Saudi Arabia has the worlds biggest oil supplies, damaging the infrastructure would be catastrophic, so I can understand the viewpoint in not invading that country, but to then say ‘if we invade this country why not that one’ is missing the reasons behind why we don’t.
uhhh…I wasn’t suggesting that we invade Saudi Arabia
I was explaining how the justification of “the people are better off” is weak, because a kind of evil country could easily use it to invade a really evil country.
I’m afraid you miss the subtlety of Ryan’s point. To oversimplify, good people don’t do bad things, and, conversely, bad people don’t do good things.
Saddam gives $25,000 to widows and orphans of Palestinian freedom fighters, struggling against their oppressors. A good thing? Certainly not, they are terrorists attacking our beloved best buddy, Israel, which is pretty much the same thing as attacking us.
We invite sadists from Central American countries to come to America and learn the very latest in interrogation techniques. Kind of like “tough love”, Judge Judy with electric testicle clamps. A bad thing? Of course not! These men were bulwarks against the rising tide of Godless Communism! What would Jesus do? He’d turn the crank on the generator, you bet!
We forbid the importation of chlorine water purification equipment, and Iraqi children shit themselves to death. A bad thing, you might think, but you never know! Chlorine can be a component of cutting edge, World War I military technology, and there is plenty of suspicion regarding the possibility of programs with any number of speculative inferences!
When good people do evil things, they are no longer evil. By definition. If England were to take it into its mind to invade Iceland, that would be a bad thing, because Iceland is a militarily insignificant island, and no threat to anyone. But when America invaded Grenada, that was entirely different, because we’re the Americans.
Its really quite simple, when you look at it the right way. As he does.
Well, yes, actually. The government’s power is confined to the area around Kabul, opium production is at a record high, most of the country is run by warlords, and the Taliban are said to be coming back in even greater numbers than before.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21401/
If that’s your idea of a success, I’d hate to see what you’d call a failure.
Nothing to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia has been a “Partner in Peace” for the U.S.?
Are the USA doing such a great job for the Iraqi people, Ryan? Just one of many stories …
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=621845
Are the USA doing such a great job for the Iraqi people, Ryan? Just one of many stories …
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=621845
As Taber has pointed out very succinctly, whatever the outcome for the war in Iraq, the current justification of it is just too fucking flimsy for words and will wind up making hypocrites of us sooner or later, as we are forced to deal with some Third World ho-monkey dictator who moves in on another country using that “the people will be better off afterwards” shit.
That was my point; Even people who thought Bush’s justification for war was right still voted against him. Yes, they had two thoughts at the same time. But out of that 51% that did vote for him, I bet there’s a very high correlation between “thinks Saddam had strong ties to al Qaeda/ was a threat to the U.S.” and “voted for Bush”.
I don’t believe this, you people really don’t have a clue, equating the US with evil now? :rolleyes:
The Anti war demonstrations happened yesterday, how many Iraqi expatriates turned up to protest the ‘destruction’ of their country, how many? Its a large community, so why didn’t they turn up in sufficient numbers?
I would want nothing better than to see Saudi Arabia invaded and its absolutist monarchy and Wahabbist funding cut completely, but face reality, its the largest energy supplier in the world, we can’t hit that without harming ourselves.
The elected Government in Kabul was elected by 8million citizens, it has more clout than the warlords politically.
Cash incentive to disband militias
So for every bullshit about how Afghanistan is a ‘disaster’ theres always a story to prove the contrary.
No, I didn’t mean that at all, but to say leaving Saddams dictatorship as if it were some political system which would of provided stability in Iraq for the long term, is laughable. And to say that everything we’ve done in Iraq is a disaster and nothing has been gained, is an idiot.
Freedom fighters don’t massacre civilians with carbombs. End of story. Israel is a westernised democracy, the PA is now going in the right direction. This would of all ended years ago if Arafat had died sooner, he was the biggest impediment to peace in the situation.
Who says I deny the torture, the abuse and rape of prisoners, the mishandling of the war effort, the way in which we treat Iraqis, the corruption etc. You’re all blind tto the fact that alot is being done for the better in Iraq, and no matter how much you opposed the invasion, or the lies, we should stick with them until they can fend for themselves.
You never heard of Halabja? The mass killings of thousands of Kurdish civilians? What gas did they use?
Mustard Gas was used in Halabja, one of those World War One weapons you were talking about 
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Thats because the Prime Minister wasn’t/Isn’t cooperating with a person who used his country for missiles, which in effect nearly caused World war three.
If anybody reading this thread didn’t click the link, you need to.
That’s the third time you’ve missed or dodged that point. Should I just take that to mean you can’t refute it?
I’m tempted to ignore that, Ryan, but this board is open to all, innocent minds might be affected, and someone really must think of the children.
First off, Wikepedia. I love Wikepedia, far as I’m concerned, it justifies Al Gore’s invention of the internet all by its self. I totally love the idea of a collective encyclopedia, with input from all over.
It is also an excellent site for ongoing debates, with some real Googlemiester all-stars. Its a class act all the way. But using it as a cite is a bit less than kosher, especially when the matter at hand is debateable. I am entirely aware of the justification put forward for Operation Urgent Fury. If you wish to clling to the notion that this little pissant of an island represented some meaningful threat to the USA, you are welcome to your delusion. But be so kind as not to slander the dear, dear folks over at Wikepedia by pretending that they stand solidly and unanimously behind you. Not the done thing, don’t you know, bit of a stinky wicket.
Your citation for the mustard gas attack on Hajalah fails on two counts: one, the cite is unabashedly partisan in its viewpoint. Caveat: there is much contention on the issue of who bears ultimate responsibility for this ghastly event, and I have no final opinion. A case can also be made for an accident of war, but I hold that the evidence is nowhere near conclusive. This is not to suggest that Saddam was too nice a person to do such a thing, only that he may not have. Ted Bundy was a monster, but he didn’t shoot Kennedy. (The Jesuits did it, but that’s another story…)
Secondly, the very cite you offer states that the gas used at the Hajalah massacre was cyanide-based. Mustard gas is not cyanide based. Let me offer you a tip: you won’t look nearly so foolish nearly so often if you read your cites before you fling them. Only a suggestion, mind you.
Huh? Wha? Who said anything about “providing stability” being desireable? Point of fact, the Iraq regime was comparatively stable, operating at the same batshit channel at the same batshit time for some thirty odd years. But what of it? If you feel compelled to contradict me, be so kind as to contradict something I actually say, there’s a good fellow. Rest assured, I will say plenty of stuff you will disagree with, you won’t go begging for point of contention.
And a perfectly delightful excercise it was, too. Nonetheless, what little evidence there is leans toward the notion that the guys with the guns have more to say than the guys with the ballots. Again, the paucity of reliable information from Afghanistan renders meaningful debate impossible. Nevertheless, you seem to have not the slightest qualm about delivering quotes from sources that harmonize with your agenda as though they were gospel, the straight stuff, unvarnished candor, a no-spin zone. Hmmm, a no spin zone, that’s catchy, maybe I should trademark that…
I don’t know which of these stories is bullshit, and niether do you. No one can prove anything when all the sources are tainted by agenda. Keep in mind, I’m not suggesting that I can prove that Afghanistan is an utter disaster, and all blame lies with The Drear Leader. Only that you cannot prove otherwise.
When come back, bring syntax.
Not the whole US - only their government.
not that I think the UK is much better with regard to Iraq - you didn’t happen to watch Panorama tonight by any chance?
It was an interesting documentary - Guardian report here
then fine, if you don’t like the source of Wikipedia, I’ll bring up this. Its the same thing it just cuts down on the amount of time I have to go around looking for it.
"The Cuban government knew the value of Grenada’s location when it decided to utilize the former British colony as a holding place for arms and military equipment, complete with a major airport. Eastern Caribbean nations fully understood the implication of the communist threat and called upon the United States for help. The response was Urgent Fury, a multinational, multiservice effort.
On March 13, 1979, the New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education, and Liberation (New Jewel) movement ousted Sir Eric Gairy, Grenada’s first prime minister, in a nearly bloodless coup and established a people’s revolutionary government (PRG), headed by Maurice Bishop, who became prime minister. His Marxist-Leninist Government established close ties with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other communist-bloc countries. In October 1983, a power struggle within the government resulted in the arrest and subsequent murder of Bishop and several members of his cabinet by elements of the people’s revolutionary army."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/urgent_fury.htm
So you’re now saying 8000 civilians died by accident? Are you out of your fucking mind?
here we go, about as unbiased as I can get
No inspector moron, you stated that certain chemicals were being stopped from being imported because of inspections, then went to make the claim that all they could be used for is some crappy world war one type weapon, I then chose Mustard gas as an example. But hey, I don’t need to feel so bad about the cites as its even reported within the BBC as a massacre. So fuck you.
By the way its Halabja.
Iraq had been steadily declining ever since 1979, I don’t call that stable, I call that a catastrophe.
Anyone else noticed that the justifications for the war started out involving actual threats, imminent problems etc. but have now watered down to the point where it’s a matter of unprovable speculation as to what terrible things might possibly have occurred in the long
term if nothing were done?
Another interesting point is that it seems that Saddam had to go because he was entrenched and dangerous and change would not happen on its own. But now that we are a little more desperate for excuses, it seems that Iraq needed to be invaded because it was unstable…
The only people who haven’t noticed this are the Bush apologists in deep denial.
And the ignorant gucks who bought their lies and still buy them.