America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,301 comments
  • 1,536,283 views
Strongly disagree. First of all, America is not a "free market." It has a strong "free enterprise system" but that cannot be confused with a free market economy. The US is a mixed economy -- plain and simple. The government plays an important role in our economy. Moral society? That's highly debatable even by today's standards, but since you mentioned "history" do I need to remind you of the enslavement of my people?

I'm speaking in generalities when I refer to America as having a "free market". I didn't mean it to be taken literally, the proof of that is in my statement below.

The fundamental problem with America is the extent to which we are not free – the extent to which we have invited our own government to relieve us of the burden of the pursuit of success so as not to risk failure.

In response to your statmenet:

What exactly do you mean by "we are not free". I'm confused.

Take every thing that comes after the hyphen in that quote as the definition of what I mean by "we are not free".

Don't forget our neo-imperialistic foreign policies!

I don't believe they are neo-imperialisitc - I explained why in my follow-up post.

Loophole or not, I want to talk about our foreign policy! Is it OK, M?

Not only will he probably agree that it is ok, I believe that was his original intent.
 
Since it seems we're going to lean into the foriegn policy, let me start on Iraq :)

I was there. Now, that doesn't mean I know all, and have a perfectly objective view on the subject. But I do believe that it gives an insight in some aspects of the debate that most of you (for your own sake) hopefully will never gain.

I'm not even going to address the "WHY" we went to war, but what i know about, and that is the 'during' and 'after' parts.

Iraq could have gone a lot better. It could have been the shining white light in the middle east that some wanted or thought it would be. It would have taken about twice as many soldiers. And as much money that goes with that. But, our foriegn policy decisions for better or worse, prevented anyone else from wanting to help. Now, it's all F*'ed up. I say, we pull out now and save some lives. Over the 11months i've been home, I realised that I don't have as much sympathy for the Iraqis as I used to. Why? because my Home nation was created by people standing up for themselves and fighting for what they believed to be right. Now, Saddam's rule was far worse than the Brits ever were, but wouldn't that just make revulting easier? some say that people were just so in fear, and beat down that they were too afraid to fight back.....They chose not to fight back, and sometimes, I get pissed everytime i hear of more Americans dying for people that didn't help themselves to begin with. So i say, pull out everyone as soon as possible and let the UN deal with the mess that's left. But of course Bush would never admit to any mistake as proven in the debates this fall. So Americans will continue to die on foriegn soil for people who wont stand up for themselves.
/endrant
 
87chevy
Since it seems we're going to lean into the foriegn policy, let me start on Iraq :)

Thank you. I like this subject. :)

I was there. Now, that doesn't mean I know all, and have a perfectly objective view on the subject. But I do believe that it gives an insight in some aspects of the debate that most of you (for your own sake) hopefully will never gain.

I hope you are OK. :nervous:

I'm not even going to address the "WHY" we went to war,

Allow me. :sly:
It's all very simple really. NEO-IMPERIALISM. I know, I am going to use this word repetitively until it starts to sink in/gets on everybody's nerves. :sly:

but what i know about, and that is the 'during' and 'after' parts.

Iraq could have gone a lot better. It could have been the shining white light in the middle east that some wanted or thought it would be. It would have taken about twice as many soldiers. And as much money that goes with that. But, our foriegn policy decisions for better or worse, prevented anyone else from wanting to help.

There is a reason why the United States did not want some of the other countries involved in the reconstructive efforts. We wanted to make absolutely sure that our own [economic] interests were the number one priority.

Now, it's all F*'ed up. I say, we pull out now and save some lives.

I hate to tell you this... but in my opinion, we will continue to be in Iraq for a very long time at least militarily. Economically, we now/will OWN Iraq. Evidence? We wanted to secure the oil pipelines while we in Iraq did we not?

Over the 11months i've been home, I realised that I don't have as much sympathy for the Iraqis as I used to. Why? because my Home nation was created by people standing up for themselves and fighting for what they believed to be right. Now, Saddam's rule was far worse than the Brits ever were, but wouldn't that just make revulting easier? some say that people were just so in fear, and beat down that they were too afraid to fight back.....They chose not to fight back, and sometimes, I get pissed everytime i hear of more Americans dying for people that didn't help themselves to begin with. So i say, pull out everyone as soon as possible and let the UN deal with the mess that's left. But of course Bush would never admit to any mistake as proven in the debates this fall. So Americans will continue to die on foriegn soil for people who wont stand up for themselves.
/endrant

You cannot speak for the Iraqi people when you say:

Now, Saddam's rule was far worse than the Brits ever were, but wouldn't that just make revulting easier? some say that people were just so in fear, and beat down that they were too afraid to fight back.....They chose not to fight back

A repressive regime is a repressive regime. You don't know whether or not it was their decision to fight back or deal with the government.
 
t's all very simple really. NEO-IMPERIALISM.

Evidence.

Economically, we now/will OWN Iraq. Evidence? We wanted to secure the oil pipelines while we in Iraq did we not?

Perhaps we wanted to secure the oil to protect their interests and the environment? Remember the mess Saddam made in Gulf War I?

I say, we pull out now and save some lives

You mean save American lives. Pulling out would certainly kill more people than it saves.

We wanted to make absolutely sure that our own [economic] interests were the number one priority.

I see no evidence that we were protecting our economic interests. We were not having an economic crisis. I see evidence that we were (and are) protecting our security interests - we were (and are) having a security crisis.
 
danoff
Evidence.

If I can get your definition of neo-imperialism, I would be more than happy to give you supporting evidence.

Perhaps we wanted to secure the oil to protect their interests and the environment? Remember the mess Saddam made in Gulf War I?

Acutally, I was only 4 years old at the time... :sly:

Seriously, I've learned a little bit about it.
"To secure the oil to protect the interests of the Iraqis." Maybe... but why do you think that is? Perhaps because we may have easier access to their oil, in the long run? Though the latter is pure conjecture, it is what I believe to be true.

You mean save American lives. Pulling out would certainly kill more people than it saves.

Exactly right. We will be in Iraq for a while until the "storm" blows over.

I see no evidence that we were protecting our economic interests. We were not having an economic crisis. I see evidence that we were (and are) protecting our security interests - we were (and are) having a security crisis.

That's the whole point to imperialism. You do not need to be in an economic crisis to want to "take over" (quoted for a reason, do NOT take literally) another country.

A security crisis? Most definitely! From Iraq? Not even close. 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were "confirmed" (quoted for a reason, do NOT take literally) to be from Saudi Arabia. Why are we not at war with the Saudis? Perhaps because we already have access to their rich natural resources, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, its going to take some time to gather evidence. The mainstream media is owned by corporations with their own interests in mind and I cannot prove my opinions solely on the information that they provide. It's time for a little radical analysis. I WILL be updating this post. :D
 
MrktMkr1986
Acutally, I was only 4 years old at the time... :sly:
That explains a lot :sly:
MrktMkr1986
Perhaps because we may have easier access to their oil, in the long run? Though the latter is pure conjecture, it is what I believe to be true.
pure conjecture, no matter how much you believe in it, doesn't really add up to a whole lot ;) It is an opinions forum, but the way you stated your previous post was as if you had some facts.
MrktMkr1986
The mainstream media is owned by corporations with their own interests in mind and I cannot prove my opinions solely on the information that they provide. It's time for a little radical analysis. I WILL be updating this post. :D
Look a little harder. Not all news agencies are owned by corps ( if any ). Take our good old BBC, it is uniquely financed, it has no sponsors, we pay a licence fee.
This ensures independent unbiased reporting.

From radical analysis I assume you mean from conspiracy websites whilst fuelled by organic substances ( only joking..but you did say you were a student ;) ) those sites and sources have a more obvious agenda than a reputable news source.

You say in the long run it will be easier for the US to have access to the oil reserves in the middle east, well Texas has oil, lots of it, it's Europe that will most benefit from the oil being available and it not being used as ransom by some megalomaniac dictator. Or it being used as purchasing capital for weapons...Chirac

It is very easy to say the US is in it for oil, conspiracy is more exciting sometimes than reality, but where does Europe think it will get it's oil if there is an unstable middle east with civil war and bi lateral conflict?

There is a bigger story about oil and corruption...but it is fashionable to accuse the US...*cough* Chirac.
 
Tacet_Blue
That explains a lot :sly:

:ouch: I'm learning, I'm learning! Give it some time! :ouch:

pure conjecture, no matter how much you believe in it, doesn't really add up to a whole lot ;) It is an opinions forum, but the way you stated your previous post was as if you had some facts.

I do. But I also asked for something else...

Look a little harder. Not all news agencies are owned by corps ( if any ). Take our good old BBC, it is uniquely financed, it has no sponsors, we pay a licence fee.
This ensures independent unbiased reporting.

I am aware of organizations such as the BBC. When I said that I was referring to the fact that most American news agencies are corporate owned.

From radical analysis I assume you mean from conspiracy websites whilst fuelled by organic substances ( only joking..but you did say you were a student ;) ) those sites and sources have a more obvious agenda than a reputable news source.

I strongly agree! However, a radical analysis (from what I've learned) has a person asking questions as opposed to making criticisms based on what is believed to be fact. Whatever information that arises from these questions usually ends up in people making up conspiracy websites. And no, I don't do drugs. :grumpy: Believe it or not, I have a hard time even taking OTC medication. Anyway, what kind of "agenda" do you think these conspiracy websites have anyway? I have never visited one before...

You say in the long run it will be easier for the US to have access to the oil reserves in the middle east, well Texas has oil, lots of it, it's Europe that will most benefit from the oil being available and it not being used as ransom by some megalomaniac dictator. Or it being used as purchasing capital for weapons...Chirac

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. It's possible that the in the long run it'll be easier for the US to have access to the oil in Iraq. We already have approximately 20% of our oil coming from Saudi Arabia.
You say Europe will have the most benefit. Though this may be true, why is it that a few European countries declined to go to war with the US in 2003? Was is a matter of principle? Or was it because they knew they had nothing to gain by going to war? It is a known fact that the US shut out several countries from the reconstructive efforts of the war (according to the reputable mainstream media).

It is very easy to say the US is in it for oil, conspiracy is more exciting sometimes than reality, but where does Europe think it will get it's oil if there is an unstable middle east with civil war and bi lateral conflict?

Excellent point! I didn't think about it that way. :dunce:
Let's be honest, though. Do you really believe the United States is going to fight a war so that other countries will benefit, and without any form of incentive?

There is a bigger story about oil and corruption...but it is fashionable to accuse the US...*cough* Chirac.

Chirac, Chirac, Chirac. Other than the fact that 42% of France's oil comes from the Middle East, what exactly does Chirac/France have to with oil/corruption? :confused:
 
MrktMkr1986
Excellent point! I didn't think about it that way. :dunce:
Let's be honest, though. Do you really believe the United States is going to fight a war so that other countries will benefit, and without any form of incentive?
Is it so hard to believe that they may have been altruistic...ok maybe, but the US's wealth is largely due to trade with rich european countries. It is in their interest to ensure that those countries remain well off ;)

MrktMkr1986
Chirac, Chirac, Chirac. Other than the fact that 42% of France's oil comes from the Middle East, what exactly does Chirac/France have to with oil/corruption? :confused:

Oil for food...or in Chirac's case..anything Saddam asked for ;)

Chirac was quietly profiting in the order of billions from Iraq. No wonder they didn't want to remove Saddam :lol:

Chirac is the most corrupt politician in the western world bar none, don't have a go at the French, what the French government decides has very little to do with the will of the French people.

In answer to your question, why did a few European allies decline to go to war.
I don't know :lol:
On principle..probably not ;)
War is very expensive not only in terms of dollars, but human lives. Some politicians may not have had as strong a position domestically as they would have liked and the prospect of soldiers dying may have lost them their seat, who knows.

I ask you, are there any countries in Europe that had any doubts that the US would have achieved a decisive military victory in Iraq on their own. They may have thought, why do we need to send troops, will it make a difference.
 
Tacet_Blue
Is it so hard to believe that they may have been altruistic...ok maybe, but the US's wealth is largely due to trade with rich european countries. It is in their interest to ensure that those countries remain well off ;)

I totally agree with you! However, I think it is possible that under the guise of altruism, the US (by strategically eliminating foreign contracts) knows it has something to gain by being in Iraq. Even though at the same time its helping the Europeans. The only natural resource in Iraq that I'm aware of (please correct me if I'm wrong) that has an unusually high demand (especially in the United States) is oil.
Also, I know that the US's wealth is due largely to trade with European countries. Some would argue, however, that the US's foreign policy is neo-imperialistic. That could also contribute to the massive GDP, assuming that was the case.

Oil for food...or in Chirac's case..anything Saddam asked for ;)

Chirac was quietly profiting in the order of billions from Iraq. No wonder they didn't want to remove Saddam :lol:

Chirac is the most corrupt politician in the western world bar none, don't have a go at the French, what the French government decides has very little to do with the will of the French people.

In answer to your question, why did a few European allies decline to go to war.
I don't know :lol:
On principle..probably not ;)
War is very expensive not only in terms of dollars, but human lives. Some politicians may not have had as strong a position domestically as they would have liked and the prospect of soldiers dying may have lost them their seat, who knows.

I ask you, are there any countries in Europe that had any doubts that the US would have achieved a decisive military victory in Iraq on their own. They may have thought, why do we need to send troops, will it make a difference.

Probably not -- to answer your question. But making a difference or not, it shows support. I still think the fact that the US shut out certain countries from the reconstructive efforts is a factor in some of these countries decisions not to go war.
 
danoff
Freedom has taught Americans a great deal of tolerance. Because people are free to practice their religion, and because people are free to hire African Americans, and because women are free to pursue careers in politics - others have had to learn to live with it.

Free to hire, huh. At least after the Civil War...right. Are we really more tolerant (in general)?

One of the most important aspects of freedom in America is the freedom of information. This is what allows us to read newspapers from countries that hate us. It’s what allows our press to investigate our government officials carefully as well as shedding light on stories many government officials would probably not want you to see.

Our press is mostly owned by corporations with their own agenda. Our press is hardly free. What we are shown is what are meant to be shown, in my opinion. Could be in the interest of national security... or there could be other more sinister reasons behind it.

And of course there is the freedom to go out and make your own wealth. It’s simple enough, but when people have opportunities to make a life for themselves they are less likely to turn to violence or terrorism and are less likely to support it.

Possibly...
Some of the 9/11 hijackers were said to have come from middle and upper middle class families.

I believe that in these three ways, freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will help prevent future terrorism. I believe that if we do the job right in Iraq now, they will be a very prosperous nation that will be an economic leader in the middle east – one which many people will flock to for opportunity. Admittedly this is rather farsighted, but I believe it’s Bush’s plan, and I think it’s a good one.

Why do you think Bush would want freedom and democracy in Iraq? Because he wants the Iraqi people to be happy and prosperous? Maybe. However, to do something like this without any form of incentive is just plain stupid.

Put yourself in President Bush’s shoes for a moment…

The country you lead, whose safety is your responsibility, has just been attacked by terrorists from Afghanistan, thousands of your citizens are dead and most of the rest of them want vengeance. The world is eyeing America to see how it will respond to this slap in the face.

15 out of the 19 hijacker came from Saudi Arabia. This is a known fact. We should have responded by investigating the families of the hijackers and working together with Saudi Arabia to crack down on terrorism. Not fly into Iraq to start a coup.

The first thing to do is to put all nations on notice that nations that harbor terrorists are not ok in our book.

Except for Saudi Arabia because they are largest oil producing country in the world. Also, because nearly 20% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia.

That way if we get attacked by terrorists in the future, we can hold the nations they are based in accountable.

Except for Saudi Arabia, of course. :rolleyes:

Someone has to be accountable. Nations across the world will do a better job of policing themselves if we tell them we’ll be knocking at their door if terrorists from their country come blow up our buildings.

I don't think building are fashionable targets anymore. Remember the blackout in August 2003? A more feasible target would be our power supply. I won't get into anymore detail than that... wouldn't want anyone to get any ideas. :scared:

Obviously you’re going to have to go in to Afghanistan and make an example out of the terrorists that attacked us. But what about the future? How are you going to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? It’s a cultural war. The terrorists believe that America is evil. They are indoctrinated with hatred for the American society. How on Earth can we combat that indoctrination?

I don't believe American society is what they hate. It's American foreign policy, in my opinion.

It seems obvious. We should bring our way of life to them – free them from oppression - show them the beauty of democracy and they will understand us that much better. But how should we bring them freedom? Should we remove what little government Afghanistan had and replace it with a democracy? It wasn’t really Afghanistan that had attacked us – it was terrorists living within Afghanistan.

Bring them our way of life = US foreign policy. :sly:

But even if we brought Afghanistan freedom, what chance would it have? They have no natural resources to speak of – a free Afghanistan is still likely to be a poor Afghanistan. No, we need a better country to serve as our champion for freedom. We need a country in which the people within are ready to receive democracy after having been oppressed. We need a country that is likely to be quite prosperous after its citizens are freed – and perhaps most importantly, we need a country that we can legitimately invade.

No country can legitimately be invaded unless they attack us directly. Iraq did not specifically attack us -- therefore we have/had no right attacking them. It's as simple as that.

Iraq.

Iraq had violated the UN for over a decade. They had broken all the agreements we made with them after the first gulf war. We are totally justified in making them the 51st state. Plus they’ve been oppressed for decades and are certainly ready to be free of Saddam.

Wrong! There only one justification for making another country a 51st state. Neo-imperialism. Who cares about oppression!? Here's a list of the world's most repressive regimes. After you read the list, you tell me what Iraq has that all these other countries don't have.

*Burma
*China
*Cuba
*Equatorial Guinea
*Iraq
*Laos
*Libya
*North Korea
*Saudi Arabia
*Somalia
*Sudan
*Syria
*Tibet
*Turkmenistan
*Uzbekistan
*Vietnam

There are a few others but I can't think of there names right now. :grumpy: Why is it we haven't invaded these other countries? I'll give you the answer anyway. Strategic position. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East (sort of). If you've ever played a game of chess you'd know that the some of the more powerful pieces have the most amount of moves towards the center of the board.

If you don’t try to demonize President Bush - if you just try to understand the motivations and remember where America stood on September the 12th, 2001, it’s quite obvious how we got to where we are today.

Actually. No it's not obvious how we got to where we are today. Why the hell did Bush try to stop the 9/11: Commission when the idea was first initiated? It was only after enormous political pressure did he finally agree to allow it. He wouldn't even testify in front of the commission!
You should know, though, that I am not trying to demonize Bush. I voted for him in November. And I think I'm right in saying that I was actually closer to the Towers on 9/11 than a majority of the people on this entire board. :( So if there is anyone that remembers where America stood on September 12th, 2001 -- it's me. :irked:

Iraqis voted today. They had better voter turnout in their country where going to the polls meant risking death than we do in America where going to the polls means getting up 30 minutes early. I’ve heard the Iraqis voting compared with the fall of the Berlin wall and I think that’s a decent comparison. Anytime people rise up to grab freedom is a momentous occasion.

Strongly agree. Of course. Look at the United States declaration of independence from Great Britain. The freedom of the slaves after the Civil War etc.

Many people in America and around the world want us to pull our military forces out of Iraq.

Including me. They have their elections -- our job is finished. Or is it?

They want us to leave the Iraqis to the utter chaos, poverty, and death that it would certainly mean if America left.

Why won't you give them the benefit of the doubt?

Luckily for the Iraqis, the only reason Bush would yank us out of Iraq is if the Iraqi leadership (current or newly elected) tells us to get the hell of their country.

Which is most definitely not going to happen.

I believe Iraq is on the verge of greatness. I think it has the potential to be a major power in the world if it can just get off to a good start.

I strongly agree. However, I think you are missing the point as to why we need Iraq to be a major power in the Middle East.
 
If I can get your definition of neo-imperialism, I would be more than happy to give you supporting evidence.

You brought it up, you supply the definition and the evidence.

A security crisis? Most definitely! From Iraq? Not even close. 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were "confirmed" (quoted for a reason, do NOT take literally) to be from Saudi Arabia. Why are we not at war with the Saudis? Perhaps because we already have access to their rich natural resources, in my opinion.

They originated in Saudi Arabia, they were members of Al Qaeda, which we went after and destroyed. Why would we attack Saudi Arabia? Did they orchestrate the attack? Why would we attack Afghanistan? Did that country’s government orchestrate the attack? No, Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack and we went after them directly.

Don’t confuse the two issues. Iraq and September 11th are completely separate things. You won’t see me claim that Iraq orchestrated September 11th.

I am aware of organizations such as the BBC. When I said that I was referring to the fact that most American news agencies are corporate owned.

You’re the one with the NYSE as your avatar, you should understand the free market better than this. You should understand why it is ok that American news agencies are corporate owned – in fact, you should understand why that is better than any alternative.

It is a known fact that the US shut out several countries from the reconstructive efforts of the war

Rightly so. Why is that a bad thing?

Do you really believe the United States is going to fight a war so that other countries will benefit, and without any form of incentive?

However, I think it is possible that under the guise of altruism, the US (by strategically eliminating foreign contracts) knows it has something to gain by being in Iraq.

Why do you think Bush would want freedom and democracy in Iraq? Because he wants the Iraqi people to be happy and prosperous? Maybe. However, to do something like this without any form of incentive is just plain stupid.
That would be stupid. What incentive do you think we had then? Oil, right? You think we spent billions of dollars to go into Iraq and get oil when we create 50% of our own oil anyway right? A stretch? Let’s think about this for a second… what other incentive could Bush have had? Perhaps he thought that a free Iraq would deter terrorism and help to prevent another September 11th???? Does it even occur to you to take him at is word? He’s not a smart guy, I can guarantee you that there isn’t a whole lot of scheming going on in his head. He’s doing what he’s doing for exactly the reasons he gives the press.

I don't believe American society is what they hate. It's American foreign policy, in my opinion.

That’s an interesting opinion considering the remarks that the terrorists have made about American society and how our society violates their religious beliefs. What foreign policy of ours was it that caused September 11th? How exactly is it our fault that we were attacked? Why was it our fault that thousands of innocent people at work were blown to bits or forced to jump from dozens of stories up rather than be burned alive by the terrorists.

Explain to me how September 11th is America’s fault please.

Bring them our way of life = US foreign policy

Perhaps you could add, “… in the middle east”.

No country can legitimately be invaded unless they attack us directly. Iraq did not specifically attack us -- therefore we have/had no right attacking them. It's as simple as that.

I disagree. I think we can legitimately invade if they violate the terms of the first Gulf war cease fire.

Imagine for a moment that you go to war with someone for legitimate reasons (they attack an ally). You kick their ass, but you don’t feel like making them the 51st state. So you set terms, "you can have your country back if you do x, y and z". Then they proceed not to do x, y, and z. – You now have a legitimate claim to go to war.

Now don’t confuse the legitimately of the war for the motives – those are two separate things in this case (not in all cases).

Wrong! There only one justification for making another country a 51st state. Neo-imperialism. Who cares about oppression!? Here's a list of the world's most repressive regimes. After you read the list, you tell me what Iraq has that all these other countries don't have.

*Burma
*China
*Cuba
*Equatorial Guinea
*Iraq
*Laos
*Libya
*North Korea
*Saudi Arabia
*Somalia
*Sudan
*Syria
*Tibet
*Turkmenistan
*Uzbekistan
*Vietnam

I already explained that. I explained why Iraq was a perfect place to practice some nation building – I don’t feel like going back through it.

Why the hell did Bush try to stop the 9/11: Commission when the idea was first initiated? It was only after enormous political pressure did he finally agree to allow it. He wouldn't even testify in front of the commission!

Why don’t we stick to the subject and leave politics out of it. Are you claiming that he had something to hide? What was it?

Including me. They have their elections -- our job is finished. Or is it?

Not by a long shot. These elections are only the start of developing an Iraqi constitution and getting them on the road to stability, there is still a long way to go.

Which is most definitely not going to happen.

(context: the new Iraqi government will not ask the US to leave)

Why not? Is it perhaps because there is still a long way to go before Iraq is a stable place that can govern itself?

However, I think you are missing the point as to why we need Iraq to be a major power in the Middle East.

Why do you think it needs to be a major power in the Middle East? I already gave my answer, which is that a free and powerful Iraq will deter terrorism.

MrktMkr, you bring up many good points.

You just think they’re good because you agree with them.
 
ooooh boy. Danoff, MrktMkr, try not to let this turn into a slugfest. Viewing this from someone who's sitting on the fence, you two seemed to be in agreeance earlier on, but now you're both manipulating facts to support your side. The way I see it, since they never found WMD in Iraq, then it wasn't violating any agreements. Not only that, but why invade now? Why not have actually removed Suddam from power in the Gulf War when they had the chance? Back when he was actually a threat? From the other side I also see, why invade at all? Why do we have to interfere with their lives (who I'm sure they can just over throw an oppressive capitalist government without a second though, right 87chev?) when we can sit back and watch it from the sidelines? So, let's all go and invade Iraq (or any other country with supposed W's/MD) where women are forced to cover their entire bodies and be ashamed of themselves, and not invade Siera Leone where cities are being ravaged by militant groups that show no respect for life, or the militant greoups in basically...all of Africa, that invade villages and enslave families or just slaughter them all without looking twice at who or what they're killing, where they'll chop your freaking leg off just for crying (which I'm sure will solve the problem :dunce: ). It's absolutely sickening to think of what other much more horrible things are going on in the world, when the US could have invaded another country for allowing regimes that are absolute disgraces to humanity, but NOOOO, Bush had to go and bomb the hell out of cough-medicine factories and clothing warehouses, and let the killing and maiming and slaughtering and defiling continue in many more places, which because of their somewhat inferior weapons, would have been easy to maintain and bring back to proper order. Now I ask the both of you, do you really want to argue over why Bush invaded Iraq, and the ethics (or lack-there-of) behind it? Because come on, not everything comes down to money, politics, and conservatism.
 
danoff
That’s an interesting opinion considering the remarks that the terrorists have made about American society and how our society violates their religious beliefs. What foreign policy of ours was it that caused September 11th? How exactly is it our fault that we were attacked? Why was it our fault that thousands of innocent people at work were blown to bits or forced to jump from dozens of stories up rather than be burned alive by the terrorists.

Explain to me how September 11th is America’s fault please.

Aren't many Muslims angry because America was tramping through holy land with their tanks and Hummers and soldiers? I thought I remembered seeing that on a documentary about 9/11...

I'm not saying that 9/11 was America's "fault" in any way...clearly it was the "fault" of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack.

Say what you will about America, the fact remains that Americans don't fly planes into civilian targets killing thousands of people because they don't agree with their way of life. In times of war, America has done some pretty reprehensible things, but they pale in comparison to ANYTHING a terrorist does.
 
PublicSecrecy you bring up some good points. There are FAR WORSE things going on in the world, than what was going on in Iraq. But, What would Bush get out of helping Africa? but let's not leave out everyone else.....Why hasn't the EU helped Africa? Why is it always up to MY damn country to solve everyone elses' problems??? That really pissses me off! No does anything until we do something. They ***** at us when we take action, yet when has anyone else EVER taken the iniative to help anyone else? Please inform me.

Anderton you also make some good points.

Iraq was not a threat to us, but Saddam was a tyranical murderer, and we're better off without him around.

And to all you that so vehemently(sp?) defend the war and Bush.....Why don't you sign up and go risk your life? would you? honestly? Some are too quick to defend war.
 
War? What is it good fo'? Absolutely NOTHIN'!!

[Edit]No, I'm not a hippy, I don't really like hippies. Why did I say that? Dunno. Couldn't resist. :D[Edit]
 
PublicSecrecy
ooooh boy. Danoff, MrktMkr, try not to let this turn into a slugfest. Viewing this from someone who's sitting on the fence, you too seemed to be in agreeance earlier on, but now you're both manipulating facts to support your side. The way I see it,[snip] big long paragrapgh with no punctuation or structure[/snip]
when the US could have invaded another country for being allowing regimes that are absolute disgraces to humanity, but NOOOO, Bush had to go and bomb the hell out of cough medicine [snip] rant [/snip] Because come on, not everything comes down to money, politics, and conservatism.

Unilateral action is frowned upon by everyone.
The US can't just run around saving countries here and there.

The only reason Iraq was under the spot light, is because it had ten years worth of violations against its name that were reported by the United Nations...not the US.

There are pages of resolutions against Iraq. Its non cooperation on nuclear and biological weapons. Have a look at the end of the WMD thread where I listed several violations from 1991-1998

The UN dragged its feet for years hoping that the threat of intervention would cause Saddam to cooperate...eventually someone had to act or the UN resolutions would be meaningless.

87chevy
And to all you that so vehemently(sp?) defend the war and Bush.....Why don't you sign up and go risk your life? would you? honestly? Some are too quick to defend war.
I would, but I'm too old :lol:
There was a recruitment drive in Portsmouth last year, soldiers all over town handing out papers. I filled one in, when they saw my date of birth they laughed :lol: I look about 25, but I'm way older ;)
 
PublicSecrecy
[/offtopic] How old are you?

Old enough to be your dad, buttmonkey :lol:

All I'll say is my girlfriend just turned 24. When I first met her at 23, I told her I was 25, and she believed me ;) Now she knows the truth (my 8 year old daughter was a clue), and I can tell you it came as a bit of a surprise to her parents :lol: Although I think her mum fancies me now...

Ok, I'm 30 something, I don't like it...don't call me old :(

Back on topic ;)

Saddam = bad man
USA = land of opportunity

Wasn't Colin Powel born into poverty, now that's opportunity.
 
danoff
You brought it up, you supply the definition and the evidence.

The reason why I asked for your definition is because this is a term that can have a variety of definitions based on your point-of-view. But since you asked:

I believe neo-imperialism is the the process in which a country owns/controls another country economically without the direct benefit of outright ownership. So basically, rather than being directly colonized by the imperial power, the "weaker" or "unstable" countries have been granted sovereignty over their nation, while the imperial power (through the use of finance capital) has control over most, if not all of their profitable resources. Not just natural resources, like oil etc. Whatever they can make a profit off of, they (as in the imperial power) will use.

Evidence? Sure!

Take Cuba for example. The United States fought with Spain in 1898 for control of Cuba. Eventually, though, they were given their "independence". They had their own flag, currency, government, constitution etc. However, the major foreign policy decisions remained in US hands as did the islands wealth and resources. Examples of which would include, tobacco, sugar, and tourism.

For more info on that... click here.

But don't feel bad though! The United States is/was not the only country that practices/practiced this. France, having been depleted after World War 2, also adopted a strategy of neo-imperialism.

For more info on that... click here.

The point I'm driving it is that US foreign policy is geared more towards neo-colonialism. I'm not saying that we went into Iraq only for the oil. That is just stupid. I'm saying that the notion that we invaded Iraq "only to deter terrorism" is not entirely accurate. Based on the US's current foreign policy, however, one can infer (or speculate, if you wish) that we are also in that country in order to secure some of the natural resources that are available. Remember, one of the first things we did in Iraq before we even found Saddam was to secure the oil fields.

For more info on that...click here.

They originated in Saudi Arabia, they were members of Al Qaeda, which we went after and destroyed. Why would we attack Saudi Arabia? Did they orchestrate the attack? Why would we attack Afghanistan? Did that country’s government orchestrate the attack? No, Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack and we went after them directly.

Acutally 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. I think we all agree on that. However, according to this article, Al-Qaeda has a worldwide reach. They have cells that operate in many countries. Though Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack, the Taliban were the ones who were harboring them, according to this link.


Don’t confuse the two issues. Iraq and September 11th are completely separate things. You won’t see me claim that Iraq orchestrated September 11th.

I don't see how I confused the two issues... :confused:

You’re the one with the NYSE as your avatar, you should understand the free market better than this. You should understand why it is ok that American news agencies are corporate owned – in fact, you should understand why that is better than any alternative.

No. It is not OK to have corporate-owned news agencies. Take NBC for example. It is owned by General Electric. Now remember this fact:

GE makes airplane engine for both commercial and military use.

Now, let's put this fact into perspective by reading this article... make sure you scroll down to the part that says "Iraq Contracts" and "Afghanistan Contracts" if you don't feel like reading the whole thing.

Now let me ask you this. Why would NBC, a supposedly unbiased news organization, say anything that would remotely suggest that they are opposed to the war? Or, this less extreme question... Is it possible that because GE owns NBC that most (not all, of course) of the networks news material reflects the opinions of the parent company?

Rightly so. Why is that a bad thing?

I never said it was good/bad thing. But if you want my opinion, I'll give it you. It's a bad thing. For one, that could be part of the reason why some of the countries decided not to go to war with us. As a result, we have little if any international support. Another reason -- one could argue that this is again the United States way of acting like a neo-imperialist. If we are the only outsiders to benefit from Iraq's resources as a result of the rebuilding, why should we share?


That would be stupid. What incentive do you think we had then? Oil, right?

Obviously that is not the only incentive. I apologize if I made it sound that way... perhaps I should have said, one of the many reasons that the US invaded Iraq was for oil. Obviously we will not admit to that because it would look bad.

You think we spent billions of dollars to go into Iraq and get oil when we create 50% of our own oil anyway right?

No, I didn't say that... I was trying to say that we did not go into Iraq just to help the Iraqi people or deter terrorism. Do you want to know why I said that? Because there is no economic gain from just freeing the Iraqi people and fighting terrorism.

A stretch? Let’s think about this for a second… what other incentive could Bush have had? Perhaps he thought that a free Iraq would deter terrorism and help to prevent another September 11th????

I totally agree with you on that. But what I am trying to tell you is that from an economic standpoint, that is not the only reason why we invaded Iraq.

Does it even occur to you to take him at is word?

Of course I take his word. I voted for him in November. But you just can't take everything thing the guy says and then say to yourself "OK, that's it!" All I'm doing is asking questions that everyone should be asking, and I am trying my very best to answer them.

He’s not a smart guy, I can guarantee you that there isn’t a whole lot of scheming going on in his head.

I agree with you. But just because he is the leader of the nation does not mean that there are other people in "high places" making decisions without his knowledge or consent. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagon claimed that he had nothing to do with it. So is it possible that other political leaders in the United States knew that money/oil, as well as freeing the Iraqi people and stamping out terrorism are the main reasons for fighting this war. And with this information, had the military secure the oil fields before even searching for Saddam?

He’s doing what he’s doing for exactly the reasons he gives the press.

All politicians lie/stretch the truth/don't give all the facts -- period. In order to protect us from panic/fear/revolt/whatever, it is their responsibility to tell us exactly what we need to hear. I don't care what he told the press. He can give 4 reasons for going to war when in reality there are 6. But to the general public it may seem as if there only those 4 reasons -- again, because people don't want to ask questions. They do just what you are doing, which is accepting what the guy says as fact.

That’s an interesting opinion considering the remarks that the terrorists have made about American society and how our society violates their religious beliefs.

Those remarks were made out of ignorance... our society has absolutely nothing to do with it. Ask yourself this: If our society was that bad, why won't they just stay in their own countries and mind their own GD business? Hmm... weren't you the one saying something about a 51st state? Don't remember exactly... but anyway... the fact of the matter is, whether you want to believe it or not, the United States foreign policy is geared towards neo-imperialism. It's a subtle, yet powerful tactic as described above.

Also, here's something to think about. When the corporate-owned TV news networks do translations of terrorists saying "We hate American society", how do you know that is exactly how it is translated. Just because it's on TV?

I repeat, our society has absolutely nothing to do with why the 9/11 attacks were executed.

What foreign policy of ours was it that caused September 11th?

Neo-imperialism.

How exactly is it our fault that we were attacked?

It is not our fault that we were attacked. Nothing justifies terrorism! Not wholesale terrorism, not retail terrorism, and certainly not synthetic terrorism! Terrorism in all of its forms are just plain wrong!

Why was it our fault that thousands of innocent people at work were blown to bits or forced to jump from dozens of stories up rather than be burned alive by the terrorists.

Explained above...

Explain to me how September 11th is America’s fault please.

I repeat... 9/11 is not the fault of the United States. But what sparked these terrorists hatred for the US was our foreign policy on not only their country but other countries in the region. Even if that was the case, and our foreign policy hurt them that much, that does not justify terrorism.

Perhaps you could add, “… in the middle east”.

Incorrect. I meant exactly what I said, unless you can provide specific proof that it is just "... the the middle east".


I disagree. I think we can legitimately invade if they violate the terms of the first Gulf war cease fire.

This is a matter of opinion, so I'll leave that alone. I already gave you my opinion on that matter and there is no point to trying to convince each as to the legitimacy of the War in Iraq.

Imagine for a moment that you go to war with someone for legitimate reasons (they attack an ally). You kick their ass, but you don’t feel like making them the 51st state. So you set terms, "you can have your country back if you do x, y and z". Then they proceed not to do x, y, and z. – You now have a legitimate claim to go to war.

Ahh! 💡 So it was you who mentioned the 51st state! :dunce:

Anyway, what you are describing sounds strikingly similar to neo-imperialism.

Now don’t confuse the legitimately of the war for the motives – those are two separate things in this case (not in all cases).

Please explain further... I don't think I understand? :dunce: :confused:

I already explained that. I explained why Iraq was a perfect place to practice some nation building – I don’t feel like going back through it.

Well, again, this is a matter of opinion and there is no point trying to force our opinions the subject.

Why don’t we stick to the subject and leave politics out of it. Are you claiming that he had something to hide? What was it?

This entire conversation has a lot to do with politics -- which is exactly why I brought it up. Am I claiming he had something to hide? Maybe. Am I claiming that our government had something to hide? Maybe. What was it? The notion that one of the reasons why we are in Iraq is to continue a part of foreign policy of neo-imperialism.

Not by a long shot. These elections are only the start of developing an Iraqi constitution and getting them on the road to stability, there is still a long way to go.

Understood.

(context: the new Iraqi government will not ask the US to leave)

Why not? Is it perhaps because there is still a long way to go before Iraq is a stable place that can govern itself?

For the same reason we didn't do more in Saudi Arabia. You never bite the hand that feeds you. Or it could be, like you said, because there is a long way to go before Iraq becomes stable. Anything is possible.

Why do you think it needs to be a major power in the Middle East? I already gave my answer, which is that a free and powerful Iraq will deter terrorism.

Terrorism exists anywhere you go in the world. Even in the United States. North Korea has nuclear weapons and we do little. Iraq has oil, and we storm the front. Perhaps a free and powerful Iraq will deter terrorism. Or, it could mean that terrorists will find another place to conspire and carry out attacks against the United States and its interests.

You just think they’re good because you agree with them.

Why don't you just ask him instead of making assumptions? Perhaps he doesn't agree with me at all, but he realizes that some of the points that I bring up are indeed valid.
 
Anderton Prime
Aren't many Muslims angry because America was tramping through holy land with their tanks and Hummers and soldiers? I thought I remembered seeing that on a documentary about 9/11...

Thank you, Anderton Prime. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Neo-imperialism.

I'm not saying that 9/11 was America's "fault" in any way...clearly it was the "fault" of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack.

Say what you will about America, the fact remains that Americans don't fly planes into civilian targets killing thousands of people because they don't agree with their way of life. In times of war, America has done some pretty reprehensible things, but they pale in comparison to ANYTHING a terrorist does.

This is exactly right!
 
87chevy
But, What would Bush get out of helping Africa? but let's not leave out everyone else.....Why hasn't the EU helped Africa?

The answer to the question is: NOTHING.

They have nothing to gain from it, hence, they cannot be bothered. Iraq on the other hand has something that we want...
 
The point I'm driving it is that US foreign policy is geared more towards neo-colonialism.

Honsetly, given your examples… I think that’s all in your head.

I'm not saying that we went into Iraq only for the oil. That is just stupid. I'm saying that the notion that we invaded Iraq "only to deter terrorism" is not entirely accurate.

I think Iraq was chosen for it’s terrorism deterring potential alone. If Iraq chooses to sell oil to us, I’m sure we’ll buy it – but we supply roughly half of our own oil and the Saudis supply another major portion of it. The country that really had a stake in Iraqi oil was France… and look how they responded to this war.


Now let me ask you this. Why would NBC, a supposedly unbiased news organization, say anything that would remotely suggest that they are opposed to the war? Or, this less extreme question... Is it possible that because GE owns NBC that most (not all, of course) of the networks news material reflects the opinions of the parent company?

I really assumed you understood the free market better. Competition forces news organizations to play it safe or go out of business. NBC has been very anti-war since before we invaded.

For one, that could be part of the reason why some of the countries decided not to go to war with us.

This makes no sense at all. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Countries have no reason to go to war with us if we’ll give them reconstruction contracts afterward regardless.

I was trying to say that we did not go into Iraq just to help the Iraqi people or deter terrorism. Do you want to know why I said that? Because there is no economic gain from just freeing the Iraqi people and fighting terrorism.

There doesn’t have to be economic gain – we have lots of other ways to gain.

I agree with you. But just because he is the leader of the nation does not mean that there are other people in "high places" making decisions without his knowledge or consent.
I believe it was Bush who made the decision to go in – and I’m saying that his motivation for going in did not include oil (at least I have seen no evidence to suggest that). Perhaps others in “high places” agreed with his decision because of oil, but that really doesn’t matter.

Also, here's something to think about. When the corporate-owned TV news networks do translations of terrorists saying "We hate American society", how do you know that is exactly how it is translated. Just because it's on TV?

This is where you fail to understand the free market yet again. If one news organization misinterpreted the translation, another would be right there to discredit them and get a larger viewership by pointing out the correct translation.

I repeat, our society has absolutely nothing to do with why the 9/11 attacks were executed.

Interesting claim, since you can’t prove it. I’m only basing my reasoning on what I hear from the terrorists, which is that our society has almost everything to do with it.

Anyway, what you are describing sounds strikingly similar to neo-imperialism.

Not by your own definition.

Please explain further... I don't think I understand?

The ends do not justify the means. The means are justified by the beginnings. Example:

You don’t like Tom, you’d like to see bad things happen to him (for whatever reason).

Tom hits you. You tell your teacher and Tom gets in trouble.

The ends (which you wanted) happened. But the means were not justified by the ends. Your wanting bad things to happen did not justify you telling the teacher on him. His hitting you justified your telling the teacher on him. The beginnings justified the means to an end. Of course if you liked Tom and didn’t want to get him in trouble, you might not have told on him. In which case the means were justified but you didn’t desire the end.

For the same reason we didn't do more in Saudi Arabia. You never bite the hand that feeds you.

Perhaps we didn’t do more in Saudi Arabia because we aren’t justified.

Why don't you just ask him instead of making assumptions? Perhaps he doesn't agree with me at all, but he realizes that some of the points that I bring up are indeed valid.

He agrees with you. I’ve talked with him about this subject before.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and we do little.

I explained why Iraq would help with terrorism. Korea would not. That’s why we don’t do anything in Korea. We’re probably justified in doing plenty to Korea but we don’t because at the moment there isn’t much additional gain (security) in it. Plus, we think we can get help (which didn’t seem to be forthcoming with Iraq).

They have nothing to gain from it, hence, they cannot be bothered. Iraq on the other hand has something that we want...

Your economic argument breaks down when you look at the amount of money we’ve spent on Iraq. Iraq did have something we wanted, an opportunity to bring democracy to the middle east.
 
Tacet_Blue
Old enough to be your dad, buttmonkey :lol:

All I'll say is my girlfriend just turned 24. When I first met her at 23, I told her I was 25, and she believed me ;) Now she knows the truth (my 8 year old daughter was a clue), and I can tell you it came as a bit of a surprise to her parents :lol: Although I think her mum fancies me now...

Ok, I'm 30 something, I don't like it...don't call me old :(

Back on topic ;)

Saddam = bad man
USA = land of opportunity

Wasn't Colin Powel born into poverty, now that's opportunity.

Even if you're 39, thats pretty young to be my dad. And what happened to you MrktMkr? It's like as soon as you dissapear around here it's as though you went in to hibernation or something. Maybe I'm being too compulsive. brb gotta make sure everything is perpendicular to whatever is around it
 
PublicSecrecy
Even if you're 39, thats pretty young to be my dad. And what happened to you MrktMkr? It's like as soon as you dissapear around here it's as though you went in to hibernation or something. Maybe I'm being too compulsive. brb gotta make sure everything is perpendicular to whatever is around it

What in the hell does this mean?!
 
MrktMkr1986
All politicians lie/stretch the truth/don't give all the facts -- period. In order to protect us from panic/fear/revolt/whatever, it is their responsibility to tell us exactly what we need to hear. I don't care what he told the press. He can give 4 reasons for going to war when in reality there are 6. But to the general public it may seem as if there only those 4 reasons -- again, because people don't want to ask questions. They do just what you are doing, which is accepting what the guy says as fact.

Hmm...that's exactly Bush's tactic- not a security factor. Bush uses this Terrorist alert BS to keep the country in fear of another terrorist attack, and thus gains more support from their fear, since they know he invaded Iraq for seemingly little reason, the (those that are somehwat close minded anyway) American citizens have trust in him that he will do something about it if it happens again, and it also makes it look as though they have intelligence as to when the next one is happening. But remember, the first terrorist strike occured in the morning, during no event, for no reason. So why would the superbowl be a target? Why increase terrorist security levels? They're obviously smarter than that, they aren't going to strike at any major event with metal detectors and cops everywhere, it's just stupid. Which is exactly why theres no reason to do it. They're more likely to attack somewhere of incredible importance but of little attention. IE WTC, or the Pentagon. For someone as retarded as Bush, he sure can manage to gain support if you think about it. It's like getting someone to let their guard down- everyone dismisses Bush as an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, but in the process, since not many take him seriously, and can manage to do things and get uncany support. I don't know how he does it. If someone who were a genius however, everybody would be on to them, and they would constantly be under the scrutiny of the public eye. Anyway, my point was just to question your thoughts about Bushes intentions, just something to get you thinking. Good points though, Marketman. (MrktMkr1986 is getting to be a pain in the butt to type)
 
Why do people forget that Iraq lost a war after they invaded Kuwait ? And that part of the CEASE FIRE aggreement was that they would allow UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to their weapons programs ? THEY LOST A WAR AFTER INVADING A COUNTRY . THEY DID NOT LIVE UP TO THE TERMS THE VICTORS IMPOSED ON THEM . Do you have a memory lapse ? Or do you think it only counts if you were alive when it happened ? Saddam lost GET OVER IT .
 
Back