[ebuddy]

Per poll done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in conjunction with Zogby finds 61% of Iraqis support attacks on US troops in Iraq. I'm willing to entertain some ideas on how to pull out of this issue because;

- if 61% of them support attacks against their liberator
- if 70+% of them want us out within a year

How would they be willing to help us secure their country?

How can we maintain stability in a nation whose majority supports attacks against us?

What are the implications of a phased pull-out at this point?

How long does the new Iraqi leader want us to stay?

For obvious reasons, phase-out of our actions there would need to appear not as a "cut & run", but as a follow-up to some victory. I propose a massive build-up in military, with presence everywhere and anywhere for 12 solid months. Daily actions against insurgents and timely updates to bolster not only real stability in Iraq, but public opinion here in the US as well as in Iraq. We need to have a visible force anywhere there is instability. There needs to be swift action against those who harm civilians. I'm no longer content with a minimalist presence there and in fact am moving towards a phased withdrawal post-presence and post-victory.

It is the Iraqi people that will ultimitely determine our success or failure there and we cannot rely on the help of those who support attacks against us. When that becomes the majority (61%) as opposed to the minority (January of 47%), we are acting in vain and need to change the gameplan. Yesterday.

[Sky Captain]

Pull out and let them have the opressive islamic government they want.

[Sky Captain]

*dp

[itai195]

Wow, first marden essentially agrees with John Kerry's foreign policy, and now this.

[art_director]

It's unfortunate they didn't poll for how many of them have been recruited to terrorism as result of the actions of our supreme Christian leader.

The Iraq war is a miserable failure.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Pull out and let them have the opressive islamic government they want.

Yep, if they don't want our troops there, no point in forcing it on them.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Pull out and let them have the opressive islamic government they want.

Then watch gas price sky rocketting. The problem is not terrorism, it is not freedom, it is not honor, it just is oil. Now the western world is bound to make sure the middle east oil reserve stays under some kind of control/fairly stable regime. Leaving Iraq now would probably not work too well.

[raduga]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is the Iraqi people that will ultimitely determine our success or failure there and we cannot rely on the help of those who support attacks against us.

You're making a common mistake here in defining how we (i.e., the US Government) defines "success" or "failure" in Iraq.

If you assume "success" is the nonsense GWB spouts about bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq, or fighting terrorism, then clearly we have failed and went about this in entirely the wrong way from the beginning.

However, if you realize that "success" may actually be defined as

1. Opening new, free markets for multinational corporations
2. Liquidating the assets of the Iraqi people (see above)
3. Establishing a permanent group of military bases in the Middle East
4. Provoking resistance and hatred of America in order to justify a never-ending global "War on Terror" and the continuance of global American military dominance and hegemony
5. Justifying huge, unprecendented increases in executive, police, and intelligence-gathering powers at home
6. etc.

... then you get a whole new perspective on our "mistakes" in the Iraq occupation. I'm not saying everything in this list was pre-planned before 9-11, (although we now know the invasion of Iraq certainly was,) but obviously the powers that be have taken every advantage of the situation.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that the Iraqi people don't want us there. They never wanted an invading force in the first place. They want to rule their own country, just like everyone else on the planet.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by art_director

It's unfortunate they didn't poll for how many of them have been recruited to terrorism as result of the actions of our supreme Christian leader.

The Iraq war is a miserable failure.

[spindler]

Guess we should have thought twice about jumping into a snakepit.

[Spliffdaddy]

Looks like 61% of those dead "innocent civilians" weren't so innocent.

[chabig]

Great point!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Looks like 61% of those dead "innocent civilians" weren't so innocent.

The solution is to obviously kill the Iraqis. All of them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

The solution is to obviously kill the Iraqis. All of them.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

In my opinion we should leave 39% of them alive.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Pull out and let them have the opressive islamic government they want.

Yea, let them become a proxy for Iran...which would mean Iran would control most of the oil supply in the world

[Sky Captain]

And this would be bad how?

And I thought the world wanted fuel prices to sky rocket.
You know, to punish the US for being "rich".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by raduga

You're making a common mistake here in defining how we (i.e., the US Government) defines "success" or "failure" in Iraq.

You're making a common mistake that has ensured failure at polling places across this country. If you want a voice to counter this Administration, you'll have to be a little more disciplined in your approach than Michael Moore.

If you assume "success" is the nonsense GWB spouts about bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq, or fighting terrorism, then clearly we have failed and went about this in entirely the wrong way from the beginning.

Seeing as this is the same nonsense spewed by the Administration prior to the dreaded GWB and in fact what comprised our "humanitarian" actions in Yugoslavia and Iraq at that time, then perhaps there is no one for the American to look to, to adequately define "success".

However, if you realize that "success" may actually be defined as

1. Opening new, free markets for multinational corporations
2. Liquidating the assets of the Iraqi people (see above)
3. Establishing a permanent group of military bases in the Middle East
4. Provoking resistance and hatred of America in order to justify a never-ending global "War on Terror" and the continuance of global American military dominance and hegemony
5. Justifying huge, unprecendented increases in executive, police, and intelligence-gathering powers at home
6. etc.

Some problems with your list;

1. opening new, free markets for multinational corporations and interests is critical for democracy to flourish. Poor socio-economic conditions breed terrorism. Employment does not.
2. the assets of the Iraqi people are now the assets of the Iraqi people and there is nothing credible to suggest otherwise.
3. establishing military bases throughout Iraq is absolutely critical to protecting our interests in the Middle East. Not realizing the importance of our presence there shows ignorance to the geopolitical complexities of the region.
4. Wha? Is that a black helicopter? I think I see Cheney with large headphones on. If we want progress and a balance in power, we're going to have to be a little more disciplined in our rhetoric. Republicans aren't hijacking elections, extremist leftist talking points like the above are.
5. A) we've already established that there is nothing unprecedented about the police and intelligence gathering, they're only in communication now. An aspect of intelligence that was severely lacking as mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and parroted repeatedly by the left. You've lost no freedoms and each time I've asked people of this mindset what they've lost since Carter's authorization of wire-tapping in the 70's, I've only been met with dismal silence.
   
   B) Name an ideal that is not imperialistic. Now tell me how to counter imperialism. This world will come to a head of ideals. If you're not growing, you're dying. It is human nature and unavoidable. You can remain about the campfire singing kumbaya, but this doesn't make you more effective at leading a nation in an increasingly volatile globe. Make no mistake, it was increasingly volatile prior to any actions in Iraq.

... then you get a whole new perspective on our "mistakes" in the Iraq occupation. I'm not saying everything in this list was pre-planned before 9-11, (although we now know the invasion of Iraq certainly was,) but obviously the powers that be have taken every advantage of the situation.

I'm not sure how one takes advantage of 13 UN Resolutions over the span of 12 years, the last of which threatened "serious consequences" for non compliance, but if you say so. In the interest of humanitarian pursuits, I suppose it would have been best for us to continue starving the Iraqi poor to death with economic sanctions.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that the Iraqi people don't want us there. They never wanted an invading force in the first place. They want to rule their own country, just like everyone else on the planet.

Yes, dentists extract cavities, but people often hate seeing them. Supporting attacks on them is another problem entirely. I'm not surprised they don't want us there and I'm encouraged that you believe they want to rule their own country. I'm afraid they're a little slow in showing the rest of the world how badly.

Kerry's plan (as another poster mentioned) is based on naivete in assuming we can get support from the International Community. They were working against our interests prior to 9/11, they'll continue working against our interests. The aid they've promised (some $13billion) has yet to occur and their tactics can only be defined as "stall". The US must provide this awesome presence and it must remain there for at least 12 full months with focus on large goals of terrorist extraction. Whereever there is instability in Iraq, there must be massive US presence and our actions must be swift and deadly. The Iraqi needs to see that we are everywhere and we are winning.

[Millennium]

See, it's things like this that defy logic.

1) The US is ostensibly in Iraq to maintain stability.
2) Attacks on the US troops there undermine stability.
3) The US cannot leave until there is stability.

Therefore, it seems to me as though the quickest way to get the US out is to stop attacking it. I point this out only to show that if this is what the Iraqis say they want, then the only possible course of action is to ignore it. You can't help but violate these desires one way or the other, so it is pointless to even try.

One might also take a look at how the terrorists have muddled the Iraqis' thinking on this: they don't even know what they want, as evidenced by such fundamentally-incompatible statements. If they can't give a reliable statement on what they want, then the only thing to do is guess. It's a bad solution, but it's better than nothing, and certainly better than this confused ranting that the polls are giving us.

[Troll]

Two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq, eBuddy starts asking the questions the rest of us were asking before it began!

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Troll

Two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq, eBuddy starts asking the questions the rest of us were asking before it began!

Slapping my knee, rolling on the floor laughing with milk coming out my nose,,,

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I propose a massive build-up in military, with presence everywhere and anywhere for 12 solid months.

I could suggest we let the unicorns take care of it. Both are about as equally likely.

[raduga]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[List=1][*]opening new, free markets for multinational corporations and interests is critical for democracy to flourish.

To me, "democracy flourishing" seems like a red herring. Democracy isn't flourishing; terrible violence, corruption, poverty, and injustice are flourishing. If anything, free-market capitalism is flourishing, but why confuse the two? I mean, if 30% of people in the US didn't live below the poverty line, if we didn't have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the 1st world, if people could afford medicine, healthcare, and education, and if 50%+ of my tax money didn't go into killing people, then MAYBE I could advocate the "flourishing" of Democracy throughout the world.

In reality, there are many many different cultures and poltical systems in the world, and I don't want to impose my country's on someone else any more than I want China coming to the US and censoring Google News here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Poor socio-economic conditions breed terrorism.

I disagree. I think arrogantly imposing capitalism and American culture/values onto ancient, deeply religious cultures breeds resentment of America, and combined with the widening gap between rich and poor brought on by globalization, breeds desperation and sometimes extremism. The basic "cause" to the effect of terrorism is the overwhelming force by which Western culture and worldview is being imposed upon Mideast societies. Bin Laden, for example, doesn't care if we eat BigMacs and watch Girls Gone Wild in America, he just didn't want that crap infecting Muslim culture.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[*]the assets of the Iraqi people are now the assets of the Iraqi people and there is nothing credible to suggest otherwise.

You're living in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[*]establishing military bases throughout Iraq is absolutely critical to protecting our interests in the Middle East. Not realizing the importance of our presence there shows ignorance to the geopolitical complexities of the region.

Yes and by that logic, we should definitely establish global military dominance over the entire world. How about super-weapons in space? Boy, I can't wait.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[*]Wha? Is that a black helicopter? I think I see Cheney with large headphones on. If we want progress and a balance in power, we're going to have to be a little more disciplined in our rhetoric. Republicans aren't hijacking elections, extremist leftist talking points like the above are.

I think you ought to be a little more disciplined in your rhetoric. I do not believe in black helicopter conspiracies, nor do I sing hippie camp-fire songs. There is more than ample evidence showing massive vote fraud occurred in both of the last elections, and if you consider those facts a conspiracy theory, then once again, you are living in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[*]A) we've already established that there is nothing unprecedented about the police and intelligence gathering,

You're living in a fantasy world. Nothing unprecedented about the NSA being given explicit permission to spy on Americans in America? Nothing unprecedented about the suspension of habeas corpus? (Well, OK, it happened before -- in 1861) Nothing unprecedented about secret CIA prison networks and flying POWs to Syria to have them tortured? Thing unprecedented about an $8 Trillion deficit in 7 years? You're living in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

B) Name an ideal that is not imperialistic.

Peace.

[raduga]

Whereever there is instability in Iraq, there must be massive US presence and our actions must be swift and deadly. The Iraqi needs to see that we are everywhere and we are winning.

Dude, didn't you even read the story this thread is about? They don't want us there! And your solution is to show overwhelming force? Yeah, sure, maybe a stronger presence and even more killings in their neighborhoods will change some minds. Idiot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq, eBuddy starts asking the questions the rest of us were asking before it began!

Let me get this straight; when news of "shock and awe" was emanating from news outlets everywhere, you were asking for a more awesome US military presence?

Somehow I doubt it, but I'm not sure that's going to make art_director swallow any less.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

See, it's things like this that defy logic.

1) The US is ostensibly in Iraq to maintain stability.
2) Attacks on the US troops there undermine stability.
3) The US cannot leave until there is stability.

Therefore, it seems to me as though the quickest way to get the US out is to stop attacking it. I point this out only to show that if this is what the Iraqis say they want, then the only possible course of action is to ignore it. You can't help but violate these desires one way or the other, so it is pointless to even try.

I don't think it's that easy. Those groups that are organizing the attacks on the US-forces, do so not only in order to hasten the withdrawal of the US-forces, but in order to stop the US gaining more economical and ideological influence in the country, and also with the hope that some time in the future the blood-letting of US-soldiers is too high and Iraq completely left, and not just 90% of the US-forces.

If the rebels would stop attacking the US-forces, it might well speed up the withdrawal of most US-forces, but it would leave permanently manned US-military-bases in the country, as well as political and economical US-influence through the US-embassy in Bagdad.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by raduga

To me, "democracy flourishing" seems like a red herring. Democracy isn't flourishing; terrible violence, corruption, poverty, and injustice are flourishing.

Sounds a lot like "pre-US" Iraq.

If anything, free-market capitalism is flourishing, but why confuse the two? I mean, if 30% of people in the US didn't live below the poverty line,

I believe true poverty is bad enough that you don't need to more than double its rate to make a point. The official estimate if you're really interested, is 12.5%. Poverty is measured by percentage of average income and family size. Poverty in this country is a car (sometimes two or three), a fridge, microwave, cable or satellite television, at least one gaming system, enough living space to make the average European blush, washer/dryer, dishwasher, medical care, and approximately 3 times the daily allowance of protein on average. Poverty among adults is too often related to problems with addiction, mental illness, and in the most extreme cases often social dissent, and the problem with poverty among children is underemployed parents and fatherless homes. I know what poverty is, I lived it for 4 years and not as part of some social awareness "night in the box with the frat brothers" routine. I will say this however, it is a little difficult to understand the true nature of poverty when you refuse to leave that LaZboy recliner. After all, life is much better within that gated community on the ol' laptop ain't it? Pointing out all the social injustices of the country that produces the world's wealthiest poor.

if we didn't have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the 1st world,

Well, this is particularly due to drug offenses so you have a couple of choices to make. You can legalize drugs (personally, I don't appreciate incarceration over an ounce of weed) or you can lessen the offenses for drug crime. Unfortunately, these two options don't decrease abuse. You may also find an increase homelessness. You might know for an addict, the drug is more important than the mortgage. What to do? Go homeless. Tell me, will they be able to stay outside of your business or are you going to take the "not in my backyard" stance you've taken below.

if people could afford medicine, healthcare,

Billions spent on healthcare annually for illegal immigrants, but we've got an American who claims you can't get healthcare. If you don't have healthcare in this country, you're not trying. Period. Can you afford it? Are you just smarter than all those other little people or did you simply shop for an employer who offered healthcare as part of their compensation package? You realize that for many, it's a choice. I had a hard time understanding this too, but then it took only one instance of a homeless man downtown declining a ride to the shelter when the forecast called for a low of 20 degrees for me to get it. Some people don't want your help. You don't want your tax dollars funding the killing of others, but you're perfectly cool with picking up the tab for those killing themselves on cigarettes, alcohol, and drug abuse? You're all over the place. Stick to the party line though brother, it doesn't matter if you make any sense. You'll solve the world's problems whether they want you to or not. Sound familiar?

and education

Last I checked, K-12 is entirely free. In fact, in most cases those at poverty level can apply not only for free breakfast, but free lunch while they're in school. Now, if you're talking about college; where is college free again? Certainly not in Santa Cruz. Granted, if you're poor you'll have to fill out some pesky forms for a Pell Grant and if you're a minority you've got a pretty good shot at a scholarship, but you're going to have to try.

if 50%+ of my tax money didn't go into killing people, then MAYBE I could advocate the "flourishing" of Democracy throughout the world.

You don't seem to know enough about your country to be a good advocate of anything, let alone democracy.

In reality, there are many many different cultures and poltical systems in the world, and I don't want to impose my country's on someone else any more than I want China coming to the US and censoring Google News here.

I'm glad you mentioned China. With China now courting prosects in the Middle East and with their joint military operations with Russia, and Russia taking an increasing interest in the Middle East trust me, this world will come to a head of ideals. If you're engaged in thwarting the Chinese influence on American interest, you'd understand why we too are interested in the Middle East and yes, it has an awful lot to do with resource and global posturing. Be glad you're not the one who has to make the difficult decisions on how to react to an increasingly volatile world.

I disagree. I think arrogantly imposing capitalism and American culture/values onto ancient, deeply religious cultures breeds resentment of America, and combined with the widening gap between rich and poor brought on by globalization, breeds desperation and sometimes extremism.

Violence and extremism existed prior to our actions in the Middle East. Violence is the symptom of oppression. Violence and oppression is prevalent among those in poor socio-economic conditions. You can see this on smaller scales within the inner-cities and blighted areas of your own town. The "culture" in Iraq was one of fear and oppression at the hands of a dictator who continued to build torture facilities and extravagant palaces on the backs of those victimized by economic sanctions due to the failed foreign policy of their leader. Women lacked the most basic human rights, though your xenophobia has been noted. They are just like us, religious and desiring freedom. As long as it's not in your backyard though right?

The basic "cause" to the effect of terrorism is the overwhelming force by which Western culture and worldview is being imposed upon Mideast societies.

I can see that this might have been taught you in an Institution of higher learning and low expectation. I won't argue this point because I'm increasingly skeptical as to whether or not you're reasonable enough to examine your own self-loathing.

Bin Laden, for example, doesn't care if we eat BigMacs and watch Girls Gone Wild in America, he just didn't want that crap infecting Muslim culture.

I'm not interested in the high moral calling of a man who profitted from the drug trade, abused multiple women while fantasizing about Whitney Houston and "offing" her husband, and orchestrated the death of almost 3,000 innocent civilians. Perhaps, if he had been watching girls gone wild while hopped up on opium, he could've found some peace in his sexual repression.

You're living in a fantasy world.

Maybe so, but then I'm not the one quoting the interests of known mad men.

Yes and by that logic, we should definitely establish global military dominance over the entire world. How about super-weapons in space? Boy, I can't wait.

Super weapons in space? Hmm. Super counter-weapons in space? Hell yeah! If a nuclear threat could be averted through the use of technology, we've gone a long way toward removing the chess pieces of chest-pounding.

I think you ought to be a little more disciplined in your rhetoric. I do not believe in black helicopter conspiracies, nor do I sing hippie camp-fire songs. There is more than ample evidence showing massive vote fraud occurred in both of the last elections, and if you consider those facts a conspiracy theory, then once again, you are living in a fantasy world.

This of course, includes all the instances of voter fraud within democrat precincts, up to and including the registration of such noteworthy cartoon characters as Fred Flintstone and dead people? Let's not forget the massive disenfranchising of the traditionally Republican military ballot right? I'd rather you were singing hippie camp-fire songs and believed in black helicopter conspiricies. I could at least attribute these fantasies as drug-induced. As it stands now, you could possibly just be an absolute moron, which I find most disheartening.

You're living in a fantasy world. Nothing unprecedented about the NSA being given explicit permission to spy on Americans in America? Nothing unprecedented about the suspension of habeas corpus? (Well, OK, it happened before -- in 1861)

1861? How about 1977 Einstein. President Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

Nothing unprecedented about secret CIA prison networks and flying POWs to Syria to have them tortured?

Of course everyone knows Bush had these built by Haliburton in 2001. Crack is whack Dr. Raduga.

unprecedented about an $8 Trillion deficit in 7 years? You're living in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that the $8 Trillion deficit is of concern. Any true fiscally conservative voter should be and Bush will be held to account for rampant government spending. You might know that some of this is attributable to the arguably noble cause of AIDs relief, disaster relief, 9/11, and two major hurricanes. There is another unprecedented high you failed to include; Dow Jones average past its all-time trading high of 11750.28. Is Bush to blame for this too?

Peace.

Sounds good to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by raduga

Dude, didn't you even read the story this thread is about?

Yeah, I'm the original poster Professor Raduga.

They don't want us there! And your solution is to show overwhelming force? Yeah, sure, maybe a stronger presence and even more killings in their neighborhoods will change some minds. Idiot.

No. Everyone knows "peace" will. Idiot indeed!

[mitchell_pgh]

I would loved to have seen this question asked:

"Is your tribe superior to your opponents tribe?"

I'm guessing 98% YES

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I would loved to have seen this question asked:

"Is your tribe superior to your opponents tribe?"

I'm guessing 98% YES

With all honestly, I bet we could get the same results if we substituted denomination or political party and asked the same question in the United States.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Let me get this straight; when news of "shock and awe" was emanating from news outlets everywhere, you were asking for a more awesome US military presence?

Somehow I doubt it, but I'm not sure that's going to make art_director swallow any less.

Do you know what a question is? Here's a hint, every time you type a "?", you've asked a question. Like when you typed this:

"How would they be willing to help us secure their country?, How can we maintain stability in a nation whose majority supports attacks against us?, How long does the new Iraqi leader want us to stay?"

What I said was that you are only NOW asking the questions some of us were asking before the invasion.

And as for your other question, you might notice that I have consistently said that if the US was going to invade Iraq, it needed 300,000 more troops than it took along. That wasn't a guess on my part. That was based on a formula that the UN uses for determining how many troops are required to keep the peace. Why was I thinking about keeping the peace before the war? Because I realised that THAT would be the challenge, not knocking over Saddam.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Pointing out all the social injustices of the country that produces the world's wealthiest poor.

He was talking about the USA not Luxembourg. If you honestly believe that poor people are better off in the USA than anywhere else in the world then you really don't have much of a clue.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If you don't have healthcare in this country, you're not trying.

In most European countries, you get free healthcare without trying.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

where is college free again?

In most countries in the EU.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yes, I agree that the $8 Trillion deficit is of concern. Any true fiscally conservative voter should be and Bush will be held to account for rampant government spending. You might know that some of this is attributable to the arguably noble cause of AIDs relief...

OMG!! Are you serious?? Bush promised to pay $3Bn a year over 5 years towards AIDS relief. Most of it will be wasted recreating administration that already exists in the form of NGOs. 1/4 of it will be given to religious nutters so that they can go around telling people not to have sex. In true government fashion, a fraction of the promised money has actually been allocated. The US is spending more in Iraq each month ($5.5Bn) than it committed to spend on AIDS each year. Trying to blame the deficit on AIDS relief is dishonest.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

In most European countries, you get free healthcare without trying.
In most countries in the EU.

Yeah along with European healthcare finance in crisis.

Trying to blame the deficit on AIDS relief is dishonest.

Trying to suggest I blamed the deficit on AIDS relief is dishonest.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Let me get this straight; when news of "shock and awe" was emanating from news outlets everywhere, you were asking for a more awesome US military presence?

Why does it matter what we think? It was the military who was asking for for a more awesome presence. Rumsfeld called that "cold war thinking".

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yeah along with European healthcare finance in crisis.

It's still free. If they don't figure out a solution then yes, in future, Europeans might have to start paying for healthcare just like Americans.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Trying to suggest I blamed the deficit on AIDS relief is dishonest.

True but you did fail to mention some of the biggest spending items in your list thereby implying you were listing the biggest reasons for the deficit.. Let's just say that if you're looking for a reason for the deficit, look at the space between Lebanon and Iran.

[raduga]

Of course everyone knows Bush had these built by Haliburton in 2001. Crack is whack Dr. Raduga.

Well, the European Union seems to be pretty concerned about this particular leftist cospiracy theory. Just google "secret cia prisons". There have already been hundreds of these "extraordianry rendition" flights documented (which is simply doublespeak for "flying people to countries in the Axis Of Evil so that they can be tortured on behalf of the US.") For some reason these silly Europeans aren't too thrilled about this program.

As far as warantless wiretapping in the 1970s, sure that's nothing new. Hell, NSA has been wiretapping everyone for decades. To my knowledge, however, the basic human right of habeus corpus has not been overruled in the United States since 1861.

[raduga]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

# the assets of the Iraqi people are now the assets of the Iraqi people and there is nothing credible to suggest otherwise.

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

Educate thyself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by raduga

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

Educate thyself.

You're giving me info on a DVD release of a film produced by Robert Greenwald and telling me to "educate thyself"?

Do you have something to offer that might be a smidgen less slanted like say; Farenheit 9-11?



educate thyself.

[raduga]

Oh yeah, that's fair. Maybe you could watch the film before trying to dismiss it. I fscking hate Michael Moore. What I'm trying to tell you here is that there is plenty of information out there concerning the buyoff of Iraqi assets after the invasion, and subsequent auctioning off of Iraq's resources to the highest bidders. (Or, quite often, the no-bidders with ex-CEO's in the Whitehouse.) None of whom happen to be Iraqis.

The average Iraqi is lucky to have any job at this point, let alone a multi-billion dollar giveaway contract at the expense of the American taxpayer. Yes, Halliburton. Yes, they have received over $2 Billion in contracts in post-invasion Iraq. Yes, the Vice President used to run Halliburton. This is not a leftist conspiracy theory so don't get excited. It's just business. Nearly a Billion of Halliburton's contact was for "oil field rehabilitation." You think we were rehabilitating those fields to hand back to the Iraqis, I suppose?

So WTF is wrong with a "slanted" film about a war? Yes of course it's slanted, slanted away from the corporate media's party-line perspective! That's kinda the whole point, buddy.

Anyway, who the hell are you to tell me (or anyone) that Iraq's people are not getting shafted by this war? War is a racket, and to try and argue anything else is not only ignorant in the extreme, it is morally irresponsible, not to mention just makes you sound like a total jerk. Why on earth would anyone argue in favor of the defense contractors who are making Billions off of other people's misery, all in our name and with our tax dollars? Believe me, they are not acting in YOUR best interest so I have no idea why you'd take the position of making excuses for them.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by raduga

Oh yeah, that's fair. Maybe you could watch the film before trying to dismiss it. I fscking hate Michael Moore. What I'm trying to tell you here is that there is plenty of information out there concerning the buyoff of Iraqi assets after the invasion, and subsequent auctioning off of Iraq's resources to the highest bidders. (Or, quite often, the no-bidders with ex-CEO's in the Whitehouse.) None of whom happen to be Iraqis.

At the most basic level though ANY sale of state assets is completely and utterly ILLEGAL. It is a flagrant breach of the Geneva Conventions for the occupying country to privatise state assets. Those assets belong to the Iraqi people and they did not elect the United States to be their government. The entire tender process is illegal and those companies that have jumped in could find all of "their" assets nationalised without any recourse.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by raduga

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

Educate thyself.

This is HILARIOUS!!!!

Ummm, what do you think the person SELLING this DVD is doing? Yep, profiting off of the war!

[raduga]

Originally Posted by Troll

At the most basic level though ANY sale of state assets is completely and utterly ILLEGAL. It is a flagrant breach of the Geneva Conventions for the occupying country to privatise state assets.

My point exactly. And so, this war was begun illegally and unjustly and it has continued along the same lines.

I guess the argument from the neocon quarters is that the eventual privatisation of every asset on the globe will benefit everyone, by giving the whole world a cushy suburban American consumer lifestyle. Or something.

The United States has historically brushed aside the Geneva Conventions and other foundations of international law whenever it was convenient to do so. In the torture bill passed just a few days ago and attached signing statement, the President has asserted the right to "interpret" the torture definitions in the Geneva Conventions however he or the Secretary of Defense sees fit. So now it's "law". Doesn't it make you proud?

[raduga]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

This is HILARIOUS!!!!
Ummm, what do you think the person SELLING this DVD is doing? Yep, profiting off of the war!

I guess by this logic the New York Times is profiting off the war by reporting about it? If people providing an alternative glimpse into what's going on get to make a living doing it, that's fine by me.

There is a difference between selling a dvd and "profiteering", btw.

Main Entry: prof·i·teer
Function: noun
: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

I guess this is the difference.... Can you do well selling a movie to people who will pay to see it? OK. Can you make Billions of dollars participating in a war of aggression by stealing another nation's resouces while the people live without clean water or electricity? Slightly less OK.

It's all relative.

[DBursey]

1) The US is ostensibly in Iraq to maintain stability.
2) Attacks on the US troops there undermine stability.
3) The US cannot leave until there is stability.

The United States created the current instability in Iraq. Since the invasion there has been no stability to 'maintain'.

Iraqis themselves will stabilize their country or they won't. The United States has far too few troops in the country to do so. Ergo the Americans have been harbingers of Iraqi instability & insecurity.

A lot of folks seem to speak of the Iraqi population as being homogeneous. Nothing would be further from the truth. Iraq is, and has always been, a miasma of conflicting & competing ethnic, tribal, cultural and religious interests.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by raduga

Oh yeah, that's fair. Maybe you could watch the film before trying to dismiss it.

Why would you ask something of me when it's abundantly clear how you approach anyone who disagrees with you?

I fskng hate Michael Moore

As well you should. He's personally ensured no one who aligned themselves with his world view would get elected.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that there is plenty of information out there concerning the buyoff of Iraqi assets after the invasion, and subsequent auctioning off of Iraq's resources to the highest bidders. (Or, quite often, the no-bidders with ex-CEO's in the Whitehouse.) None of whom happen to be Iraqis.

There is also plenty of progress going on in Iraq that you will not hear about. Don't give me this tripe about eeevil capitalist pigs and CEO's. Few are more reprehensible than those cigar-chomping 'Big Media' CEO's, advocating nothing less than blatent fabrication of events bent on influencing elections.

The average Iraqi is lucky to have any job at this point, let alone a multi-billion dollar giveaway contract at the expense of the American taxpayer. Yes, Halliburton. Yes, they have received over $2 Billion in contracts in post-invasion Iraq. Yes, the Vice President used to run Halliburton. This is not a leftist conspiracy theory so don't get excited. It's just business. Nearly a Billion of Halliburton's contact was for "oil field rehabilitation." You think we were rehabilitating those fields to hand back to the Iraqis, I suppose?

No, I believe Haliburton will profit from the contract as businesses are in business to do, the US will reap some of the profits from oil production to assuage the immense cost of removing the Iraqi dictator (as well they should), and the Iraqi will manage and employ other Iraqis on the resource that belongs to them. There's no USA stamped on those spiggots.

BTW; how many companies are more qualified than the one who has enjoyed a 60 year history of working with the government feeding and resourcing the military, rebuilding vital infrastructure, affilliated with KBR who helped build U.S. war ships in World War II, as well as projects in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and the Balkans, and helped put out more than half of the oil well fires in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War? Let's see... um... no one? Look, it's easy to demonize Haliburton after all, it was headed by a man who serves as VP under the dreaded GWB. Politics as usual. Like I said, stick to the party line professor raduga, it won't matter if you make any sense or not.

So WTF is wrong with a "slanted" film about a war? Yes of course it's slanted, slanted away from the corporate media's party-line perspective! That's kinda the whole point, buddy.

See statement above regarding the absurdly rich, cigar-chomping media execs.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with the film. In fact, it establishes that there is more than enough profiteering from Iraq to go around and a wealth of capitalist pigs from all sides ready to cash in. Your esteemed Robert Greenwald included.

Anyway, who the hell are you to tell me (or anyone) that Iraq's people are not getting shafted by this war?

Who the hell are you to tell me that the Iraqi hadn't been shafted regardless? The Iraqis are going through a difficult time and while they do not appreciate the ideology and presence of their liberator, they've shown a remarkably favorable attitude toward democracy. Their leadership has insisted we stay to increase stability. Who are you to tell me the Iraqi leadership is wrong?

War is a racket,

So are films that oppose it. This doesn't mean they can't be useful tools right?

and to try and argue anything else is not only ignorant in the extreme, it is morally irresponsible, not to mention just makes you sound like a total jerk.

Let me get this straight; I can't argue anything contrary to your opinion or I am extremely ignorant, morally irresponsible, and a jerk? Forget how this makes me sound, listen to how sanctimonious, narcissistic, and intolerant you really are.

Why on earth would anyone argue in favor of the defense contractors who are making Billions off of other people's misery, all in our name and with our tax dollars? Believe me, they are not acting in YOUR best interest so I have no idea why you'd take the position of making excuses for them.

There are a great many socialist programs and ideals funded by my tax dollars that I find reprehensible and are not in MY best interest. In these cases I use my vote to influence government. This is part of living in a diverse and democratic society. Not everything goes your way. To quote Kevin;

grow up.

[raduga]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There is also plenty of progress going on in Iraq that you will not hear about.

Why don't we hear about it? You'd think the powers that be would be eager to share all their progress, especially with approval ratings being what they are. I met a reporter who spent a couple years in Iraq, he told me that today there is not one independent Western journalist inside Iraq, excepting the Green Zone where all media outlets are housed in a single floor in the Palestine Hotel, whose walls were reinforced after a mortar attack a year ago. Perhaps there is progress going on within Iraqi factions, but if Americans can't get without a hundred miles of said progress without getting IED'd, then I don't think we can take much credit for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Let me get this straight; I can't argue anything contrary to your opinion or I am extremely ignorant, morally irresponsible, and a jerk?

That's not what I said. I said you cannot argue that "the assets of the Iraqi people are now the assets of the Iraqi people and there is nothing credible to suggest otherwise" without sounding like an ill-informed jackass.

[Dark Helmet]

Get out of their country. Problem solved.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There is also plenty of progress going on in Iraq that you will not hear about. Don't give me this tripe about eeevil capitalist pigs and CEO's. Few are more reprehensible than those cigar-chomping 'Big Media' CEO's, advocating nothing less than blatent fabrication of events bent on influencing elections.

What progress are you referring to? BTW, roaming death squads don't count.

The pathetic part about the Iraq debate is that it comes at the expense of the war in Afghanistan. Remember, that's where Osama and AQ is / was? That country has fallen into chaos.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by DBursey

The United States created the current instability in Iraq. Since the invasion there has been no stability to 'maintain'.

Iraqis themselves will stabilize their country or they won't. The United States has far too few troops in the country to do so. Ergo the Americans have been harbingers of Iraqi instability & insecurity.

A lot of folks seem to speak of the Iraqi population as being homogeneous. Nothing would be further from the truth. Iraq is, and has always been, a miasma of conflicting & competing ethnic, tribal, cultural and religious interests.

Yeah, but making it a simple black and white thing makes it easier to use terms like "evil" "bad" and "liberals" in one sentence.



But heck; if it can't be simple, it has to be ridiculed, because it is too complicated, and plagued with moral realtivism, appeasement, Clintonisms (or Clintonphilia) and Saddamhusseinphilia!

But here we are, the so-called "liberuls", with our bellies full of popcorn and content to see the birth of Reason on the "right" side...

How long though?

Again, the US shot itself in the foot, and there is no one else to blame...

[Moderator]

What the right is saying is fcuk what Iraqi's think. USA USA.