Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
hahaha
no spam
just- think everyones out of words...
besides me = D
im gonna be last haha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
i feel sorry for u..american propaganda made you so mislead..if usa army wanted they could bring stability to the afganistan,iraq and iran in few days...but they dont want to..just like they didnt want in Vietnam..it suits them very well too keep up the war and to make more and more and more money on war industry that is so profitable...but its sad i must tell u this...so dont bullshit with deadlines!
Long sigh. First of all, it's obvious you necroed this thread just to call me out. That's fine. It would have been better just to start a new thread about it though. And you are an idiot. Second of all, you're suggesting that we want to draw out the war in order to make profit. That's retarded to the extreme. Do you have any idea how expensive these wars are? The government doesn't have the motivation to prolongue a war for money unless they're actually bringing in more from profits tha expenditures. The Iraq War is costing U.S. taxpayers roughly 2 billion dollars a week. That's money that could be spent on all kinds of more productive things for the U.S. economy. Yes the government did want to go to war, but even IF the sole purpose was to make money (which it wasn't because wars are very costly both economically and politically), then they certainly would not have wanted it to last this long. They just don't know how to completely withdraw. No one does.
Quote from "cheebalover" »
u talk how u dont like that europeans tell you what to do, u ask why we feel morally better? i will tell u why...because 1. WE DIDNT NUKE ANYONE!!!! 2. WE SIGNED KYOTO TREATY!!!
can i say the same for america?
Um, did I say that I don't like Europeans telling me what to do? I mean, I personally don't like anyone telling me what to do. But as for America, it's hardly being told what to do by anyone. It's pretty much doing whatever it wants.
And I apologize for the edge I have over you due to your poor English, but the Kyoto Treaty is an environmental protocol. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
I think we should stay in the war. I guess you can say we started the war a long time ago, but this time we should finish it. I dont think we should withdraw our troops because of what might happen if we pull out. I think they should at least think what they are doing, and not be fast with there decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I would also assume they go hand in hand, but then why are we in the biggest deficit in this country in many many years now?
This war is definitely not bringing us profit. It's only profitable when we have something to gain, be it selling weapons, or trading with allied countries that need goods. This isn't really a war as much as it is a money sink, we're dumping money into weapons and ammunition and not gaining a whole lot to show for it.
Sure American propaganda is stupid, but so is every other form. Everyone needs to use common sense more and trust the media less.
I for one hope we do pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop this dead end war.
i dont want to read 13 pages worth of back and forth arguments...but
my position:
the US never should have gone in, especially without UN agreement and support, this shows arrogance, as well as us not holding any sort of talks with other middle eastern countries. BUT, since they did flex their military might, for a host of reasons (WMDs, Human rights, Womens rights, terrorism, threat to international security...NOT OIL), i feel that the job should be done correctly.
that means, stay until the 'interim' government is stable enough to run itself and handle its own problems, which might take years, to put in comparison, the US has troops stationed in Germany to this day, and WWII was how long ago? those troops really dont do much, and they arnt there because the US is afraid of a secret Nazi revitalisation, but their there to keep tabs on things. also there are various military bases in 'conquered' states (pre-Communist Cuba, Vietnam and Asian Pacific rim, and various middle eastern and European states). so that means i think the troops need to be there indefinitely until it is shown that Iraq can handle its own crisis and terrorism issues. underdeveloped nations have a nasty habit of welcoming corruption and terrorism, take Afghanistan for example. the US cant let Iraq get into the same situation.
so to answer, Obama's idea is to withdrawal until there is little to none left, but still leaving enough at a time to handle any threats or situations not friendly to the US, is pretty well thought out. and not to mention Obama wants more support in Afghanistan, where btw, little girls as old as 10 yrs are being sold as wives and 'concubines' for money or debt relief, is definitely a positive. the only issue i see is that the US currently has little to no support from PKO's and the UN. thus the US looks like a bully 90% of the time, and the efforts are really straining resources and personnel.
im probably a little biased in some areas, and maybe wrong in some, but thats the general idea i have and thats on what ive learned and read- which isnt a whole lot, but foreign politics is something i studied - and not just from the news.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I'm sorry to say but they are all wrong.
First of all, there are no WOMD's, there never were, there never even was a possibility that there were and the best of it all is that the US government was without a doubt 100% aware of this. I mean, i can't believe people even dare to doubt this. Unbelievable.
Secondly, human rights? You have got to be kidding me, right? The US violated more human rights then Saddam could have done in the same time, for fucks sake, remember the nice prison pics? Remember the torture methods Bush even to this day (and McCain) stand behind? Remember locking up suspects of terrorism without the slightest hint of a fair trial? Remember the secret prisons and CIA flights in sovereign countries? Human rights? Don't even think of using that as a reason to invade Iraq. Remember 9/11? You know, that "terrorist" attack? Well guess what, the US bombed and killed more civilians in Iraq then the amount of people killed in 9/11, kids, woman, whatever, bomb the fuck out of them. Human rights, geez.
Thirdly, Woman rights, yeah, i can't remember any woman asking for the US to liberate them, can you? The US bombed woman, thats for sure.
Fourthly, terrorism, which by coincidence appeared in the region after the US attacked, but none cares.
Fifthly, threat to international security, nope, not even close and they knew it.
Sixthly, not oil? LOL, the first thing they did was secure the oilfields, not oil my ass.
You mean that government the US forced upon them? I thought they "liberated" the country in the name of democracy, oh well.
Hahaha, wow, the US "needs to keep tabs" on Germany, the same troops from WWII, right? Yeah...
I bet you you don't even know when WWII officially ended.
Great idea, to let a corrupt, war mongering, capitalistic, imperialistic superpower with a military arsenal bigger then any other superpower play world police without the consensus of anyone. Thats just fabulous.
Well lets hope he does a better job at finding support in Afghanistan, i have a little hope regarding this though cause you couldn't possibly handle it worse then Bush did. All they did there was alienate people even more, pushing them between two fires disregarding the terrorists. Here's an idea, why not work with the Taliban, give them all sorts of guarantees, support, whatever, BUT if and only if they distance themselves completely from the terrorists. Instead of walking around like dumb fucks forcing farmers and simple folks to help those poor Americans to kill themselves some Taliban/terrorists (its all the same for them, utterly ignorant), in the process not even understanding what those farmers actually said. (complete miscommunication)
read what i said more clearly next time. i presented facts, not opinions, then i voiced my opinion on Mr. Obama's plan. the reasons i stated are reasons the US stated, i went neutral on this, i didnt say they were either right or wrong (read again buddy). as for everything else, most educated people would agree with you almost: who are the US to condemn other countries of human rights abuses, when the US is one of the biggests, if not the biggest human rights abusers (slavery, natives, exploitation...)? however, iraq does not have a lot of oil, and if so, OPEC sets pricing, and obviously, we havent seen a drop of you so-called Iraqi oil, so that brilliant idea is a waste of space. thus obviously you didnt study the reasons the US went to war, because then you would know that UN inspectors found no WMDs, but the US insisted they were there, that is a wrong on the US's part <- this is my opinion, but as i have stated, that was a reason <- this is a fact (get it right before you make yourself look foolish) did you know what is another reason they gave? i bet you dont, many people dont. hint: it has to do with a treaty. go ahead scan wikipedia all over for it...i'll wait.
as for terrorism, Iraq has harbored terrorists, and still does. as for the troops stationed in Germany, i have no idea why they are there, but its part of the US's idea of security, they still have troops in all previous war zones, fact. not any opinion of mine.
Here's an idea, why not work with the Taliban, give them all sorts of guarantees, support, whatever, BUT if and only if they distance themselves completely from the terrorists.
heres a better idea, they are terrorists (al queda that is, not the Taliban, the taliban for the most part, gone). they dont answer to conventional means of diplomacy. they have their own agenda's and not to mention, you cant just call up Al Queda leaders and request a meeting. so there goes your brilliant idea...you dont even understand global terrorism, so dont lecture on ideas to stop it. i would tell you all the different definitions that are assigned to terrorism and terrorists, but thatd bore you wouldnt it? and lets face it, being the little rebel you are, you wouldnt accept them. would you?
so all youve done is criticize facts the US presented, which is great, i chose to stay neutral and just present facts, which is also great...
you did say that letting imperial America run the forced government in iraq was bad, but then again you dont know how globalised terrorism works, so it is expected your argument, for lack of a better word, sucks.
edit: and after re-reading that load of crap, yes the US was almost wrong on all accounts of reasons for invasion, but they were presented to the UN, shows that even the great 'imperial, warmongering, blah blah blah, respects sovereignty and UN charter enough to give it an effort, half-assed maybe, but still an effort.
and where are you from again? english must be your second language, otherwise your comprehension skills really do suck that much...ad hominem more pls
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
you are a mislead idiot with no knowledge of how politics and economics work
Sure, yeah, none whatsoever.
Quote from "cheebalover" »
war and profit dont go together????!!! LOL! THE BIGGEST LOL EVER!! this actually prooves you dont know what are u talking about..omg how can u be so retarded??!! its expensive for the public, but not for the companies that supply weapons..u know someone must build it, it doesnt come from thin air!!
I know that private sectors profit from war. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is that you claim that the U.S. wishes to prolongue the war so it can continue to profit from it. I'm telling you this is simply not true because while there are some private sectors that will make a lot of money from the war, the contributions to the overall economy do not offset the massive costs of the war itself.
Quote from "cheebalover" »
its not expensive considering the oil americans will get.. so dont bullshit!
I really am so tired of this argument. People often fail to recognize the different between protecting potential prospects and flat out stealing other people's oil. It's Iraq's oil. We want them to sell it to us, sure. But you act like the Iraqis won't benefit enormously as Saudi Arabia does from the oil they sell.
Quote from "cheebalover" »
MORON! Who ever said kyoto and nuclear weapons have anything incommon???!!
Um, well you did. See....
Quote from "cheebalover" »
WE DIDNT NUKE ANYONE!!!! 2. WE SIGNED KYOTO TREATY!!!
can i say the same for america?
If you're not saying they have anything to do with each other, you are at least proclaiming that we as in I'm assuming Croatia have never nuked another country and have signed the Kyoto treaty. So what's your point? I mean, you're absolutely right that the U.S. did nuke another country once and has yet to sign the Kyoto Treaty. But how is that relevant to this conversation? Are you trying to proclaim some facet of moral superiority or something?
Quote from "cheebalover" »
i just said 2 reasons why we should feel like telling you what to do, and that 2 reasons are divided..and of course usa wont sign kyoto because they will loose profit..
Ah, I understand your methods now. You're saying that because we once nuked another country and we haven't signed the Kyoto Treaty, that you should feel like telling the U.S. what it should do? How fascist of you. But listen, you're free to feel whatever you wish. I don't wish to begrudge you your bizarre sense of entitlement.
Quote from "cheebalover" »
educate yourself man, really
Oh woe is me. I utterly lack any education. Will you, random person who finds Zeitgeist to be utterly infallible, educate me? Please?
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
NO military, no matter how big/strong/advanced/whatever can solve these problematics.
This is correct. The problem with Iraq lies in its very beginnings when at the end of World War I the British made a mandate out of territories that would never have desired to be drawn together in the first place. The Sunnis and Shias have always hated each other and the Turks have never really had a country to call their own. There are too many old hatreds along sectarian lines that a mere military can quell.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Wars are profitable, but only if the military industry can sell its high tech gear and whatnot, thus losing on purpose is out of the question
And this still remains true only for the private sectors. The government would desire that in the long run there be democracy in the Middle East which may ultimately benefit our economy several years down the road, but it's a hell of a gamble, yes?
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Does the Pentagon practically dictate the large news media? Yes they do, the Pentagon AND the media even don't feel any shame in simply stating this (boasting even that its "experts" are Pentagon insiders and generals, so the media wasn't even being forcefed anything) to its viewers. Does the media continually praise hightech military gadgets, making it look like some kind of arcade game, instead of analytically debate any validity of the wars their government get themselves into? Do they sent out biased embedded journalists? Yes yes and yes.
All media is definitely bias. But you can't make a blanket statement about the large news media being dictated by the Pentagon. In order to make a claim like this you need to define the media in a more rigid way. Because the U.S. has private news organizations, both to the left and right of the political spectrum, as well as the public news organizations which have an entirely different model of news making and prioritizing.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
No its not, thats exactly what happened. Don't seriously tell me you forgot the frenzy after 9/11 going from "there may be some ties with Iraq" to "Saddam might be looking to produce WOMD's" to "there is a slight possibility Iraq has WOMD's" to "in all probability Iraq has WOMD's" to "Its very possible the US has to go to war with Iraq" to "it would be irresponsible and unjustified to not go to war with Saddam 'Hitler revisited (do i have to remind you the US actually sold this guy weapons, infact Saddam was one of the only real allies of the US, against Iran, conveniently everyone negates this, same story with Bin Laden)', tyrant of the most dangerous country in all of history" to "this is the (ahum) proof", to the media not even bothering the fucking check it in any way. Anything else then the biggest pile of lying sack of shit fails to describe the utter bullshit this was, and the media just gobbled it up failing to even look at ANYTHING in any sort of skeptical and analytical way, and i say "failing" which would be a euphemism cleaning them from actually fully aware partaking in one of the lowest, biggest, stinkiest, stupidest, most maliciously evil scams in the history of the US and the modern world.
Obviously it was to keep the wheels of the military industrial complex running, just like fucking Eisenhower said, he would be fucking turning into his grave now. They have to keep all those thousands upon thousands of people making bombs working and their fat bosses rich, don't they? They have to keep businesses like Haliburton in business and what is the absolute axis of all evil, namely fucking Dick Chaney in control, don't they? Was it only that? Nope, it was also securing a military base of operation in the middle east, it also was the oil, lobbyists, etc,...
I understand the argument you're making. And I'm not disputing that the reasons to go to war with Iraq were completely misleading and contrived. I am also not disputing that while the U.S. was going to go to war, that the current administration made certain to benefit its friends by making sure they got the government contracts to keep that war machine spinning.
But one thing I notice that people fail to point out when they are talking all about how the government went to war to make money, is that what matters to a government even more than money is a political ideology. The ideology of the current administration was based on a dream of spreading democracy to the Middle East. I disagree with this idealogy. And the ones who pushed it initially after 9/11 have largely been diminished in power and influence to this day. But at the time, the environment was perfect for them to promote such an agenda. Another part of this ideology, or the neoconservative ideology, was to strengthen the executive branch of government. Conservatives of this type would like to make the executive branch more absolute in power and greatly diminish the role of Congress in policy making decisions. And for a long time they have been successful. Hopefully now though, with the Democrats in control of Congress and now even the executive, this ideology may finally be put to rest.
I'm not ruling out completely that there are aspects of war that are extremely profitable to certain interests. And I'm not disagreeing about the falsehood of the Iraq War at all. I disagreed with it from the very beginning and I stand by that. But I just wish people would acknowledge the even greater reasons that the Bush Administration lied to go to war that went beyond any kind of profits or special group pandering, and that is one of fundamental ideologies within U.S. politics. The kind of ideologies that are at war with other prominent ones and are constantly vying to control the agenda. And to you Doppel, since people are always linking to different videos, let me link you to this one. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ I respect many of your opinions on this issue, so I'd like you to watch this report on the Iraq War, one I find to be much more sensible and less bias than something like Zeitgeist, and tell me what you think of it. I'm not even going to say it's the absolute truth at all, but my instincts tell me that the reporting in this is a little more credible.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
So please, for the love of all, don't even go there denying half a decade of US wars was mainly to keep the green flowing, believe you me, nothing noble, or "for democracy", or "for freedom" has anything to do with what the US has been doing and it will continue to lie to its people until someone puts an end to this unstoppable machine of utter shock and destruction. (I don't see a way out, do you?)
World War II totally lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression. So I understand what you're saying to a point. Remember though, that whether or not I believe we went to war with Iraq for freedom or for spreading democracy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are powerful people in U.S. politics that actually do have this fundamental belief. They truly do believe it is the mission of the U.S. to spread these ideals throughout the world despite a country's sovereignty. These people scare me. I gotta get back to this later. My computer demands a reboot!
@ Siaynoq:
I believe everything you said to be correct to a certain extend, but sadly not all of it strokes with reality.
The problem lies in that you gravely overestimate the power the government has, cons or libs, they have to "defend" the interests of the oil industry and the military industrial complex which may not seem to influence decisions as much as it in reality does (for half a decade, as i said multiple times, Vietnam is another perfect example and proof of this which again was entirely based on a pure lie), which is a whole lot.
I don't deny the neo cons that were in power their ideology of trying to spread democracy through the middle east (ironically enforcing it in a undemocratic way), but the way they try to achieve this goal has little to nothing to do whit the ideology of democracy, in fact it is just because of defending the interests of the people (industries) that put them in power. Again, Dick Cheney and Halliburtun is a perfect example of this corruption. (and thats only the tip of the mountain)
Did the purposely extend the war in Iraq? No, thats just not realistic, the fact is though they didn't even bother with putting up a "what will we do after the war" plan proving that they never intended on leaving. (again, its not like they purposely tried "losing" as an excuse to remain there, they did underestimate it, but regardless of that underestimation which made them unpopular amongst the American population, them still being there is/was exactly according to plan).
About the media, well actually i can make that statement for it is a fact that they themselves (i'm mostly talking CNN and FOX as i do not receive any other channels) state, without any hint of shame or even doubt/skepticisms, that their intelligence (from what they called "the experts", which you might remember) directly coming from Pentagon generals and insiders. In fact they even saw that as something to be proud of, they boasted about it. So i absolutely can and do state the media to have been puppeteered by the Pentagon, and this includes media the population regard as being right (as FOX) and left (as CNN). Not once did i see any real sort of questioning there, instead though i saw them treat the subject as if it were a game, a hollywood movie, praising the advances in military technologies in a way to validate the enormous budget spendings. (You all remember "precision bombing" and all of that bullshit)
Do you remember that impressive base with televisions all around where those generals explained certain aspects of the Iraq war to "on location journalists"? Well, everyone knows it was a mere stage set up by a Hollywood stager, not even located in Iraq. (the journalists were very annoyed and frustrated with this)
Do you remember the vids they showed of precision bombings, the ones the Pentagon choose to show the public? Do you remember the embedded "we're not biased" journalists? Do you remember the praise of the media towards the socalled proof of Powell? Not even questioning a damn thing or even failing to note how weak it in all actuality was? (It was very apparent seeing that only the American media praised this "proof" while pretty much all media outside of America was incredibly harsh on the lack of any proof Powell put forth) American media was as biased as can get, they even themselves admitted to be downright wrong explaining it to be due to the "excitement", which is horse bollocks and too fucking late. If anything, the media around it was possibly even worse then the intentions of the government.
you could try different news sources, some of them are online, BBC and Al Jezeera. CNN always struck me as being less biased than Fox. and the media do spin stories to show what the gov has done, but not always in a positive light. they just broadcast news, its up to you to form your own opinions by doing further reading.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Personally. I think they thought that Iraq would have been a threat in the future. (and I did not read if someone else said this) Seeing how bad the terrorists were becoming, they thought that they could invade another country to make it like the U.S. and not some kind of safe haven for terrorists. I would think that was the why we invaded in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I've heard a lot of discussion about the troops, I am a troop. I want to win, I do not want to be defeated. In the Heinlein sense, I earned my right to vote - and I earned my right to speak about this matter. Whatever your opinion about the war may be, you don't have to worry about going - I do - and I want to go.
I have a, what I guess I can call a mentor in my life, US Army Special Ops sergeant over there right now. His job is assessing the police force. An Iraqi police officer and he were walking back to the officer's house after a shift, and long story short, the officer was killed in front of his wife, kids, and my friend. Instead of saying his last words to his family, he looked to my friend and said to him "Thank you for giving me a country worth dying for".
Now, to any of you who honestly believe that Saddam did not have WMDs... you have got to be nuts. My job revolves around nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and in my training I have been through VX nerve agent. After use the first time, the man should have been taken out.
That's about it, but please... look past the media, look past the "exclusive insider" books, and don't just talk to the latest college kid with a "new" idea.
Very touching story and you can -if you wish- take that with little -or a whole lot- of cynicism. Also, you actually claim to posses the proof of the existence of these weapons? You know, you, the only man on the face of the earth that actually supposedly knows for a fact Saddam did (note that it should have been "does") have them?
Well i'll be damned, quick, give this man a podium.
If what you say would even have the slightest inclination of truth to it, then putting Saddam to death, instead of questioning him about the location of these fantastical elusive weapons, really would have been exceptionally stupid, yes?
Lets disregard Powells "mobile laboratory" proof and them stating to know the exact locations, oh right i forgot, it was a hoax.
And you call anyone making the conclusion that there is zero evidence whatsoever of there having been, or still being, those weapons nuts. Mind boggling.
Look, i know its hard to accept that what you have been fighting for, what you have been willing to give your life for, aint at all what the government has been telling you. The truth hurts, doesn't it.
Your condescending tone isn't really helping you when your mind is limited to different ideas. Stepping back out of the politics and media box, and thinking a bit more realistically, is it inconceivable to any of you that since Saddam had them before, he might have kept them? Is it unimaginable to suggest that there is as much propaganda for the war as there is against it?
Doppelganger, you may take me for a Bush-loving infantry-type with not much in the ways of intellectual goals (as your statements and tone suggest), but with a response like the one you gave me it's hard to take you seriously.
Its hard to take someone who, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever -and this is as literal as it can get-, still actually dares to not only NOT question the existence of, but in fact even dares to call anyone making the conclusion that there aren't and never were -or at least seriously doubting this- these weapons.
Its hard to take someone serious who, despite the fact that his own government already admitted to having found no, or in fact not even a trace of there ever (possibly) having been such weapons.
But, i have to take your word for it because you told a very touching story? No dice.
there is evidence of nerve gas and possible other weapons of mass DISRUPTION, but there is a difference. weapons of mas DESTRUCTION are nuclear bombs and anything else that has that amount of killing power.
nerve gas, biological weapons, chemical weapons, those are all weapons of mass disruption. they were there. almost every nation can manufacture these weapons. and not to mention, it was the US, who gave some of this technology to Iraq, and Iran.
Then again you have brought no argument whatsoever why i supposedly do not understand global terrorism, in fact you proved that you, by all means, do not understand even the fundamentals of it seeing that you can't even make a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Your blunt mistakes considering basic knowledge like how oil rich Iraq is pretty much sums up your ignorance though. (Note that i don't use "ignorance" in swearing form) So, i think i will end the discussion here.
you cant be serious right? taliban = al qaeda? are you retarded? the Taliban is the religious group that ruled afghanistan until the US threw them out. they were allies of Al qaeda, but they were centralised at the time. while Al qaeda is a terrorist faction that spans over many countries around the entire world; the taliban allowed al qaeda into its borders and protected them, by islamic law, as a guest. as you know, the US and NATO kicked out the taliban in the early 2000s, but the taliban still have some numbers remaining and have resurfaced in neighboring areas. al qaeda however, cannot be stopped by conventional military means because of the vass amount of globalisation in its structure, which is why the war on terror is still going on. you have to do your own research and reading, im not going to explain globalised terrorism to you here, it would take some time, especially for a little rebel like you...and oh yeah: During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included: Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels
it is however, proven that Iraq does have possibly the second largest oil untapped oil reserves. so there you go, you were half right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I knew Bush would pull some BS like this, and dreaded when he was "elected" in 2000. Alas, he has proven me right and got us in a mess of epic scale. I absolutely did not support the Iraq war for a few reasons. First, I saw his administration for what it was, a bunch of war hawks thumping their chests, esp after 9/11. Secondly, two thirds of Iraq was a no fly zone patrolled by international(mainly US) military aircraft. In short we already had him by the balls. Last, the push to war was too fast, and the "evidence" that WOMDs existed was shaky at best, even being refuted by Iraqis who had fled the country for asylum and were in a position to have such knowledge. The buildup to this war was based on lies and the manipulation of fear.
These people have been killing each other for many centuries, and to think we can go in there and impose Democracy is rubbish. If we leave tomorrow, there will be a struggle for power and much bloodshed. If we leave in 10 years, there will be a struggle for power and much bloodshed. Therefore, I think the US should get the hell out asap. Why do you think Saddam ruled with an iron fist? Its the only way that works there. For example, in the period of time from 1958 to the early mid seventies when Saddam took power, there were three coups that replaced the leadership. This trend would have(and will) continue had he not eliminated his competition. Am I defending Saddam? No. I am merely saying that the type of rule he showed seems to be the only way that works. Get us the hell out and do it now!
Oh wait, Obama said he will have us out within 16-18 months. And what about fucking OSAMA BIN LADEN? The fact of the matter is that there never were WOMDS in Iraq(our own government has said this so those of you who still want to say there were are just ignoring fact for your own convenience ....must have learned that trick from the Bush administration). Nor was Al Quaeda there. There is oil there, last year we imported around 5% of our oil from Iraq, making it the 8th largest supplier for that year.
The great thing about America though is its resilience. We have taken a pounding under this administration, it is true. Look at the economy, look at these wars. Look at George Bushs approval ratings. Do I see a BLACK MAN as our President elect! I think this shows where the hearts of the American people are really at. All nations have been duped and manipulated by their governments at one time or another. We will recover from this horrid administrations blunders, get ourselves off of oil and show the world that we are still the greatest nation on Earth! All of you people who like to talk trash about America need to remember that if not for us you would be a part of the Third Reich right now. SEIG HEIL!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dear God,
Please protect me from your followers.
Amen.
Did you actually read anything i said?
I'm the one making the distinction you nutjob, remember? Remember me stating Taliban =/ Al Qaeda? Remember you stating how you can't communicate with terrorists groups like Al Qaeda in reply to my proposition to talk to the Taliban?
And you are trying to lecture me about whats what? Right...
Oh, and nice show of knowing how to google after your abysmal failure concerning how oil rich Iraq is, which lost you even more credibility.
Geez.
i pointed out how your great plan of the US using Iraqi oil is completely retarded, and i was pointing out that when you said taliban = al qaeda is also completely wrong. and i was asking if you were retarded because that statement can only come from a retard. got it? your comprehension skills are as Flo Rida would say...lowlowlowlowlowlowlowlowlow...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
You know what we should do. We should go look and see if there was any wmd in Iraq. The only people who know the truth would be the top advisors or the officers who studied that area. We really do not know what has happened and we all seem to believing the media. For me. I dont know if they did have wmd, but if I saw it with my own eyes, then I would say more. I never did though, and if I was a soldier who saw the actual bombs (not saying I am one) you still would not believe me. That is wrong with most americans, the media has taking brain washed us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
A sad irony. But in this case I'm pretty sure they were right. I just don't see such an unstable system like that in Iraq as having nuclear arms. But then, Iran does... Hm... Dunno. I was too young to remember much about the WOMD (lol, one letter from "womb") hysteria. I'm willing to bet the truth lies somewhere in the middle of liberal media propaganda and jingoist government propaganda.
Well don't say that. Now I feel like I always have to be the last one to post on this thread.:D
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
last btw
no spam
just- think everyones out of words...
besides me = D
im gonna be last haha
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Um, did I say that I don't like Europeans telling me what to do? I mean, I personally don't like anyone telling me what to do. But as for America, it's hardly being told what to do by anyone. It's pretty much doing whatever it wants.
And I apologize for the edge I have over you due to your poor English, but the Kyoto Treaty is an environmental protocol. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I would also assume they go hand in hand, but then why are we in the biggest deficit in this country in many many years now?
This war is definitely not bringing us profit. It's only profitable when we have something to gain, be it selling weapons, or trading with allied countries that need goods. This isn't really a war as much as it is a money sink, we're dumping money into weapons and ammunition and not gaining a whole lot to show for it.
Sure American propaganda is stupid, but so is every other form. Everyone needs to use common sense more and trust the media less.
I for one hope we do pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop this dead end war.
my position:
the US never should have gone in, especially without UN agreement and support, this shows arrogance, as well as us not holding any sort of talks with other middle eastern countries. BUT, since they did flex their military might, for a host of reasons (WMDs, Human rights, Womens rights, terrorism, threat to international security...NOT OIL), i feel that the job should be done correctly.
that means, stay until the 'interim' government is stable enough to run itself and handle its own problems, which might take years, to put in comparison, the US has troops stationed in Germany to this day, and WWII was how long ago? those troops really dont do much, and they arnt there because the US is afraid of a secret Nazi revitalisation, but their there to keep tabs on things. also there are various military bases in 'conquered' states (pre-Communist Cuba, Vietnam and Asian Pacific rim, and various middle eastern and European states). so that means i think the troops need to be there indefinitely until it is shown that Iraq can handle its own crisis and terrorism issues. underdeveloped nations have a nasty habit of welcoming corruption and terrorism, take Afghanistan for example. the US cant let Iraq get into the same situation.
so to answer, Obama's idea is to withdrawal until there is little to none left, but still leaving enough at a time to handle any threats or situations not friendly to the US, is pretty well thought out. and not to mention Obama wants more support in Afghanistan, where btw, little girls as old as 10 yrs are being sold as wives and 'concubines' for money or debt relief, is definitely a positive. the only issue i see is that the US currently has little to no support from PKO's and the UN. thus the US looks like a bully 90% of the time, and the efforts are really straining resources and personnel.
im probably a little biased in some areas, and maybe wrong in some, but thats the general idea i have and thats on what ive learned and read- which isnt a whole lot, but foreign politics is something i studied - and not just from the news.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
as for terrorism, Iraq has harbored terrorists, and still does. as for the troops stationed in Germany, i have no idea why they are there, but its part of the US's idea of security, they still have troops in all previous war zones, fact. not any opinion of mine. heres a better idea, they are terrorists (al queda that is, not the Taliban, the taliban for the most part, gone). they dont answer to conventional means of diplomacy. they have their own agenda's and not to mention, you cant just call up Al Queda leaders and request a meeting. so there goes your brilliant idea...you dont even understand global terrorism, so dont lecture on ideas to stop it. i would tell you all the different definitions that are assigned to terrorism and terrorists, but thatd bore you wouldnt it? and lets face it, being the little rebel you are, you wouldnt accept them. would you?
so all youve done is criticize facts the US presented, which is great, i chose to stay neutral and just present facts, which is also great...
you did say that letting imperial America run the forced government in iraq was bad, but then again you dont know how globalised terrorism works, so it is expected your argument, for lack of a better word, sucks.
edit: and after re-reading that load of crap, yes the US was almost wrong on all accounts of reasons for invasion, but they were presented to the UN, shows that even the great 'imperial, warmongering, blah blah blah, respects sovereignty and UN charter enough to give it an effort, half-assed maybe, but still an effort.
and where are you from again? english must be your second language, otherwise your comprehension skills really do suck that much...ad hominem more pls
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I know that private sectors profit from war. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is that you claim that the U.S. wishes to prolongue the war so it can continue to profit from it. I'm telling you this is simply not true because while there are some private sectors that will make a lot of money from the war, the contributions to the overall economy do not offset the massive costs of the war itself.
I really am so tired of this argument. People often fail to recognize the different between protecting potential prospects and flat out stealing other people's oil. It's Iraq's oil. We want them to sell it to us, sure. But you act like the Iraqis won't benefit enormously as Saudi Arabia does from the oil they sell.
Um, well you did. See....
If you're not saying they have anything to do with each other, you are at least proclaiming that we as in I'm assuming Croatia have never nuked another country and have signed the Kyoto treaty. So what's your point? I mean, you're absolutely right that the U.S. did nuke another country once and has yet to sign the Kyoto Treaty. But how is that relevant to this conversation? Are you trying to proclaim some facet of moral superiority or something?
Ah, I understand your methods now. You're saying that because we once nuked another country and we haven't signed the Kyoto Treaty, that you should feel like telling the U.S. what it should do? How fascist of you. But listen, you're free to feel whatever you wish. I don't wish to begrudge you your bizarre sense of entitlement.
Oh woe is me. I utterly lack any education. Will you, random person who finds Zeitgeist to be utterly infallible, educate me? Please?
This is correct. The problem with Iraq lies in its very beginnings when at the end of World War I the British made a mandate out of territories that would never have desired to be drawn together in the first place. The Sunnis and Shias have always hated each other and the Turks have never really had a country to call their own. There are too many old hatreds along sectarian lines that a mere military can quell.
And this still remains true only for the private sectors. The government would desire that in the long run there be democracy in the Middle East which may ultimately benefit our economy several years down the road, but it's a hell of a gamble, yes?
All media is definitely bias. But you can't make a blanket statement about the large news media being dictated by the Pentagon. In order to make a claim like this you need to define the media in a more rigid way. Because the U.S. has private news organizations, both to the left and right of the political spectrum, as well as the public news organizations which have an entirely different model of news making and prioritizing.
I understand the argument you're making. And I'm not disputing that the reasons to go to war with Iraq were completely misleading and contrived. I am also not disputing that while the U.S. was going to go to war, that the current administration made certain to benefit its friends by making sure they got the government contracts to keep that war machine spinning.
But one thing I notice that people fail to point out when they are talking all about how the government went to war to make money, is that what matters to a government even more than money is a political ideology. The ideology of the current administration was based on a dream of spreading democracy to the Middle East. I disagree with this idealogy. And the ones who pushed it initially after 9/11 have largely been diminished in power and influence to this day. But at the time, the environment was perfect for them to promote such an agenda. Another part of this ideology, or the neoconservative ideology, was to strengthen the executive branch of government. Conservatives of this type would like to make the executive branch more absolute in power and greatly diminish the role of Congress in policy making decisions. And for a long time they have been successful. Hopefully now though, with the Democrats in control of Congress and now even the executive, this ideology may finally be put to rest.
I'm not ruling out completely that there are aspects of war that are extremely profitable to certain interests. And I'm not disagreeing about the falsehood of the Iraq War at all. I disagreed with it from the very beginning and I stand by that. But I just wish people would acknowledge the even greater reasons that the Bush Administration lied to go to war that went beyond any kind of profits or special group pandering, and that is one of fundamental ideologies within U.S. politics. The kind of ideologies that are at war with other prominent ones and are constantly vying to control the agenda. And to you Doppel, since people are always linking to different videos, let me link you to this one. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ I respect many of your opinions on this issue, so I'd like you to watch this report on the Iraq War, one I find to be much more sensible and less bias than something like Zeitgeist, and tell me what you think of it. I'm not even going to say it's the absolute truth at all, but my instincts tell me that the reporting in this is a little more credible.
World War II totally lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression. So I understand what you're saying to a point. Remember though, that whether or not I believe we went to war with Iraq for freedom or for spreading democracy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are powerful people in U.S. politics that actually do have this fundamental belief. They truly do believe it is the mission of the U.S. to spread these ideals throughout the world despite a country's sovereignty. These people scare me. I gotta get back to this later. My computer demands a reboot!
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I have a, what I guess I can call a mentor in my life, US Army Special Ops sergeant over there right now. His job is assessing the police force. An Iraqi police officer and he were walking back to the officer's house after a shift, and long story short, the officer was killed in front of his wife, kids, and my friend. Instead of saying his last words to his family, he looked to my friend and said to him "Thank you for giving me a country worth dying for".
Now, to any of you who honestly believe that Saddam did not have WMDs... you have got to be nuts. My job revolves around nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and in my training I have been through VX nerve agent. After use the first time, the man should have been taken out.
That's about it, but please... look past the media, look past the "exclusive insider" books, and don't just talk to the latest college kid with a "new" idea.
Your condescending tone isn't really helping you when your mind is limited to different ideas. Stepping back out of the politics and media box, and thinking a bit more realistically, is it inconceivable to any of you that since Saddam had them before, he might have kept them? Is it unimaginable to suggest that there is as much propaganda for the war as there is against it?
Doppelganger, you may take me for a Bush-loving infantry-type with not much in the ways of intellectual goals (as your statements and tone suggest), but with a response like the one you gave me it's hard to take you seriously.
nerve gas, biological weapons, chemical weapons, those are all weapons of mass disruption. they were there. almost every nation can manufacture these weapons. and not to mention, it was the US, who gave some of this technology to Iraq, and Iran. you cant be serious right? taliban = al qaeda? are you retarded? the Taliban is the religious group that ruled afghanistan until the US threw them out. they were allies of Al qaeda, but they were centralised at the time. while Al qaeda is a terrorist faction that spans over many countries around the entire world; the taliban allowed al qaeda into its borders and protected them, by islamic law, as a guest. as you know, the US and NATO kicked out the taliban in the early 2000s, but the taliban still have some numbers remaining and have resurfaced in neighboring areas. al qaeda however, cannot be stopped by conventional military means because of the vass amount of globalisation in its structure, which is why the war on terror is still going on. you have to do your own research and reading, im not going to explain globalised terrorism to you here, it would take some time, especially for a little rebel like you...and oh yeah:
During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included: Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels
Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels
it is however, proven that Iraq does have possibly the second largest oil untapped oil reserves. so there you go, you were half right.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
These people have been killing each other for many centuries, and to think we can go in there and impose Democracy is rubbish. If we leave tomorrow, there will be a struggle for power and much bloodshed. If we leave in 10 years, there will be a struggle for power and much bloodshed. Therefore, I think the US should get the hell out asap. Why do you think Saddam ruled with an iron fist? Its the only way that works there. For example, in the period of time from 1958 to the early mid seventies when Saddam took power, there were three coups that replaced the leadership. This trend would have(and will) continue had he not eliminated his competition. Am I defending Saddam? No. I am merely saying that the type of rule he showed seems to be the only way that works. Get us the hell out and do it now!
Oh wait, Obama said he will have us out within 16-18 months. And what about fucking OSAMA BIN LADEN? The fact of the matter is that there never were WOMDS in Iraq(our own government has said this so those of you who still want to say there were are just ignoring fact for your own convenience ....must have learned that trick from the Bush administration). Nor was Al Quaeda there. There is oil there, last year we imported around 5% of our oil from Iraq, making it the 8th largest supplier for that year.
The great thing about America though is its resilience. We have taken a pounding under this administration, it is true. Look at the economy, look at these wars. Look at George Bushs approval ratings. Do I see a BLACK MAN as our President elect! I think this shows where the hearts of the American people are really at. All nations have been duped and manipulated by their governments at one time or another. We will recover from this horrid administrations blunders, get ourselves off of oil and show the world that we are still the greatest nation on Earth! All of you people who like to talk trash about America need to remember that if not for us you would be a part of the Third Reich right now. SEIG HEIL!
Please protect me from your followers.
Amen.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.