Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 13

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.

that is because you are a douche.  I am done talking with you.   FOAD!

Warbler said:

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.

that is because you are a douche.  I am done talking with you.   FOAD!

Even Jesus thinks you are an asshole when you do that Warb.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

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

But that is exactly how you and Warbler sound like.

Warbler is a liberal, BTW.  And if he and I sound alike in this regard, I'm not ashamed.  It's true.  You are a bigot and a liberal.

darth_ender said:

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.

That is because you are narrow sighted. It isn't just oil. By going to war you automatically boost your economy.

You get it moving, but you don't make a profit.  It jump starts the economic gears, but it doesn't bring in revenue.  On the contrary, it is extremely costly and ultimately damages an economy.  That is how one wins a war: by exhausting the enemy's ability to make war, generally economically.

Warbler said:

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.

that is because you are a douche.  I am done talking with you.   FOAD!

Oh. Warblers gone again. Maybe he'll return tomorrow with an apology but with his soapbox tucked firmly under his arm to resume the debate? But I like Warbler. He's funny. And that's genuine, not a sarcastic put down Warbler btw :-)

I am not gone, I am just done talking with imperialscum.    

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.

Good, because if you reread my post, I don't think so either.  Don't put words in my mouth.

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.

I don't recall saying any of that or anything resembling that.  This sort of argument tactic is usually the sign that one is losing and doesn't have a reasonable rebuttal.  That said, there probably is some reason to believe what he believes.  He even says that he doesn't think the reasons are so bad.  If you read the article, he believes it's for oil, but not just to get rich; rather that he believes it was an effort to keep Saddam from unfairly screwing prices, which would have serious effects on the world economy.  I don't agree, but even if it's true, it's still not a Bush family profiteering racket.  In all likelihood, he believes what he wrote, and probably was happy to get some publicity out of it too.  But honestly, if you were planning a war with plenty of secrets, including some which would be politically damaging, would you invite the head of the federal bank to meetings?  Come on, please :/

Shit, get your head out of the sand.

Funny, coming from the conspiracy theorist who accepts a certain POV and refuses to see that there could actually be a different POV.

BTW:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/17/alan-greenspan-seeks-to-clarify-controversial-iraq-war-comments/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501203_162-3267685.html

Warbler said:

I am not gone, I am just done talking with imperialscum.    

Apologies I thought FOAD was a definite statement? Cool. 

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

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.

That is not the point. You can see a reasonable motive behind it (weapons of mass destruction and "evil" dictator crap) and I too can see reasonable motive behind it (profit, exploitation). But the point is that the invasion was a violation of international laws. It was not approved by UN. Objectively it is just as criminal act as invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR.

That was several years ago, and I was much younger.  I didn't understand the role of the UN, and I also believed (actually, I still do) that a nation-state is sovereign, not the UN.  That said, I now understand things differently, and I believe the war was a huge error and was in violation of the UN.  I don't know why you continue to personalize this attack on me, as if I did it, as if I still agree with it, as if I had full grasp of the facts.  It was clearly not about oil, and if oil was a concern, it was secondary.  If you also read my posts (was it in this very thread?), I don't believe the president should even be allowed to engage in military action as they now do without the approval of Congress.  In other words, Bush should not have invaded.  But I believe this is a good country with noble motives the majority of the time, and I will defend against your assertions otherwise till you or I drop dead.

Why are you not so inclined to point out our current president's illegal wars, out of curiosity?

Member of the political class recants his accidentally candid moment SHOCK HORROR PROBE!.

Meanwhile normality resumes.

Bingowings said:

Member of the political class recants his accidentally candid moment SHOCK HORROR PROBE!.

Meanwhile normality resumes.

Lol!! 

Hey, it's me. said:

Warbler said:

I am not gone, I am just done talking with imperialscum.    

Apologies I thought FOAD was a definite statement? Cool. 

it was statement meant for imperial scum, but not a statement that I was leaving.

Your still funny (not a put down) 

you're

TV's Frink said:

you're

You're D, disasters
You're I, impossible
You're S, super special
You're C, crazy, crazy
You're O, oh, oh, oh

TV's Frink said:

you're

Sorry.

adywan said:

darth_ender said:

I never said Afghans or Iraqis have themselves to blame, and only those who fail to see individuals but rather a group as a whole would assume that's what is going on.  I said Al-qaeda in Iraq is to blame. 

The funny thing is about all this is that Al qaeda had no presence in Iraq until AFTER the US/UK invasion. Once Sadam was gone they took hold.

Warbler, you still cite the fact that Sadam was supposed to have WMD's as an excuse for the invasion or that he probably had them but got rid of them before the invasion. I do see this from so many as an excuse for the war even to this day, but we now know different. MI6 & the CIA were informed well before the invasion that Iraq had no WMD's but chose to ignore it. . Even the whole document that was used to justify the threat of Saddam turned out to be false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier

There was no threat from Saddam. It was for Oil and nothing more. the plan was already put into place to get rid of Saddam and get their hands on the oil BEFORE the attacks on 9/11, but it could not be justified and would have been illegal. The Bush. Blair administration used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. I find that far more  disgusting and insulting to the relatives of those who died in the attacks and their memories.

Our countries had no reason to invade Iraq. Just because someone is a "bad man" cannot be used to justify killing thousands of innocent people. There are people far worse than Saddam ever was in power around the globe, but strangely enough you don't see us invading there. But i guess that people forget that it was the USA that supplied Saddam with billions of dollars worth of arms in the 1980s. I guess Bush sr couldn't have thought he was such a bad man when he was an ally against Iran then?

It was nothing more that to get their hands on the OIL. Nothing to do with terror attacks or any threat. With all the GENUINE documents that have come to light since, thanks in part to wikileaks starting the ball rolling, how anybody can think that the Iraq invasion was for any other reason than oil eludes me. And all this is NOT conspiracy theories but FACT.

Some interesting reading

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9936180/Iraq-anniversary-war-intelligence-was-a-lie-BBC-Panorama-documentary-to-say.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-a-war-of-aggression-no-wmds-no-connection-to-al-qaeda/5327548

While I am willing to reformulate my theory, I still don't believe the primary goal was simply to secure oil contracts.  It makes little sense.  In fact the documentation does little to prove that such was the motive, just that it was a consideration as war was prepared.  It seems equally likely to me, though of course if anyone hates Bush they would never agree, that oil was a consideration for the post-war situation, and a fair one at that.  Similar discussions were certainly held regarding Germany during WWII.  War is expensive and damaging, and I couldn't blame anyone investing in it for looking to get some sort of reimbursement.  But that, to me, does not prove that it was the motive to actually go to war.

Let's also look at the leaked papers that show that "the invasion was planned in advance."  The US government is often thinking of ways to eliminate crappy leaders of countries.  Look at the documentation there, and note that it didn't mention oil, but rather that Iraq and Hussein were destabilizing influences in the region.  I guarantee you, Wikileaks will one day have leaked memos from the 80s till Obama that indicate the US wanted to get rid of Gaddafi in Libya.  Ultimately, I think people are oversimplifying and looking for the most sinister of motives because, hey, Bush is dumb and says funny things like 'nucular'.  And, you know, he's a conservative and a rich oil guy, so he's gotta be bad and just wants to get rich.

More likely, instead of this simplistic and prejudiced approach, the US had a policy (which was in place prior to Bush, i.e. Clinton the Democrat) to remove Hussein when politically expedient, a policy that continued when Bush became president (note the date on that pre-9/11 'invasion' memo, the very month Bush took office--kind of early to be planning something like an invasion on one's own).  9/11 increased the paranoia in the country.  Remembering that our leaders are sadly just as fallible as we are, they tended to believe, build up, and promote intelligence that reinforced their existing notions (it's the same principle that is perpetuating this discussion--our desire to be right and to seek justification from any source).  Folks who say that oil was the only motive seem to miss the fact that there were reasons for believing in the reality of the WMDs, such as Saddam's repeated evictions of UN investigators, the Curveball source, the fact that he had clearly not eliminated his capacity to resume production in the future.  Those with the mindset that there were WMDs would accept this intelligence above others.  And considering the fact that they already wanted him removed and believed there were other justifications, this seemed like a politically opportunistic moment.  However, if one enters a war, one wants to make sure they can end it quickly and pay for it.  So the oil discussions were an attempt to ensure the war would be repaid.  After the war was 'won,' Bush clearly expected to continue with an improved situation on the domestic homefront, in the Arab world (as many documents indicate, since Saddam was not popular among the other Arab nations), that a positive economic outcome for the whole world including the US would follow, and that the Iraqi people would be a freer people.  As the war progressed, Bush continued in spite of the damage it caused to his image and his country's economy, not because he really wanted that oil, but because he believed if you break it, you buy it.

I have little doubt that this theory is probably closer to reality than the 'war for oil' theory, because it makes little sense to commit political suicide the way he essentially did, and whatever corruption you may believe about the man, he was not the kind of person who simply wanted to kill a bunch of people so he could get rich, especially when the get rich part clearly became less and less of a possibility.  Anyone can call me narrow-minded, but really it is narrow-minded to be so sure that the answer is as simple as a dumb oil tycoon out to earn a quick buck for the price of a few worthless Middle-Eastern lives.

Rich people want to get more rich SHOCK HORROR PROBE!

All these places with interventions have some commodity that someone wants.

Mugabe has been safe because he has next to no oil or uranium to sell or to be robbed of.

And if they are conservative and can mow over a few brown people to get richer, then so be it, right?

I suppose the Communist Chinese are pretty conservative for over-running the Tibetans.

Those tanned skinned Argentinians don't want the Falklands for the mineral rights either...no sir.

Communist China, especially during the revolution, is and was not example of a government that is particularly concerned with putting people above prosperity.  China has a long list of human rights abuses to its credit, and sadly the conquest of Tibet is precisely in character.  Argentina also has a history of naughty governments, and the Falklands War took place at what was probably the height of its evils in the midst of military dictator rule.  Yes, many governments are evil.  In fact, most governments are evil to some extent, but clearly some are more than others.  But I believe that most true democracies, while imperfect, have made great strides in overcoming that sort of evil.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

And you will be the judge of that?

You Americans are every bit as stupid and arrogant as people usually say you are. No offence.

Fuck you. No offense.