homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » Jeez, Another Conservative Attack on a War Hero! (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Jeez, Another Conservative Attack on a War Hero!
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 23, 2005 03:36      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jace's post reminds me how in World War 1 the British Army were famously described as lions led by donkeys. It was ever thus. Listen to Marlene Dietrich version of Fran Landesman's song "Where have all the flowers gone?"

When will they ever learn?

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ChildeRoland
Alpha Geek
Member # 3880

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 23, 2005 04:34      Profile for ChildeRoland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your arguement that the politicians are there for oil has no basis in reality. Do you have any proof that that's why we're there? I suspect your only evidence is "They have oil, we use oil, therefore we invaded to get oil" this is such a faulty argument it's not even funny. You know, the German's had lots of Pfeffernuesse and Saurkraut, but that doesn't mean that we fought WWII in order to take it away from them. We fought it to keep evil men from spreading their hate and death across 2 continents. How is it that we can't do the same thing for the Iraqi people?
How much Iraqi oil have you put in your car recently? None, that's because none of it has seen the shore of this country in probably 20 years. The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war (and yes, those ARE IN ORDER).


quote:
Why is it that a soldier who does not believe in what he is asked to do is automatically considered a deserter and a traitor?
They aren't. They are not considered traitors or deserters for their beliefs, they are considered traitors and deserters for their ACTIONS . (Such as deserting the duties which they have _sworn_ to perform.) Next question, please.

--------------------
=====================
Childe Roland

Posts: 311 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 23, 2005 06:11      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
Your arguement that the politicians are there for oil has no basis in reality. Do you have any proof that that's why we're there? I suspect your only evidence is "They have oil, we use oil, therefore we invaded to get oil" this is such a faulty argument it's not even funny. You know, the German's had lots of Pfeffernuesse and Saurkraut, but that doesn't mean that we fought WWII in order to take it away from them. We fought it to keep evil men from spreading their hate and death across 2 continents. How is it that we can't do the same thing for the Iraqi people?
How much Iraqi oil have you put in your car recently? None, that's because none of it has seen the shore of this country in probably 20 years. The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war (and yes, those ARE IN ORDER).


quote:
Why is it that a soldier who does not believe in what he is asked to do is automatically considered a deserter and a traitor?
They aren't. They are not considered traitors or deserters for their beliefs, they are considered traitors and deserters for their ACTIONS . (Such as deserting the duties which they have _sworn_ to perform.) Next question, please.
[shake head]
Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 2 posted November 23, 2005 10:11      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
...The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war

.....and who is doing the rebuilding? Iraqi firms? Non....Haliburton et al. Any thoughts on who has direct ties to Haliburton and is getting richer?

You know, you are right. Iraq isn't just about oil. Every US administration needs a mid mandate war to galvanize the voters. Then there is the money making aspect of it as I mentioned above. Haliburton (and other corporations with Republican ties) are making payola hand over fist as contractor supplying everything from transport, supplies and $200 lunches to the troops. Then there is the whole 'revenge' factor, W gets to make his daddy proud doing what he could in Gulf War 1.

Bush easily baited and switched Bin Laden with Saddam and has the majority of the US public convinced Iraq and 911 are directly related. Even our very own REMF Jace believes this.

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChildeRoland
Alpha Geek
Member # 3880

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 23, 2005 15:10      Profile for ChildeRoland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them. After all, they are the ones who ultimately decided if US troops would be put in harm's way.

--------------------
=====================
Childe Roland

Posts: 311 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
alfrin
Uber Geek
Member # 3836

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 23, 2005 15:33      Profile for alfrin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them. After all, they are the ones who ultimately decided if US troops would be put in harm's way.

Yea, that'd be like discussing with Jack Thompson that violent video games don't actually train children to cause the next columbine

But that's another issue

--------------------
Art is Resistance / Resistance is Art

Posts: 813 | From: Nevada, USA | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted November 25, 2005 00:54      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe no one understands why countries don't talk about things, so I'll provide some analogies....

Part I: It Takes Two to Tango

Some things are "illegal" but aren't done alone. For example, prostitution ... imagine a "small town":
quote:
Prosecution: Your honor, this woman makes $50 thousand a year as a prostitute.
Judge: She must be very busy. Who were the clients?
(men in courtroom nervously looking away, some go to restroom.)
Prosecution: Uh ... $50 thousand, your honor ... $50 thousand!

Trafficking in stolen goods is the same. Someone has to buy, or it's impossible for the other party to sell. The whole point of the Oil for Food program was that Iraq's oil "belonged to the people" and should be used for their welfare. It was not intended as Saddam's personal golden goose, and economic sanctions were put in place for the specific purpose of preventing Saddam from staying rich and powerful on the profits of Iraqi oil.

Since the UN was responsible for the program, shouldn't buyers of smuggled Iraqi oil be charged with violating UN sanctions? By this time it should be obvious that the UN really doesn't want to "find out" what happened and prosecute anyone. The UN spin seems to be "$11 billion is not a lot of money." Besides, "everyone" has diplomatic immunity, and there's no sense "embarrassing" people.

Part II: Please Shoot Yourself in the Foot for US

It should be clear that the US "profited least" from Saddam's oil schemes. While Saddam was receiving billions of oil dollars, the US was busy trying to eliminate "every possible terrorist funding source." Even if Saddam agreed to report all of Iraq's money laundering and fund transfers in compliance with antiterrorism laws, the likelihood of him obeying was about the same as him not violating UN resolutions -- 0.0%.

Q: How do you get UN member nations to support military action when (1) it costs them money and military resources, (2) they lose a really cheap source of crude oil, (3) they were paid large sums of money not to talk about where the oil came from, and (4) they have to implicate themselves in violating international law?

A: You don't.

Now, the US Senate and Congress may support military action (and they did) based on "he's a real dirt-bag, he's violating international law, and countries that hate us get discount oil from him (oversimplified)." However, the same arguments don't work for international politics.

PS: When the politicians start weeping and praising Saddam for being such a "nice guy," then I might believe Bush "fooled" them (but that doesn't mean I'll respect them). Otherwise, they're just "Monday morning quarterbacks."

Part III: Don't Call Each Other Nasty Names

The number one reason I don't like name-calling in a "debate" is that it coincides with the absence of relevant facts and effort to negotiate a reasonable "peace."

quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Even our very own REMF Jace believes this.

 - ... take it back Cap'n. I was a REMF. I handled high-bandwidth satellite comms for division level assets. You're not with him, so don't talk about him. BTW, it's American taxpayer money that's wasted by Haliburton. Iraq isn't the one "losing money." (Mind you, I don't appreciate waste of US tax dollars.)

quote:
Originally posted by Black_Pearls_and_Lace:
... ... This is the imperialist goal.
...
... Generosity shouldn't choose.

If the US was really "imperialist" (as you say), we'd be the United States of America with subsidiaries in Europe and Asia (etc etc.).

Are you going to criticize Russia, France, and China for their lack of "generosity" (UN failure to prevent mass killings)? They all have soldiers and money just like the US. "Throwing money" at a problem doesn't always solve it. If "someone" sent $100 trillion to Iraq under Saddam's rule, you can bet that the Kurds and Shiites would still have suffered.

Conversely, it was "in the interest" of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. It would have been really nice if Saddam and sons left Iraq (like Bush asked) and went to live in France, but Saddam made it clear that he was an enemy to the US, would violate international law, and had large amounts of untraceable money to do whatever he pleased. The 9/11 attacks cost an estimated $500,000 ... Saddam could afford that. If he could smuggle a billion dollars of crude oil, why would he have trouble smuggling plastic explosives? For as blatant as his actions were, I'd swear he wanted the US to kill him.

However, it is also in the ultimate (long-term) interest of 80% of Iraq's population not to be ruled by Saddam and his sons. If you like, you could argue that Saddam has been good for world stability and human rights. [shake head]

quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them.

As I said before, you're not going to get "real" answers. They'll say whatever is least likely to cause them to lose the next election.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted November 25, 2005 03:37      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That bloody dog's farted again !

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted November 25, 2005 12:27      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
They'll say whatever is least likely to cause them to lose the next election.

This is equally true if you change the 'l' in election to an 'r'.

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam