RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA

RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 10:56:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero Serious question to all you USA chaps. If the Bush administration didn't invade Iraq because of WMD's then what was the real reason. I happen to think they were shitting bullets over the risk of them falling into terrorists hands & hit the panic button. I'm interested in your take not jerking you all off. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq as it seemed to me to make no strategic or tactical sense, nor did I see any valid exit strategy once Saddam Hussein was toppled. I'm not certain I can explain the reasoning behind the invasion but I can try. I believe the invasion of Iraq, at a strategic level, occurred not because of WMD or Saddam's alleged involvement with terrorists, but because of the underlying precepts of what came to be called the "Bush Doctrine". To wit, that greater stability and global safety can be achieved by the pre-emptive intervention in autocratic non-democratic states to foster and/or impose democratic institutions, including the use of military force to achieve these aims. The fascinating part is that with the end of the Bush presidency, this policy has not only continued but multiplied. As far as I can see, President Obama has only continued and expanded the Bush Doctrine - we have now removed Muammar Gaddafi from Libya and there is a great deal of discussion around regime change in Syria and Iran, potentially through force. I do not believe in pre-emptive war and I think that this course is a mistake.

TheHeretic -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 11:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 you find out you were tricked in the most vicious ways and at the most vulnerable moment of your life. What do you call people who would play upon people`s fears like that? The Obama '12 campaign staff? [:D] It's a very nice appeal to emotion you have there, O59, but it is rooted in the persistent accusation that Bush knew and was evil, rather than that he was led by his own biases, and only saw what he wanted to see, and had the poltical capital and know-how to see it through. You might try noting that difference, when we discuss the problems of the current administration. Or perhaps you do, and that's why you make up so much bullshit about the positions I take.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 11:26:20 AM)
NEOCON PRIVATISED PARADISE ON EARTH

Real0ne -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 12:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack I do not believe in pre-emptive war and I think that this course is a mistake. Come on the gubbermint has pre-emptive everything today. Presumtive law. They devine with their guru and their salami whami says abc might [insert fear here] and that gives them the legitimacy to well blow the hell out of something throw you in jail whatever. So when the neighbors dog puckers his ass and the owner looks the other way you can presume that dog will shit on your lawn and you can waste it! and if he gets another one then you can just march onto his property and take him and all he owns by "conquest" just like the big boys do! quote: The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.[1] Proponents state that this right acknowledges the status quo, and that denial of the right is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it. Further, the right was traditionally accepted because the conquering force, being by definition stronger than any lawfully entitled governance which it may have replaced, was therefore more likely to secure peace and stability for the people, and so the Right of Conquest legitimises the conqueror towards that end.[citation needed] The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world It does not just acknowledge the injustice of the past but promotes it for the future and for those whos knowledge of history is a vacant lot, every british "interest" was "territory" taken by conquest. and for those who failed puzzles 101, today we protect "US interests" whats your first clue?

DarkSteven -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 2:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a defense to the Bush administration, there have been indications that Saddam's scientists may have misrepresented to him Iraq's nuclear capability. The Bushies might have over-relied on Saddam's beliefs and under-relied on the physical evidence. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-10-1.gif[/image] you people are news parrots. Lets discuss the news views! Quack quack LOL I believe that the alternative to the news is making up your own reality.

Edwynn -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 2:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy FR 1. Harboring, training and supporting terrorists. 2. WMD's 3. Regime change, saving lives and removing an aggressive threat to other Arab nations. 4. Establish a reasonably democratic bulwark in the region All legitimate, and different people would give different emphasis to each objective. 1. Harboring, training and supporting terrorists. 2. WMD's OK, that describes the US, so far. 3. Regime change, saving lives and removing an aggressive threat to other Arab nations. Regime exchange to replace the one that the US and UK put there to begin with, you mean. On the next point, not everyone would put the death of over 100,00 civilians into the basket of "saving lives." On the last point in item 3., the Arab world is more threatened now by western powers than at any time sincw WW II. 4. Establish a reasonably democratic bulwark in the region The Diebold voting machines are en route as we speak. They worked like a charm for Bush.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 3:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a defense to the Bush administration, there have been indications that Saddam's scientists may have misrepresented to him Iraq's nuclear capability. The Bushies might have over-relied on Saddam's beliefs and under-relied on the physical evidence. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-10-1.gif[/image] you people are news parrots. Lets discuss the news views! Quack quack LOL I believe that the alternative to the news is making up your own reality. The only place where reality and RealOne meet is 4 letters in the words.

Ninebelowzero -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:05:58 PM)
Fine as a precept if you can provide data to the otherwise. I do actually resent this like you wouldn't believe. As I said his pre election policy was nada. Please provide evidence to tell me I'm wrong. Clinton had royally screwed the pooch in the Balkans or have you forgotten the cruise misssile hitting the Chinese embassy. His response to the suicide attack on one of his ships was to order a cruise missile attack on the Tora Bora cave complex which amazingly coincided with an expose about a spunked dress. Or was this an emmission from the right wing media too. BTW Ken I'm a fucking anarchist. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero As I understand it Bush's pre election foreign policy could be written on the back of a postage stamp with room for the bill of rights left over. he wanted to focus on domestic & stop the USA acting as global policemen after Clinton's reckless adventurism around the globe. wreckless adventurism? Methinks someone has been listening to the right wing lie machine too much. As to the OP, W's close advisors all dreamed of a global American empire. 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed. Iraq was simply a target they thought they could get away with invading.

tazzygirl -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:09:02 PM)
quote: I'm a fucking anarchist Its good to know you fuck. The anarchist comment.. where did that come from?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:28:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero Fine as a precept if you can provide data to the otherwise. I do actually resent this like you wouldn't believe. As I said his pre election policy was nada. Please provide evidence to tell me I'm wrong. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

Ninebelowzero -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:35:06 PM)
I guess I look a cunt now.

tazzygirl -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:36:58 PM)
That other win still ringing in your ears, huh? [:D]

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 4:39:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero I guess I look a cunt now. No, I'd guess that you weren't aware of PNAC and who was responsible for the "total war" ideology.

MadAxeman -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:01:19 PM)
Oil. The rest is posturing.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadAxeman Oil. The rest is posturing. Read my first link. Naomi knows her shit. I need cider. [sm=chug.gif]

TheHeretic -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:17:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero I guess I look a cunt now. No, I'd guess that you weren't aware of PNAC and who was responsible for the "total war" ideology. And if you prefer something a bit less conspiratorial regarding Bush II's opinions of Saddam, there was always the assassination attempt against his father. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

Owner59 -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:28:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero I guess I look a cunt now. No, I'd guess that you weren't aware of PNAC and who was responsible for the "total war" ideology. And if you prefer something a bit less conspiratorial regarding Bush II's opinions of Saddam, there was always the assassination attempt against his father. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm Which points to it being a personal beef. Our civilian controlled military was only meant for the provide security and fight others looking to attack us or our friends. If was never intended to be used for personal purposes by anyone. shrub lying about direct threats to the United States to trick us into doing his bidding is as selfish and heartless as it comes.

Ninebelowzero -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:31:37 PM)
I knew about the assasination attempt.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:38:57 PM)
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Just to help reinforce what HippieKinkster posted. The report was done in prior to 9/11 and even states that the US is using the no-fly zones and other things as justification to have military in the area.

TheHeretic -> RE: Serious question for the citizens of the USA (12/10/2011 5:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Which points to it being a personal beef. Yawn... Rather than a life experience which impacted his views. Gotcha.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875