actually left.

Whatever "elected" government does result is nothing, and should be regarded as nothing but a sham and a glorified puppet government.

But...but...I thought Islamists in cahoots with Iran were the ones taking power?

 

Or is the gov't only legitimate if they adopt an "America is evil" platform?

But what about Germany? What about Japan?

 

Forward combat forces were withdrawn from those two nations before elections were set to go forward, replaced by peacekeeper troops save for the military bases that exist to this day.

And, GEE, what's in Iraq now? Why, American PEACEKEEPERS, whose only job is to stop the murderous thugs who are terrorizing innocent Iraqis.

But still, they were occupied and they turned out fine.

 

Yes, but they were both also victims of the doctrine of total war. Their entire infrastructure was leveled, and cities that defined to a culture what it ment to be that culture (Dresden, Germany; Hiroshima, Japan) were nearly burned from the face of the Earth.

Dresden and Hiroshima were cities that defined a culture?

 

News to the Germans.

 

And the Japanese.

There was little to no resistance in either of these nations after the ending of combat operations because it was widly known among the women, children, and whatever small precentage of the male fighting population that was left that any sort of resistance would be met with immeidate and overwhelming force. If they didn't believe that they merely had to look to what remained of Tokyo and Berlin.

Yet the Japanese fought as late as the 1970's.

They were also developed countries (great powers even) before the occupation. Iraq was barely a country.

Germany was a third-rate power with a long history of authoritatian rule. Japan was a governmental mess of the highest order.

 

You REALLY should do a bit of research.

Iraq will not "pull it off" in less time, and will more than likely never pull off becoming a functioning, self-sustaining country.

Because they're dark-skinned. We know.

A State has had a next to impossible time of devloping in that region, as the area and its abundant natural resources have been under the forces of the Persians, Alexander The Great, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Arabs, Ottoman Turks, British, and now Americans.

You know what's weird?

 

Unlike the Europeans, we actually LIBERATE people, rather than colonize them.

 

Strange how that works, eh?

That country has never really had a history of being anything else besides anyone's puppet and America is just continuing that everlasting trend.

Whose puppet was Saddam, out of curiosity?

The newly elected "government" of Iraq, if anything, spurns influence from Washington for influence from Terhan and Damascus, and so even if the US leaves Iraq right now and call it stable it will see a future as being a puppet of a greater Arab empire which, by the by, is the dream of Osama Bin Laden.

Hmm, and I guess the proof of this is forthcoming shortly.

 

You are aware that the Iraqis have turned on the "rebellion" rather impressively.

Also, an interesting quote that came out of you-know-who's mouth recently:

 

"We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria,"

 

How people can read that and not fall off their chairs laughing is completely beyond me.

Because most people aren't blindly anti-American.

 

You are.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Germany and Japan did. S. Korea has as well --- especially considering that we never actually left.

 

Combat divisons were withdrawn, either to bases, or brought back to America. Peacekeepers stayed a bit longer. Current troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea are not occupation forces of those countries, merely a security force left over as a cold war relic, except in the case of Japan where the US provide their security as a stipulation of their post World War 2 constitution.

 

But...but...I thought Islamists in cahoots with Iran were the ones taking power?

 

Or is the gov't only legitimate if they adopt an "America is evil" platform?

 

Choice #1 is a puppet government of Iraq that loves America and does whatever it can to kiss up to America.

 

Choice #2 is a government that will run for the protection and love of Iran and Syria. America put in choice #1, the Iraqi people elected a majority that's all for choice #2. Pick your poison.

 

And, GEE, what's in Iraq now? Why, American PEACEKEEPERS, whose only job is to stop the murderous thugs who are terrorizing innocent Iraqis

 

American peacekeepers that take pot shots at freed hostages. Also, those were nothing but peacekeepers that stormed Fallujah in December, and nothing but peacekeepers that were in charge of Abu Graib. You have forward combat divisions deployed currently in Iraq. Peacekeepers usually show up with blue helmits with the letters "UN" on them.

 

Dresden and Hiroshima were cities that defined a culture?

 

News to the Germans.

 

And the Japanese.

 

Dresden and Hiroshima were there a hell of a lot longer than Berlin and Tokyo. And why did the US firebomb Dresden? Were those old churches really that much of a threat?

 

Hiroshima and Dresden were destroyed as a part of the "total war" policy the allies had. Once they were comitted to total war the target did not matter. When cities like Hiroshima and Dresden began to be bombed off the map, what was left of the Axis powers knew that there wasn't very much more point in resisting.

 

Yet the Japanese fought as late as the 1970's.

 

Really? Where, when, and how? Number of deaths? I don't quite recall car bombs or other acts of terror going on in Japan, until groups started up as anti-Japan (not US) groups. See that chemical attack in the Tokyo subway in the 1990's.

 

Because they're dark-skinned. We know.

 

How the hell you got me saying a racist statement out of that line I'll never know. Then I remember who i'm talking to.

 

You know what's weird?

 

Unlike the Europeans, we actually LIBERATE people, rather than colonize them.

 

Strange how that works, eh?

 

America has only been around 200 years, they haven't had time to colonize on the scale of the Europeans. However, while you're trying to say that America doesn't colonize people I'd like to introduce you to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, the entire United States west of the fall line, Cuba, Philippines, and modern day things that act as colonial influence - bases in Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, to a lesser extent Germany, and to a greater extent the 13 new bases the US are currently building or planning on building in Iraq.

 

Whose puppet was Saddam, out of curiosity?

 

The United States. You knew that was coming and this argument has be done countless times, but i'll reiterate. The US fed him money and weapons to keep the Iranians in check because they were alligned with the Soviet Union. Just for fun, apparently, they also decided to supply the Iranian side too. When it looked like they were going to get found out, we withdrew.

 

Remember in the lead up to the war, all the bleeding heart conservatives wanted to tell you about Saddam's gassing of his own people? Lots of that happaned in the 1980's under the Presidency of Regan. What did Regan do? Just supply the gas, and kindly ask it get used on the Iranians, instead. So you can't just say they stopped supporting him after they found out that he was really an evil guy afterall.

 

Iraq was attacked under Bush 1 because they invaded another country, and helping them out would go a long way to improving relations in the Arab world, or at least give the US an ally in a place that largely doesn't care for them much, espically since the US help Israel exist

 

Hmm, and I guess the proof of this is forthcoming shortly.

 

You are aware that the Iraqis have turned on the "rebellion" rather impressively.

 

Just wait for when they try to draft up their constitution and we start hearing tidbits like "The Koran will be the basis for all law" and they start setting up bee-keeper suits for their women, and you guys tell them they can't do that.

 

Hell, the Kurds in the north are just hanging back waiting for their time to break away and form Kurdistan. They already have an autonomus parliment, and they have no desire to go play nice with the Shia'a and Sunnis.

 

Because most people aren't blindly anti-American.

 

*sigh*

 

Breaking news, Iraq is not having a smooth time becoming a functioning democracy. Apparently this country called Iraq is invaded and occupied by a foreign power and that power is the United States.

 

If China gathered together 10m troops, invaded and occupied the United States, completely destroyed the infrastructure, imposed curfews, arrested whoever they wanted whenever they wanted for whatever they wanted, tortured prisoners reguarilly, and then announced one day "alright you're going to have an election now! these nice Chinese soldiers will tell you where and how to vote. Don't skip out, or we might forget to feed you!" - how legit would that democracy be?

 

By the Geneva Conventions, that wouldn't be legit at all, but somehow I think you're one of those that has written them off as quaint.

[Guest MikeSC]

Germany and Japan did. S. Korea has as well --- especially considering that we never actually left.

Combat divisons were withdrawn, either to bases, or brought back to America. Peacekeepers stayed a bit longer.

Several YEARS later --- after we HAND-WROTE Constititions in the case of Japan.

Current troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea are not occupation forces of those countries, merely a security force left over as a cold war relic, except in the case of Japan where the US provide their security as a stipulation of their post World War 2 constitution.

Yet they're fully functional democracies. Odd.

But...but...I thought Islamists in cahoots with Iran were the ones taking power?

 

Or is the gov't only legitimate if they adopt an "America is evil" platform?

Choice #1 is a puppet government of Iraq that loves America and does whatever it can to kiss up to America.

 

Choice #2 is a government that will run for the protection and love of Iran and Syria. America put in choice #1, the Iraqi people elected a majority that's all for choice #2. Pick your poison.

I love that you fail to realize that Iraq might actually want to be free. Darn those dark-skinned folks, right?

And, GEE, what's in Iraq now? Why, American PEACEKEEPERS, whose only job is to stop the murderous thugs who are terrorizing innocent Iraqis

American peacekeepers that take pot shots at freed hostages.

We've already dissected how much BS her story is.

Also, those were nothing but peacekeepers that stormed Fallujah in December, and nothing but peacekeepers that were in charge of Abu Graib. You have forward combat divisions deployed currently in Iraq. Peacekeepers usually show up with blue helmits with the letters "UN" on them.

Well, we don't want the local girls to be raped or forced into prostitution, so we'll keep those guys out.

Dresden and Hiroshima were cities that defined a culture?

 

News to the Germans.

 

And the Japanese.

Dresden and Hiroshima were there a hell of a lot longer than Berlin and Tokyo. And why did the US firebomb Dresden? Were those old churches really that much of a threat?

And they "defined a culture" as much as, say, Ft. Worth defines American culture.

Hiroshima and Dresden were destroyed as a part of the "total war" policy the allies had. Once they were comitted to total war the target did not matter. When cities like Hiroshima and Dresden began to be bombed off the map, what was left of the Axis powers knew that there wasn't very much more point in resisting.

Yet they DID.

 

Strange, huh?

Yet the Japanese fought as late as the 1970's.

Really? Where, when, and how? Number of deaths? I don't quite recall car bombs or other acts of terror going on in Japan, until groups started up as anti-Japan (not US) groups. See that chemical attack in the Tokyo subway in the 1990's.

There actually were skirmishes as late as the 70's on small Pacific islands with remnants of the Japanese WW II military.

Because they're dark-skinned. We know.

How the hell you got me saying a racist statement out of that line I'll never know. Then I remember who i'm talking to.

The whole "Iraqis can't be independent" mentality is pretty damned racist.

You know what's weird?

 

Unlike the Europeans, we actually LIBERATE people, rather than colonize them.

 

Strange how that works, eh?

America has only been around 200 years, they haven't had time to colonize on the scale of the Europeans.

We sure as hell have the opportunity --- and have chosen not to.

However, while you're trying to say that America doesn't colonize people I'd like to introduce you to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, the entire United States west of the fall line, Cuba, Philippines, and modern day things that act as colonial influence - bases in Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, to a lesser extent Germany, and to a greater extent the 13 new bases the US are currently building or planning on building in Iraq.

Puerto Rico has been offered statehood or independence. It is all based on what they want. And they want neither right now. Hawaii is a state. Alaska was purchased from Russia. The western US was purchased from France and won in a war with Mexico. Cuba and the Phillipines were liberated by us.

 

And if you REALLY are trying to argue that we are colonizing Arabia, Japan, Germany, etc. then you're blind and naive.

Whose puppet was Saddam, out of curiosity?

 

The United States. You knew that was coming and this argument has be done countless times, but i'll reiterate. The US fed him money and weapons to keep the Iranians in check because they were alligned with the Soviet Union. Just for fun, apparently, they also decided to supply the Iranian side too. When it looked like they were going to get found out, we withdrew.

We wanted two horrendous countries to wipe one another out. It's brilliant strategy.

Remember in the lead up to the war, all the bleeding heart conservatives wanted to tell you about Saddam's gassing of his own people? Lots of that happaned in the 1980's under the Presidency of Regan. What did Regan do? Just supply the gas, and kindly ask it get used on the Iranians, instead. So you can't just say they stopped supporting him after they found out that he was really an evil guy afterall.

It's "Reagan", and when we learned of what they did, we cut them off.

Iraq was attacked under Bush 1 because they invaded another country, and helping them out would go a long way to improving relations in the Arab world, or at least give the US an ally in a place that largely doesn't care for them much, espically since the US help Israel exist

Because the US couldn't have attacked for a good reason --- like liberating another country.

 

And, bear in mind, we did liberate them. Unlike Europe, we didn't make them our property.

Hmm, and I guess the proof of this is forthcoming shortly.

 

You are aware that the Iraqis have turned on the "rebellion" rather impressively.

Just wait for when they try to draft up their constitution and we start hearing tidbits like "The Koran will be the basis for all law" and they start setting up bee-keeper suits for their women, and you guys tell them they can't do that.

Ah, so no proof is forthcoming. Got it.

Hell, the Kurds in the north are just hanging back waiting for their time to break away and form Kurdistan. They already have an autonomus parliment, and they have no desire to go play nice with the Shia'a and Sunnis.

And that is IRAQ'S issue to deal with.

Because most people aren't blindly anti-American.

 

*sigh*

 

Breaking news, Iraq is not having a smooth time becoming a functioning democracy.

It's actually startlingly smoothe.

Apparently this country called Iraq is invaded and occupied by a foreign power and that power is the United States.

To free them from a madman and allow them to make their own future. Damn us. Damn the US for doing the right thing.

 

Why can't we be more like our European "allies" outside of Britain and Italy?

If China gathered together 10m troops, invaded and occupied the United States, completely destroyed the infrastructure, imposed curfews, arrested whoever they wanted whenever they wanted for whatever they wanted, tortured prisoners reguarilly, and then announced one day "alright you're going to have an election now! these nice Chinese soldiers will tell you where and how to vote. Don't skip out, or we might forget to feed you!" - how legit would that democracy be?

Seeing as how the Chinese have a human rights record of utter shame, it wuldn't quite be the same thing.

 

And, the sub-human thugs destroyed the infrastructure. Curfews are SOP when you have a problem with sub-humans bombing people. And, "torture" is still bandied around where it does not remotely fit.

 

You want to see atrocities? See France's treatment of the Ivory Coast.

 

Or the UN's treatment of girls in just about any place they are stationed for "peace keeping".

By the Geneva Conventions, that wouldn't be legit at all, but somehow I think you're one of those that has written them off as quaint.

We've demonstrated, repeatedly, you are clueless as to the Geneva Conventions.

 

You don't need to constantly re-prove it.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Several YEARS later --- after we HAND-WROTE Constititions in the case of Japan.

 

After total war. And you expect Iraq will work without a complete destruction of its people?

 

I love that you fail to realize that Iraq might actually want to be free. Darn those dark-skinned folks, right?

 

You seem to have a lot of pent up racist anger. Unfortunately for you I have a couple image marcos.

 

 

That's a dark skinned person.

 

 

That's an Iraqi. Dispite best efforts to turn all their skin into more of a red-shade of color, they're still apparently quite white.

 

We've already dissected how much BS her story is.

 

Well, it's established everything is BS that doesn't agree with your point of view.

 

And they "defined a culture" as much as, say, Ft. Worth defines American culture.

 

Middle America actually does say a lot about or American culture and who they are as a people. Also, Ft. Worth is small on this scale. Think more along the lines of New Orleans, or San Francisco - rich in culture, not huge cities. To destroy them would be to destroy culture.

 

Puerto Rico has been offered statehood or independence. It is all based on what they want.

 

After Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, they were offered the Iraqi version of "statehood" too. They asked for outside intervention instead.

 

Hawaii is a state.

 

And it always has been since the 13 colonies. There was no one living on the island chain to colonize... no one at all

 

And if you REALLY are trying to argue that we are colonizing Arabia, Japan, Germany, etc. then you're blind and naive.

 

Actually I said you aren't colonizing Germany and Japan because you do not have forward combat divisions delployed throughout their countries. You do, however, in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

Because the US couldn't have attacked for a good reason --- like liberating another country.

 

And, bear in mind, we did liberate them. Unlike Europe, we didn't make them our property.

 

Have you heard of the concept of "Sphere of Influence"? It helped Britain colonize half of China, without ever deploying troops to the countryside. It was done through complete and total economic dominance of the area. These days you can invade with guns to control a country, or you can tie their economic future to your little finger - controlling them via money as a proxy.

 

Ah, so no proof is forthcoming. Got it.

 

The two major parties in the victorious Shiite alliance are al-Jaafari's party, the Dawa, founded in the late 1950s to work for an Islamic republic, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, the goal of which can be guessed from its name.

 

To be fair, both have backed away from their more radical stances of earlier decades. But both parties -- and al-Jaafari himself -- were sheltered in Tehran, Iran, in the 1980s by Washington's archenemy, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and both acknowledge that they want to move Iraq toward Islamic law and values.

- Fort Worth Star Telegram: 2005 6 March

 

But you'll skip over this.

 

And that is IRAQ'S issue to deal with

 

I don't know if you noticed but the US is in Iraq now. If a civil war breaks out, our troops will be in the center of it.

 

It's actually startlingly smoothe

 

Sure as the sun rises in the west.

 

To free them from a madman and allow them to make their own future. Damn us. Damn the US for doing the right thing.

 

Why can't we be more like our European "allies" outside of Britain and Italy?

 

Out with one madman, in with another. Ask Cambodia about this. Reconize the words "khmer" and "rouge".

 

Seeing as how the Chinese have a human rights record of utter shame, it wuldn't quite be the same thing.

 

Shhhh... the US gave them Most Favored Nation status so we can widdle away their Commie-ness.

 

And, the sub-human thugs destroyed the infrastructure.

 

Which ones would those be? The guys with sticks of dynamite and exploding cars, or the ones dropping 5,000lb bombs from 50,000 feet?

 

And, "torture" is still bandied around where it does not remotely fit.

 

You're right. Torture is such a bad word. We should just call it 'pro-active physical discomfort to realise a greater goal.'

 

You want to see atrocities? See France's treatment of the Ivory Coast.

 

Justifying your bad behavior with someone else's isn't going to get you very far.

 

We've demonstrated, repeatedly, you are clueless as to the Geneva Conventions.

 

You don't need to constantly re-prove it.

 

You are clueless to any opinion outside of the Project for a New American Century.

[Guest MikeSC]

Several YEARS later --- after we HAND-WROTE Constititions in the case of Japan.

After total war. And you expect Iraq will work without a complete destruction of its people?

It won't be necessary. They've already turned against the "rebellion" nicely.

I love that you fail to realize that Iraq might actually want to be free. Darn those dark-skinned folks, right?

You seem to have a lot of pent up racist anger. Unfortunately for you I have a couple image marcos.

 

 

That's a dark skinned person.

 

 

That's an Iraqi. Dispite best efforts to turn all their skin into more of a red-shade of color, they're still apparently quite white.

YOU are the one living in this fantasy world where those darned Arabs MUST be puppets of SOMEBODY. I'm the one saying they can be quite independent of any outside influence.

 

And, hate to break it to you --- Arabs aren't white.

We've already dissected how much BS her story is.

Well, it's established everything is BS that doesn't agree with your point of view.

No, but her story is utter bullshit. It could hardly be more false.

And they "defined a culture" as much as, say, Ft. Worth defines American culture.

Middle America actually does say a lot about or American culture and who they are as a people. Also, Ft. Worth is small on this scale. Think more along the lines of New Orleans, or San Francisco - rich in culture, not huge cities. To destroy them would be to destroy culture.

It wouldn't destroy American culture, much as you may desire otherwise. It'd destroy a city, which is tragic enough.

Puerto Rico has been offered statehood or independence. It is all based on what they want.

After Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, they were offered the Iraqi version of "statehood" too. They asked for outside intervention instead.

Puerto Ricans have not voted, as a majority, for independence.

Hawaii is a state.

And it always has been since the 13 colonies. There was no one living on the island chain to colonize... no one at all

I love hearing a Euro-phile criticize anybody for "colonizing".

And if you REALLY are trying to argue that we are colonizing Arabia, Japan, Germany, etc. then you're blind and naive.

Actually I said you aren't colonizing Germany and Japan because you do not have forward combat divisions delployed throughout their countries. You do, however, in Iraq and Afghanistan

As we did in Germany and Japan.

 

For years.

 

Gen. MacArthur wasn't in Japan alone, ya know.

 

Well, no, you probably don't know.

Because the US couldn't have attacked for a good reason --- like liberating another country.

 

And, bear in mind, we did liberate them. Unlike Europe, we didn't make them our property.

Have you heard of the concept of "Sphere of Influence"? It helped Britain colonize half of China, without ever deploying troops to the countryside. It was done through complete and total economic dominance of the area. These days you can invade with guns to control a country, or you can tie their economic future to your little finger - controlling them via money as a proxy.

Which is worlds different than conquering peoples by slaughtering them en masse --- a distinctly European practice for centuries.

Ah, so no proof is forthcoming. Got it.

The two major parties in the victorious Shiite alliance are al-Jaafari's party, the Dawa, founded in the late 1950s to work for an Islamic republic, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, the goal of which can be guessed from its name.

 

To be fair, both have backed away from their more radical stances of earlier decades. But both parties -- and al-Jaafari himself -- were sheltered in Tehran, Iran, in the 1980s by Washington's archenemy, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and both acknowledge that they want to move Iraq toward Islamic law and values.

- Fort Worth Star Telegram: 2005 6 March

 

But you'll skip over this.

Well, SPECULATION and PROOF aren't the same thing.

And that is IRAQ'S issue to deal with

I don't know if you noticed but the US is in Iraq now. If a civil war breaks out, our troops will be in the center of it.

No civil war will break out while we are there. It didn't break out during the "insurrection" (thank you, Michael Moore). It won't suddenly start now.

 

Believe it or not, they actually might be able to govern themselves without violence.

To free them from a madman and allow them to make their own future. Damn us. Damn the US for doing the right thing.

 

Why can't we be more like our European "allies" outside of Britain and Italy?

Out with one madman, in with another. Ask Cambodia about this. Reconize the words "khmer" and "rouge".

Well, if I listen to Noam Chomsky, nothing happened...

Seeing as how the Chinese have a human rights record of utter shame, it wuldn't quite be the same thing.

Shhhh... the US gave them Most Favored Nation status so we can widdle away their Commie-ness.

We've also been quite critical of their human rights record.

 

I've never supported giving them MFN status.

And, the sub-human thugs destroyed the infrastructure.

Which ones would those be? The guys with sticks of dynamite and exploding cars, or the ones dropping 5,000lb bombs from 50,000 feet?

Ah, the military as sub-human?

 

Figured...

And, "torture" is still bandied around where it does not remotely fit.

You're right. Torture is such a bad word. We should just call it 'pro-active physical discomfort to realise a greater goal.'

To call Abu Gharib torture is to insult people who ACTUALLY have been tortured.

You want to see atrocities? See France's treatment of the Ivory Coast.

Justifying your bad behavior with someone else's isn't going to get you very far.

Who's justifying? I'm saying we did precious little. I'm saying our "honorable opponents" have gallons of blood on their hands.

We've demonstrated, repeatedly, you are clueless as to the Geneva Conventions.

 

You don't need to constantly re-prove it.

You are clueless to any opinion outside of the Project for a New American Century.

Or any sane legal scholar

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

It won't be necessary. They've already turned against the "rebellion" nicely.

 

33 killed in Iraq violence

 

Violence and political doubts presist in Iraq

 

Bulgaria mourns 8th dead in Iraq

 

US troops cut an Iraq abuse video

 

should this be a typical day in Iraq, or any country?

 

YOU are the one living in this fantasy world where those darned Arabs MUST be puppets of SOMEBODY. I'm the one saying they can be quite independent of any outside influence.

 

And, hate to break it to you --- Arabs aren't white.

 

Actually, fyi, Arabs (Ottoman Turks) took down the Roman Empire for good. Arab forces spread out from the Saudi lands to bring Islam from the Indian border to central Spain in scucessful war after war. That empire has settled into modern day African countries. Arabs can hold their own just fine thank you very much.

 

And sure Arabs aren't white, but could you tickle my funny bone again and call them black some more? That's beautiful.

 

The Iraq area, however, is rich in natural resources making it a popular target for empires throughout time. Forces from Egypt to Alexander to Rome to Persia have all had their way with that area at one time or another, despite whoever lived there, and whatever nation of their own they wanted to form.

 

No, but her story is utter bullshit. It could hardly be more false.

 

Why would the journlist want to lie? What does it get her? What's her angle?

 

I love hearing a Euro-phile criticize anybody for "colonizing".

 

Spiffy, before you were trying to tell me that America doesn't colonize. There's an agreement.

 

 

As we did in Germany and Japan.

For years.

Gen. MacArthur wasn't in Japan alone, ya know.

Well, no, you probably don't know.

 

Total war + occupation = (eventually) new country, created in occupier's image.

 

What's missing from the Iraq equation?

 

Which is worlds different than conquering peoples by slaughtering them en masse --- a distinctly European practice for centuries.

 

Did you know Britain is in Europe?

 

Well, SPECULATION and PROOF aren't the same thing.

 

Well.. uh.. uh... uh... YOU MUST BE WRONG I MUST BE RIGHT LA LA LA THEY'RE THROWING FLOWERS AT US TROOPS.

 

Well, if I listen to Noam Chomsky, nothing happened...

 

Except we're not talking about Noam Chomsky now, are we?

 

Ah, the military as sub-human?

Figured...

 

So death is good when you're the one doing the killing?

 

To call Abu Gharib torture is to insult people who ACTUALLY have been tortured.

 

What, do you agree with Rush Limbaugh? Was it frat party anticts?

 

Who's justifying? I'm saying we did precious little. I'm saying our "honorable opponents" have gallons of blood on their hands.

 

And so do the US, in this situation.

[Guest MikeSC]

It won't be necessary. They've already turned against the "rebellion" nicely.

 

33 killed in Iraq violence

 

Violence and political doubts presist in Iraq

 

Bulgaria mourns 8th dead in Iraq

 

US troops cut an Iraq abuse video

 

should this be a typical day in Iraq, or any country?

 

When you have a minority of sub-humans trying to kill people, yes, that is the tragic outcome.

YOU are the one living in this fantasy world where those darned Arabs MUST be puppets of SOMEBODY. I'm the one saying they can be quite independent of any outside influence.

 

And, hate to break it to you --- Arabs aren't white.

Actually, fyi, Arabs (Ottoman Turks) took down the Roman Empire for good.

So, the only praise you have for this is from something done, oh, 1600 or so years ago?

 

What a guy!

Arab forces spread out from the Saudi lands to bring Islam from the Indian border to central Spain in scucessful war after war. That empire has settled into modern day African countries. Arabs can hold their own just fine thank you very much.

Ah, so when you want somebody to murder and kill --- call an Arab.

 

You want people who can govern themselves, look elsewhere, eh?

And sure Arabs aren't white, but could you tickle my funny bone again and call them black some more? That's beautiful.

Who referred to them as "black"? I referred to them as "dark-skinned", which, when compared to say Norwegians, is an entirely appropriate term.

 

And it was done in mocking of your condescending attitude towards those of a darker hue than you.

 

Seriously, tone down the racism, Bakkkon. Thanks.

The Iraq area, however, is rich in natural resources making it a popular target for empires throughout time. Forces from Egypt to Alexander to Rome to Persia have all had their way with that area at one time or another, despite whoever lived there, and whatever nation of their own they wanted to form.

So, of course, no chance of them EVER governing themselves.

 

No sir.

No, but her story is utter bullshit. It could hardly be more false.

Why would the journlist want to lie? What does it get her? What's her angle?

To get her gov't to pull the troops out of Iraq by inflaming the left in the country, for starters.

 

Why not ask the more obvious question:

 

Why would the US target so insignificant a person when it would only cause problems for an ally?

 

BTW, note how her story has been falling apart since she first started talking?

I love hearing a Euro-phile criticize anybody for "colonizing".

Spiffy, before you were trying to tell me that America doesn't colonize. There's an agreeme

We don't.

 

Keep in mind, if we chose to, we could conquer the world. We have the military might to wipe any country on Earth off of the map.

 

We CHOOSE not to. We don't WANT an empire.

As we did in Germany and Japan.

For years.

Gen. MacArthur wasn't in Japan alone, ya know.

Well, no, you probably don't know.

Total war + occupation = (eventually) new country, created in occupier's image.

 

What's missing from the Iraq equation?

Actually, it's total war + occupation = functional democracy.

 

And it fits with Iraq.

Which is worlds different than conquering peoples by slaughtering them en masse --- a distinctly European practice for centuries.

Did you know Britain is in Europe?

I was thinking of Britain in large part.

Well, SPECULATION and PROOF aren't the same thing.

Well.. uh.. uh... uh... YOU MUST BE WRONG I MUST BE RIGHT LA LA LA THEY'RE THROWING FLOWERS AT US TROOPS.

They voted in impresive numbers. They do not support the terrorists.

 

I daresay my beliefs have actual reason behind them.

 

Yours just has knee-jerk racism and anti-Americanism.

Well, if I listen to Noam Chomsky, nothing happened...

Except we're not talking about Noam Chomsky now, are we?

Just that it was ironic that a Chomsky-phile would have the nerve to mention Cambodia while they've spent considerable time pimping a guy who denied the holocaust there happened.

Ah, the military as sub-human?

Figured...

So death is good when you're the one doing the killing?

Nope. Only when the guilty die.

To call Abu Gharib torture is to insult people who ACTUALLY have been tortured.

What, do you agree with Rush Limbaugh? Was it frat party anticts?

Nope. But it was closer to that than torture.

Who's justifying? I'm saying we did precious little. I'm saying our "honorable opponents" have gallons of blood on their hands.

And so do the US, in this situation.

The only blood is from the birth of a democracy.

 

I'll accept that happily.

-=Mike