We finaly won the war in Iraq

[Mix]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/wo...in&oref=slogin

[Nore]

should have just drilled alaska instead of killing thousands of innocent people

[suave]

should have just drilled alaska instead of killing thousands of innocent people

u aint lyin

[PeePee McRapist]

And the stupid liberal rhetoric continues.

[internots]

And the stupid liberal rhetoric continues.

because iraq is a shining example of democracy now that we've gotten rid saddam hussein and his WMDs.

[mhu]

And the stupid liberal rhetoric continues.

exactly.

According to that article, those companies were there already and had their fields taken away from them by Saddam's government.

We'd still be creating jobs over there for people to do the work.

[PiMpY]

because iraq is a shining example of democracy now that we've gotten rid saddam hussein and his WMDs.

because democracies are built in a day

[timex]

the u.s. isn't even a democray.

[PiMpY]

representative democracy

true democracy = tyranny of the masses

[ryph]

because democracies are built in a day

because that was always the goal..

[PiMpY]

because that was always the goal..

it sure as shit is one (of many), for a variety of reasons -many of which of course aren't altruistic

[ryph]

it sure as shit is one

oh how naive

[PiMpY]

oh how naive

hardly

read the rest of my post guy

[PiMpY]

here ill do it for you

"...for a variety of reasons -many of which of course aren't altruistic"

[ryph]

i did. we had to sell the war somehow. if you havent looked around recently, this is a resource war. nothing more, nothing less. anything else like 'wmds' or 'bring democracy to arabs we never cared about before' is noise to keep the sheeple busy.

[PiMpY]

overarchingly its a resource war in that no one would give two fucks about the middle east if they didnt have any

to say thats all its about is naive. to say that a democratic iraq isn't in our national interest is also naive. bringing democracy to the downtrodden is a good way to sell the war but that hardly means its without its benefits.

and to argue that nonproliferation is smoke and mirrors is laughable. im sure you can appreciate that there's tangible danger in extremists, rogue regimes, and failed states possessing WMD.

the war occurred for a variety of reasons

[ryph]

overarchingly its a resource war in that no one would give two fucks about the middle east if they didnt have any

agreed

to say thats all its about is naive. to say that a democratic iraq isn't in our national interest is also naive. bringing democracy to the downtrodden is a good way to sell the war but that hardly means its without its benefits.

sure there benefits, benefits in that the article that was originally posted can be written. "Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back"

and to argue that nonproliferation is smoke and mirrors is laughable. im sure you can appreciate that there's tangible danger in extremists, rogue regimes, and failed states possessing WMD.

the war occurred for a variety of reasons

i can argue it is smoke and mirrors. if it really is such a huge problem, how about we do something about north korea (oh yea remember those crazy fools?) and pakistan's gov is about to be overthrown by local tribes sympathetic to the taliban. but conveniently you dont hear about that on the cnn tho..

its a resource war. nothing more nothing less. anything else you hear is spin and noise to deflect attention and skew perception.

[PeePee McRapist]

i did. we had to sell the war somehow. if you havent looked around recently, this is a resource war. nothing more, nothing less. anything else like 'wmds' or 'bring democracy to arabs we never cared about before' is noise to keep the sheeple busy.

I disagree ryph. It is a resource war but the fact that we want to bring democracy into Iraq is one aspect of the war, even if it's not the main one. Hell, we tried it with Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.

[PiMpY]

sure there benefits, benefits in that the article that was originally posted can be written.

or that democracies tend to create fewer extremists and democracy is easier to export than forced regime change (re: iraq's neighbors)

how about we do something about north korea (oh yea remember those crazy fools?)

can't now that they're nuclear and arguably couldn't before. look up their artillery capability centered around seoul. i cant recall exact specifics off the top of my head but they can have something like 300,000 shells and rockets landing on seoul inside of two minutes.

nd pakistan's gov is about to be overthrown by local tribes sympathetic to taliban. but conveniently you dont hear about that on the cnn tho..

the situation in pakistan is terrifying. its a tough balancing act there. they sure as shit aren't doing everything they can to help us fight taliban and AQ but you also have to appreciate that if they do their government is probably toast and those nukes will wind up in god knows whos hands. i recall reading an article on the US trying to broker a deal where we'd provide security for their nuclear facilities (they of course declined as any sovereign nation would) and another that said a contingency plan had been drawn up involving something like 30k troops parachuted in pakistan to secure their nukes if shit hits the fan (pakistan declined to provide exact locations).

[ryph]

I disagree ryph. It is a resource war but the fact that we want to bring democracy into Iraq is one aspect of the war, even if it's not the main one. Hell, we tried it with Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.

we want to bring democracy because it sells the war to J6P.
"hey were #1, doesnt iraq deserve to be #1?! fuck yea america #1. attack!"

[PeePee McRapist]

we want to bring democracy because it sells the war to J6P.
"hey were #1, doesnt iraq deserve to be #1?! fuck yea america #1. attack!"

Or the fact that democracy seems to be less chaotic in nature than all of the other forms of government, and we as the most powerful country on the planet don't like anarchy or extremism.

[ryph]

Or the fact that democracy seems to be less chaotic in nature than all of the other forms of government, and we as the most powerful country on the planet don't like anarchy or extremism.

well if you want to throw sociopolitical opinions wildly, ill argue democracy is one of the most chaotic forms of gov when looked at longer than 100year timespan. democracies have always without fail throughout history progressed into a fascist/dictatorship type of gov.

[PeePee McRapist]

well except that all democracies have always without fail throughout history progressed into a fascist/dictatorship. ill argue democracy is one of the most chaotic forms of gov when looked at longer than 100year timespan.

I disagree the belief that democracies automatically turn into dictatorships/fascist governments. And the idea of democracy in the Muslim countries is a hell of a better idea then the bullshit they have going on before we intervened. However, you guys seem to miss the fact that it is paramount for America to maintain a military base in the middle east to protect Israel.

[mhu]

we want to bring democracy because it sells the war to J6P.
"hey were #1, doesnt iraq deserve to be #1?! fuck yea america #1. attack!"

we also want democracy there for our own interests. That's the only reason we're still supporting Israel. The biggest thing our government wants is strongholds in the middle east to secure our interests.

[wild]

I disagree the belief that democracies automatically turn into dictatorships/fascist governments. And the idea of democracy in the Muslim countries is a hell of a better idea then the bullshit they have going on before we intervened. However, you guys seem to miss the fact that it is paramount for America to maintain a military base in the middle east to protect Israel.

Why do we give a fuck about Israel?

I seem to keep missing this

[PeePee McRapist]

we also want democracy there for our own interests. That's the only reason we're still supporting Israel. The biggest thing our government wants is strongholds in the middle east to secure our interests.

Except the past 4 presidents have had close connection with Israel. America is Israel's biggest supporters so to assume that we're there for our own interests is very simple minded. Besides supporting Israel, we are there to suppress the threat of radical Islam.

[ryph]

I disagree the belief that democracies automatically turn into dictatorships/fascist governments.

its not a belief you can agree or disagree with. its historical fact.

And the idea of democracy in the Muslim countries is a hell of a better idea then the bullshit they have going on before we intervened. However, you guys seem to miss the fact that it is paramount for America to maintain a military base in the middle east to protect Israel.

yea, because it helps in our #1 imperative in the region, secure the areas resources. all leading back to this being a resource war.

[mhu]

Why do we give a fuck about Israel?

I seem to keep missing this

they're a democracy and a very pro-american state, and without us they wouldn't survive. It's like a mini United States in the middle east.

For the last hundred years the United States has done everything it can to extend democracy to other countries to further it's own interests. I remember there was some official movement for it, but don't remember the name.

[wild]

we also want democracy there for our own interests. That's the only reason we're still supporting Israel. The biggest thing our government wants is strongholds in the middle east to secure our interests.

If that's the case then it would make sense why.

But aside from strategic implications (if that's the case), there should be no reason why we're still sending $$ to Israel.

[PeePee McRapist]

its not a belief you can agree or disagree with. its historical fact.

Not exactly. The trend is usually shitty government-democracy-dictatorship-back to democracy or a variation of those.

yea, because it helps in our #1 imperative in the region, secure the areas resources. all leading back to this being a resource war.

You are implying that we are in the middle east only for our own goals, but this is far from the truth. The war has many aspects to it, not one simple minded "Oh we just want resources" answer.

[ryph]

If that's the case then it would make sense why.

But aside from strategic implications (if that's the case), there should be no reason why we're still sending $$ to Israel.

well if you agree in that were empire building, theres all the reason to.

[ryph]

Not exactly. The trend is usually shitty government-democracy-dictatorship-back to democracy or a variation of those.

yes agree. the trend is circular in motion. im trying to google a chart i had of the circular progression of governments but am comming up blank.

You are implying that we are in the middle east only for our own goals, but this is far from the truth. The war has many aspects to it, not one simple minded "Oh we just want resources" answer.

honestly, if you dig through all the bullshit, it really is the only reason.

[PeePee McRapist]

I've heard the "America is just trying to own everything" argument and I don't buy it. Obviously survival for anybody is the #1 priority, but a war never has only 1 priority. Our "resource war" on Iraq in the middle east is also a war on radical Islam, and anarchy.

[ryph]

because they stand in the way of our theft of their resources.. so we criminalize them. flip the scenario. imagine we were a nice budding democracy sitting on tons of oil that is RAPIDLY depleting. the chinese commies are in our position, what will be the #1 thing to do? try and steal our shit under a veil of random shit like spreading communism to the backwards democracy because its better.

also, dont you think if the chinks were on our soil jacking the supposed oil, you and me wouldnt be out there right now setting up IED's on the side of main st? i sure as fuck would. OOPs, im a terrorist i guess.

[longdongsilver]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[internots]

Altruism is weak. The US didn't become the most powerful country in the world by giving out handouts. The idea that we are looking to improve the lives of the Iraqis is not mutually exclusive to the idea of going into Iraq for their oil, but you have to look at this like it were a business. Does it make sense to spend trillions of dollars in resources without a tangible benefit?

To think that the rest of the Middle East will fall in love with democracy once they see the Iraqis voting is a nice idea, but terribly naive.

[timex]

pimpy, c'mon aren't you an political science major?

[ryph]

I disagree the belief that democracies automatically turn into dictatorships/fascist governments.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

[turk]

wait, we're in a war?

[PeePee McRapist]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Eh I suppose if we are talking about it lasting indefinitely then you are correct, but no form of government lasts forever. It's a circular motion as we've discussed.

[ryph]

Eh I suppose if we are talking about it lasting indefinitely then you are correct, but no form of government lasts forever. It's a circular motion as we've discussed.

yea i know i was beating a dead horse here, but getting overlaps in convos with the jo0 capitalism thread so i decided to throw it in lol

[cornerstone01]

its a resource war indeed, but thats not all. Having a terrorist organization owning and operating a huge money source like that would financially support there ways....good post/link!

[phil]

If that's the case then it would make sense why.

But aside from strategic implications (if that's the case), there should be no reason why we're still sending $$ to Israel.

americans have a lot of interest in protecting isreal because, after all, american jews were part of the founding fathers of zionism and the settlement and creation of israel after world war i. it's not only our interest in israel for strategic purposes but also because we are responsible for their welfare

[No Bingo]

Free to do as we tell you! Freedom is great

[mhu]

As stupid as you all think George W. Bush is, he does everything for a reason. Whether that reason is morally acceptable is up to your own personal interpretation.

[No Bingo]

Meh he does as he pleases thats why he is president!

[PiMpY]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

ever read the speech michael moore?

[PiMpY]

Altruism is weak. The US didn't become the most powerful country in the world by giving out handouts. The idea that we are looking to improve the lives of the Iraqis is not mutually exclusive to the idea of going into Iraq for their oil, but you have to look at this like it were a business. Does it make sense to spend trillions of dollars in resources without a tangible benefit?

To think that the rest of the Middle East will fall in love with democracy once they see the Iraqis voting is a nice idea, but terribly naive.

ding ding ding, we have a winner

there is no such thing as altruism in foreign policy, not for any country

that said, benefits can certainly flow both ways and improving human rights can be to our benefit. it may primarily sell wars but that doesn't mean it isn't in our national interest.

[PiMpY]

pimpy, c'mon aren't you an political science major?

yes, and?

[PiMpY]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

disclaimer: im piss drunk

that said, the us isnt a democracy for that reason. a true democracy = tyranny of the masses.