Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming

Discussion in 'Politics' started by buffys, Mar 4, 2004.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    You could say my premise is incorrect, but many nations are powerful. Canada is not powerful militarily I agree, but it was. You see the United States' power does not stem from its military, or its economics. Rather the US' power stems from its popularity worldwide. People around the world looked to the US for salvation (rightly or wrongly) today the US has imposed itself on people who didn't want it. Now the US is not seen in the same light. Europeans hate the US more then Arabs now it seems, and for good reason. One can see the difference overseas btwn the treatment of Americans. From my experience Americans were treated worse after 9/11 then before. I agree that my argument is faulty but not for the reasons you prescribe to. Rather the hatred of the US is a non-issue. It is the hatred of the Bush administration, the wars, the economic malaise, and the reckless use of American power. I think the Administration gives the impression of the American ppl. I think the worst thing that Bush did this year was the "check" from the international community bit. No one would have prevented the US from going to Iraq, if Iraq was a serious threat. No such threat existed, and Bush has his eyes on other "undesirables". To someone who lives outside the US this gives us a feeling of that American arrogance that is all too common, and all too undeserved. Some of this is innate in Americans, they are taught to be #1. But humility seems to be out of the picture.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    "The Bush administration badly botched the prewar maneuvering, presenting a textbook study in how not to wage a diplomatic campaign."

    So, war is "a diplomatic campaign." Right.

    That third quote sure sounds like PNAC. As long as its just American interests involved it is okay to stage a "Pearl harbor" like incident (9-11) to cajole the public into supporting the imperialistic wars for oil.

    Hey, I granted you the possiblity that the word "hegemon" was okay and I find three out of about 10 dictionaries on the web recognize it, but then, you want to nit pick rather than comment about the big picture.

    Sure sounds like you, Stokey my lad, and that CFR are all for US being a staunch hegemon. Me thinks, you are just nailing your coffin. Thank all the USA is just a figment of egotistic nihilistic fantasy and not real or we would have to lose humanity as it passed from viability or should a say, believability.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    BTW, here is a word I have definitely made up, hegemaniacal, the irrationality of accepting hegemony as a defendable policy foundation, much like neo-conservatism. Amazing how people will actually think that might makes right.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Please, go read a history book, or if you don't like offline sources, look up the British use of concentration camps in The Boer War, or Britains money making scheme in the Opium wars.
     
  8. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I am well aware of the British misuse of power from the MauMau in Kenya, to the Boer War when 70% of the population was killed etc. But within the context of it's time it was not considered an abuse of power. Today the US is bound by international law, something the most Americans seem to lack a grasp of. You know that thing so that British empires never happen again...yah that. The US broke that law, and the US knows that no one is going to do anything to it. That is the abuse of power which I speak of, at least the British constantly had an enemy on her neck to check British power.
     
  9. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    International Law? I'm going to assume your refering to the U.N.'s international law. The countries most vocal in their opposition to the Iraq war had contracts with the Saddamn Hussein regime to develop his oil fields and profit from Iraq's oil when the trade embargo was dropped. They never would have agreed to invasion because it would put their contracts in jeopardy. The United States had to invade because we didn't want Saddamn to profit from the dropped trade embargo because he would of most likely of spent the money on activities detrimental to us. I don't see an abuse of power I see self defense. Most of the world understands that otherwise it would be just the U.S. and Britain in Iraq right now.
    I'm glad you know your history however, just because there were no laws against the abuse of power at the time doesn't make it less of an abuse.
     
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    International law? You better believe it, your circumstantials mean nothing. The arms embargo on Iraq would not have been lifted would it? Are you telling me that those horrid good embargos that killed one million Iraqi's would have been lifted! How very disgusting isn't it. The US was not threatened by Iraq, real or imagined (imagined). There is literally no evidence to support your claims. I could pretty much say the moon threatens us everyday.

    The countries most vocal in their opposition to the Iraq war had contracts with the Saddamn Hussein regime to develop his oil fields and profit from Iraq's oil when the trade embargo was dropped.

    Excuse me? Wasn't it Dick Cheney's Halliburton who is Iraq giving Saddam parts? Please spare me!

    The United States had to invade because we didn't want Saddamn to profit from the dropped trade embargo because he would of most likely of spent the money on activities detrimental to us.

    Please, Saddam had no intention of doing anything detrimental to the US. This is where that vivid American imagination comes into play, what is this paranoia? If anything Saddam would have kept the money in his Swiss bank account. Believing is no reason for invading...

    don't see an abuse of power I see self defense.

    Self-defense is when you are attacked first, you attacked first not visa-versa. If it were self-defense I am certain the UN would have concurred, I mean these nations could have kept their contracts if they went to war with Iraq. There was no threat; I hope you wear your diapers at night.

    Most of the world understands that otherwise it would be just the U.S. and Britain in Iraq right now.


    Most of the world? LMFAO! WTF are you talking about? Everyone recognizes that this war was a disaster internationally for the US. The UK, Poland, Spain, Italy, Japan, and SK have tiny forces in Iraq for really just nominal presence. The Americans are shouldering the bulk of the burden, do you deny this? And by your statement "most" do you mean nations that refuse to be mentioned?

    I'm glad you know your history however, just because there were no laws against the abuse of power at the time doesn't make it less of an abuse.

    That is what power was back then, of course in the context of the era it was not a abuse.
     
  11. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    I thought we stamped out the whole "UN sanctions = death" fallacy around these parts.
     
  12. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    I'll break this down to "Rock" level for you. Iraq can invade Kuwait. Kuwait sells the U.S. oil. The U.S. is dependent on oil for economic survival. If you can't understand that I see no point in arguing with you.
    Here's a link for you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2847905.stm
    Give me proof of your accusation.
    I'll break this down to "Rock" level for you. Iraq can invade Kuwait. Kuwait sells the U.S. oil. The U.S. is dependent on oil for economic survival. If you can't understand that I see no point in arguing with you.
    I doubt the U.N. would of acted in the U.S.'s best interest. The U.N. is more concerned in other nations best interests.
    I mean these nations http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html
    LOL Very well, then in the context of this era its not an abuse because this is what power is right now.
     
  13. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I'll break this down to "Rock" level for you. Iraq can invade Kuwait. Kuwait sells the U.S. oil. The U.S. is dependent on oil for economic survival. If you can't understand that I see no point in arguing with you.

    Iraq could not have invaded Kuwait past the 1991 war, firstly the Southern portion of Iraq was off limits to any Iraqi aircraft, the Americans would have shot down with glee any Iraqi jets, secondly Iraq had to reason to invade Kuwait after her defeat. Also I think Saddam learned his lesson, it was physically impossible for Saddam to attack Kuwait. If you don't understand that then there is no point in this discussion. Iraq was successfully contained. There was no need for this invasion.

    I will continue later...
     
  14. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
  15. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    "agree with" is kind of a strong phrase. I think if you inserted "are afraid of", "are economically reliant on" and/or "are politically reliant on" you would hit closer to the mark.
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Give me proof of your accusation.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

    Surely not from a democratic friendly news organization.

    I'll break this down to "Rock" level for you. Iraq can invade Kuwait. Kuwait sells the U.S. oil. The U.S. is dependent on oil for economic survival. If you can't understand that I see no point in arguing with you.

    The only rock you broke is that of intelligence...

    I doubt the U.N. would of acted in the U.S.'s best interest. The U.N. is more concerned in other nations best interests.

    No I think that if France, Germany, Russia actually felt a genuine threat from Iraq they would not have opposed the war. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone not even her own neighbors. They knew it, the UN knew it, you seem to be oblivious to the obvious.

    I mean these nations

    Did you or did you not say most nations? That was what was in contention. Most nations do not support the invasion. Secondly how much money and men has Afghanistan given to operation "Iraqi Freedom"? Yes the coalition of the coerced.

    LOL Very well, then in the context of this era its not an abuse because this is what power is right now.

    You're not a very smart character are you? The context of the era can be summed up in this:

    This may come as a shock...

    Do you want to continue the surrender?
     
  17. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Yes and people were making good money from Iraq.
    http://www.usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm

    Iraq was completely unarmed as well.
    "The 40 rockets in the launcher included 20 that appeared to be French-made and designed for use with the Alouette helicopter, Army officers said. These rockets were of relatively recent vintage, and might have been obtained by Iraq illegally after the imposition of a U.N. weapons embargo in 1991. The other 20 missiles appeared to be Russian-made, the officers said."
    http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10272003/nation_w/105921.asp

    "Last December, Tageszeitung newspaper reported that over 80 German companies were listed in Iraq's weapons report to the UN."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2712903.stm

    "The probe offers further evidence that Iraq carried out a clandestine effort to rearm after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and that Iraqi weapons builders turned to Russia's hard-hit military-industrial complex as a source of hardware and know-how about weapons of mass destruction."
    http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/gyro/postgyro.htm

    OK, No problem, but according to the both of us there's no point in continuing this.
     
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Yes and people were making good money from Iraq.


    This was not the premise of your argumentation against me. Your argumentation was that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors. Thustly you have evidently agreed with me that Iraq was a zero threat to others. I never said ppl didn't make money on Iraq; actually the biggest trading partner with Iraq was Australia! Yet they went to war, hmmm kind of throws your theory of "interests" on the shit pile. The US imported 400,000 - 600,000bbl a day from Iraq the second most from the region, in 2002! You have no arguments left I can plainly see... and neither does this administration. Stop kicking a dead horse mien friend.

    Obviously you don't know what the whole point of Containment is, that is to contain Iraq within her own borders. The sanctions were not of primary concern.
     
  19. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    LMFAO The U.N.! AW thats cute, did they teach you that at school?
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    So you have finally surrendered, thank you for playing. NEXT!
     
  21. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    I've shown evidence Iraq was trying to rearm. A rearmed Iraq is a threat.
     
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Re-armed with alouettes helicopters is a threat,lol? Have you by happenchance ever seen one of those things? No the premise of the war was not Iraq's conventional forces. It was Iraq's WMD programs, and I cannot believe you still find Iraq a threat today after her disastrous military fight against the US. If anything the Iraqi military was old, useless, badly trained, badly fed, and not loyal to Saddam. You have proved nothing but ignorance of the facts... Containment worked, Saddam had no WMD because of it, and no nation was threatened by Iraq by it.
     
  23. RonVolk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Iraq was aquiring conventional arms and funds during the containment it could of aquired weapons of mass destruction just as easily.
    Thats your opinnion and your entitled to it.
     

Share This Page