Would any of the following have happened without the war in Iraq?

Libya abandons its nuclear program.
The Syrian Army leaves Lebanon.
Elections in Iraq.
Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament.
Food-for-oil comes to light.
Yassir Arafat marginalized.

Saaawiinngg Batta'

steeeeee rike one, two, three......you are out !

Originally posted by Brooks
Would any of the following have happened without the war in Iraq?

Libya abandons its nuclear program.
The Syrian Army leaves Lebanon.
Elections in Iraq.
Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament.
Food-for-oil comes to light.
Yassir Arafat marginalized.

Libya - yes - that had nothing to do with Iraq
Syria - yes - that had nothing to do with Iraq
Elections in Iraq - no - couldn't have happened without Iraq
Food For Oil - probably no - wouldn't have been exposed
Yassir Arafat - yes - nothing to do with Iraq

Add a few more to the list to play devils advocate - would these have happened?

- 1700 soldiers dead
- thousands of soldiers wounded
- $250 billion spent
- WMD from Iraq into the hands of terrorists

without iraq, some people would have their FATHERS BACK, some would have their SONS AND DAUGHTERS BACK ! and some would even have their LEGS ARMS AND HALF OF THEIR FACES BACK........yeah mr brooks, keep on finding the bright side

Originally posted by DrewM
Libya - yes - that had nothing to do with Iraq
Syria - yes - that had nothing to do with Iraq
Elections in Iraq - no - couldn't have happened without Iraq
Food For Oil - probably no - wouldn't have been exposed
Yassir Arafat - yes - nothing to do with Iraq

Add a few more to the list to play devils advocate - would these have happened?

- 1700 soldiers dead
- thousands of soldiers wounded
- $250 billion spent
- WMD from Iraq into the hands of terrorists i think that some of this is your opinion, stated as fact......dont you ? some day, you will be a jedi !

Originally posted by korg
without iraq, some people would have their FATHERS BACK, some would have their SONS AND DAUGHTERS BACK ! and some would even have their LEGS ARMS AND HALF OF THEIR FACES BACK........yeah mr brooks, keep on finding the bright side

And from Drew: - 1700 soldiers dead
- thousands of soldiers wounded
- $250 billion spent


Those aren't unique to this war.

Drew, you think Syria's / Libya's timing is coincidence? Also, don't let Korg see that terrorists got WMD's. They didn't exist, remember?

Originally posted by korg
i think that some of this is your opinion, stated as fact......dont you ? some day, you will be a jedi !

No sorry I don't and neither does anybody else who has half a brain.

Keep on trying....keep on falling short.

Originally posted by Brooks
Would any of the following have happened without the war in Iraq?

Libya abandons its nuclear program.
The Syrian Army leaves Lebanon.
Elections in Iraq.
Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament.
Food-for-oil comes to light.
Yassir Arafat marginalized.
You forgot to mention we've established a presence there while securing a steady source of oil for years to come. In essence, we'll have had this war funded for us in 15 years on top of keeping those bastards in check on a 24/7 basis.

Would recruitment for terrorism be up 500% if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Would our government be in debt 400 billion dollars if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Would we still have an excess of 50 billion in our budget if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You forgot to mention we've established a presence there while securing a steady source of oil for years to come. In essence, we'll have had this war funded for us in 15 years on top of keeping those bastards in check on a 24/7 basis.

Cheap oil guaranteed...all it cost was thousands of lives...a bargain, don't you think Prae?

Something tells me you wouldn't be so flippant about the war in Iraq if one of the lives that was lost was someone you loved.

You're dreaming if you think you'll see cheap oil -- China by herself guarantees the high price of oil. Then throw in the other emerging countries.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Cheap oil guaranteed...all it cost was thousands of lives...a bargain, don't you think Prae?

Something tells me you wouldn't be so flippant about the war in Iraq if one of the lives that was lost was someone you loved.
Now you've taken my statement and twisted it. That's not the only benefit, and I certainly didn’t try to infer that it was.

Originally posted by Brooks
Would any of the following have happened without the war in Iraq?

Libya abandons its nuclear program.

I don't think anyone on this forum can say with any certainty one way or another. It may have been directly related, or entirely coincidental. I suspect Mohammar saw a perfect opportunity to look good to the press by abandoning a program that probably wasn't going anywhere anyway, and in the process maybe make some political capital.

The Syrian Army leaves Lebanon.

Hard to say. They may be making some concessions due to the presence of US troops in the region, or they may just be scared shitless of the trigger-happy yahoo we have in the White House.


Elections in Iraq.

I'll give you that one. Let's see how long the government lasts.


Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament.

It's really difficult to say for sure that this was a result of the situation in Iraq. I think the situation in Syria was mostly ignited by that assassination which took place there some months back.


Food-for-oil comes to light.

I suspect this would have been revealed anyway.


Yassir Arafat marginalized.

His time had come I think...he'd been in power for so long and had done little enough to improve the lot of the Palestinians. I think he'd be out no matter what was going on in Iraq.

Cheap oil guaranteed...all it cost was thousands of lives...a bargain, don't you think Prae?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Now you've taken my statement and twisted it. That's not the only benefit, and I certainly didn’t try to infer that it was.

Well off course you didn't Prae. The truly enjoyable benefits are we get to torture muslims and detain people indefinately without due process. Geese, without those two things this war wouldn't be any fun at all, would it Prae? Well, except for the killing of innocent women and children, that's always fun and a benefit.

Oops, almost forgot the one great big benefit....

Boosting the recruitment of thousands of terrorists. Can't forget that one.

No vile,

The war was never about cheap oil, it's merely a consequence of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Keep in mind that the French and Russians were getting money from Saddam's Iraq while the mass graves were being filled, people tortured and women raped. Is THAT a better solution? To merely buy oil from a thug while he rides roughshod over his own people?

Korg's quote:

without iraq, some people would have their FATHERS BACK, some would have their SONS AND DAUGHTERS BACK ! and some would even have their LEGS ARMS AND HALF OF THEIR FACES BACK........yeah mr brooks, keep on finding the bright side


So Korg, what you are saying is that it was perfectly all right for Saddam to murder tens of thousands, but when the U.S. steps in to end Sadam once and for all, your panties get all in a bunch. It's interesting to watch you selectively denounce certain attrocities. And while I'm on the subject, just how many people who were put into mass graves would be alive today if the U.S. did the job properly in Gulf War 1 and ENDED Saddam back in '91?


Drew, you are dead wrong about the timing of Lybia's decision to decide to give up being a Wal-Mart of terrorist weapons as well as the thing in Syria. Gadafi realized that Bush meant what he said when he told Saddam to give up his WMD programs and get his ass out of Iraq. Rather dangerous time for a despotic leader to be allying himself with terrorists when there's a President willing to do something about it, wouldn't you say? With Lebanon, after Bush whupped Saddam something awfull and declared that aid would be given to ANY country seeking to throw off the shackles of tyranny, the Lebonese decide they no longer want Syria running things in their country. Again, very strange timing. Especially when it has been proven that the U.N. and past Presidents have done NOTHING, in the way of using force, to curb terrorist activities in the Middle East.

As for you Echo, the U.S. spends zillions in foreign aid, for AIDS in Africa and other such things. Yet its only when U.S. aid comes in the form of ousting dictators that you suddenly become a CPA and declare that the U.S. can't afford to intervene in Iraq. Odd way of counting costs. You've also mentioned terrorist recruitment. Well tell me, just how many MILLIONS of people in Iraq and in Afghanistan risked their lives and voted for a better future. Have you ever thought of this war on terror in those terms? Or is Getting Bush such an obsession that you can't? What would you say to those Iraqis and Afghanis who did risk their lives and the lives of their families to TRY to bring a better future for themselves? What? If it was up to me, we'd have left Saddam alone because he isn't a threat to US, and it really sucks to be you?


Well?

Originally posted by Echo2
Well off course you didn't Prae. The truly enjoyable benefits are we get to torture muslims and detain people indefinately without due process.
Due process for terrorist and terrorist sympathizers? There's a new concept. Too bad our government doesn't play by those rules, ay Echo?
Originally posted by Echo2
Geese, without those two things this war wouldn't be any fun at all, would it Prae? Well, except for the killing of innocent women and children, that's always fun and a benefit.
You sure got me there...:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Echo2
Oops, almost forgot the one great big benefit....

Boosting the recruitment of thousands of terrorists. Can't forget that one.
Oh and the ineffective recruitment they had prior to 9-11 said a lot for the people who died in vein that day. How about the USS Cole? People like you get a hornet’s nest in their back yard and they hope to eliminate it by asking them not to sting you on your own property. Good plan.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
As for you Echo, the U.S. spends zillions in foreign aid, for AIDS in Africa and other such things. Yet its only when U.S. aid comes in the form of ousting dictators that you suddenly become a CPA and declare that the U.S. can't afford to intervene in Iraq. Odd way of counting costs.

I am not nor ever have been a CPA. Nor did I ever claim to be. With all the fantasy you have in your posts it's hard to tell what reality you are existing in. Obviosly not the same one as the rest of us.

You've also mentioned terrorist recruitment. Well tell me, just how many MILLIONS of people in Iraq and in Afghanistan risked their lives and voted for a better future.

What the hell does that have to do with terrorist recruitment? Your switching realities again.

Or is Getting Bush such an obsession that you can't?

I don't believe I mentioned Bush - another reality jump?

What would you say to those Iraqis and Afghanis who did risk their lives and the lives of their families to TRY to bring a better future for themselves? [/b]

I would tell them that anyone who isn't willing to fight for their freedom is probubly not willing to fight to defend it. I would tell them that were given a great gift and to get off their asses and start defending it. I would tell them that a lot of men and women from the US died or were crippled for life so they could be free. I would tell them that it is their responsibility to protect their freedom now that they were handed it.

and it really sucks to be you?

Au contrare. It is great to be me.


Well? [/B]

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Now you've taken my statement and twisted it. That's not the only benefit, and I certainly didn’t try to infer that it was.

I twisted nothing, nor did I imply that a steady source of oil was your only reason. I did infer from your remarks in this thread and others however, that you have no moral dilemma whatsoever with the US invading a foreign country for the purposes of "securing" a steady source of oil, the better to enable a powerful US economy.

I can't help but notice you used the word "secure" rather than "steal", as if without the US's timely intervention, this oil might come to grief somehow, or fall into the wrong hands.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
No vile,

The war was never about cheap oil, it's merely a consequence of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

What a stroke of good fortune for us, and what a tough break for the Iraqi people now that we're going to control their oil industry.


Keep in mind that the French and Russians were getting money from Saddam's Iraq while the mass graves were being filled, people tortured and women raped.

If you're talking about the Oil For Food scandal, it might help you to remember that an American company was involved as well.


Is THAT a better solution? To merely buy oil from a thug while he rides roughshod over his own people?


No, and it's also not the only solution other than invasion and conquest either.

It's not a coincidence that the country that we chose to give the gift of democracy to is sitting on a sea of oil.

Originally posted by Echo2
I am not nor ever have been a CPA. Nor did I ever claim to be. With all the fantasy you have in your posts it's hard to tell what reality you are existing in. Obviosly not the same one as the rest of us.
I love this Echo tactic, Darth. You sarcastically point out the fact that she revels in her bean counting abilities by labeling her a CPA, and all of the sudden - you've stated a flat out fantasy. Classic.

The rest of the post is ball wash water after a long day outside. Keep me smiling, Echo - post more.

Ty prae,

And I would've left it up had I not been suffering from a bad case of George Bush syndrome.


Vile,

You do have a point about Iraq being on top of a sea of oil and it, in all likelihood was a factor in invading Iraq. But what country does NOT look out for its own interests? While oil may be a factor in going to Iraq, you can rest assured that the U.S. doesn't have any interest in taking over the country, seizing the oil fields for our own good. We'll BUY the oil from Iraq, and leave the Iraqis to govern themselves, which is a hell of a lot more than what can be said of most other countries throughout history. Dammit.


And while an American company was involved in the Oil For Food scandal, an American GOVERNMENT was not involved, which is more than can be said for the French and Russians.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What a stroke of good fortune for us, and what a tough break for the Iraqi people now that we're going to control their oil industry.


The Iraq oil will eventually be controlled by Israel via a pipeline (built with US dollars) to Haifa. That's what this was all about from the beginning ... PNAC = Israel = American invasion of Iraq = orchestrated by Perle/Wolfowitz/Likud/Mossad.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The Iraq oil will eventually be controlled by Israel via a pipeline (built with US dollars) to Haifa. That's what this was all about from the beginning ... PNAC = Israel = American invasion of Iraq = orchestrated by Perle/Wolfowitz/Likud/Mossad.

Unless we're planning on stationing troops there indefinitely, the Iraqis will control the oil sooner or later...in the meantime no doubt there's money to be made.

Darth, you said,"But what country does NOT look out for its own interests?". I can think of a lot of countries that don't look out for their interests inside the borders of someone else's country.

You also said..."We'll BUY the oil from Iraq, and leave the Iraqis to govern themselves, which is a hell of a lot more than what can be said of most other countries throughout history."...I hope you're right and fear you're not.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
No vile,

The war was never about cheap oil, it's merely a consequence of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

What a load of bunk.

Iraq has ALWAYS been about oil, and the Downing Street memo serves as corroborating evidence. Bush and his cabal had EVERY intention of attacking Iraq BEFORE 9/11 happened.

The PNAC documents categorically state that the US needed a "New Pearl Harbor" as an EXCUSE to attack Iraq in order to secure the oil resources in that area........it is down in black and white, hence you cannot deny it.

But the biggest lie you're pushing here is the "it's about liberating Iraq".

ROTFLOL.

"Liberating" Iraq was nothing excpet the back up lie when the "Hussein has WMDs and is intent on attacking us!!!!" claim was exposed for the preposterous lie that it was.

Let's see,

First off, Vile;

Your suspicion of the U.S. would be better directed elsewhere. I can point out that France, Germany, the Philipines, South Korea, Grenada, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. ALL had U.S. armies on their soil. NONE have had their sovereignty taken from, their resources haven't been siezed, their possessions were not taken. ALL are independent and with the exception of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and maybe Grenada, all are flourishing democracies. I think the U.S. can be trusted to leave Iraq and Afghanistan independent nations without their natural resources stripped away or seized.


Secondly, freethinker.

I've been wondering why our mainstream press wasn't picking up on the Downing Street Memo. WELL, it turns out that the original Downing Street memo was destroyed, after a reporter manually typed out its contents. This was done, supposedly, to protect the the person/persons who leaked the memo in the first. NOW, I'll grant that Bush wanted to remove Saddam, but the "fixing of the intelligence" around the justification of the war? You DO remember the forged documents Dan Blather tried to foist on us, do you not? I'm thinking this reporter, one Michael Smith, was "fixing the document" around the idea that Bush was "fixing the intelligence." This man ADMITTED ONLY THIS WEEKEND, that he retyped the original document then destroyed the original. Peculiar behavior. You can understand why the press isn't eager for another case of false document fever. With the original documents destroyed, we'll never know, now will we?

And another thng, while we're on the subject of what constitutes a threat to the U.S. and the true reasons we went to war with Iraq. What I recall Bush saying is that if we wait until a rogue nation like Iraq proves to be a threat to the U.S., it may be too late. You remember whining and moaning about pre-emption, do you not? Bush wasn't going to wait till Iraq did prove to be a threat. You can whine all you want about our invasion of Iraq wasn't a humanitarian mission, but the ACTIONS taken since the Iraq war prove otherwise. The U.S. is rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, is helping get a government off the ground, has handed off government authority to the Iraqis and is out looking for the terrorists who are trying to turn Iraq into another Islamic theocracy. Sounds like a humanitarian mission to me.

Who's laughing now?

Heh, heh, heh!


I'll post a link detailing how the original Downing Street Memo got destroyed. Happy reading.



Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/20/105038.shtml)

Keep in mind that the French and Russians were getting money from Saddam's Iraq while the mass graves were being filled, people tortured and women raped. Try to keep your timeline straight. Your revisionist history is so wrong it's hilarious. The mass graves you speak of were being filled under the silent acquiescence of Donald Rumsfeld, envoy to Baghdad, years BEFORE the French, Russians and the Oil for Food scandal. Back then Rummy sanctioned Saddam's importation of poison gas, under the assumption that he would use it against our real enemy at the time (Iran). We had no idea he would have used it against the Kurds. When it happened you, Rush, and all the other hypocritical Monday morning quarterbacks said diddley-squat. Look it up. You had NO PROBLEM with that at the time. It's only WELL after the fact that it became evident that Saddam's transgressions warranted forcible removal. Why the change in heart?

Actually,

Fluffernutter,

It's you that needs to have your timeline straightened out. When Iraq was supported (the time of the Rusmsfield envoy) Saddam was at war with Iran. We supported Saddam because we didn't want fundamentalist Islam spreading through the Middle East. I've explained this about 14 times, why do you keep bringing this up? My "change of heart" has been there since '91 when I first became AWARE of Saddam. When Saddam dealt with Iran, U.S. policy toward him changed accordingly and he was removed, a job that would've been a hell of a lot easier if the "peace activists" the U.N., France, Germany and Russia had actually supported us.


Dammit.

Libya abandons its nuclear program. The result of long term economic sanctions, same as we should have done to Iraq, same as we did to South Africa (and despite years of GOP foot-dragging). Nothing to to with the invasion of Iraq. Yassir Arafat marginalized. Poisoned by Mossad you mean. Nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament I wouldn't suggest the Lebanese are all carrying around posters of Condi Rice at the moment. Local politics, nothing more. Nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

When Saddam dealt with Iran, March 1988U.S. policy toward him changed accordingly and he was removed March 2004.

Sixteen year lag. Show me ONE article from any of your loony-bin right-wing sources dated 1988-1992 espousing the removal of Saddam at that time.

Oh and the ineffective recruitment they had prior to 9-11 said a lot for the people who died in vein [sic] that day. How about the USS Cole? We've always been a target and it's our unconditional support for Israel (no matter what they do) that feeds the cancer of hatred over there. The Gaza pullout (if it ever happens) may actually change the dynamics of the region. If George had anything to do with that then I'll tip my hat to him.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
The mass graves you speak of were being filled under the silent acquiescence of Donald Rumsfeld, envoy to Baghdad,

We had no idea he would have used it against the Kurds.
I was going to disagree with you, but you then made my point.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The Iraq oil will eventually be controlled by Israel via a pipeline (built with US dollars) to Haifa. That's what this was all about from the beginning ... PNAC = Israel = American invasion of Iraq = orchestrated by Perle/Wolfowitz/Likud/Mossad.

You never disappoint me (but you left out William Buckley and the Tri-Lateral Commission).

Originally posted by DrewM
No sorry I don't and neither does anybody else who has half a brain.

Keep on trying....keep on falling short. WELL OF COURSE YOU WOULDNT. well im sorry for you , and your half a brain cohorts. but its good for you to admit it

Originally posted by Brooks
Those aren't unique to this war.

Drew, you think Syria's / Libya's timing is coincidence? Also, don't let Korg see that terrorists got WMD's. They didn't exist, remember? who said that terrorist didnt have weapons of mass destruction , mr brooks ? the issue was SADDAM.......remember ? now , you are doing what you charge others with doing. remember, I SAID saddam didnt have them when bush said he did ! thats what I SAID. now you are telling me that I SAID the terrorist didnt have them........good one mr brooks, you are sounding more and more like a republican. keep up the bad work.:D

Originally posted by fluffernutter
We've always been a target and it's our unconditional support for Israel (no matter what they do) that feeds the cancer of hatred over there. The Gaza pullout (if it ever happens) may actually change the dynamics of the region. If George had anything to do with that then I'll tip my hat to him. absolutely !!!

Originally posted by korg
who said that terrorist didnt have weapons of mass destruction , mr brooks ? the issue was SADDAM.......remember ? now , you are doing what you charge others with doing. remember, I SAID saddam didnt have them when bush said he did ! thats what I SAID. now you are telling me that I SAID the terrorist didnt have them........good one mr brooks, you are sounding more and more like a republican. keep up the bad work.:D

Then I take it back. I thought you were one of those who were saying President Bush lied about the WMD's.

Originally posted by Brooks
Then I take it back. I thought you were one of those who were saying President Bush lied about the WMD's. i did say that bush lied. but i said that he lied about saddam having them. i know nothing about what "terrorist" has them. besides, by whos definition are we calling them terrorist ? they may be freedom fighters that think america hates them for THEIR freedoms.:rolleyes:

Freedom fighters who think America hates them for their religion. They are convinced that western ways and influence will tear the fiber of their religious beliefs apart.

You have to admit that our social structures, norms and tolerance for sex, drugs and rock & roll are very polarized from there religious beliefs. Also, the way we back Israel (no matter what they do) adds to their belief that we hate muslims / Arabs.

I don't condone their tactics, yet can't blame these people for fearing us. We made our bed with our un moveable alliance to israel.

Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorists: I think when the suicide bombers purposely target civilians, they could no longer call themselves freedom fighters. There are other parameters. I like this definition: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Echo, the actions of these Islamists tear their religious beliefs apart more than our culture ever could.

These people are radical islamists. However, it is very difficult to get a large group of people together to "just do evil". The are united by their belief that America is their enemy. Religiously, , politically and socially. People don't blow themselves up for the fun of it. They believe in their cause. I didn't say it was right, but I do understand it.

His church was bombed, and now he protests funerals of the war dead
Kansas preacher says he's coming to Idaho

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228401_westboro14.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Why do all Christians hate our troops?

:D

Originally posted by Echo2
These people are radical islamists. However, it is very difficult to get a large group of people together to "just do evil". The are united by their belief that America is their enemy. Religiously, , politically and socially. People don't blow themselves up for the fun of it. They believe in their cause. I didn't say it was right, but I do understand it.


and your point? They purposely kill innocent people, that is their TARGET!

how they could EVER be "freedom fighters" (Korg) is such a stretch i dont think gumbi could even stretch that far......

Its nice watching Korgs slide toward the extreme stances on this forum.... i look forward to arguing with you alot more if this trend keeps up.

So fluffernutter and Korg,

You think its our support of Israel that has the radical islamists up in arms. If the U.S. would only aid the world in feeding the Israelis to the murdering hordes that are Hezbollah, Al Queda and God know who else, all will be well and fine. It won't work, and I don't like the idea of leaving one group of people to the tender mercies of terrorists in the hopes they don't come and bother us again. It's called buying comfort at the expense of others and it's a sleazy way of winning "peace." So long as its someone ELSE being killed and they are far away, it's perfectly ok, then. I don't buy that line of thought.

For once, ONCE echo got it right. It's not Israel, it's the fact that there are elements in the Middle East who wish to have "true" Islam and influence from the West (especially America) is undermining such efforts to establish it in the Middle East. The problem with trying to leave the Radical Islamists alone is that it's rather hard to do in a twenty first century world. Everything from books, CDs, the web, television, radio, newspapers and even toys (the Bin Laden types don't like Barbie dolls, because Barbie has an independent life and career aspirations which is contrary to the way Islamists view the role of women in society, read barefoot, pregnant and subservient to men). American society, and Western society for that matter, is about a whole range of options and decisions. Whether to embrace a religion or not, whether to marry or not, to have a career or a family, to move another place or even another country, pre-marital sex. ALL are choices in the West, in Bin Laden's view, almost all such choices are forbidden. The problem with dealing with the Radical Islamists isn't that they don't understand the West, they understand it all too well and they understand that there cannot be an option between embracing 14th century Islam or the 21st century West. Those two world are imcompatible. So, they've undertaken Jihad in order to strike, in any way they can at the West. Better chose a side, echo, you may not be at war with Radical Islam, but the Jihadists are at war with you.

Maybe you people don't understand the idea of Black Ops. These are secret military actions that are blamed on the enemy and intended to turn the population against them.


Heres an example:

"How long must we go on living like this? Dear God, how long?"
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1469

The brave Iraqis have no desire to hurt their fellow Iraqis. What they want is to drive out the US and their supporters (ie: police). They want an end to the killing of their countrymen and the US off of their land. They gain absolutly nothing by sabotaging water systems. And in fact it was the US who destroyed those very water systems as a means of crippling Iraq in both Gulf Wars. Now they are doing it to turn the population against the Iraqi patriots. Like wise there has been a few rumors about people being siexed by American troops then told to go get thier papers from the police station after being released. Suppossedly, one guys car broke down and he spotted a bomb strapped to the bottom of his car. As to whther or not this is true is a matter of speulation but it demostrates that it would be easy enough to stage fake terror attacks against other Iraqis.

When looking at any situation you have to take into account the means, motives and oppurtunity. If Iraqis really wanted to kill off other innocent Iraqis they could get away with it quite easily by shooting people in their homes. Theres no point to this. However when you have the buzz word "suicide bomber" (thats 'homicide bomber' for you moronic dittoheads) people get very excited. This is not to say that the Iraqis havent resorted to suicide bombing to kill Us soilders and Iraqi police. But for them to target Iraqi civilians does not make any sense at all and in fact is anti-thetical to their goal.

Nice of Decka to ignore the fact that the US has intentionally targeted civilians. The US bombed Iraqs water supply's and sanitation in the first gulf war. Only then to impose sanctions on them so that they couldn't fix their purification plants. They also targeted, and bombed a hospital in falluja and took over the other hospital denying all medical treatment to patients there. They then put snpers on all the buildings and shot anything that moved. Bombing a city to the ground IS targeting civilians. Its confimrmed that the US used illegal WMD in the form of napalm in falluja. There were also rumors of the US using banned White Phosphorus there as well.

The Us are the terrorists, Those opposing them are Iraqi patriots.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
For once, ONCE echo got it right.

Gee, I feel so uplifted by your comment.

It's not Israel, it's the fact that there are elements in the Middle East who wish to have "true" Islam and influence from the West (especially America) is undermining such efforts to establish it in the Middle East. The problem with trying to leave the Radical Islamists alone is that it's rather hard to do in a twenty first century world. Everything from books, CDs, the web, television, radio, newspapers and even toys (the Bin Laden types don't like Barbie dolls, because Barbie has an independent life and career aspirations which is contrary to the way Islamists view the role of women in society, read barefoot, pregnant and subservient to men). American society, and Western society for that matter, is about a whole range of options and decisions. Whether to embrace a religion or not, whether to marry or not, to have a career or a family, to move another place or even another country, pre-marital sex. ALL are choices in the West, in Bin Laden's view, almost all such choices are forbidden. The problem with dealing with the Radical Islamists isn't that they don't understand the West, they understand it all too well and they understand that there cannot be an option between embracing 14th century Islam or the 21st century West. Those two world are imcompatible. So, they've undertaken Jihad in order to strike, in any way they can at the West.

Very well put.

Better chose a side, echo, you may not be at war with Radical Islam, but the Jihadists are at war with you.

I don't have to choose a side. I am American and will side with America against anyone that attacks her. I have said all along I do not aprove of what the Islamists do, but I understand their reason for doing it.

Whay I don't approve of is useing the aattck of 9/11 as an excuse to attack, invade and overthrow a soverien government that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Originally posted by Echo2
These people are radical islamists. However, it is very difficult to get a large group of people together to "just do evil". The are united by their belief that America is their enemy. Religiously, , politically and socially. People don't blow themselves up for the fun of it. They believe in their cause. I didn't say it was right, but I do understand it. i couldnt have said it better !

Originally posted by Decka
and your point? They purposely kill innocent people, that is their TARGET!

how they could EVER be "freedom fighters" (Korg) is such a stretch i dont think gumbi could even stretch that far......

Its nice watching Korgs slide toward the extreme stances on this forum.... i look forward to arguing with you alot more if this trend keeps up. listen decka, while you're being selfrighteous, we kill a lot of innocent. does it make a difference to the family member of the dead, that we didnt mean it ? !!! and , what i said in my post, i meant as a joke. but i wholeheartedly agree with echo......now, whats your damn point ! oh, i dont slide anywhere. but i have a belief, and its not political. i dont care which party does it, i call wrong , wrong !

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So fluffernutter and Korg,

You think its our support of Israel that has the radical islamists up in arms. If the U.S. would only aid the world in feeding the Israelis to the murdering hordes that are Hezbollah, Al Queda and God know who else, all will be well and fine. It won't work, and I don't like the idea of leaving one group of people to the tender mercies of terrorists in the hopes they don't come and bother us again. It's called buying comfort at the expense of others and it's a sleazy way of winning "peace." So long as its someone ELSE being killed and they are far away, it's perfectly ok, then. I don't buy that line of thought.

For once, ONCE echo got it right. It's not Israel, it's the fact that there are elements in the Middle East who wish to have "true" Islam and influence from the West (especially America) is undermining such efforts to establish it in the Middle East. The problem with trying to leave the Radical Islamists alone is that it's rather hard to do in a twenty first century world. Everything from books, CDs, the web, television, radio, newspapers and even toys (the Bin Laden types don't like Barbie dolls, because Barbie has an independent life and career aspirations which is contrary to the way Islamists view the role of women in society, read barefoot, pregnant and subservient to men). American society, and Western society for that matter, is about a whole range of options and decisions. Whether to embrace a religion or not, whether to marry or not, to have a career or a family, to move another place or even another country, pre-marital sex. ALL are choices in the West, in Bin Laden's view, almost all such choices are forbidden. The problem with dealing with the Radical Islamists isn't that they don't understand the West, they understand it all too well and they understand that there cannot be an option between embracing 14th century Islam or the 21st century West. Those two world are imcompatible. So, they've undertaken Jihad in order to strike, in any way they can at the West. Better chose a side, echo, you may not be at war with Radical Islam, but the Jihadists are at war with you. listen, i am not here to argue your religeon. i have nothing against no one. all im saying is, THEY....have a problem with our support of israel, and you'd have to be dumb to think that they dont ! as far as what i believe ABOUT IT ? i believe in everyones right to be an ass, a jerk, and anything else bad or good, as long as they are willing to pay the price ! and that includes america ! sit up there on your high horse and act like judge and jury if you want, my beliefs arent what shape this world !

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
1. The brave Iraqis have no desire to hurt their fellow Iraqis. What they want is to drive out the US and their supporters (ie: police). They want an end to the killing of their countrymen and the US off of their land.

2. Only then to impose sanctions on them so that they couldn't fix their purification plants.

3. The Us are the terrorists, Those opposing them are Iraqi patriots.

1. The "brave" Iraqis are not the ones doing the killing. First of all, many of them are NOT Iraqis. I don't know if it was you or one of your dopplegangers, but someone from that ilk has been saying that Iraq has become the breeding ground where middle east terrorists are coming to train, and then leaving with their talents. So which is it?

They want an end to the killing of their countrymen? How about refraining from strapping on bombs and standing in a fruit market?

2. The "sanctions" were supposed to be regulated by the Oil-For-Food Program. I wonder how far a billion dollars could have gone toward fixing the water infrastructure.

3. Again, it's not Iraqi patriots. Patriots wouldn't kill their countrymen and children when there's no enemy target with 2 miles of the bomb.

Going off of brook's comments, didn't Bin Laden tell Zarqawi to STOP killing Iraqis? I mean if the terrorists in Iraq weren't killing Iraqis, then why did Bin Laden tell the head terrorist in Iraq to stop doing something he wasn't doing? I have also noticed that Guerilla HAD to add in the Iraqi police that America was training in order to cover his rear-end while making the claim that the terrorists in Iraq were NOT trying to kill Iraqi civilians. Another case of hair-splitting.


Echo,

I've asked you to choose a side in this war on terror. You've come up with this sop posting about how you are on America's side and will defend it if attack and you hate the way America went into Iraq which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Echo, I'm not buying it, period. First off, what's in the forefront of your mind is Getting Bush. So whatever Bush does, you oppose. WHOEVER opposes Bush, you spotlight. You wrote a piece about Gallaway, this is one of the guys who does want the Left to ally with the Radical Islamists. I've accused the Left of doing such a thing and half the people on these boards went and got their panties in a bunch. He was also hip deep in the Oil for Food scandal. Rather poor source for opposition to the war in Iraq, echo. Also, you know as well as I do that if the Radical Islamists do NOT keep the countries under their control miserable, the pool of potential terrorists will dry up. IF Iraq and Afghanistan do become democracies and do thrive, every single Arab and his pet dog will see an alternative to the "blame America and Israel" brand of Islam that the terrorist are trying to foist on the muslims in their sphere of influence. That makes Iraq the very center of the war on terror. Kill the reason for terrorism, and you kill Islamic terrorism. Every news item made that's critical of the war in Iraq is a source of propaganda for Al-Jazeera, Bin Laden, Zarqawi and all the radical islamists who wish to force their religion on every single person living in the Middle East. YOU, echo, wish to use the Iraq to oust Bush from the Whitehouse and the Republicans from Congress and then you hope the democrats can repair the damage done by your anti-war campaigning. It won't work. I'll say it again, Echo, choose a side.


As for you Korg,

I do not like your premise that somehow all societies are equal and it's not for one society to judge the way another society does things. It's a garbage idea. America is at the forefront of just about every single technological breakthrough the world uses to advance mankind, America protects and allows just about every stripe of religion to be practiced, America freely offers education to anyone willing to learn, America allows all to vote, America has given unparalleled rights to women and even dabbles in giving preferential treatment to minorities. More importantly, the American government will not condone a rape victim being stoned to death for "committing adultery," we don't force those who believe in a certain religion to be second class citizens and we sure as hell don't encourage our kids to strap themselves to bombs so they can go and blow up others. THAT gives America and people like me every right in the world to criticize the very nations that do such things. Dammit.

darth, you've been listening to your own rhetoric for too long. Your starting to sound llike the rest of the wingnuts on thss board. I thought you at least had a little more sense than that.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
America is at the forefront of just about every single technological breakthrough the world uses to advance mankind, America protects and allows just about every stripe of religion to be practiced, America freely offers education to anyone willing to learn, America allows all to vote, America has given unparalleled rights to women and even dabbles in giving preferential treatment to minorities. More importantly, the American government will not condone a rape victim being stoned to death for "committing adultery," we don't force those who believe in a certain religion to be second class citizens and we sure as hell don't encourage our kids to strap themselves to bombs so they can go and blow up others. THAT gives America and people like me every right in the world to criticize the very nations that do such things. Dammit.
Well put, Darth. :)

We have an Army General named Custer.
No, I'm not kidding.
And it just figures, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
America is at the forefront of just about every single technological breakthrough the world uses to advance mankind,

Well, why wouldn't they?

America has all the money and power........but the ugly truth behind those riches and that power is that America's success is almost entirely due to it's having stolen one of the most untouched temperate agricultural and mineral rich areas in the world from the indigenous people living there, (after having "removed" those pesky people from the equation) and then building a good share of it on slave labor.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
America protects and allows just about every stripe of religion to be practiced,

Not only *protects and allows* religion, but actively PROMOTES it.

The more superstitious the masses, the easier to dupe and control them.

OTOH, not having ANY religious belief, naturally, is universally reviled by the Powers-That-Be.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
America allows all to vote

Guffaw.

Especially the Supreme Court justices.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
America has given unparalleled rights to women

False.

Other country's accomplishments in that regard are on a par with that of America.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
More importantly, the American government will not condone a rape victim being stoned to death for "committing adultery,"

No....but the Religious Reich is working on it.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
we don't force those who believe in a certain religion to be second class citizens

America certainly DOES view people who do not have any religious belief as **second class* citizens.

A former President flatly stated it ---- outright and with no equivocation.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
and we sure as hell don't encourage our kids to strap themselves to bombs so they can go and blow up others.

Possessing a multi-trilion dollar nuclear war machine obviates the need for such self-destructive deeds.

Instead, when our "godly" Amuurica gets the urge to go and blow up others it encourages our youths to strap themself to huge jet aircraft and drop the bombs on the evil *wrong god* infidels from 30,000 feet.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
THAT gives America and people like me every right in the world to criticize the very nations that do such things.

The immense irony of such a bombastic statement is no doubt lost on you and your ilk.

"Compassionate conservatism" my ass.

_____________________________

The overriding attitude Americans have about America is that it is the 'best place' in the world, with superior citizens, superior leadership and superior "morality". Arrogance and bragging are not in themselves major hateful qualities, but when they are coupled with cruelty, hypocrisy, cheating and savagery, they become almost unbearable.
It is the glaring contradiction between the 'greatness of America' and the depredations and barbarity of America that leads one into despising the country in which one was born.

*sigh* Freethinker,

There are days when trying to educate you guys gets downright grueling.

Now, about this America is great because it got lucky to have stolen the best land. The environmental theory on why the West or America does NOT hold up. Many civilizations stood not only stood on top of vast resources, but were there for thousands of years before America, yet they didn't amount to much. China is a fantastic example. Vast tracks of fertile land, mineral resources, timber, you name it. They had it. PLUS a thriving, cultured civilization, that had some of the most important inventions in the world. Amongst those were gun powder, the printing press and the compass. Yet, they only got so far and decided not to use the inventions they had. There were other civilizations with vast wealth and knowledge. The ancient Egyptians, the Muslims of centuries later. It wasn't the wealth, nor knowledge that made the West and America the dominant force of the day. It was science, democracy and capitalism that transformed the West and made America what it is today. I can also point out that even today, a wealth of natural resources doesn't equal wealth. Japan has little arable land and few natural resources, yet the Japanese are very wealthy. Yet the Soviet Union had land and natural resources, yet had the economy of a third world nation. It's the way of thinker, freethinker, not resources that dictate which nation gets rich, and which doesn't.

As for "stealing" the land from the indians here in the U.S. While it's not a chapter of history to be proud of, this is the sort of thing that happens when a more advanced civilization meets with one that's lesser advanced. I can also point out that disease wiped out up to ninety percent of the natives living here.

I won't deal with your paranoia about the right wing and their supposed attacks on minorities and women, but will point out that the ballots were counted some half zillion times by the press and the results STILL showed that Bush won Florida. Isn't it about time you got over the Florida 2000 election flap?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It wasn't the wealth, nor knowledge that made the West and America the dominant force of the day. It was science, democracy and capitalism that transformed the West and made America what it is today.

It was capitalism along with the prevailing superstitions of the invading species --[i.e., the white settlers] ---their having been indoctrinated from birth to believe they were "Gawd's chosen people".

[i]Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I can also point out that even today, a wealth of natural resources doesn't equal wealth. Japan has little arable land and few natural resources, yet the Japanese are very wealthy.

And I can point out for the millionth goddamned time that a person saying --"Country A is rich because of it's natural resources" -- is NOT to be construed as an assertion that EVERY nation on earth that is wealthy is wealthy because it possesses natural resources.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It's the way of thinking, freethinker, not resources that dictate which nation gets rich, and which doesn't.

No argument. I agree.

In this case, the "thinking" of the invading species [the white settlers] seems to have been --- "These red-skinned natives are savages who do not know our god, the "real" God......hence, we should feel free to carry out a campaign of genocide against them and appropriate the land for our godly selves"



Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
.....the ballots were counted some half zillion times by the press and the results STILL showed that Bush won Florida.

I beg to differ.

Palm Beach Post, 11/18: Gore won. Period.


Palm Beach Post, 11/12: 6 of 9 scenarios, including 3 that most closely comply with Florida law, give Gore clear victory.

GRAND THEFT 2000: MEDIA SPECTACLE AND A STOLEN ELECTION____By Douglas Kellner

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/GT2Intro.htm


"As I unravel the story of the Florida recount wars, I argue that the theft of Election 2000 took place on three levels. First of all, before the election, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and the Florida state Republican Party did everything possible to augment Republican votes and block Democratic votes, displaying gross partisanship, bordering on illegality. The Florida Republicans hired a Republican-based company, DataBase Technologies, to "cleanse" the voting lists of felons, which also eliminated thousands of legitimate voters, mostly poor and African American. The Jeb Bush gang allowed Republican political operatives to illegally fill in absentee ballot applications in Seminole and Martin Counties, breaking the law and denying Democrats equal privileges. Jeb Bush vetoed a $100,000 voter literacy bill depriving first-time voters of obviously necessary education on how to vote. The Florida Governor, brother of the Republican presidential candidate, sent out from his office absentee ballots, instructions, and a letter urging recipients to vote. Further, Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris employed Gulf War hero General Norman Schwartzkopf, a Bush supporter who frequently campaigned for George W. Bush and a close friend of his father, to participate in a get-out-and-vote TV ad campaign that was, in effect, using state funds to tell people to vote for Bush.

Second, on the day of the election, the Florida state Republican Party did everything possible to facilitate Republican votes and block Democratic ones. African American voters were harassed by police as they drove in vans to vote; largely first-time African American voters who had registered to vote found their names missing on voting lists, while many other longtime voters found that their names were purged from the voting lists and were denied their votes. There were not enough poll workers at many lower-income and predominantly Democratic Party precincts, inadequate computer lists of eligible voters, and insufficient language help for Spanish-speaking and Haitian voters. Moreover, there were a record number of undervotes that did not register because of faulty voting machines, primarily in low-income and/or heavily Democratic Party districts. In addition, there were a record number of overvotes due to faulty ballots, including the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County and a two-page ballot of presidential candidates in Duval County that contained instructions to vote for candidates on each page. Finally, there were many other voting irregularities and the manufacturing of many votes for George W. Bush and erasure of votes for Al Gore, as I will document in the course of this study.

Third, after the deadlocked election on November 7, the Bush machine and Florida Republican Party did everything possible to block the manual recount of selective counties called for by the Gore campaign. The Republicans pushed to certify Bush as president as quickly as possible, even though many thousands of votes had not been counted, attempting to seize the presidency for Bush, while blocking the counting of the votes that the Democrats demanded. In addition, the Bush camp was prepared to use the Florida legislature to name its electors, an act never before carried out that risked constitutional crisis and chaos. Finally, they ultimately called upon the U.S. Supreme Court to block the tallying of undervotes mandated by the Florida Supreme Court and in effect to give the presidency to Bush, in one of the most brazen examples of judicial activism and most controversial Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history.".

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It wasn't the wealth, nor knowledge that made the West and America the dominant force of the day. It was science, democracy and capitalism that transformed the West and made America what it is today...

...As for "stealing" the land from the indians here in the U.S. While it's not a chapter of history to be proud of, this is the sort of thing that happens when a more advanced civilization meets with one that's lesser advanced. I can also point out that disease wiped out up to ninety percent of the natives living here.


The disease question aside, what you are fundamentally saying is that it's morally ok for us to "dominate" the rest of the world because through the vagaries of fate we find ourselves able to do so.

I apologize for jumping into the thread so late, but I thought I'd reply to the original post.

Would any of the following have happened without the war in Iraq?

Libya abandons its nuclear program.
Possibly. Libya had been trying to rejoin the international community for some years before that, and giving up their WMD program may simply have been a part of that effort. We can speculate about it, but unless we get into Qaddafi's head we won't know the answer for sure.

The Syrian Army leaves Lebanon.
This was more a result of the reaction to Hariri's assassination than anything else, and may have happened regardless of whether there was a war in Iraq or not.

Elections in Iraq.
No. Elections wouldn't have taken place as Iraq would still have been under a dictatorship.

Lebanon has an election and votes in an anti-Syrian Parliament.
This was made possible by the loosening of Syria's grip on Lebanon, which happened due to the reason I gave above.

Food-for-oil comes to light.
Probably wouldn't have happened as it would have remained under Saddam Hussein's table.

Yassir Arafat marginalized.
This was more likely due to Israel's policy towards Arafat, and the growth in influence of Hamas, than a result of the war in Iraq.

Having said all that, let me say that I would love to see the growth of democracy in the Middle East, and any change in that direction would be positive change, regardless of its cause.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The disease question aside, what you are fundamentally saying is that it's morally ok for us to "dominate" the rest of the world because through the vagaries of fate we find ourselves able to do so.
Whether or not it was "moral" isn't the point. It's a universal reality, plain and simple. Despite FT's pathetic attempt to imply religion had anything to do with it, we saw the native Americans as a backwards people, and we saw the land they camped on as an opportunity to make money. Darth said it best - "While it's not a chapter of history to be proud of, this is the sort of thing that happens when a more advanced civilization meets with one that's lesser advanced."

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
[B

As for you Korg,

I do not like your premise that somehow all societies are equal and it's not for one society to judge the way another society does things. It's a garbage idea. America is at the forefront of just about every single technological breakthrough the world uses to advance mankind, America protects and allows just about every stripe of religion to be practiced, America freely offers education to anyone willing to learn, America allows all to vote, America has given unparalleled rights to women and even dabbles in giving preferential treatment to minorities. More importantly, the American government will not condone a rape victim being stoned to death for "committing adultery," we don't force those who believe in a certain religion to be second class citizens and we sure as hell don't encourage our kids to strap themselves to bombs so they can go and blow up others. THAT gives America and people like me every right in the world to criticize the very nations that do such things. Dammit. [/B] what in hell are you going off on me for , you moron. you obviously cant read. it is not MY place to tell anyone what and how to think about america. and yours either. people can feel anyway they want. that is also a right that america stands for. not just what you think ! and in the eyes of the society in question, they have the right to hate america without me denying them that right ! i dont have the right, even in america, to tell anyone not to hate black people ( i am black ). although i think its stupid to hate, i give people the right to feel anyway they want ! do you get it now ?!!! by the way, your opinion of america is YOURS ! how far are you willing to go to FORCE people to feel the way you do ? and if you have the RIGHT TO CRITICIZE , why doesnt everyone else.....? idiot !!! learn how to read !!

Pssst - he wasn't "going off" on you...

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal

As for you Korg,

I do not like your premise that somehow all societies are equal and it's not for one society to judge the way another society does things. It's a garbage idea. Dammit. and this is what , an invitation to a tea party ? i mean, i do have to give you credit praetorian, you've defended me the same way recently ( to my shock and awe :D ), but i think he's saying a little more than "i disagree".

Korg,

As a rule of thumb, I do not personally attack people. I will attack a person's IDEAS, but not the person themselves. If you will re-read the post I've written, I've stated that your ideas are garbage, I didn't go and started calling you a moron or whatever. Then I went on (at length) to try and show how your ideas are wrong. This is a distinction that you missed. Oh, and as far as reading is concerned, not to mention punctuation and grammar, I could bury you!

I've never tried, nor am I trying to "force" someone nor is it a good idea to try forcing one's opinion on another. I use fact, and I argue my points as to way I say "this is so." I try to CONVINCE, rather than force.

Now as far as America is concerned, while it can be argued that America is "forcing" the Iraqis and Afghanis to embrace democracy, but the true stregth of America comes from pursuasion. NOBODY had conquered Afghanistan in recent history. The British couldn't do it, neither could the Soviet Union. Yet there are American soldiers throughout Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is quiet. Why? Because America is not there to conquer, but to offer, OFFER, a better way of life. The Afghanis know America is wealthy, they see American generosity, they realize that America is trying to offer them the same norms that have made America the wealthy, generous country that it is. Had that not been the case, the Afghanis would've been allying with Bin Laden in droves and Afghanistan would be too hot for America to hold on to. It's no accident that the ones responisble for bringing terror to Iraq are not Iraqis, but foriegn terrorists. Nor was it any accident that the Berlin wall was meant to keep those infested with the Communist system of government INSIDE the Soviet system. Totalitarian governments have to struggle to keep their subjects IN, America's problem has more to do with keeping bad people OUT. Does this not tell you something? Iran did call America "the Great Satan." Satan wasn't a conqueror, but a temptor. America tempts other countries with rights, wealth, technology, dignity, a better life and better future in short. America doesn't conquer or force, there is no need for us to those kind of things. Dammit.

Vile's qutoe:

The disease question aside, what you are fundamentally saying is that it's morally ok for us to "dominate" the rest of the world because through the vagaries of fate we find ourselves able to do so.


Tell me Vile, does America "dominate" the world? Did we colonize Japan, South Korea, all of Western Europe and Taiwan? Or are they sovereign nations? Independent and able to fearlessly criticize America the way France and Germany does. When the news came down that military bases were going to be closed in Germany, the first worry amongst the Germans was the jobs that were going to be lost as a direct result of those very bases closing down. Doesn't sound like Germany had been living with the throes of American oppression for better than a half century to me.

If you really wish to talk about American domination, it isn't military conquest that other nations worry about. It's the "cultural imperialism" thing that has their panties in a bunch. The Sudanese, China, Russia just HATE the fact that American ideas are perculating about the world. Ideas of freedom, rights and the American dream is just something large segments of the world dearly wish they could keep their subjects from hearing. Read the part of America being the Great Satan in my last post. America tempts, and that temptation is awfully powerful.

I need to fix a comment of Darth's:
"Ideas of McDonalds, Walmart, and Microsoft is just something large segments of the world dearly wish they could keep their subjects from hearing."

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

Oh, and as far as reading is concerned, not to mention punctuation and grammar, I could bury you!

prove it !, oh, and i do apologize for the insults, but you werent being so nice either ! but back to my point. how in hell do you prove this point. and if you cant, STFU !