Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 12

Hey, it's me. said:

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Don't you hate it when Brits accuse Americans as a whole of being arrogant, then act arrogant towards Americans?

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

So you agree with Warb that the Afghans and Iraqi civilians killed and injured and suffering from loss of infrastructure have only themselves to blame for being in the same country as people of interest?

that is not what I said, asshat.   I meant that their governments are to blame.

By that reckoning, your Government caused 9/11.

Which of course it didn't but it's asshatish to wave the disproportionate deaths in the lands our countries invaded (with the notional approval that comes with our being able to vote for them) by saying it's the usually unelected vaguely in charge leadership of the geographical region they happen to be born in that is to blame.

Your Government isn't you, their Government isn't them.

Blow up a few less of their civilians and a few less of ours might get blown up in retaliation which isn't the same thing as justice by the way.

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Don't you hate it when Brits accuse Americans as a whole of being arrogant, then act arrogant towards Americans?

Don't you just hate it when... You're a POOPOOFACE!!

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

Fuck the oil fields. The aim is to overthrow Saddam and free the people. 

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

Your added joke eludes my sense of humor, I'm afraid.  I don't see what he has to do with anything.  You may have to explain it.

And I'd still like to see how our actions compare to the USS Cole or 9/11.

Okeedookee...

We over here have to ever so often put up with one of you over there telling us how we owe our freedom to the good ole US of A.

Don't get me wrong every American serviceman (and some ladies) that helped the other Allies defeat the Axis powers deserves a peck on the cheek from me should I meet them in whatever hereafter actually exists, if any.

But Americans only joined the war after Europe had already been kicked to near death and many of your number (including the father and grandfather of two of your presidents) sold arms to the Germans to help him deliver that kicking. The real reason the UK isn't part of a greater Germania is Hitler was insane.

He tried to invade Russia during the winter and the Soviets were prepared to burn their own towns and villages to starve out the Nazis.

Russia saved Britain more than America ever did but you don't hear them going on about it do you?

As for the US government blowing up innocent Arabs.

Opps!

The USSR was not interested in British salvation much, but rather in Soviet salvation.  In fact if you recall, they had signed a pact with the Third Reich agreeing not to intervene if Germany went to war with the British Empire.  I doubt they would brag about that later as they then postured themselves as Cold War enemies to the UK.

The US did enter the war late, but provided economic assistance and weapons throughout the war, then ultimately turned the tide on the West.  Without the US to provide a second front that the Brits couldn't hope to fight, Germany would have likely been far more successful on the Eastern Front.  And yes, Hitler was an idiot as well, which certainly contributed to his failure.

And as for the US blowing up innocent civilians, I won't argue with you there.  I believe I was in 8th grade at the time.  My dad said, "Finally, Clinton does something praiseworthy attacking those terrorists."  While still in my naive youthful years, I knew even then that those actions were unjustified.  Apparently the damage from that attack was far more substantial than the single lost life from the actual bombing: "tens of thousands of lost lives," according to your Wiki link.  Folks call Iraq's invasion evidence weak: this was weaker.  People say Bush is directly responsible for the loss of life in Iraq (not those who actually committed the attacks): Clinton is more directly responsible for the loss of life from the destruction of the factory.  People say Bush's motives were impure, as if they were for oil profiteering, which was unsubstantiated at the height of the theory and bear out even worse today: Clinton's motives were worse, as he was trying to cover up for his sexcapades with that woman, Miss Lewinski.  I won't justify that attack at all.  You are right.  Still for what it's worth, I wouldn't ascribe it to our ideology or as something intended to kill as many civilians as possible.  It was the selfishness of a single powerful individual who didn't realize the ramifications.  It's not morally equivalent to 9/11 or USS Cole, which were designed to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Don't you hate it when Brits accuse Americans as a whole of being arrogant, then act arrogant towards Americans?

Don't you just hate it when... You're a POOPOOFACE!!

Gosh, yes, I'm tellin' ya! ;)

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

Forget the oil fields. The aim is to overthrow Saddam and free the people. 

Exactly!  And what good would it do the people if their resources and infrastructure were further damaged?  How do you best overthrow a leader without crippling his own economy and preserving it to hand over to the successor economy?

You miss my point.

Hitler going after the Russians saved the UK.

Stalin was in many ways as evil as Hitler but he was less daft (at that point he became more deranged after the war). The Soviet people suffered much more than the civilians in the UK let alone the USA.

It was they and Hitler's insanity bought the UK enough time to defend itself.

If he had gone straight for the UK it would have fallen in much the same way that most of Europe did.

He would have stuck Edward back on the throne and shipped our Jews, gypsies and lefties off to the ovens like they did in the Channel Islands.

As for morality of US policies that impact on Arab lives, who cares about the morality of the situation?

The undeniable observation is that the peoples of the middle east have suffered much more from the policies of the elected governments of the west than the people of the west have suffered from the actions of a few extremists from the middle east and it's events exactly like that that are used as justification.

The only reason the West is paying any interest in the Middle East is oil.

A polluting, replaceable commodity of convenience.

Nothing moral there.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

Do you remember what was happening to Native Americans throughout your country's history? That makes Saddam look like a good boy.

yeah, over 100 years ago.  America has changed since then.

I do not see the change.

Of course not, because you're a bigot.

You just do the bad stuff on a global scale and in a little less direct manner.

And those who actually do the killing are of course not doing anything wrong because I've come to believe that the US is evil no matter what good their actions lead to.

Ender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

Bingowings said:

You miss my point.

Hitler going after the Russians saved the UK.

Stalin was in many ways as evil as Hitler but he was less daft (at that point he became more deranged after the war). The Soviet people suffered much more than the civilians in the UK let alone the USA.

It was they and Hitler's insanity bought the UK enough time to defend itself.

If he had gone straight for the UK it would have fallen in much the same way that most of Europe did.

He would have stuck Edward back on the throne and shipped our Jews, gypsies and lefties off to the ovens like they did in the Channel Islands.

I will certainly agree with you here.  He certainly was a stupid manusist!

Hey, it's me. said:

Ender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

I didn't realize the head of the Federal Reserve was privy to war conferences.  I don't think he could be any more qualified to speculate on the nature of the war than any other guy with a PhD in economics.

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Ender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

I didn't realize the head of the Federal Reserve was privy to war conferences.  I don't think he could be any more qualified to speculate on the nature of the war than any other guy with a PhD in economics.

I think he's a bit more qualified than that and certainly more qualified than you or I (and a little more candid than Bush or Blair).

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

You just do the bad stuff on a global scale and in a little less direct manner.

And those who actually do the killing are of course not doing anything wrong because I've come to believe that the US is evil no matter what good their actions lead to.

I really do not care what you do to yourselves. But I do care when you invade sovereign countries at your own will.

Good and bad action is completely subjective. The United Nations was founded to deal with that kind of stuff and make the judgements. You arrogantly ignored it on every occasion. Do you think you are above everyone? Do you fancy yourself as "world police" or something?

I did?  I don't think I did anything.  I think that's the problem here.  You (as in Mr. Scum, not as in the UK) are obviously on the liberal side of the spectrum.  Liberals often consider themselves fighters against stereotyping.  And look how you stereotype the whole US.  Bravo.  As I recall, your nation ignored the exact same United Nations on the exact same occasion.  Should I condemn you, Mr. Scum, as a representative of what was the most extensive empire in the history of the world, a subjugator a millions, keeping them in perpetual second-class status, police nation of the world and hording its resources?  Should I now condemn you for your equally culpable intelligence and military role in the Iraq invasion?  You have demonstrated yourself as a bigot.  I encourage you to actually try to get to know people instead of just a people, and perhaps criticize our government's choices instead of characterizing America as a bunch of stupid hicks.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Ender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

I didn't realize the head of the Federal Reserve was privy to war conferences.  I don't think he could be any more qualified to speculate on the nature of the war than any other guy with a PhD in economics.

I think he's a bit more qualified than that and certainly more qualified than you or I (and a little more candid than Bush or Blair).

Certainly more qualified than I, but hardly qualified to be part of actual war plans, and certainly more candid than Blair/Bush (considering his was not a political office and his career at that point was over).

He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.

imperialscum said:

It is interesting to be called a liberal and a bigot in the same post.

It is, isn't it?  It's also true.  That's what bugs me about too many liberals: this self-righteous belief that because they are liberal, they are immune to bigotry, while just because someone else is conservative, he/she is automatically a bigot.  I think it's more a case of the shoe fitting rather than the label.

darth_ender said:

I encourage you to actually try to get to know people instead of just a people, and perhaps criticize our government's choices instead of characterizing America as a bunch of stupid hicks.

You and Warbler demonstrated the same arrogance as your governments. And for the most part you supported majority of the bad decisions of your governments.

How have I demonstrated such arrogance?  The most arrogant writing I've read today came from your fingertips.  And I supported my government based on what I believed to be legitimate intelligence.  In retrospect I've learned.  That doesn't mean I believe ever going to war is wrong, but I'm certainly more wary of their intelligence.  But I'm pretty confident it wasn't a 'get rich quick in Iraq's oil fields' scheme.  If so, it was a lousy investment.

Bingowings said:

He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.

I can't help but doubt they'd be sharing that sort of information with him.  Loose lips sink ships, and I see no real benefit to cluing him in on those sorts of details.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.

I can't help but doubt they'd be sharing that sort of information with him.  Loose lips sink ships, and I see no real benefit to cluing him in on those sorts of details.

Your saying that this man was a nobody? I don't think so. So your saying everything he alludes to is unfounded and a product of a fevered imagination? This isn't some beleaguered journo looking to make a name for himself with a contentious article. Shit, get your head out of the sand.

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.

I can't help but doubt they'd be sharing that sort of information with him.  Loose lips sink ships, and I see no real benefit to cluing him in on those sorts of details.

Your saying that this man was a nobody? I don't think so. So your saying everything he alludes to is unfounded and a product of a fevered imagination? This isn't some beleaguered journo looking to make a name for himself with a contentious article. Shit, get your head out of the sand.

I hate sand...

Me too