|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2005 : 23:45:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
...and the flavor was chewed out of waving the bloody shirt of 9/11...
The Daily Show did a wonderful bit on this on the day that the search for WMD was officially called off. It seems Scott McKellan went on and on in his press conference about how 9/11 "changed the equation," so Jon Stewart and the Daily Show put up the new equation, which (due to not having fancy graphics here) I'll write down as follows:Sept. 11 + "whatever we say" = Shut the fuck up. I think it loses only a tiny bit in translation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 00:16:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
An attempt to control the disposition of a very large oil reserve ("steal" is probably too strong a word) was, IMHO, just icing on the cake.
Yeah, I don't think even Bush was brazen enough to think they could steal the oil by force. It was more about freeing it up for market distribution, which in turn would lower oil prices, thus benefitting America. It also would hurt the Saudis in the pocketbook, which is interesting to note.
And don't forget, Iraq was the second country to be invaded, Siberia. They were still mopping up the money pit that is Afghanistan while they were ramping up to invade Iraq. After having to fund the rebuilding of a country with no natural resources to speak of, the fact that Iraq was sitting on acres of black gold seemed attractive from a monetary standpoint. I'm sure the thinktanks in Washington sold the war by suggesting that the bulk of the post-war construction could be paid for by the Iraquis themselves.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/22/2005 00:17:22 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 02:19:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
What is wrong with ending tyranny?
Is that what you think Bush is doing? Would you want to be in Iraq right now? If you hated your government and wanted a revolution, (Iraq vs Saddam), OK, but suppose someone came in and decided you get to fight a revolution and civil war whether you like it or not.
And as a foreign commentator pointed out on Democracy Now today, many in the world can see we, (in the US), talk about ending all these tyrannical dictatorships, but interestingly that doesn't apply to the tyrannical dictators we do business with. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 02:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
End tyranny's just an hypocritical excuse to raid somebody else's country and steal their natural resources.
Nonsense. Have we done that? We are reconstructing the country so they can export their oil. Yes, American companies are making money off the war just like every war fought before. Where is your proof that it is the American goal to steel their resources?
Perhaps a Mideast history lesson would give you a clue. And for that matter, world history has a few clues as well. or were you being sarcastic?
I can't remember if I posted this here before but here is a copy of my Mideast history post to read or review depending on if you have seen it already. Sorry if it is a bit long but we've been controlling other countries' resources for our own benefit for a long time.
If your only version of US actions internationally is the one from high school, you are unlikely to have an accurate picture.
Our government has acted in our best interests in a past climate which cannot be totally judged by today's standards. I am not claiming the US has been all bad, and everyone else is all good. But US history is often taught from an idealistic point of view that we are always a good, decent, and moral country.
Historical figures are either all good or all bad and rarely 'real' people. US actions intervening in other countries are portrayed as being either to stop communism, or to rescue people from some other evil government. Actions are almost never portrayed as protecting US companies' financial interests. Even when such motives are alluded to they are not emphasized.
The result of such history lessons is the false impression it leaves behind in students of the US as the one portrayed in the movies, heroic and full of heroes. I have no objection to promoting patriotism and self esteem, but such versions in the mind of the population can result in less than informed decisions being made when it comes to future US interventions.
No matter how 'right' one thinks the US actions in Iraq are, there is still the problem of underestimating the will of the people to resist. My parents were in Iran from 1976 until the Christmas before the Shaw fell. They were in the country and still had no idea how bad things were. When they came back for Christmas, then were told their return would be delayed, then canceled, they were surprised.
Why? Because my Dad always had the whitewashed view we were doing good around the world, every fight was against communism, which was clearly bad unless you had to feed billions of starving people in China, in which case maybe communism was the only solution.
My Dad had one revelation within a few years. His beloved corporation, AT&T, was willing to treat him badly after a lifetime of service if it suited the corporate need. My Dad never did change his opinion of the US actions in other countries. He never stopped believing communism's world creep was a legitimate reason for our government actions.
That is what I learned from my Dad and school as well. Then I went to Central America at the same time they went to Iran. I won't get into another story but the end result was, I saw US interventions as motivated almost solely by corporate interests. Communism was a fabricated threat used as cover for US interventions that almost always involved protecting some corporate interest over the best interests of the population. And, if the government believed communism was the real reason to intervene, then they were stupid. Failure or tyranny to suppress opposition was the logical outcome. And, that's exactly what we got in Central America. With only a few exceptions.
I had little knowledge until more recently about US interventions in the Middle East. But I heard a few things and decided to look into it. The Bush admin. has admitted surprise regarding the Iraqi response to our removal of Saddam. Apparently, they, like my Dad, have not let go of the belief the US has always been the good guy.
If you haven't already, take a few minutes to educate yourself on the history the Iraqis have grown up with. Have you decided whether the current battle is with insurgent holdouts/imports as our government claims, or, if the battle is with the majority of the population? Because if it is with the latter, we will be occupiers, not liberators for many years to come.
I know there are persons on both sides in this forum. I don't claim this information will change your view. But I hope it will give you more insight when you hear the war marketing slogans coming from the White House:
"We are liberators, not occupiers." Maybe in the movie version, Zell
"They hate our success." Well, d'uh, it has come at their expense.
"They hate our freedom." I don't think so. I think they'd like to have some of it. But they don't define it as, 'free market oil with the US in charge'.
"Once we establish a successful democracy in Iraq, other countries will follow." Not if we establish what appears to the rest as a pseudo-democracy.
"If we leave, all chaos will break out." This one I'm not sure of, but I suspect the longer we stay the more likely this outcome is.
OK so here is a very long summary. I have taken it from multiple sources from a google search for "US interventions", history, middle east. Dates are approximate, most are quotes with or without editing for shortening and an attempt to remove judgmental language like 'imperialism'. The list is by no means complete. The idea here isn't to condemn the US though it's hard not to make it look that way. I have to believe most of these actions were in keeping with the morals of the times. But around the 1970s, actions such as these did come to the attention of many people and were recognized as not being launched from the most moral highground. My issue is we don't teach this stuff. We whitewash over it. You make the best decisions when you are best informed.
quote:
1918: Britain and France assumed direct control of the territories of Egypt, Persia (Iran), Iraq, Palestine, and Syria,in part to crush the revolutionary ferment that swept the region following the Russian Revolution of 1917. French and British arbitrarily carved up the vast territory inhabited by the Arab peoples to create artificial nation-states. These were created for colonial convenience and to break apart the Arab nation, making it easier to foist subservient, corrupt monarchies.
1921: Britain imposed a new monarch on Iraq - Faisal. The subsequent mass uproar was suppressed in brutal massacres in 1920-4. The brutality of British rule was captured in an infamous quote from Winston Churchill, who said "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."
1920-28: U.S. pressures Britain, then the dominant Middle East power, into signing a "Red Line Agreement" providing that Middle Eastern oil will not be developed by any single power without the participation of the others. Standard Oil and Mobil obtain shares of the Iraq Petroleum |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/22/2005 02:31:18 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 04:24:25 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunatly, our track record in opposing tyrants is pretty dismal. For example, Pinochet, a rat-bastard who should have done the Mussolini Swing decades ago, was supported by our government when he overthrew the popularly elected Allende. And continued to be supported by us, even after we found out what a rat-bastard he really is. We also backed the Shah of Iran and helped to put him into power, beginning a repressive regime in that country that ultimatly led to revolution and the repressive theocratcy there today. More recently, in Haiti, we backed the overthrow of Aristide, who was also popularly elected.
I don't see this Spread Freedom rhetoric as anything more than the same garbage that got us into an immoral and illigitemate war in Iraq. The sixfoot steamin' pile of shit, to paraphrase the Rude Pundit, in the Whitehouse will only go after the tyrants that suit him, like Saddam. Does anyone really believe that if Iraq had no natural resources that we'd have invaded? Especally after the sanctions were shown to have worked?
I would suggest reading the histories of Mussolini and Hitler. There are some few interesting parallels.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 12:26:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
An attempt to control the disposition of a very large oil reserve ("steal" is probably too strong a word) was, IMHO, just icing on the cake.
Yeah, I don't think even Bush was brazen enough to think they could steal the oil by force. It was more about freeing it up for market distribution, which in turn would lower oil prices, thus benefitting America. It also would hurt the Saudis in the pocketbook, which is interesting to note.
Benefitting a specific set of oil merchants with whom they're cozy at the expense of other oil merchants seems a more accurate description than benefitting America.
quote:
I'm sure the thinktanks in Washington sold the war by suggesting that the bulk of the post-war construction could be paid for by the Iraquis themselves.
The neo-coins (typo, but I like it so it stays) did indeed make that claim. I can't find the specific claim that was made to Congress at the moment, but they were floating the idea in the press before the war:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1731049
Apparently, using the revenues from productive public property to pay for the costs of occupation is legitimate under international law provided that certain conditions are met- among them that the cash be used only to pay the costs of occupation, including meeting the occupier's obligations to protect the health and safety of the occupied people and not for the benefit of the occupier. So much for notions that the war would lead to lower fuel prices here.
In practice, it doesn't look like the occupation balance sheet is positive, oil or no.
Here's an analysis of the requirements of international law relating to the use of Iraqi oil resources:
What Happens to the Oil?
Langenkamp appears to conclude that accelerating Iraqi production for the purpose of lowering world oil prices and undermining or "destroying" OPEC would be legitimate, but sees it as very problematic politically.
What he doesn't consider is whether another period of low oil prices would simply encourage more wastefulness, and what that could mean in an era when demand is already bunking up against production capacity.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 20:32:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
... or the communists of Cuba, China and North Korea?
While Cuba, China, and North Korea are proclaimed communist states, it's not because they are communist they lack democracy. It's because they are dictatorships.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2005 : 04:33:37 [Permalink]
|
| Doc M, I sure won't argue there. You're absolutely right. Often times, our language tends to dilute or mischaracterize their true meanings, or actual significance. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2005 : 17:03:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I would suggest reading the histories of Mussolini and Hitler. There are some few interesting parallels.
Republicans, the Religious Right, and definately the Neo-Cons will never recognize those parallells. I believe their cognotive abilities are programmed to filter such patterns. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2005 : 21:42:12 [Permalink]
|
| Do you think Robb came back to look at the replies, or did he just get fed-up and scat? Everything is well said, in my opinion. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 00:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Robb is probably not wanting to post much in this thread for fear of getting flamed down.
He probably feels much like one of us (the majority of people here) would feel posting in a fundie forum that was being all supportive of Bush.
Atleast, on this type of topic (as opposed to things like ToE), there is some room for legitimate debate between the opposing sides.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 01:23:37 [Permalink]
|
I was also reminded of an excellent interview on Democracy Now with one of the few reporters who was actually out in the streets in Iraq including in Baghdad.
He noted that just after the Iraq invasion a large number of foreigners from neighboring countries flooded in expecting to get jobs from the re-construction monies. He reported the foreigners had mostly now gone after seeing all the money and jobs go to the Western contractors.
What is wrong with our idiot administration to not see Iraqi jobs as critical if we have any hope of even minimal success in that country? They must be complete idiots. They must live in a different reality. I agree. Arrrgh!!!
If anyone thinks we aren't there because the administration saw dollar signs for all their business cronies, I recommend watching that scene in Moore's movie, 9/11 where the speaker at the business conference is telling everyone how much money there will be to be made once we invade. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 08:50:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NubiWan
<snip>in our world."
It's kinda like watching a train wreck in slow motion, with your family onboard. Ugly, but ya can't turn away... Welp, as said before, "We're so screwed..."
If was a Believer, considering recent world events and the contradiction between Bush's pius nature and his policies, I'd say he was the Anti-Christ and the End is here. Likely the Rapture has already occurred and the faces of the Lucky Few can be found on Milk Cartons and junkmail ads. Need I elaborate on the implications for the rest of us? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/26/2005 08:14:16 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 10:24:29 [Permalink]
|
The US officially stated that we do not plan to invade Iran. Oh, that is fucking great now we have to identify countries we are NOT going to invade.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 10:56:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by satans_mom
Do you think Robb came back to look at the replies, or did he just get fed-up and scat? Everything is well said, in my opinion.
With two kids and working days I have little time to respond. I will read all of the responses and try give another post tomorrow. I do think most of the responses have been well said also. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
