| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:11 |
 bhikkhu wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
|
Sorry guys, it was about liberating Kuwaiti oil fields.
I remember well how Bush Sr was castigated for not going to Baghdad. The whimp bullsh*t was all over the place. As it turned out, his was a much better calculated approach. Saddam was left in power at the time because they thought he learned his lesson and would behave, i.e. he woudl keep Iraq in order and oil flowing. NObody could predict that Saddam took it personally. But as we all can see now, destroying a modern state is a much easier task than maintaining order in a tribal society living in its ruins. THat was a huge mistake. What puzzles me is the fact that a number of high level people in present administration knew the reasoning for the abrupt ending of the first war and didn't take it into consideration while conducting the second one.
Edited by IVNORD - June 19 2007 at 00:14
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:03 |
|
I really don't get how "the media" especially CNN is liberally biased. I think they often report on stupid, insignificant stuff, but not in overly liberal. I think Fox news is balanced in a way, but they seem to be catering to rich, comfortable, white men, and their headlines often have a condescending air about them that i find distasteful, as if they're saying, "Oh look at those bloody plebeians! What a nuisance; always begging for civil rights and whatnot. Oh well, lets draw the blinds and smoke some more cigars while are stocks soar...."
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:56 |
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. Let’s pass on personal salvos. I just asked a question and you treated me as though I am Bill O’Reilly. Did it really show my attitude? You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. I’ve never said that. An American president is any president of the past 50 years or so. Would you agree that main pre-requisite for a president is being a mediocrity? If the man is too bright or too independent he’s perceived as dangerous, and they discredit and impeach him. To promote one’s personal interests on the level of US presidency, one has to have a very strong personality. In this sense, Mr. Bush is rather a typical president. So the personal interest as a cause of this war is a myth. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more. Are you implying that our main goal was to seize the oilfields in Iraq? The industrial nations learnt their lesson back in the 60’s. It’s much cheaper to pay for oil than cling to the colonial rule. Oil was definitely the main factor, but the war wasn’t conceived as a potential occupation.
I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative.
The media is just obnoxious. But don't worry, there is still Fox News. I try not to watch either CNN or Fox. And please let’s stop these personal innuendo.
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:21 |
|
Not only that Jody, Bush Sr. was proven correct to pull out when he did, seems to me.
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:20 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
|
|
|
|
TheProgtologist
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:17 |
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths.
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 22:39 |
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more.
I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative. But don't worry, there is still Fox News.
|
|
|
|
TheProgtologist
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 22:30 |
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL.
|
|
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 17:37 |
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 12:58 |
|
I think it's funny that so many people are against us trying to help people in Iraq but then call us inhuman for not wanting to help people in Darfur.
Me, I don't think it's our responsibility to help anyone, and I believe the war in Iraqq is about terrorism, not freeing people/
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 12:46 |
Badabec wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
I personally think he was less offending than you. He did not call you a fool or anything. Please let us discuss in a polite way or the admins may close or delete this interesting poll. Name calling is not my style. That was just an advice. There’s a certain air of arrogance in his phrase – there could be things obvious to me and obscure for him. The only thing obvious in his repeating after liberal media is the fact that it’s a beaten path leading nowhere.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never.
Well, there exist several documents that prove that the american gouvernment has most likely been interested in the great oilfields of Iraq and other countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arabian Emirates (documents by the NEPDG where Richard Cheney, Bush's vice president was the director).Protecting the energy sources has been long a cornerstone of US foreign policy. That’s what I’ve heard Jim Baker saying on TV a few years ago referring to the war. But of course, he’s retired. When he was in office his statements were so obtuse that the only thing one could get from them was that they’re doing something which you will not know what it is for quite a long time if ever. You will never hear a straight-forward talk from an acting politician. And the official version makes me throw up. So the oil fields are the main interest, but how is it personal? I do believe the system of checks and balances still works.
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
Oh yes, "you" were! Bush asserted that the United States has the duty to free people. If you do not believe me, please check this out and read this article: By “we” I meant us on this forum, not the US. For my view on the propaganda see above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
|
|
|
|
|
Badabec
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 10:23 |
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The
motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real
concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s
not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on
his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an
opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
I
personally think he was less offending than you. He did not call you a
fool or anything. Please let us discuss in a polite way or the admins
may close or delete this interesting poll.
Anyway, the first is
political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of
being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against
Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton.
Do you need more? Hope
it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a
figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest
in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A
president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic
– never.
Well,
there exist several documents that prove that the american gouvernment
has most likely been interested in the great oilfields of Iraq and
other countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arabian Emirates
(documents by the NEPDG where Richard Cheney, Bush's vice president was
the director).
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
Oh yes, "you" were! Bush asserted that the United States has the duty to free people. If you do not believe me,
please check this out and read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
|
|
Edited by Badabec - June 18 2007 at 10:27
|
|
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 10:09 |
bhikkhu wrote:
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
|
SO TRUE!
And why in the hell was Darfur ignored for so long? There were bigger tragedies going on there with the mowing down of defenseless women and children from gunners in helicopters.
Bush and Co. totally had their own agenda. I think of Bush more as a gutless pawn and it was actually the Cheney-Rumsfeld machine calling the shots. And the American public pays the price. Its like we have no control over our government anymore.
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 20:03 |
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never.
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
|
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 19:27 |
|
The U.S. was a bully during Wilson's precidency. So this isn't a new thing.
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 17:34 |
The biggest global bullies are TNC's.
But I voted for yes, but I don't think the UK is any better. In fact 100 years ago we were probably worse than the US is today.
|
|
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 16:08 |
|
The US is absolutely a "big bully". It has been the most aggressive nation on Earth since World War II and has propped up some of the most despicable regimes in the name of elite interest.
|
|
Badabec
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 06:15 |
bhikkhu wrote:
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
|
Yeah! You have made an excellent point here! I could not agree more! 
I guess the Iraq-war had a socio-political constituent. A war always
deflects the inhabitants from domestically problems and it should
restore them. Guess this did not work. The war seperated the americans
more than it brought them together.
I think that our last chancellor in Germany Mr Bundeskanzler Gerhard
Schröder has been a whisk but it has been the best decision you could
make as he proclaimed that Germany would not follow into the Iraq-war.
Edited by Badabec - June 17 2007 at 06:16
|
|
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 04:53 |
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more?
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 17 2007 at 00:34 |
bhikkhu wrote:
[
Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.
|
Care to explain how it was personal interest?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is the USA a big bully these days?
