U.S. brutallity

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Jerrek, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Then don't say "democrat" next time. Am I supposed to decode your ramblings?
    Do you really have any knowledge of America??? Independants and moderates are the key swing voters in American elections.
    America is doing fine with it's so called horrible political system. Where do you live?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You are pretty funny, yet so delusional...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Various

    I'll respect your capabilities and keep it short, Static76.

    - Given the amount of poor typing, the number of ESL posters at Sciforums, and the outright illiteracy of some of our American posters, are you sure you're being fair when nitpicking GK's words in order to justify your reaction?

    Of course, you did recognize the distinction between Democrat and democrat (you wrote it with a capital "D", GK did not).

    J'accuse. What's up, Static? Do you realize how much time we can all waste bitching about "decoding" like you have?

    In the meantime, I think Ghassan Kanafani has a point that you seem to be avoiding, and that avoidance is obvious in your sudden ignorance of your own conversation. (You brought up democratic society.)

    General Comment

    What I actually resent about this topic in general is the uncited photographs presented as a cheap propaganda job intended to whitewash the failures of the American endeavor in Iraq.

    Denial ain't just a ... oh, never mind.

    I suggest that the proclaimers of American triumph, right, and compassion buy a ticket to Iraq, go door to door to each family that suffered a civilian casualty, and look them in the eye and tell them that they should rejoice that their mother/sister/father/brother/son/daughter/&c. is dead.

    A murder trial a couple years ago in Oregon that started with a party gone awry left the incensed family of the victim stunned as witnesses came forward to describe a dead man who was a drug dealer, a rapist, &c. After their public denunciations of the accused killer, they were shocked to realize that the whole fight started when their precious, innocent son started manhandling women. No, it doesn't make the killing right, but technically the world is better off with this SOB dead. But am I really determined enough to make a point out of that to drive down to Lincoln City, knock on their door, and tell them that their son, whom I didn't even know, did the world a favor in getting himself killed?

    Likewise, if you want to hold up the American ability to accomplish minimal representations of minimal interpretations of minimal goals as a evidence of American nobility, well ... that's part of what's wrong in the US itself. People get up and go about their day and expect to be treated specially just for being alive. In a country where showing up to work each day is considered a mark of quality of character (with no regard to the quality of your work), a few uncredited photos and a heap of classic Western smarm just isn't enough to convince me to forfeit my brain at the door. I'll keep thinking for myself, thank you. I urge the haters to do the same for once.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Re: Various

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, there are many posters here who have poor English skills, but they still have the ability to make coherent statements.

    This is the post I was responding to:
    Now sure, MAYBE there's a point in there somewhere, but....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll assume he doesn't want me to sell out to the Bush supporters who want these wars. Which is strange because I already stated that I'm no fan of Shrubya.
    Maybe so, but how much time do we waste having to decode his rants.
    Please tell me his point, I doubt he even knows it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    A good reason for anti-amerikanism is the amerikan belief that a person can discharge himself from his democratic responsibilities by merely condemning a specific action without any further relevant consequence whatsoever .

    So what are you implying, Ghassan? My 'democratic responsibility' will be to vote against Bush in 2004 if I don't like his policies. Are you suggesting something else?
     
  8. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Re: Various

    Let's go together.

    While I'm doing my job listening to the pangs of sorrow from Iraqis with dead/maimed loved ones, you can talk to the relatives of the 10,000 dead Shi'ites that Saddam slaughtered in 1991, or the Kurds who've dealt with more for longer. While I'm explaining that the CEP of JDAMs are 16 feet, and ther isn't a weapon system under the sun that will hit with perfect accuracy, you can explain why their loved one's lives were so worthless that a detached misanthropic elitist sitting behind their computer in the United States can deem them unworthy of salvation.

    Face it. The deposition of Saddam Hussein, for whatever ulterior motives the tinfoil wrapped conspiracy theorists might believe, was magnanimous and philanthropic, and there aren't any nations on earth who could've done it better than the US/UK coalition did. Iraq is a better country for it. Some died, yes. But some innocents will always die in war.

    You've got to break a few eggs to make an omlette.
     
  9. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
    Yes we had to break a few heads with a kill ratio over a 1000 to one (averaging both Gulf wars) but we won't be eating an omlette... we will be eating oil.

    Of course you can claim that the executive order Bush recently signed is false or a hoax but then you would be lying.

    Here are the recent events followed by the executive order of which I speak.

    During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their blood.

    The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.

    In May, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which ended sanctions and endorsed the creation of Development Fund for Iraq, to be controlled by Paul Bremer and overseen by a board of accountants, including U.N., World Bank and IMF representatives. It endorsed the transfer of over $1 billion (of Iraqi oil money) from the Oil-for-Food program into the Development Fund. All proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are also to be placed into the fund.

    In the creation and expected implementation of this Development Fund for Iraq, one finds the fingerprints of the global economic structural adjustment that has attracted so much protest in recent years. World Bank and IMF programs, backed by the rigged rules of the World Trade Organization, have imposed dramatic financial restructuring upon much of the world. Developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful Northern corporations. This paradigm cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of "poverty alleviation," and now in Iraq as "humanitarian assistance."

    New debt for Iraq will accrue through the very program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, will apparently be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq. Besides financing reconstruction projects, some of the funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm), whose mission is not development or poverty alleviation, but rather the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American business abroad.

    ExIm recently announced that it was open for business in Iraq and would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is, companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq. Corporations have found it next to impossible to obtain private bank credit for work in Iraq, due to the ongoing insecure environment. But ExIm has stepped in to take a lead role in facilitating U.S. business in Iraq.

    "The primary source of repayment," explained an ExIm release, "is the Development Fund for Iraq, or another entity established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority with access to foreign exchange and protection from claims of creditors of the former regime." In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq -- especially because the money comes from Iraq.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    But for the Bush/Cheney administration and their allies in the oil industry, this was not enough. Hours after the United Nations endorsed U.S. control of the "Development Fund" for Iraq, Bush signed an executive order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for U.S. corporations in Iraq.

    Executive Order 13303 decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

    In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.
     
  10. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Oh shit. Guys, American corporations are rebuilding Iraq! Quick! Somebody stop them before Iraqis end up living in prosperity!
     
  11. kajolishot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2003
  12. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    And tell them what? That their ranks are growing because the american army is in town, but hey, in a decade or two they'll be free, just like in Afghanistan?
    Remember, the US is in talks with the Taliban to get them back into government in Afghanistan - less than two years after the invasion there. How long before they get into talks with the Ba'athists? And do you really think that the Iraqis don't know that? Their entire history since the 1930s is of that exact same process. Fine, the British were the ones doing it, but all caucasians look alike

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Can we point out here that a JDAM, while having a CEP of 13 metres (thanks to a GPS-based guidance unit) has a minimum safe distance of approximately one kilometer (thanks to the 2000lb of high explosive strapped to the guidance unit) according to the US navy?

    That's both pig-ignorant of your history, theirs, afghanistan's, and the personal histories of the members of both PNAC and the current US administration.
    And no-one with any sense believes that the US is making an omlette in Iraq. [mutter]A dog's dinner, maybe...[/mutter]

    And where do you think the money to pay those corporations for the work they're doing is coming from?
    The sale of Iraqi oil.
    In other words, the Iraqis are paying for the priviledge of having US-selected companies do US-designated work rebuilding US-destroyed infrastructure, for a price tag written by the US.
     
  13. kajolishot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Re: Re: Various

    Stokes Pennwalt,

    Do not forget to add to the list thousands of dead Iraqi people from American enforced sanctions.

    If Saddam is the ultimate evil at #10, then my USA is #8 on that chart.
     
  14. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Originally posted by EI_Sparks

    >That's both pig-ignorant of your history, theirs, afghanistan's, and the personal histories of the members of both PNAC and the current US administration.
    And no-one with any sense believes that the US is making an omlette in Iraq. [mutter]A dog's dinner, maybe...[/mutter]


    >And where do you think the money to pay those corporations for the work they're doing is coming from?
    The sale of Iraqi oil.
    In other words, the Iraqis are paying for the priviledge of having US-selected companies do US-designated work rebuilding US-destroyed infrastructure, for a price tag written by the US.


    It is very scary to see how Sparks continues to deny that the conditions of tens of millions of iraqis are improving just so he can keep rambling about his bloody oil theories.

    FYI, sparks - the conditions in both Afghanistan and Iraq are improving, if slowly. If you deny that, you have your head in the sand.
     
  15. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Who is it improving for? Not the people!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    The alternative would have been to leave Saddam in power. How, exactly, would that have been better for Iraqis than a shot at democracy and all the prosperity a free market economy will bring them?
    Absolutely. You speak of this as if it's a bad thing. OMG AMERIKA IS DOING IT. So? Do you deny that it will be good for Iraq?
    Do not forget that the sanctions were UN-mandated and enforced by all members of the allied coalition, not just the United States. The sanctions were Saddam's doing, and as much as dilapidated morons like Bin Laden tries to ascribe them to the United States, Iraq would not have been under sanctioning had they not ruthlessly invaded and plundered a helpless Kuwait in 1990.
     
  17. kajolishot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    I disagree.
    Everyone wanted the sanctions taken off

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/iraq-j05.shtml

    If you feel uneasy about the source, you are free to use google to find other stories about this and I am sure UN's site has that particular vote record online.

    Also, these "morons" you speak of are still alive despite full American military might.

    Mission: Failed.
     
  18. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Wrong.
    Listen carefully:
    There were a huge number of options available, and a huge number of them did not involve leaving Saddam in power.
    It was not a case of the options being limited to :
    1. The US invades and takes over; or;
    2. Saddam remains in power.
      [/list=1]

      This is real life - options are never that limited.

      I do deny it, because it isn't a good thing. You're assuming that the US has the right to dictate to the Iraqi people what will be done, by whom, and how much it'll cost them.
      It doesn't.
      If the US was serious about it's claims of humanitarian interests, the Iraqis would be the ones running the tender process and selecting companies, not the US.

      But it was the US that denied medical equipment to Iraq by yelling "dual use" as loudly as they could.

      Crap. On two counts. Kajolishot pointed out the sanctions issue, now I'll point out that Kuwait was invaded with full prior knowlege of the US (who gave no objection to Saddam when he asked if it was objectionable before he invaded) and the invasion of kuwait by Iraq was over charges that Kuwait had been drilling for oil on Iraqi land during the Iran-Iraq war, and both Iraq and Kuwait had been negotiating about that for a year prior to the invasion.
      So don't go saying that Kuwait was wholly innocent, especially not given the way Kuwait is run...
     
  19. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Earlier, I posted a thread, asking for suggestions on how to remove saddam without military intervaention.

    No serious suggestions were made.

    Claiming that saddam could be removed, or the condition for the iraqis made better, without direct US intervention is utter bullshit.
     
  20. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    While that may be true, the problem that many of us had with our actions in Iraq is that the American public was not allowed to make the decision to support a war of liberation. It was misled by the administration into believing there was an imminent threat to the United States.

    This, after the administration repeatedly changed its reasoning for invading another nation as each previous reason was knocked down

    :m: Peace.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The problem with keeping it short

    Static

    To note the part of the conversation I'm commenting on:
    And that's where I stick my nose in.

    The highlighted section is what I refer to. I will now attempt a very dubious enterprise, and translate Ghassan's paragraph into a slightly more westernized political dialect. (Ghassan, by all means correct me where I'm wrong.)

    - You tell me , your the democrat who has all the freedom. As a member of an allegedly-democratic society, you have recourse short of shooting your governors. The people can fill the streets; in some elections they can recall (e.g. Calif. Gray Davis recall), and we can go to the ballot box to approve or reject either laws themselves or direct instructions to the legislature concerning which laws to pass.

    - A tip would be to start refusing, dont take toomuch on your shoulders nobody asks you to. When a President comes before the American people and the Congress to seek authorization for war or other troop deployment, for instance, there seems to be a mad rush to either side of the aisle. The opposition is traditional; the support is traditional. The merits of the action are not well- or sincerely-discussed. In the end, people who supported the safety of American troops and also the prestige (and in a related capacity, the security) of the nation, who opposed the Iraqi invasion for the fact that it was a severe abrogation of America's agreements and a severe blow to our public integrity were not opposed with rational arguments, but condemned as anti-American, pro-Saddam, &c. How it came to be that pacifists were accused of causing all wars (a Sciforums assertion) is beyond me. But we, the people, need not file in like ants behind the wolf in shepherd's clothing.

    - Just dont cooperate for anothers destruction , refuse. No translation is required here.

    - Sneek out of it , whatever results. There's always a better way than killing people. It's just a matter of finding that way.

    - At least that is if you would consider such moral ideologic thinking practical to your every day life , wich Im pretty fast to say no it aint and no u wouldnt accept it . This is a rough generalization that we Americans have earned by proxy of inaction. Morality and progressive idealism are unprofitable to the existing social plutocracy. Even in our domestic issues, organizational abstractions (e.g. money) are more important than the issues they propose to address. This is a choice of the members of our democratic society.

    Now, if we go back to the point where I pick up this conversation and examine the point about Anti-America drivel ... this seems to be Ghassan Kanafani's point. Or so says me: There are reasons for the anti-Americanism that Americans generally refuse to think of.

    So what happens, then, is that while we're willing to call other people all manner of vile names for their crimes, and while we're willing to criticize all manner of people for their failures to satisfy American expectations, we rarely draw the link between our American government and the will of the people. True, there are reasons for this, but ultimately it's the people's fault.

    Why do I acknowledge these reasons? Because I don't like little pieces of the country blowing up and killing 3,000 people. I honestly was very surprised and how badly 9/11 shook people; not in terms of the carnage, but as we packed our stuff and left downtown Seattle under a martial closure that morning, only a tiny group of people seemed to understand that it was not so much a matter of "Why did they do this?" as it was, "Well, they finally got us." I do not find any puzzling suggestion in the fact that, as the weeks progressed, the only people I found in my environment who understood this point were internationals. (e.g. a Chinese data-entry manager, the English gent managing statistical tables of Finance/Management, the guy from India who was a coder over at the home office across town, etc.) And in the press, only the extreme left picked it up, and was ridiculed for it.

    Yet people in the United States do not generally extend their social responsibility to include their leaders. As the left wing ticked off the histories, the right wing and middling movements rejected history for sentiment. What does Iran have to do with it? That was 50 years ago ... and what do Rumsfeld's actions in the 1980s have to do with anything? That was a different administration.

    My dad, for instance, finally snapped a few years ago. Having gone nuts, he's much nicer now. And it took us a few years to shake out the details, but insofar as any of us can tell, all of his presumptions failed him. One of the last to die was the political integrity of his specific brand of fiscal conservatism. For years we'd argued ourselves into a standoff about money, "real life", and so forth. One day he woke up and found everything he trusted in poised to put the knife in. He had time to look at his business partner and say, "Et tu, Brute?" and then it was over.

    The point of this is that when the pundits told us that supporting dictators abroad was a good thing for America's security, he believed it. As such, his tax money went, through the (Reagan) administration he endorsed, to directly support the Iraqi tyrant. A few years later, his tax money went, through the (Poppy Bush) administration he endorsed, to repel the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Twelve years later, my father had learned his lesson. He paid his taxes, he didn't endorse the administration, and he knows damn well that if the terrorists get him tomorrow, it is, by the standards he advocated, what he deserves.

    But many Americans--a majority of Americans--continue to license their leaders with votes and tax dollars, and then appeal to their lack of responsibility for the conduct of those leaders. So what it looks like abroad seems to be a little perverse:

    - Leader is elected.
    - People cheer.
    - Leader takes action.
    - People cheer.
    - Leader asks for re-election based on success of action.
    - People cheer, re-elect.
    - Someone responds to the action taken by the leader.
    - People wail and cry and wonder what they ever did to deserve it.

    And in the United States, because we elect new leaders every 2, 4, and 6 years (depending on office), we like to pretend that "It's a different government. Would you hold the new Iraqi government responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein?"

    Yet when the faces change and the policies are still killing children in your community and supporting local tyrants around the world, the people who bear the consequences of American actions sometimes tend to disagree that disparate executive administrations constitute disparate governments. Sure, this or that president and the people who elected him may not have written the policy, but he's following it. And the people are willing supporters.

    Revolution? Well, that's the nice thing about being in an allegedly-democratic society. You don't need to go blowing things up in order to make a change. The clear majority of the Civil Rights movement in the United States was peaceful and civilly disobedient. That movement was peaceful despite violence. What achievements it made and continues to make find their strength in the cooperative spirit, not in the militant.

    But if the American people don't want to be held responsible for their actions, they need to set a new precedent. Filling the streets to throw Bush out of office, proclaim a new cooperative era, and demand that the nation return to its pursuit of its proper and human ambitions ... major protests in Washington, New York, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles ... a few days of quiet chaos in the streets attempting to recapture America for the free and the brave would be an encouraging sign.

    If it broke into open revolution, there would be the danger of foreign interests sending operatives to degrade the situation further.

    The blood of revolution need not be literal. It will still feed the tree of Liberty if honestly conceived and executed.

    We do have an obligation to restrain our leaders. Our failure to do so combined with the appearance of mass ignorance or apathy toward that obligation spawns much anti-Americanism abroad, and much dissent at home.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Edit: Corrected "conversation transcript"; erroneous attribution.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2003
  22. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    Static


    The only place in the world where the word democrat represents your shitty wannabe-hippy zionist party is in the USA , so keep your centrist views for yourself ok there are more than 280 M peoples on this globe .

    Perhaps I should have adapted to your way of reasoning and said democratic instead of democrat , but why should I do that ? Because you think your amerikanist bullpoo has any authority over other peoples minds ?

    I am sure I have more knowledge on the subjects related to amerika relevant in this thread , than you .

    And independants are rather irellevant as I dont see any idnependants having an actual say in your countries policy . The fact that they have authority with a small group of swingers , does not mean they have authority in the system .

    As for moderate , what is it do you consider your democratic and republican party extremes ? If not , then why do you bring up that moderates are relevant ?



    See your new thread

    And this followed by :

    Truth, Justice, and the American way.

    Can anyone take you seriously like this man ?



    You asked weither to start a revolution and you got your response . The fact that you cannot coprehend any of it rather deals with your incapabilities to understand complexity .



    No it wasnt about what your ideas in your head may be about Bush , rather what you are doing with it , your actions , your practices . I dont care who you're a fan of .

    Tiassa has done a terrific job not only explaining my points , but also bring in addition other points I did not even think of . In that tradition I want to add something as well :

    * The refusal of financing USA policy through tax dollars .
    * The refusal of consumerism in todays post cold war neo-imperialist USA and globalized international market . (Spike : your responsabilities dont end with voting)

    You can start with that Static , but you wont , something you could have deciphered from my pervious post as well .

    Funny btw , how you dont respond to these huge problems of yours to me , but choose to whine about it to Tiassa .

    Im happy has been willing to take the time to explain it to you . Im sorry if nothing changed in your mind . Im sure it didnt .

    **********************************************

    Stokes
    It is truly beyond all disgust to have to see here amerikanists like yourself propagate such lies with pictures of exceptions , about MY people , about MY land .

    Are you serious here in believing the peoples in Iraq love you ?
    They dont , no Iraqi and Arab who holds the misery of his peoples higher in importance than the misery of himself , loves you .

    Amerika has brought only horror and destruction , there are millions of peoples in Iraq who are not posing for your vomit-inducing pictures .

    You Stokes have no idea what WE Arabs think about your shit , and you wonder where those bullits are coming from every day , thinking its Saddam , LMAO .

    And I have a friend who is Shiaa and FOUGHT in 91 and you SOLD HIM OUT , he has been imprisoned by Saddam , fortunatly he could escape Iraq . Stop spreading your disgusting lies all over here I know its your job but that says it all doesnt it , Stokes ?

    The Shia didnt want your war , they were against your war . Your friends are only highly traumatized peoples who cannot coprehend the value of a nation , but only that of their own shitty lives , oftenly shitty because of you as you betrayed them and as you put Sadam in there .

    If you would be honest in wanting to know how the things are going you would try to find out , you can easily even from your chair . But you only care to find those who support your colonism and exploitation .



    Nobody accepted your deal , so again what you say has no relevance whatsoever . Nobody likes an omlette nobody wants an omelette.

    Oh shit. Guys, American corporations are rebuilding Iraq! Quick! Somebody stop them before Iraqis end up living in prosperity!

    zionist coorporations , u ever faced the respons of an Iraqi when you told him who Bechtel is and how they're rebuilding Baghdad ?

    Or any Arab for that matter ? U probably dont even know yourself .

    Thats not the alternative dont bring in your there-r-only-2-choices fallacy mr Bush .



    It is a very bad thing as those coorporations really are not building anything signofocant for the Iraqi peoples but for the new Iraqi regime that will be the ally of the USA .



    Helpless Kuweit ? Why because they are your rich allies who sell out Arab wealth because England has decided some years ago they needed oil for their shitty ships , and it would be nic eif they would have to deal with oil-magnates than millions of peoples ?

    Kuweit should not exist , it belongs to the peoples of Arabia .

    Look how pathetic your disgusting attempts to patronize Iraq suffering is . You are trying to make excuses that you believe WE would bring in to try to deny 20 Iraqi's happy about this horrific occupation .

    Wel I at least dont , sp keep your pathetic conspiracy-theories for yourself , millions of Iraqi and Arab wish for your destruction , and you know it (well Othead doesnt but thats ok because he's a Hebrew u see) .

    **********************************************

    DJ
    Sounds like DJ needs another confrontation with reality because he cant understand how a person can have a problem with a hostile military occupying your country . We should have a time machine for peoples like you so we can send them straight to 1940 .

    Its not improving .



    Your head is in your ass as Aghanistan is simply at war and Taliban is back on the map , while there is a guerilla war in Iraq .

    Yes there was go read again . Only thing bullshit is that you dont care for responses to your pathetic crap , and simply keep repeating your shit in new threads .
     
  23. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Re: The problem with keeping it short

    This should be interesting, I'm sure even Ghassan will be surprised that he had a point...
    I would have answer to Ghassan, that I worked in college as a campaign worker with others to help get laws on the books, like medical :m:, in California. We also recalled like you said, our governor Gray Davis for his lies and mismanagement of our budget. Many Americans are politically active and it doesn't take violence to enact change.
    Then I would tell Ghassan that it's up to people to make their dissatisfaction with there public leaders felt in the 2004 elections. Once again, we have recourse in America to recall leaders, or to impeach presidents. Ghassan would have to be blind not to see the outrage by half of the populace of America, and the declining support numbers for Bush.
    That's a very broad statement. Should the US have not cooperated for the destruction of the Nazis? War is sometimes a necessary evil.
    I think your misinterpreting Ghassan's thoughts here. He says "whatever results", and that is not an option for me and many others. If a country threatens America's destruction, is Ghassan saying that we should bend over and take it?
    Ghassan shouldn't ass-u-me to know my or the general moral thinking of Americans. Most who supported the Iraq war did it because they thought Saddam was a danger to their families and lifestyle. Bush wrapped himself up in the torn cloth of 9/11, and used it effectively to get this war.
    The same could be said of any other country, America doesn't have a monopoly on this.
    Americans don't understand why they did the 9/11 attacks because they serve no purpose. What cause did they help? What was gained other than alot of deaths. The whole suicide bomber mentality is so twisted that it's very hard to comprehend a reason.

    Did they think this would get the US out of the Middle East??? If they did then they're fools. People in America were growing tired of Israel/Palestine conflicts, and dealing with the Mid East area. Now we are totally in that region, and war mongers like Bush/Rummy have all the propaganda they need for their war machine.
    Yes, many people bought the BS they were sold by Reagan and the like, but they are not rarities in the World. Every other country has people and factions that believe the bull they are told by leaders.
    SOME people cheer...

    And is this situation any different in other modern countries?
    LOL, when has this been the case???

    Very few laws, bills, or actions get through the House, Senate and White House with great cheer. It's usually a battle.
    *cough* Pappa Bush.... *cough*
    Don't you mean people get pissed and support the war mongering leader...
    America's record in the World is great, the good far outweighs the bad. Ignoring the positives and focusing on the negatives does nothing but alienate people from reform and push them towards overt patriotism.
    Uh....There were major protest around America at the start of this war...
    We have the ability to voice our opinions in 2004. The fact though, is that we didn't restrain Bush because he had support for this war.

    I didn't agree with Bush, I thought this was the right war at the wrong time for us. But it was the failure of the UN to enforce their own rules that led us to this.
     

Share This Page