Why you should support what Bush is doing.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

so what, you read all the books that are anti bush, and thats where you come up wit hall the answers?

I must admit, to label Mill as 'anti-bush' is a very slight peversion of justice.

[Phang]

John Stuart Mill
Of his own free will
Liked to criticise incumbent presidents

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Frankly, my use of hyperbole is as justiied as your use of irony.

Nah man. Irony is amusing. Hyperbole, used as you did, just makes you appear angry.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nah man. Irony is amusing. Hyperbole, used as you did, just makes you appear angry.

Why, has your father never told you? - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. :P

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Why, has your father never told you? - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. :P

Looking back on my post I just realised I wasn't being sarcastic at all. My bad.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Ah, Jammy Jim, Ive seen you have missed the point entirely... but thats ok, let me explain if for you



See what you missed is, i didnt say AMERICAN CULTURE AND VALUES. BUT WESTERN. What you are saying is that torture and tyrannical rule is just as good as a culture that embrasis freedom and democratic values. I dont think so. Do you really think that, come on.

American/Western. They are one and the same. This is pedantic. You know what i was 'getting at'. Western Centric Morality is quite a widely discussed topic in politics circles

[/quote]

I have explained why Iraq and Afganistan will help bring peace. Its just common sense. People are happier when they can express their veiws, and when they dont have to worry about being killed. When there is competition for leadership so the best leader can be chosen to do the best things for a country. A tyranical ruler who only knows how to be feared and thats how he is able to stay in power, obviously isnt as good as a person who was voted in because the people thought the person was able enough to do a good job.

[/quote]

At what cost precisely do you plan to bring these wide sweeping changes. The cost of thousands of innocent lives and a bloodbath of explosion after explosion rippling through major cities. Or what about the shortage of basic things like power and water for months on end following the end of hostilities.

Even 'freedom' is a very subjective term. By freedom do you mean Freedom to be free within the bounds that the United States and its allies deem appropriate. I doubt very much that the Sh'ite majority will gain power, especially the more 'anti-us/west' establishement which has a very strong following.

There is no such thing as 'freedom' in the terms your portreying. We do not live in a world where states act irrespective of their own problems to save strangers. There are always reasons and there are always hidden agendas. Iraq is now a US client state. Clap clap. This isnt freedom.

Next, in every time in history, It has been shown that democratic rule has benifited a country economicly because of freedom of thought, as well as increased freedom of trade and information and collaboration. The better off a country is, the less likely its peoples will be so stressed, and the less likely it will be that they will act in violence. Becasue in a free society, there are other options to event change that violence. It is obvious isnt it? Challeng what ive said please, and dont just go about it in well your still wrong bit. I know your liberal and stuff, but just open your eyes a bit please?

Are you kidding me? Less stressed???? I dont know about you but capitalism drives people to suicide. It breaks up families. It forms the basis of every major social problem in the western societies. Im not a commie but even i realise its far far from perfect. I supposed you think helping poorer countries works?

Lets take the example of the IMF and World Bank. They are both based in the US with major US interests. They are meant to help 3rd world countries reform their economies etc etc to become prosperous. (cite Washington Consensus)
To do this they issue vast loans and then direct these countries to buy only US made goods or they have to open their markets and remove trade restrictions devestating what little industry they have etc etc. Yes on face value our 'giving' to the third world is aces. In reality its been heavily critisised and condemned by many of the nations who recieve the aid because of the horrific stipulations attached. We created the problem of the third world and noone wants to clean it up because if we did wed lose our competitive markets and we would lose global dominance. Some are poor. Some are rich. Thats how capitalism works. It essentially NEEDS poorer countries and states to perform. States which are not established as democracies in most cases.
I dont agree with it but im just refuting your point.

As for opening my eyes. Im certain ive studied and read far more literature on the subject of Intervention in the international society of states than you have. Afterall thats what i study at university. Just as a point you might want to go take "Saving Strangers" by Nick Wheeler out from your local library or buy online. Youd like it. Its very much a middle line 'english school' book but hes our professor at Aberystwyth. His views differ from mine slightly tho. Plus this is GD so i like to argue.

Next.. Of course Iraq isnt stable now. Of course it has brought instability to the region. Change ALWAYS causes a certain degree of instability. Perhaps Iraq was better off with Saddam that it is currently with bombs going off every 5 minutes and all that. I havnt said that All of bushes actions were perfect, he could have planned it better. But IN THE LONG TERM, aka 5-10-15 or 20 years, Iraq will be a better place, along with the entire middle east. Give it time, and then remember what i have said, and say. Oh my god, my pessimistic veiw on everything was patheticly wrong.

'certain degree'?
60 years Ago Israel didnt exist. When it was formally declared a state and then instantly recognised by the USA and Soviet Union all its arab neighbours launched an attack. This animosity has lasted half a century and more and continues today.
Israel was a 'change'. It brought democracy and western values to the middle east. I am citing this example just to prove how a major change like the toppling of a government or the institution of a new state can dramatically affect and endanger the very difficult balance of power in a region. Iraq has done this. Not to the same extent isreal did but nonetheless its stupid to say 'itll all be ok in a few years'.


And who are you or the west to determine that it is your RIGHT to "civilise" an entire region of people?
This is by far THE most arrogant and political / historically and morally naieve thing to think in the history of stupid things to think.

How will the wars in afganistan and Iraq bring improvements to the middle east? Well, that will mean there are 3 free countries that are close geologically. And Ideologically. Other peoples, seeing these peoples freedom, success, and prosper will say "thats what i want, thats what our country needs". ANd, history has shown, that free countries help imprissoned contries become free, and once the people inside the imprisoned contries see the benifits of freedom, they will question their tyranical leaders and demand the freedom they deserve. Its really is that simple. With only a few complexities in between.

This is the age old 'the reason the world doesnt like america is because their all jealous of our freedoms'.
History has shown nothing of the sort. having 3 closely geographically located countries is all great for military operations but it does jackshit in terms of swinging ideological belief. You are referring to a 'domino theory' of democracy. Are you kidding? They tried that in Vietnam and it proved utter crap. There is no such thing as domino theory. Politics is not a game of dominoes with one country changing because its neighbours do. International society is far more complex. It is a game of chess. Never dominoes.

Take Egypt. For years under Nasser it pursued an anti-west policy. Attacking Israel and threatening full scale war over the west bank culminating in the 6 day war of the 1960's. When nasser died Sadat realised that to restock and rearm his country he would have to align with America because the Soviet union coulnt provide the stuff they needed. He did so and a dramatic turnaround of policy occured. Do you think all the other arab countries said "oh wait your right!".

No
they didnt
Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and condemned by its previous allies for such a blatent turnaround.

Saying that the fall of Iraq into a "democracy" (an american controlled democracy - which isnt really democracy at all) will cause the Iran/Syria et al to suddenly have massive revolutions is a joke.

IT as already been shown that the war in Iraq as improved certain parts of the middle east. Libya is an example.

That wasnt to do with Iraq. Libya began realigning herself slowly at the end of the cold war.
[/quote]

cost=
money to pay for the war
lives lost
the cost to rebuild Iraq
the funding that the new Iraqi government will need
Risk

Id say is pretty clear that the costs outway the profits.\

[/quote]


You make the money back a trillion times over in the long term. Plus you have a new client when Israel is proving very unreliable and unresponsive to even the greatest of Pressure from the US State Department.
The cost to build iraq generates business for western companies. Hey ho......economics comes into play. Government invest in contracts. Contracts then pay tax and spend money on western products. Western economies head upwards.

Risk ?

What risk? Positioning an army 200,000 strong with the latest military hardware on the borders of a backward country with no WMD's. No cruise missiles and only old Soviet Tanks and a few Mig Fighters to show for resitance isnt a 'risk'. Its like turning upto a sword fight with bodyarmour and a machine gun.

I wasnt complaining.. and fyi, gas prices are high because our oil refineries suck.



Ofcourse, colin powel said there were no links, BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11. NOT SADDAM and TERRORIST. THere is 100% evidence that he atleast funded terrorist homicided bombings.

proof please......

Yes, and im sure that Iran has air tight boarders.. i didnt say it would be with permission. As for tell tale signs.. what about dual use factories? Making Aspirin or WMD? Whose to say, you need the same ingrediance.

Iran has been IRaqs enemy for years. Putting weapons in it secretly would be the dumbest thing Saddam could ever have done. If ever found out (which is likely) iran wouldve launched an attack because it wouldve been percieved as an imminent chemical or biological attack on Iran. IT would be madness

americas poverty level and the african poverty level are extreamely different. False anology.

It was used in a lecture i attended. Cant remember the speaker but i was given figures to prove it. Those below the poverty line. Those without shelter, food and basic sanitation in american are the same in number as a small-av. size african 3rd world nation

We have pressured china to increase its civil liberties, in fact it was one of the requirements for US/China trade. Not to menchion the fact that Killing newborns is not Government policy, but instead as a result of their policy.

Please dont address Turkey, N.Korea, Iran, Multiple African nations etc etc.....Selectivity it seems runs through you too.

If the poll was conducted by the US STATE DEPARTMENT then why is CBS (a liberal news station) reporting on it? WHy cant i find it anywhere else for that matter? Al Jazeera is hardly reliable. Thats like using Fox News for all your information. But worse.

I had it in my favorites because i used it for a quote but i now get a 404 error :/
Al Jazeera is based in Quatar. Its made up of a lot of ex BBC staff who were tired of the 'western moral' press thing all the time and restrictions on what could be said. It is very quickly becoming known for its very professional and very informative journalism. It is not Fox News.
I read the website from time to time and its not 'over the top anti american' its informative and gives more of the picture than the bbc sometimes do.
Id count it as one of the best news sources currently available tbh.

Again, your missing the point. I didnt say AMERICAN CULTURE, I said Western Culture. Personal freedoms right to vote and the such.



not because you cant, but that you dont try. Instead you like to wallow in pessimism.

im not pessimistic. Im a realist. I dont believe we should interfere in other states practice unless they pose an immediate threat or danger or massive human rights violations are occuring. We have no right under international law to do so. Check the UN charter on this one.


oh and you are still being pedantic but i addressed this earlier

Yes. War is bad. But war is needed at times to improve the world. This war wasnt just about Saddam. It was about the entire middle east. About restructuring it into a free society. NOT AN AMERICAN ONE. A free one. You cant really clame that once we free'd europe from Hitler we turned it into america? Can you. No. So why clame now that we are trying to turn Iraq into America? Does not Follow...

christ.
a 'free society'
how ****ing arrogant can you get. WHAT IF THEY DONT WANT TO BE RESTRUCTURED.
And you didnt 'free europe'
Europe had fought hitler for years before america finally intervened. THe comparison between the middle east and europe is totally irrational and unfounded. Two very different episodes. Two very different cultures. there are 0 simliarities.

however your very fond of mentioning ww2 so heres some food for thought.

hitler passed the "enabling act" which shares alot in common with the "US Patriot" act.
He opened up "interrogation camps" where he sent people to or be tortured.

the US has opened up Camp XRay and soon Camp Justice. Both have been condemned for their human rights violations.

Hitler also proclaimed that he would unite europe and remove the jewish scum who subvert its politics and create the problems.

You are claiming you will rid the middle east of the extreme islamic folk who subvert their countries and stop the people from being free.


see how absolutely ****ing stupid it is to draw comparisons? None of the previous statements are good. Theyre all shit. but its what yours look like.

You have NO right to march into a country with an army and demand it changes government. Have you ever heard about the 30 years war? It was when Europe battled with itself before America wasnt even born as a nation. We destroyed eachother. Thousands were killed and entire towns and cities torched.
At the end we all signed the Treaty of Westphalia which still provides the intial framework for the society of states in which we live. i..e the idea of Soviernty being at the very forefront of importance.

You cannot breach that soverignty. Some would argue you should never break it. Altho i tend to disagree and thing there are times when it does not give a 'right' to do as you please. (Kofi Annan after the Rwandan crisis said the same thing).

So your 'restructuring' is utter bullshit. How dare you even say you want to restructure it to make it 'better'. What is better? Is it what you consider better? What is free? Being subjected to the whimsical markets of the Untied States and the Western world or having all your industry bombarded by cheap western products? I think not.

Or what about a government who cant say boo without permission from another nation incase it clashes with a wider foreign policy.

Restructuring is the most arrogant thing youve said so far. I applaud you.

Oh, so thats what youve been saying? I mean really. Come on. The Media is being blamed for being TOO ANTI-WAR. For making up for not asking questions before the war, they are only pointing out the bad parts of Iraq.

It had Facts. Your refused to except them

No figures or reference? So you point out some insain liberals to prove our argument.. and you claim they are reliable resources? Please.

Im not a liberal tbh. Im a realist and as a reslist i dont believe we should intervene unless our own interests are at stake. I also have faith in the world system as it stands and breaching it can only lead to anarchy and a new colonialism which is not freedom at all. The media is being blamed for being too anti-war by the Bush administration who oddly enough 'took the country to war in the first place. Can you see why they might say this?

They do not point out just the bad points of Iraq. Just today i heard that free elections were being held in the southern british controlled part of Iraq succesfully.

Heres some 'thinkers' and writers for you to ponder over :

Carl Von Clausewitz - "On War"
Nick Wheeler - "Saving Strangers"
Ken Booth and Tim Dunne "Worlds in Collision – Terror and the Future of Global Order"
Gore Vidal - Dreaming War
Henry Kissinger - Does America need a new foreign policy
Steven E Amrbose - Rise to Globalisation
Tariq Ali - Clash of the Fundmentalisms.
Noam Chomsky - The New Military Humanism
Noam Chomsky - Rogue States


Theres so many more but im tired and i cant remember them all. If you want a full list of people to read then ask when i post this and ill dig up the books i have.

And other honerable menchions




Sure, if your experts are the taliban? Names? reference? Quotes? figures? or is that your opinion.

The people i read have access to the quotes/figures/names etc. I can get them if i want but the people i read are well respected and hardly what one would consider 'extremists'. Those who are i take lightly.

Then id consider you a reasonable person who just doesnt like this war.

Its not the war i dont like. Its what it represents that scares me more.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Looking back on my post I just realised I wasn't being sarcastic at all. My bad.

The irony of it all has me baffled.

PS. By 'sarcasm', I was reffering to your mention of the vitures of irony. Sarcasm and irony are (almost) one and the same.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Carl Von Clausewitz - "On War"

Carl with a K you ****ing arts student. Also, there's a reason someone bothered to invent neo-clausewitzian politics.

Originally Posted by Boogster

The irony of it all has me baffled.

PS. By 'sarcasm', I was reffering to your mention of the vitures of irony. Sarcasm and irony are (almost) one and the same.

Neither was I being ironic. It's part of my meta-belief structure which includes the fact that the universe was created by a giant rabbit living in a cloaked ship orbiting Jupiter.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

American/Western. They are one and the same. This is pedantic. You know what i was 'getting at'. Western Centric Morality is quite a widely discussed topic in politics circles

Did you answer the question, or burble jargon?

At what cost precisely do you plan to bring these wide sweeping changes. The cost of thousands of innocent lives and a bloodbath of explosion after explosion rippling through major cities. Or what about the shortage of basic things like power and water for months on end following the end of hostilities.

You speak of the cost of war as if you have been taught that war cost nothing.

It does. Inevitably.

However, I believe that war will, in the long term, cost the Iraqi people less than Saddam cost them.

Are you kidding me? Less stressed???? I dont know about you but capitalism drives people to suicide. It breaks up families. It forms the basis of every major social problem in the western societies. Im not a commie but even i realise its far far from perfect. I supposed you think helping poorer countries works?

Hah. In my opinion, it is not capitalism that drives people to suicide, that breaks up families - but people themselves. Capitalism is, like it or not, a reflection (in part) of human nature.

...nonetheless its stupid to say 'itll all be ok in a few years'.

Correction: it is stupid to remain optimistic without taking any action, but more stupid for you to insist that your version of the future is any more unlikely than anyone elses.

Saying that the fall of Iraq into a "democracy" (an american controlled democracy - which isnt really democracy at all) will cause the Iran/Syria et al to suddenly have massive revolutions is a joke.

Yes, that's right. Criticise America for leaving prematurely, or criticise them for staying.

Are you suggesting that their are no other factors involved in Iraq's future but America's presence? What about Nato?

cost=
money to pay for the war
lives lost
the cost to rebuild Iraq
the funding that the new Iraqi government will need
Risk

Id say is pretty clear that the costs outway the profits.\

I'd argue differently, considering Saddam's history of genocide and oppression.

I had it in my favorites because i used it for a quote but i now get a 404 error :/
Al Jazeera is based in Quatar. Its made up of a lot of ex BBC staff who were tired of the 'western moral' press thing all the time and restrictions on what could be said. It is very quickly becoming known for its very professional and very informative journalism. It is not Fox News.
I read the website from time to time and its not 'over the top anti american' its informative and gives more of the picture than the bbc sometimes do.
Id count it as one of the best news sources currently available tbh.

They do like their terrorist sources don't they. And that isn't suspicious at all? Remember, you don't trust America's intentions - why do you trust Al Jazeera?

hitler passed the "enabling act" which shares alot in common with the "US Patriot" act.
He opened up "interrogation camps" where he sent people to or be tortured.

#1. Actually, the Patriot Act doesn't appear to give Bush unlimited dictatorial powers, as was the purpose of the Enabling Act.

#2. If you remember, the Enabling Act was voted in through suppression and coercion of opposition. The Patriot Act was voted in democratically.

the US has opened up Camp XRay and soon Camp Justice. Both have been condemned for their human rights violations.

Hardly Auschwitz.

Hitler also proclaimed that he would unite europe and remove the jewish scum who subvert its politics and create the problems.

Also? When did Bush promise to rid the world of the 'jewish scum'?

see how absolutely ****ing stupid it is to draw comparisons? None of the previous statements are good. Theyre all shit. but its what yours look like.

Oh, ok then - as long as we're understood.

So your 'restructuring' is utter bullshit. How dare you even say you want to restructure it to make it 'better'. What is better? Is it what you consider better? What is free? Being subjected to the whimsical markets of the Untied States and the Western world or having all your industry bombarded by cheap western products? I think not.

Intrestingly, I do actually consider that preferable to rule under Saddam.

Im not a liberal tbh. Im a realist and as a reslist i dont believe we should intervene unless our own interests are at stake.

Forgive me, but please don't hate George Bush for being immoral if the above is true.

They do not point out just the bad points of Iraq. Just today i heard that free elections were being held in the southern british controlled part of Iraq succesfully.

The media loves bad news. It has a virtual monopoly.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Neither was I being ironic. It's part of my meta-belief structure which includes the fact that the universe was created by a giant rabbit living in a cloaked ship orbiting Jupiter.

'Oh'.

PS. lol.

[Qdeathstar]

you guys are so good, and thanks Boogster... for the come back on JammyJim, whether you agree with me or not.. i dont have the time or the energy atm.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

you guys are so good, and thanks Boogster... for the come back on JammyJim, whether you agree with me or not.. i dont have the time or the energy atm.

tokyo, hong-kong, tokyo, hong-kong, tokyo, hong-kong

[Qdeathstar]

yes, i know the DIFFFERENCE. TOKYO IS IN JAPAN. GIVE ME A ****ING BREAK PLEASE GODDAMIT.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

yes, i know the DIFFFERENCE. TOKYO IS IN JAPAN. GIVE ME A ****ING BREAK PLEASE GODDAMIT.

meeeaaawww pussy cat

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Except that the war on terror has been defined as a war on terror anywhere

There was very little terror in Iraq, Iraq was never a breeding ground for Al Qaeda they simply supported bereaved families in the occupied territories, groups which haven’t targeted the US in what, 20 years ? If you were concerned about terrorism anywhere in the world your marines should be storming around Ireland hauling in members of the IRA rather than attending diplomatic functions or better still you could be delivering a few cruise missiles into down town Tel Aviv , there’s a state that really does sponsor terrorism and extra judicial killing. Iraq wasn't a war about terror, it's stupid to even claim that it is, so basically stop.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yeah, but he was saying that our poor are as poor as African

In relative terms they are.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The economist is a vehemently liberal bias newspaper. But besides that. It doenst name the experts who agree or disagree with that satement, so it is impossible to determin what "most is" Most liberal experts? Or it could just be made up. All news isnt reliable news O.o

The economist is the voice of the establishment, it was and still is exceptionally pro war. It certainly doesn’t have a huge liberal bias.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yes. He gave us a tax cut when the economy was at its lowest point, and where we were getting paid the least, if at all because of high unemployment. As the economy continues to improve, so will our pay, and so we will be able to better afford a tax increase? what was your point? We needed it then when the economy was week, but not that it has strengthened, we can pay more back to the government.

You really have no understanding of economics, lower taxes during recessions only works in theory it runs that lowering taxes should boost consumption and hence increase jobs however it operates with a lag and there’s large amounts of empirical evidence that the effect is either negligible to the recession because of the lag and t will actually hurt the economy destabilising it when it begins to boom again, there’s also large amounts of evidence people are sensible enough to save any tax cuts they get when they realise that they won’t be matched by spending cuts and that they’ll have to pay the money back with interest, Regan unsuccessfully tried the exact same thing in the 1980s. The government’s deficit doesn’t just remain static it grows so even though you may be better able to pay back more you’ll have to pay back more. Also by running a deficit national saving is decreased and uncertainty is increased both of these mean that investment goes down hurting the economy in the long run, you can thank Bush in 2020ish when the pension crisis starts to kick in early and it’s much much worse because Bush blew your budget surplus on a tax cut to help get re-elected.

[Vaio]

IF QDeafstar and all his buddies are so proud of their great leader (GROSFAZ ?) can we expect to see them volunteering to help keep the peace in Iraq ?

~Vaio~

[Nofutcha]

Qdeathstar, those books that pointed out and made fun of George's grammatical mistakes were just making fun. You werent supposed to use them as text books.

Seriously though, your arguments are straight from american news sources, and you have so far presented them without any credibilty and appear to have no clue as to the matter at hand.

The more you are typing, the more foolish you are looking. Learn how to spell before you come onto the forums claiming to know all there is about the war while not backing it up with any facts at all.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yes. He gave us a tax cut when the economy was at its lowest point, and where we were getting paid the least, if at all because of high unemployment. As the economy continues to improve, so will our pay, and so we will be able to better afford a tax increase? what was your point? We needed it then when the economy was week, but not that it has strengthened, we can pay more back to the government.

Herbert Hoover HERBERT HOOVER HERBERT HOOVER HERBERT HOOVER

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Did you answer the question, or burble jargon?

I was answering his burble? So infact no im not...

You speak of the cost of war as if you have been taught that war cost nothing.

It does. Inevitably.

However, I believe that war will, in the long term, cost the Iraqi people less than Saddam cost them.

It also benefits the west hugely in the long term. Your a fool if you think otherwise. We have now overthrown an unfriendly regime which controlled massive oil supplies and was a very important force in the middle east and replaced it with a west friendly government who will not step out of line with American or its allies wishes.

Its just old style colonialism. It really is.

Hah. In my opinion, it is not capitalism that drives people to suicide, that breaks up families - but people themselves. Capitalism is, like it or not, a reflection (in part) of human nature.

I dont disagree. however it is definitly not the best thing we can hope to achieve and what rights do we have to push it onto anyone else especially when they dont want it.

Correction: it is stupid to remain optimistic without taking any action, but more stupid for you to insist that your version of the future is any more unlikely than anyone elses.

Im not saying that. Its not what happens to Iraq that concerns me because there is no 'going back' now. Its inevitable it will become another US-Client state reliant on western support and viewed with care by its arab neighbours.
It is the precedent Iraq has set that is important. For the first time since colonialism we have actively used military power to overthrow and reinstate a western friendly government to 'Civilise the people' and bring them 'freedom'. This is precsiely what the British did back in the 19th century to half the world.
America condemned this. Now it continues the tradition.
This wasnt normal western style subvertion using underhanded tactics or supporting rival factions within a country to try and overthrow a government it was the actual placement of an Army and invasion of a soverign nation which posed no threat to international peace and security.

If Saddam had the WMD and as according to the dossier was ready to launch within 10minutes on any Western target then we shouldve taken him out and removed him from power as quickly as possible. However he wasnt. It was all made up and exaggerated to propel us into a false and phony war for the wrong reasons.

Yes, that's right. Criticise America for leaving prematurely, or criticise them for staying.

when they shouldnt be there in the first place....


Also, before Iraq the US State department under Colin Powel had drawn up comprehensive 'After-war' plans as to what should be done and set objectives. It was shot down in a cabinet meeting by Rumsfeld and the Defence department who said that the US and allies could "deal with that when necessary".

So we went to war. We destroyed the infrastructure and then we had no clue as to what to do when we won. For nearly a year power shortages/ water shortages etc etc. All because of utterly shit planning.
At least if we do it we should be prepared.

(this source is from a distinguished speaker who came and talked to us at Aber. Hes a Harvard professor i believe...i can get his name if i check back through notes but hey ho thatd take ages)

Are you suggesting that their are no other factors involved in Iraq's future but America's presence? What about Nato?

No of course not. Alot will depend upon how its Arab neighbours feel about another US influenced state in the region along with Israel. seeing as the US has not proved that it doesnt really need much of a reason apart from "you dont fit in with what we think is the correct way to act or the correct form of government to posess" it can now target any nation anywhere in the world.

I'd argue differently, considering Saddam's history of genocide and oppression.

Genocide? He killed Kurdish minority groups after being told that the US had no 'feelings on the matter' and it was an 'internal Iraqi problem'.
turkey kills kurds too....they dont get critisised?
Saddam was opressive nonetheless so yes but it still gives you no right to intervene for the 'greater good'.

are you seriously saying that this intervention in Iraq was humanitarian?

If so read this :

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

It was written by human rights watch. It explains how it is NOT a humanitarian intervention.

They do like their terrorist sources don't they. And that isn't suspicious at all? Remember, you don't trust America's intentions - why do you trust Al Jazeera?

The source was the US State Department so thats quite funny really. I dont trust Al-jazeera as far as i can throw them on some things. Of course theres going to be bias in the same way the BBC is biased. However in the grand scheme of things if i read two news sources and both report the facts slightly differently then i know that im not gettting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore i know its a little more tricky than it would appear on western media stations. If you read both theres no reason why they both cant be useful as news sources.

#1. Actually, the Patriot Act doesn't appear to give Bush unlimited dictatorial powers, as was the purpose of the Enabling Act.

True but it does have similarities. It has been mentioned before but that entire paragraph i wrote was merely a 'look i can do it too'. WW2 and Iraq have no simliarities whatsoever apart from the both involved death and guns being fired.

#2. If you remember, the Enabling Act was voted in through suppression and coercion of opposition. The Patriot Act was voted in democratically.




Hardly Auschwitz.



Also? When did Bush promise to rid the world of the 'jewish scum'?



Oh, ok then - as long as we're understood.

blah blah

Intrestingly, I do actually consider that preferable to rule under Saddam.



Forgive me, but please don't hate George Bush for being immoral if the above is true.



The media loves bad news. It has a virtual monopoly.

true

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

It also benefits the west hugely in the long term. Your a fool if you think otherwise. We have now overthrown an unfriendly regime which controlled massive oil supplies and was a very important force in the middle east and replaced it with a west friendly government who will not step out of line with American or its allies wishes.

Assuming the govenment still exists in 6 months.

[edit]

JJ, for a forum admin, you do have the worst use of vb code I've ever seen. In every single post, you've screwed up (with bold, with quotes, and now with leaving a ****load of space)

[acropolis]

giving bush his due, a few days ago i twas thinking "if I were a complete ****wit like Bush i would do the handover a few days early, so that whatever bombs are scheduled to go off in the middle of the ceremony don't make much of a difference."

Which he actually did (i think he did at least. maybe no one told him). So the 'handover' went off without a hitch. And by 'handover' i mean the purely symbolic photo op.

Now, if I were in charge, we'd be having an 11 hour ceremony replete with traditional choreographed dances and speeches that would turn Castro green (with envy etc). But with the ****wit in chief, this is probably best-case-scenario right here.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Assuming the govenment still exists in 6 months.

[edit]

JJ, for a forum admin, you do have the worst use of vb code I've ever seen. In every single post, you've screwed up (with bold, with quotes, and now with leaving a ****load of space)

[b] I KNOW i have

no clue

how to use [/i]

 half

of this crap

[KaneED]

I ahven't read it all yet. But Roosevelt not Woodrow Wilson.

Win!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

giving bush his due, a few days ago i twas thinking "if I were a complete ****wit like Bush i would do the handover a few days early, so that whatever bombs are scheduled to go off in the middle of the ceremony don't make much of a difference."

Which he actually did (i think he did at least. maybe no one told him). So the 'handover' went off without a hitch. And by 'handover' i mean the purely symbolic photo op.

Now, if I were in charge, we'd be having an 11 hour ceremony replete with traditional choreographed dances and speeches that would turn Castro green (with envy etc). But with the ****wit in chief, this is probably best-case-scenario right here.

As the handover is essentially symbolic, what would be the point of an 11 hour ceremony? That would be a bit like gilding the plastic lily.

[Vermillion]

Dear God people... I was going to post a nice long diatribe tearing QDeathStar and his silly opinions and inaccurate facts a new butt hole, but is there really any point anymore?

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Dear God people... I was going to post a nice long diatribe tearing QDeathStar and his silly opinions and inaccurate facts a new butt hole, but is there really any point anymore?

do it for fun

[Qdeathstar]

yes do it for fun, O.o

AND.

You really have no understanding of economics, lower taxes during recessions only works in theory it runs that lowering taxes should boost consumption and hence increase jobs however it operates with a lag

Hey! Look at it. Thats what the economy just did. Boosted consumtion, and now we are increase jobs. Operating with a lag. Wow. Imagine that. A theory of economics actually working. :-/ Idiot.

Its just old style colonialism. It really is.

How? Are we imposing taxes on Iraq? Are only allowing Iraq to trade with us? Are we not allowing Iraq to produce finished goods? How is it all like old style colonialism? Do you even know what that is.. are is it just a catch phrase? For you?

For the first time since colonialism we have actively used military power to overthrow and reinstate a western friendly government to 'Civilise the people' and bring them 'freedom'.

Maybe you missed it. We arnt there to civilize the people, just their rulers. And its not the first time since colonization we have done this. WW1, WW2, Veitname, ColdWar, Korean War... ect ect.. have all been fought to free people. :-/ Idiot.

human rights watch

happens to be against war for any reason. So their bit may be subjective, and it doenst look at the past and future, only the present. Which this war clearly wasnt about.

The source was the US State Department so thats quite funny really

Evidence please?

WW2 and Iraq have no simliarities

Yes, They do. Have plunty. ive given 3 presentations on the simularities. I have a power point on the matter. Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about appeasement.

[/quote]blah blah [/quote]

So this is what it sounds like when you dont have an arugument

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

...Veitname[sic]... have all been fought to free people.

[Qdeathstar]

that was the idea... but... it didnt work.

[StaticX]

[QUOTE
Yes, They do. Have plunty. ive given 3 presentations on the simularities. I have a power point on the matter. Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about appeasement.
QUOTE]

Iraq and Nazi Germanty are not the same thing, if you knew anything about Nazi Germany you would understand that. noone has ever appeased Saddam Hussain and he was not a threat, unlike Germany which was attempting (and suceeding) to take over pretty much everywhere.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

yes do it for fun, O.o

Hey! Look at it. Thats what the economy just did. Boosted consumtion, and now we are increase jobs. Operating with a lag. Wow. Imagine that. A theory of economics actually working. :-/ Idiot.

*sigh* if only economics was so easy. I wouldnt have to bother studying it at uni.

'consumPtion' - you would think with him spelling it, you also would be able to copy.

Maybe you missed it. We arnt there to civilize the people, just their rulers. And its not the first time since colonization we have done this. WW1, WW2, Veitname, ColdWar, Korean War... ect ect.. have all been fought to free people. :-/ Idiot.

i don't think you understand what he is trying to say. You can't free people when you invade them without their permission

Yes, They do. Have plunty. ive given 3 presentations on the simularities. I have a power point on the matter. Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about appeasement.

homework:

Plenty
Similarities

Write them down 10 times each...then spell them aloud. When you are confident of your ability to spell them unaided give yourself a double-cheeseburger with extra large fries and extra large milkshake (if that is not enough buy some ice cream)

[Phang]

((Zar: it's called a smartie. sorry.))

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Phang

((Zar: it's called a smartie. sorry.))

heh - thats nice and amusing.

I had originally spelt it as "smartie", then when i re-read what i had written.. looked at my spelling of "smartie" .. wondered if it was wrong...didnt want to look stupid when correcting someone elses spelling - so i changed it to "smarty"

oh well i guess the joke is on me

edit: not so amusing

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

that was the idea... but... it didnt work.

nothing to do with a bizarre and paranoid foreign policy that identified all communists, including probably their closest ally, as a genuine threat despite all evidence perhaps?

[Boogster]

Oh Hindsight, why are you so debased?

New topic of discussion: Are all historians arrogant?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Oh Hindsight, why are you so debased?

New topic of discussion: Are all historians arrogant?

whats the point of knowing stuff if you cant be arrogant about it?

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Dear God people... I was going to post a nice long diatribe tearing QDeathStar and his silly opinions and inaccurate facts a new butt hole, but is there really any point anymore?

It seems pointless because basic concepts such as Soverignty, International Law etc fall on deaf ears :-(

And we still get dragged back into the "This is not comparable to WW2" everytime he posts.....

*sigh*

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Hey! Look at it. Thats what the economy just did. Boosted consumtion, and now we are increase jobs. Operating with a lag. Wow. Imagine that. A theory of economics actually working. :-/ Idiot.

By the time it kicks in the economy will be back on track, the boost given to the economy will simply destabilise the boom and cause it to overheat, this is one of the main arguments against stabilisation policy. Also like I said when it comes to deficit financed tax cuts anyone who isn’t a moron would save it realising they’ll have to pay it back with interest. There's reams of empirical evidence to back up the fact that deficite financed tax cuts don't help pull a country out of recession, if your that interested go look some up. I’m glad I’m an idiot when it comes to economics, it makes me think I've wasted three years of my life getting an economics degree and am about to waste another one doing a masters in it, especially when some stupid American can prove it’s all wrong in three lines because he saw it on CNN

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

How? Are we imposing taxes on Iraq? Are only allowing Iraq to trade with us? Are we not allowing Iraq to produce finished goods? How is it all like old style colonialism? Do you even know what that is.. are is it just a catch phrase? For you?

Its like old style colonialism because we have removed the power structure. Replaced it with one friendly to us and done so through military might. Its like the colonialism post WW1. Not the original form.
Your posts remind me of the British people who really did think they were doing a good thing. "Civliising the savages and bringing them western freedoms and wants". Ask any ex-colonial country if they wanted those and they will say no.

Maybe you missed it. We arnt there to civilize the people, just their rulers. And its not the first time since colonization we have done this. WW1, WW2, Veitname, ColdWar, Korean War... ect ect.. have all been fought to free people. :-/ Idiot.

WW1? You mean when Germany invaded half of Europe and we went to war over it? Or WW2 when the same thing happened?

We didnt attack them because we wanted regime change we attacked them because they posed a threat (no wait not even a threat) they WERE destroying international peace and security. Germany had INVADED other countries. IT was no longer a domestic problem they had made it an international problem. Vietnam was part of an american policy of containment and this is possibly the best example ever you couldve brought up.

Just like WW1 and WW2 it was fought for entirely different reasons. There was no regime to change just an idea to contain. Read about George Kennan etc.
Korean war again has no relevance.


Vietnam also failed.

The Cold War again was containment. We didnt ever ever overthrow regimes using force for fear of WW3 breaking out. It was always done behind the scenes (see Iran for example)



happens to be against war for any reason. So their bit may be subjective, and it doenst look at the past and future, only the present. Which this war clearly wasnt about.


THIS IS NOT ANOTHER 'CLASSIC WAR'.

this is an intervention to 'save the people' according to you hwich is infact a humanitarian intervention.

Evidence please?

Like i said its been taken offline and i cant find a simliar source because i cant remember what the poll was called

Yes, They do. Have plunty. ive given 3 presentations on the simularities. I have a power point on the matter. Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about appeasement.

Ho ho ho. You must be like A++ Intellect if youve given POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS on it. Perhaps you would like to learn the meaning of appeasment. And then the meaning of Soverignty.

Oh and while your in the library go look up the Humanitarian intervention section. There should be at least a thousand books on the subject and what criteria should be met.

Originally Posted by JammyJim

blah blah

I had already made my point above so the rest of the text realted to it hence the need for lack of comment....

So this is what it sounds like when you dont have an arugument

yes thats right..........sigh

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Also like I said when it comes to deficit financed tax cuts anyone who isn’t a moron would save it realising they’ll have to pay it back with interest.

Good ol' Ricardian equivalence, although I thought empirical evidence showed this wasnt too true. Plus, dont forget, there's many ways it can be violated.

[Vermillion]

And away we go...


Ok, I suppose I have to weigh in and try to deal with some of the startling ignorance typified by the post that started this thread. Many of you have already done an excellent job of dismantling Mr. QDeathStar, so I will add my small measure of knowledge to this online verbal version of pile-on-the-rabbit.


I will go through his arguments, such as they are, and end with his lovely “its the same as WWII” point, about which, I can humbly consider myself something of an expert, and not based on the fact that I have made a power point presentation on the subject.

Firstly, one note: Even the most anti-Iraq war people will not say they are sorry to see Saddam gone. Clearly he was an evil man, and nobody is really fervently wishing he were back in power. But why did the US take this action? What was the cost, and what are the implications? These are the reasons many people (over 55% and growing in the US according to polls) are anti-Iraq war.

So why did the US invade Iraq?

1) Links to terrorism.

Are there some links to terrorism in Iraq? Yes. Hussein promised to fund the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers. He also at one point funded Hamas a little bit, and apparently his dog one sniffed the butt of a dog belonging to a guy who's cousin may have worked for Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda tried to make inroads with Iraq, and Iraq refused. This is the single most important seminal point regarding the 9/11 commission’s findings. Iraq is a secular Baathist state, which has, on and off, been at war with one or more of its Islamic neighbours for most of its life. Al Qaeda is an ultra religious Islamic group based on the extreme principles of Wahhabism (A Saudi invention) dedicated to the overthrow of secular regimes (Including Saudi) and the creation of Islamic fundamentalist ones. Al Qaeda and Iraq hate each other ideologically, so much so that even when the two had a common enemy, Iraq refused to consider working with them. Here is no evidence at all of high level contact between Al Qaeda and Hussein, period.

Regarding other types of terrorism, such as Hamas and the PLO, here is an interesting point for you.

Hamas has a very active (and very nasty) terrorist wing, but also runs schools, orphanages, hospitals, food banks and other necessary utilities in the Palestinian territories. Unlike other terrorist organisations it cannot be painted with one brush. That is not to diminish the horror of its terrorist wing, just to provide perspective.

Hamas is funded by, among others: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Dhubai, Russia, and the list goes on. Europe only agreed to stop funding Hamas in September of last year, a decision they were reluctant to take:

“European countries were reluctant, partly to avoid cutting off lines of negotiation with Palestinians but mostly because of the degree to which people living in the West Bank and Gaza rely on groups like Hamas for health and welfare.” (AP via BBC September 2003)

Of all these funding nations though, surely Iraq ranks among the highest? Not even close, over HALF of Hamas’ funding comes from long time ally and arms purchaser Saudi Arabia. A quarter of it comes from Syria and Jordan, with remaining nations make up the remaining quarter, in addition to wealthy individuals, including several Israeli Arabs.

So THIS argument certainly is an excellent justification for war… against Saudi Arabia. Iraq on the other hand is one of the SMALLEST contributors to Hamas of all the nations in the Middle East.

Next the PLO. In 1988 the PLO made a bunch of its funding records public. According to those figures, in the years from 1973 to 1988, Saudi Arabia provided over 75% of all external funding to the PLO. Second highest external funder was Kuwait. After 1988 we do not have records, but we do know that one of the biggest funders of the PLO in the early 1990s was (no kidding) the United States of America. In July 2000, the US Congress appropriated $900 million in foreign aid to the PLO/PA, with the aim of moderating the PLO, distancing it from Hamas and inducing compliance with commitments made in the peace process.

Iraq has not contributed and significant funds to the PLO in years, and at its PEAK was WAY behind a series of US allies and astonishingly, the United States itself. Again, so much for justification.


Next: Of ALL of the above ‘terror’ organisations, even if there WERE any solid links, NONE of them are terrorist organisations directed against the US, at best they are anti Israeli. Since we do not have ANY request from Israel asking for help or assistance at all, is the US just anti-terrorist in General? I seem to recall the original case was there were solid links between Hussein and Bin laden. That proved to be false, so then the right tried to link him with ANY source of terror. Of course if we are lashing out against funders of terror in general, perhaps we should look at other terror organisations like the IRA, which draws most of its funding from United States citizens.

So much for supporting terror. Next:

2) The existence of WMD.

Here we have one of the more laughable of your statements, that he would ship all his WMD off to Iran. Riiight. It has already been pointed out to you that the LAST place Iraq would send weapons would be to Iran, its oldest and longest enemy in the world. I remind you that when Iraqi pilots fled to Iran during the first Gulf war, they did so out of fear for their lives, not under Iraq orders. Every one of those pilots was declared traitor and sentenced to death in absentia by Hussein.

We know Iraq once had first generation chemical weapons (Used against Kurds and Iran) and it had an active chemical and biological weapons development program. That is ALL we know for sure.

The WMD argument falls flat on about four successive levels. Firstly, an enormous amount of his chemical and biological weapons programs were dismantled and destroyed following Iraq war Ver 1.0. The only things left over were unaccounted for possibilities of weapons never confirmed to exist in the first place. However, Iraq, in its declaration to the UN, explained exactly what had happened to the unaccounted weapons: they were destroyed by the US in bombing during the first Gulf war. Considering how publicly and loudly the US touted its attacks on suspected chemical and biological facilities at the time, this is not under dispute. Yet oddly, the US refused to accept this excuse at all. Odd, considering how loudly they had bragged during the first war about their targeting and destruction of these facilities, they now refused to accept that any of these facilities were destroyed. Either they were lying then or lying now, no other option.

So a new round of inspectors went in, under pressure from Bush, they found NOTHING. Blix reported NO reluctance or blocks to this new round of inspections, reported complete access, and BEGGED the US for more time to do his job. In the year and a half since the war, huge teams of US inspectors have found NOTHING.

The far right stuck to the absurd notion that they existed so they were either 1) buried or 2) sent abroad.

But why were they not used? Iraq was invaded twice, and the second time Hussein had to know his days as leader were numbered. Why exactly did he supposedly spend all this money developing WMD if he refused to use or deploy them in the darkest hours of his state? Not one shell fired, not one cloud of chemical weapons, nothing. Were the US invaded, would Bush have shown the same restraint? Or would he be lobbing around elements of the largest WMD stockpile in the world, that of the US?

As for burying and shipping abroad, we are not talking about a couple shells, we are talking about chemical biological and nuclear production facilities, that’s what we were told Iraq had. These are by definition massive complexes full of highly specialised equipment and tools, including heavy water reactors and cyclotrons and centrifuges in the case of nukes. Where are all these things? They neither shippable nor buryable, so what happened? Or, in fact, did they exist at all? Blix also reported while he was doing inspections that while the US said they knew where these production facilities were, the refused repeated please from the inspectors to TELL THEM where to look. Perhaps because it was all an invention...

So what other excuses were we given?

3) Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man.

This one is not arguable, Hussein was a very bad man. We have found mass graves containing an unknown number of people, high estimates go up to 300,000. Though that may be an exaggeration, it still gives a scale to his monstrosity. Well, the US had to put an end to his murdering, right?

Oh, but wait, who is in these mass graves? Political opponents, spies, and Kurds. Almost all Kurds. Hussein waged a massive campaign against Kurdish insurgents and rebels, and killed an awful lot of them.

But when did he do this? Hussein filled most of these graves in the mid 1980s, almost none of these mass graves are less than 15 years old. You may recall, back in the mid 1980s was when the US was busy selling weapons and supplies to their good buddy Saddam Hussein. So in fact, most of these massacres happened under the watch of the US of A. And its not like we didn’t know about it, his use of Mustard gas against the Kurds was very well publicised, we knew all along how bad he was, and the US sold him weapons during the worst excesses of his regime. Not only that, but in 1991, following the Gulf war, the US made the conscious decision to LEAVE Hussein in power, so apparently they did not think he was such a ‘very, very bad man’ then. So what happened since? What is the history of Iraq since the Gulf war ver 1.0?

Hussein normalised relations with his neighbours and built trade. He apologised to Kuwait, who opened their embassy again. He normalised relations with Iran for the first time in 20 years. In every way, he was a chastised leader behaving like a good little dictator. So what suddenly happened which made the US ‘realise’ he was a ‘very very bad man’?

No, the evils of Hussein argument is the most hypocritical of them all. When he was at his worst behaviour the US funded and supported him. When he was at his BEST behaviour, suddenly he was awful and needed to be removed by force.


So now what is the situation in Iraq? The oil industry is protected, and cannot be foreign owned, but that’s the ONLY industry so protected, Bremmer removed foreign ownership laws on all other Iraq businesses, and most of them have been purchased at bargain prices by US firms. Iraq still has 130,000 troops in it, so it will remain a friendly state, it is free in the same way Afghanistan was free following the Soviet Invasion. They also handed over sovereignty, set up a friendly government, and left their troops there. Almost identical situation in fact. They even promised democratic elections.

Peace Kills long term, War heals long term. History has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please do not quote ‘history’ as if you know what you are talking about. What the heck does this even mean?

ANd let me point out that Iraq and Afganistan as Arab havens for democracy will only help ease the Arab-weastern world tentions.

Ah yes, Afghanistan, lets talk about that. Not too reported in the US media I notice was the seizure of a major Afghani town by the rebels a week ago, which the nascent Afghan military was unable to prevent, and tiny coalition forces did not intervene. An estimated 15% of the country is still under the control of the Taliban, while 35-40% of the country is under the control of formerly pro-Western Warlords who do not recognise the new government. Human rights abuses have not decreased, women are still subjugated terribly, and the opium trade is flourishing again. Coalition forces will not patrol outcide kabul in anything less than closed armoured vehicles due to the danger of attack.

Now, with the focus on Iraq, Al Qaeda forces are growing again in Afghanistan, killing government officials, census takers, and US and coalition attacks are on the increase. Nice job there.

Iraq is a long way from a democracy, attacks and US deaths are again on the rise there as well, and the handover of power was moved up two days for fear of insurgent rebel attacks on the ceremony, does not sound terribly secure to me. In the meantime, 900+ US soldiers, over 200 coalition soldiers (mostly British) and an unknown number of Iraqi civilians, certainly over 10,000 are dead, Al Qaeda, who never had a presence before in Iraq are now recruiting and flourishing there, and there is no easy end in sight. Nice job here too.

In the meantime, the ‘stability’ it has brought to the Middle east includes bloodshed and much increased terrorism in Saudi Arabia, fear and truculence from Iran including an announcement several days ago that they will proceed with their nuclear weapons program in order to protect themselves, Increased bloodshed in Israel, which has used the mantra of ‘war on terror’ and its unwavering, blind support from the Bush administration to back away from peace with the Palestinians, and Islamic insurgence in nearly every nation in the region including Jordan, Turkey, Syria and even Egypt. In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, who before 9/11 was reviled and the subject of discussions of sanctions for deposing the elected leader and imposing a military rule, is now firmly in place as another ‘friend’ of the USA and using his newfound authority to strike at Islamic militants and Al Qaeda, but also at any political parties or opponents of his regime. Saudi Arabia, the largest sponsor of terror in the world, the source of Bin laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, the source of 90% of Bin Laden’s funding, is also the largest single purchaser of US weapons and armaments in the world today. REALLY nice job there.


But wait, there’s more. In the January/February issue of the Atlantic there was an article by James Fallows in which he described how Bush refused to allow any post-war planning for Iraq prior to the invasion, because he felt the conclusions would be anti-war.

“Because detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing costs and potential problems, and thus weakened the case for launching a "war of choice" (the Washington term for a war not waged in immediate self-defense), it could be seen as an "antiwar" undertaking.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm

Following the war Bush completely and intentionally ignored the few recommendations he had received from his planners, with devastating consequences. I recommend you read the article, it is quite damning. For his ignorance and bullheadedness, Bush even refused to listen to his own advisors, and the situation in Iraq was much worse, as time after time his advisors were proven correct, and he was proven wrong.


Lastly, my favourite: “It’s like the Second World War”. You may have given several power point “presuntations” to… so somebody, but you are still bafflingly and astonishingly wrong.

You have made no actual arguments stating a similarity, just asserted it and referred to all your power point presentations. Given that you never actually made an argument, it is difficult to refute. Tell you what, why not explain to me how you feel these events are similar? And please, if I may be so bold, I forgotten more than you even knew about appeasement, so please be as specific as you like.


The war in Iraq was launched by a simpleton based on hypocrisy and falsehoods. It deposed an evil man who the US had previously supported, and left a hole in the middle east we still do not know how it will be filled. If it does turn out well, it will be despite Bush, not because of him.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Ask any ex-colonial country if they wanted those and they will say no.

We keep on going round this topic, and the general concensus is always 'It's impossible to test, so it's meaningless'

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

And away we go...

*snip*.

Now THATS an well thought out, pointed, correct, heart felt argument.Take note QDeathstar

[Ste]

Can always rely on Vermillion to take the time to write a response that clarifies what most people are saying, groups it together, backs it up, adds more then puts it in a language that anyone can understand!

Will we actually get a reply from QDeathstar? or will he just reply with a "no, your rong :-/ idiot"

[JammyJim]

Vermillion i may need to pick your brains for upcoming third year uni essays :-)

Im fairly sure a discussion wouldve come in handy for my last paper to do with Western influence and shaping of the Middle East.

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Good ol' Ricardian equivalence, although I thought empirical evidence showed this wasnt too true. Plus, dont forget, there's many ways it can be violated.

It holds to a point, I'd like to think there was a decent number of senisble people who would save it although I'm sure there's an equally large number of morons who go "monneeeeeeeeeee spend spend !".

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Hicks

It holds to a point, I'd like to think there was a decent number of senisble people who would save it although I'm sure there's an equally large number of morons who go "monneeeeeeeeeee spend spend !".

Think students with their loans...
How many spend theirs within a couple of weeks of getting it? I know so many who did!
PS2s, DVD's, clothes and of course, lots of alcohol!

[Zar]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

We keep on going round this topic, and the general concensus is always 'It's impossible to test, so it's meaningless'

countries dont fight for independence if they want to stay colonized

of course this only applied to a few of the colonies - so the ambiguity remains for the others

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Zar

countries dont fight for independance if they want to stay colonized

That doesn't mean that colonialism is a bad thing, or is resented by colonials, or was evil, or whatever, per se.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That doesn't mean that colonialism is a bad thing, or is resented by colonials, or was evil, or whatever, per se.

agreed it doesnt mean it was evil or a bad thing...

however if a country fights for its independence its most obiviously "unwanted" by that country (thats if we assume the people fighting for the independence are representative of the entire nation)