Staying the right course? (1708 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.08 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by zakalwe (View user info) at 2006-05-11 07:19:08 EDT
You are a head of state, responsible for the safety and stability of your citizens and allies.
Islamic terrorism has become an increasingly violent threat to your people's safety (and your oil supply).
What do you do?
a)Stop backing corrupt, repressive governments (eg. Saudi Arabia) and (peacefully) encourage
real change in the Middle East, preferably via the UN.
End devastating sanctions against Iraq.
Take steps to reduce absolute dependence on oil imports - (helps the environment too)
Stop selling arms to people who will turn them against you.
Acknowledge that much of the origin of this fundamentalism lies with the American funding of the
mujahideen in 80's Afghanistan, as part of the glorious fight against communism.
(all pretty unlikely, I know)
OR
b)Attack and occupy a Muslim country. In doing so remove a secular dictator who was fiercely
opposed by the fundamentalists (the real enemy). Add a puppet council with a convicted
embezzler for a leader. Fail to rebuild the infrastructure thoroughly destroyed by sanctions and
invasion. Continue to kill civilians (est. 11000). Meanwhile allow Afghanistan to slip back into
the Talibans hands.
Of course its not fair to dismiss b) without considering the arguments for it.
1. WMD
2. Save the Iraqi people
or as I prefer to phrase it
"Saddam's a bad guy, and he's going to kill YOU."
I think invading Iraq was the best possible way to encourage terrorism. Ever heard about how Al Qaeda want Bush to win in November because his wars are great recruitment tools?
I am not an American. My life is not really affected by what goes on outside my country.
But I don't believe any reasonable person can look at the world, and not feel anger or at least despair.
Please, someone tell me how wrong I am.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-20 18:25:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
How do you "peacefully" cause irrational people to stop being violent?
The fight against communism was religious fundamentalism? That's ... uh... okay...
Islam has been violent and irrational for much longer than the 80s.
Psh.
Submitted by Tyrell (user info) at 2006-05-17 12:10:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But you have a point in your post. But it can still effect you, hence the comment below.
Submitted by Tyrell (user info) at 2006-05-17 12:05:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hope you get blown to smithereens in a London tube someday.
Submitted by Happily_Agnostic (user info) at 2006-05-13 06:22:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
True
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2006-05-12 18:05:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:18:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:03:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
If not to secure a supply of crude, what compelling reason did the US have to abandon the just war doctrine. Remember Saddam being a bad guy doesn't count. There are lots of bad guys in the world. Promoting democracy is out as well. We know know that the 9/11 hijackers had nothing to do with Saddam and his regime. Applying the theory of Occam's Razor leaves only one plausible explanation-Oil.
----------------------------
Judoka that would make sense if we did control the oil.
***********************************************
Then why are we there?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-05-11 17:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say that George W is one of the most incompetent and corrupt leaders America has ever seen, and that it's amazing we're still a first-world country. It's what they call a no-brainer; so much so that it's damned hard to write a fresh post about it.
Submitted by dr_weazel (user info) at 2006-05-11 17:05:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
ALERT ALERT!!!
To all American citizens:
We have received warning that someone is trying to open your eyes to reality, please remain calm. Insert your head firmly in the nearest patch of sand and wait for Homeland Security forces to give the all clear when these vile perpetrators have been stopped from telling you the truth... uhh... we mean... ahhh... "a bunch of lies"... yea.... that's it...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:18:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:03:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
If not to secure a supply of crude, what compelling reason did the US have to abandon the just war doctrine. Remember Saddam being a bad guy doesn't count. There are lots of bad guys in the world. Promoting democracy is out as well. We know know that the 9/11 hijackers had nothing to do with Saddam and his regime. Applying the theory of Occam's Razor leaves only one plausible explanation-Oil.
----------------------------
Judoka that would make sense if we did control the oil.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:16:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you're better when you post porn.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2006-05-11 16:03:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 12:58:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-05-11 11:01:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
What is the new justification we're using for the war these days?
let's see WMD is off the table
can't really say we're all about democracy what with the whole Hamas thing
saving the Iraqi people might be a better argument if we weren't killing and torturing so many of them
so where are we now?
oil - oh dear god not that again
-------------------------
I am not trying to argue here that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I am just saying his statements in choice A were naive, or stupid.
How does the Hamas thing show we are against democracy? Just because people vote on something democratically we should give them aid? We aren't attacking them, we aren't hurting them we just aren't going to fund them if the govt they elect says that murdering children is ok if they are jewish.
How many Iraq's have been killed by US forces since hostilities had been declared "over"? I don't have data in front of me, but I am pretty sure there was a report that the insurgents had outpaced Us forces as killing Iraq civilians almost a year and a half ago.
If it was Oil, once again where is our oil?
*****************************************
If not to secure a supply of crude, what compelling reason did the US have to abandon the just war doctrine. Remember Saddam being a bad guy doesn't count. There are lots of bad guys in the world. Promoting democracy is out as well. We know know that the 9/11 hijackers had nothing to do with Saddam and his regime. Applying the theory of Occam's Razor leaves only one plausible explanation-Oil.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 15:58:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok, my ww2 history ain't so good, but what i understand is after ww2, europe was divided up by england and russia, to exploit and and get back some money they spent on the war. slowly their influence were ebbed out, as is the situation now.
thing with the euro thing, and all other economy issues, nobody has the definite answers, i'll maybe look up some stuff later,i think we should debate arguments instead of who says what, but can i refer you to the 'project for a new american century' which was written by rumsfeld, and some other high ranking people within the bush administration which says somewhere that controling middle east oil is essential for american interest and america should use all means including war to secure it..or something like..
as you can see, i'm bad with facts..and history...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 15:42:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"you can never install a government which will be welcomed by the people, saddam was wrong, but changes like this has to come from the people themselves"
--------------------
So all the govts were left intact after WWII, pretty interesting.
"go through this oil trading won;t hurt US stuff with me again, yea"
--------------------
Find me one respecatble economist, paper or news network who takes the Iran oil Boarse as a serious threat?
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html - is hardly a reputable website
The whole theory is based on the dollar hegemony ( http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html ) by Henry C K Liu. Who is a hack out to make a quick buck by pedalling his get rich quick books. His theories make about as much sense as pyramid schemes, and he has no financial training.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 15:29:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
firstly, i'm not ets, so fuck off,
secondly, thing is, before the un sanctions, under saddam, iraqis were having it good, in fact they had the fourth best health care in the world,.. so i would assume that yes the iraqi people would be far better off without the sanctions.
building weapons is wrong but sanctions weren't helping, it was making it much much worse for the iraqi people, so basically, it was the un and saddam waiting to see who did the right thing, while the people starved and died.
there was a time when some iraqis were ready to overthrow saddam, and the US backed it to the last step before pulling support at the last minute , thus leaving the revolutionarys to die. you can never install a government which will be welcomed by the people, saddam was wrong, but changes like this has to come from the people themselves..
go through this oil trading won;t hurt US stuff with me again, yea
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:53:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:14:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Who described it as that, Saddam?
no it wasn't saddam, it was some former vice secretary of the UN, and it s a well accepted theory.
of course saddam, is gonna hog most of the oil for food money. it was bloody obvious but the un did nothing about it.. that's why the un has no authorithy to fix things in iraq now, because the iraqis don't trust them. if anyone was ever serious about getting rid of saddam, the only way to do it was through revolution by the iraqis themselves, the first step was to remove the oil for food program so iraqis could worry about more than just starving.
americans have killed more iraqis than you are aware of dude, they send around death squads to segregate the nation along ethnic lines, look at the death squads of el-salvador, its the classic divide and conquer tactic.if you really look for it, there are loads of hard evidence.
and it would be awfully naive to think the government to invade iraqi and give the oil out cheap. it doesn't work like that. 90% of world trade is oil, and it is done in us dollars, that is what keeps the us economy alive. at the time of invasion, the iraqis were selling oil to russia in euros, a big part of europe were deciding to band together and challenge the us. to ensure that oil was continued to be traded in us dollars, america needed influence over in the middle east, hence they invaded iraq. one more thing, america doesn't get its oil from the middle east, countries like china and russia do, controling the oil there is also another way of controling china.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html
------------------------
I found ETS's new alter first!!!!
what was his name donnely, hannilley? I forget, anyway he was an idiot. Iraq could have fed its people, it chose to spend on its army. He placed the blame on the UN instead of Saddam.
So you think if the Embargo was lifted the first thing Saddam would have done was to feed his people, not make his army stronger? Other than it going against everything he had done in the years building up to and since the first Gulf war that makes a lot of sense. Saddam should have been iced in the first Gulf war.
Trading in Euro's won't crush US economy ETS we have been through this.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:44:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 13:37:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
posting this was kind of a joke - this was my very first post, submitted two years ago today (hence the reference to the presidential elections and the low, low Iraq body count).
just wanted to see if I got any different reaction, and obviously nobody remembers that first post.
loki said much the same thing in 2004, and even then Caul told me it's "been done". kind of sad really, that things can change so little in that time. I was 19 then, 21 now, but can I say my life has changed?
-------------------------
i am an idiot.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:39:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:28:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fag
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 14:14:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who described it as that, Saddam?
no it wasn't saddam, it was some former vice secretary of the UN, and it s a well accepted theory.
of course saddam, is gonna hog most of the oil for food money. it was bloody obvious but the un did nothing about it.. that's why the un has no authorithy to fix things in iraq now, because the iraqis don't trust them. if anyone was ever serious about getting rid of saddam, the only way to do it was through revolution by the iraqis themselves, the first step was to remove the oil for food program so iraqis could worry about more than just starving.
americans have killed more iraqis than you are aware of dude, they send around death squads to segregate the nation along ethnic lines, look at the death squads of el-salvador, its the classic divide and conquer tactic.if you really look for it, there are loads of hard evidence.
and it would be awfully naive to think the government to invade iraqi and give the oil out cheap. it doesn't work like that. 90% of world trade is oil, and it is done in us dollars, that is what keeps the us economy alive. at the time of invasion, the iraqis were selling oil to russia in euros, a big part of europe were deciding to band together and challenge the us. to ensure that oil was continued to be traded in us dollars, america needed influence over in the middle east, hence they invaded iraq. one more thing, america doesn't get its oil from the middle east, countries like china and russia do, controling the oil there is also another way of controling china.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 13:38:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/32875
55,000 posts between then and now. hard to say how many I've read...but it's probably a large proportion.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 13:37:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
posting this was kind of a joke - this was my very first post, submitted two years ago today (hence the reference to the presidential elections and the low, low Iraq body count).
just wanted to see if I got any different reaction, and obviously nobody remembers that first post.
loki said much the same thing in 2004, and even then Caul told me it's "been done". kind of sad really, that things can change so little in that time. I was 19 then, 21 now, but can I say my life has changed?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 12:58:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-05-11 11:01:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
What is the new justification we're using for the war these days?
let's see WMD is off the table
can't really say we're all about democracy what with the whole Hamas thing
saving the Iraqi people might be a better argument if we weren't killing and torturing so many of them
so where are we now?
oil - oh dear god not that again
-------------------------
I am not trying to argue here that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I am just saying his statements in choice A were naive, or stupid.
How does the Hamas thing show we are against democracy? Just because people vote on something democratically we should give them aid? We aren't attacking them, we aren't hurting them we just aren't going to fund them if the govt they elect says that murdering children is ok if they are jewish.
How many Iraq's have been killed by US forces since hostilities had been declared "over"? I don't have data in front of me, but I am pretty sure there was a report that the insurgents had outpaced Us forces as killing Iraq civilians almost a year and a half ago.
If it was Oil, once again where is our oil?
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-05-11 12:03:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Been saying the same thing for months, but the minute you bring up something like this around here, all the lemmings just start to call you "ETS"
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-05-11 11:01:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What is the new justification we're using for the war these days?
let's see WMD is off the table
can't really say we're all about democracy what with the whole Hamas thing
saving the Iraqi people might be a better argument if we weren't killing and torturing so many of them
so where are we now?
oil - oh dear god not that again
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 09:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 09:10:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
With oil for food Iraq could have easily provided food clothes and medical supplies to all of its people.
oil for food was described as UN sponsored genocide, indoninja you know shit about iraq
-----------------------------
Who described it as that, Saddam?
Starvation wasn't caused by sanctions. Iraq was never poor. Saddam chose to let his people starve, there was enought money to feed them.
You can't have it both ways. You want to leave Saddam in charge and let him starve his people, fine, but that is no reason to lift sanctions. You want to remove Saddam and the cause of the sanctions, fine. But you can't have a half assed approach of leaving Saddam in charge and lifting the sanctione because he chose to starve his people. That is why the UN failed, why it will continue to fail, it has no balls.
"In fact, the OFFP enabled the importation of enough food to feed all 27 million Iraqis. During its existence, the average daily caloric intake of the people of Iraq increased 83 percent, from 1,200 kilocalories to 2,200 kilocalories per person per day. In addition, malnutrition rates in 2002 in the central and southern part of the country were half those in 1996 among children under the age of five; in the three northern governorates, chronic malnutrition decreased 56 percent."
http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 09:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:56:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
It's been done.
====
ha
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2006-05-11 09:10:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
With oil for food Iraq could have easily provided food clothes and medical supplies to all of its people.
oil for food was described as UN sponsored genocide, indoninja you know shit about iraq
Submitted by Goneril (user info) at 2006-05-11 09:05:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Sorry to be pedantic but... your statement that U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in the 1980s is the "real cause of fundamentalism" is absolute balls. The reasons for the profound rise of islamic fundamentalism in the recent past are extremely complicated, and at least as influential as U.S. behaviour are the domestic problems in the Middle Eastern states- e.g. unemployment, social unrest, etc.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but i don't agree with yours at all.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:56:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's been done.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:50:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i actually have a newspaper saved in my closet that says that Gore won.
I figure someday it'll be worth at the very least the cover price of 35 cents
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:44:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
but I had hoped you would remember this loki
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:43:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well (not that I mean to defend this post) I was thinking earlier this morning, in what ways my life would be tangibly different if Gore had won in 2000.
and I mean on the level of things that have actually happened to me, not things I read about or see on the news. I couldn't think of any real examples of ways it materially affects my life.
the only real thing I could think of was long-term climate change.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:34:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Are you sure your life is not affected by what goes on outside of your own country?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:33:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NOOBS
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
scathing
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:24:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
noobs
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:23:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yo...
I don't know what the FUCK you just said, little man. But you're special.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-05-11 08:19:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
a)Stop backing corrupt, repressive governments (eg. Saudi Arabia) and (peacefully) encourage
real change in the Middle East, preferably via the UN.
End devastating sanctions against Iraq.
-Are you serious? You say encourage real change in one breath and then say end sanctions in the next? what change will take place if the UN can't enforce a single one of its 14 resolutions passed against Iarq? And as far as devistating sanctions, you are a fucking idiot. With oil for food Iraq could have easily provided food clothes and medical supplies to all of its people.
Take steps to reduce absolute dependence on oil imports - (helps the environment too)
-I agree.
Stop selling arms to people who will turn them against you.
-Look, I know your understanding of the middle east doesn't extend past the first Gulf War, and your understanding of global politics doesn't encompass anything other than America is bad. But there used to be this thing called the cold war. Now I am not saying America is perfect but before you condemn the US for arming parties in the cold war ask yourself if you would rather have the USSR be stronger than it was at the height of the cold war and that USA had collapsed in the 90's.
Acknowledge that much of the origin of this fundamentalism lies with the American funding of the
mujahideen in 80's Afghanistan, as part of the glorious fight against communism.
(all pretty unlikely, I know)
-See above response as to why the mujahideen was funded, and please try and read a little bit of history before you imply that there was no fundamentalism prior to US involvment in the Middle east.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-05-11 07:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this topic has never been covered, not to the exhausting extent that the mere thought of it no longer is shocking but actually no longer stirs emotion in people.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-05-11 07:38:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yawn
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-05-11 07:23:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You are very wrong.