Originally posted by PVS
yes, being kidnapped and locked up inefinately in a prison with no legal representation or formal charges for 5 years running can turn a person bitter.
Because of course when they open fire, we should just kill them outright. Screw taking prisoners.[/sarcasm]
Also, as prisoners of war, the actual trial process (if there ever is one) is just a *bit* different. Granted I find it absurd we need to keep them there for as long as we have, since it defies logic (think: would someone who has been locked up and out of contact with the outside world for even a year, let alone five, be able to provide ANY current and applicable intel? At all?)
Also, I pose the same question to you as I do every person that's foolish enough to believe we went to war with Iraq for oil:
If the motive of the war was oil, why didn't we go after Venezuala? It's closer, it has a LOT more oil, the climate is definitely a lot more bearable, the near-constant cleaning to weapons and vehicles to get rid of sand wouldn't need to be done (and the time saved spent elsewhere), and the leader's an even bigger dick than Saddam was (barring the genocide of course, but I have yet to meet any "War for oil OMG!" people that actually cared about that).
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Because of course when they open fire, we should just kill them outright. Screw taking prisoners.[/sarcasm]Also, as prisoners of war, the actual trial process (if there ever is one) is just a *bit* different.
wrong. "prisoners of war" are granted their right to habeus corpus under the laws of the geneva convention. the current administration suspended that right by renaming them "enemy combatants" and left to rot for 5 years. its quite obtuse and extremely naive to assume that they were all picked off the battlefield. many of them were basically kidnapped from other countries including the u.s. and u.k.
they were not allowed to contact their families and were/are basically living their lives in solitary confinement. not just prison. solitary confinement.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Granted I find it absurd we need to keep them there for as long as we have, since it defies logic (think: would someone who has been locked up and out of contact with the outside world for even a year, let alone five, be able to provide ANY current and applicable intel? At all?)
many have become completely disconnected to reality.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Also, I pose the same question to you as I do every person that's foolish enough to believe we went to war with Iraq for oil:
we did
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
we did.
"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' " -G.W.Bush
name me one other reason that hasnt been proven to be incorrect and confessed by the administration to be incorrect
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If the motive of the war was oil, why didn't we go after Venezuala? It's closer, it has a LOT more oil, the climate is definitely
venezuala doesnt have nearly as much oil as iraq.
in fact iraq alone holds more oil than all of central and south america.
so does saudi arabia, kuwait, and iran (saudi arabia containing more oil than all north. central, and south america.) we would starve on venezuala.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
[B]a lot more bearable, the near-constant cleaning to weapons and vehicles to get rid of sand wouldn't need to be done (and the time saved spent elsewhere),
yeah, the wilds of south america are luxorious 🙄
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
and the leader's an even bigger dick than Saddam was (barring the genocide of course, but I have yet to meet any "War for oil OMG!" people that actually cared about that).
what should i care about? what crimes has he committed against mankind....besides being a "dick" as you put it. sell you're brilliant idea to me. tell me why he should hang.
we did.
Oh goody, that article. I actually read that. Know what I found?
Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.
Definition of the word "stay" is as follows:
To remain through or during (a period of time)
Notice how anything along the lines of "to invade or go" is noticably absent. Just because you personally believe that was the reason, does not mean words suddenly lose their meaning. Hell, there's another problem with your logic, and it can be applied to day-to-day events:
Today, I found thirty five cents in my car. Does that mean I entered my car for the sole purpose of finding thirty five cents?
Venezuala doesnt have nearly as much oil as iraq.
Yet it actually produces more, which is what would be most important if the war was a result of a temporary need. After all, wouldn't it be smarter to invade a place with a more readily accessible supply? Plus we'd already learned from Desert Storm that any time we're in the area, people set fire to the oil fields. Seems a little stupid to try and invade a place for something that people attempt to burn the moment we're in the area.
Yeah, the wilds of south america are luxorious
Where would you rather be if you had to lug around a bunch of equipment and run maintanence on any vehicles you might have? The middle of the desert, or someplace that actually lacks blinding sandstorms? (we've actually already lost at least one tank to a sandstorm; it drove into the river, drowning the crew). Now, I live in a desert that [thankfully] lacks sandstorms, and I'd have to say I'd much prefer South America.
what should i care about? what crimes has he committed against mankind....besides being a "dick" as you put it. sell you're brilliant idea to me. tell me why he should hang.
1.) Al-Dujail. Following an assassination attempt in 1982, he ordered the following:
-Bulldozing of thousands of acres of land used for growing date palms and fruit orchards. It's still a wasteland.
-Approximately 160 Shiites executed, 9 of which were between the ages of 13 and 15. Residents report up to 200 people still remain missing.
-Article first appeared in the New York Times, cross-posted to freerepublic.com (due to KMC's anti-spam, I can't post links. IM or PM me if you want it).
2.) The Anfal Campaign
-In short: Genocide. Kurds were subjected to air strikes, subject to being shelled with chemical weapons, and firing squads for any unlucky enough to be captured. Estimated death toll is approximately 100,000.
3.) The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
4.) The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
5.) The arrest of thousands of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
6.) The arrest, torture and executions of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
7.) The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
8.) The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
Now, do you need any more, or are you just one of those people that oppose the death penalty?
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Eh, did you notice the bit in the thread title that refers specifically to the Bush administration? Guess not. Oh, well...Maybe next time?
Yes, the polls (both the one in the article and here) is concerned with foreign policy that has existed under the current administration - which, judging from the global responses, has been deemed "mainly negative". Not about how US global actions and affairs would be viewed throughout history, just in the years since Bush came to power (compared with similar polls during previous presidencies the US image in foreign affairs has rock bottomed.)
America is probably going to go back to a sense of isolationism, until the world realizes it needs us when the next axis of evil rises.
Again? There has only been one so far (WWII), and while the US certainly played a large part in the outcome of that conflict it didn't exactly go it alone.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Again? There has only been one so far (WWII), and while the US certainly played a large part in the outcome of that conflict it didn't exactly go it alone.
Personally, I don't think that was the intent of the message.
"When they next need our expertise at blowing **** up" just didn't have the same 'zing' to it, ya know?
That is the one thing I have noticed about US involvement in the world though: anytime the UN or NATO decides it wants to launch a military operation (usually airstrikes, nowadays) somewhere in the world, more often than not it's US-led.
For better or worse, you have to admit there is one thing the US is goddamn good at: blowing things up faster, cheaper, and with prettier explosions than any other country in the world. Sure the Atom Bomb was horrible, but just look at the pretty cloud!
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Oh goody, that article. I actually read that. Know what I found?Definition of the word "stay" is as follows:
To remain through or during (a period of time)
as i requested, but you dodged (as im sure you'll continue to do):
name one other reason for staying in iraq that was not debunked, since every reason for going to war was completely incorrect in every sense of the word, to a tee.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Notice how anything along the lines of "to invade or go" is noticably absent. Just because you personally believe that was the reason, does not mean words suddenly lose their meaning. Hell, there's another problem with your logic, and it can be applied to day-to-day events:Today, I found thirty five cents in my car. Does that mean I entered my car for the sole purpose of finding thirty five cents?/B]
so you're trying to tell me they said "oops theres oil here" when theirs genocide in africa and america sits by and does nothing? are you really that naive? the only lasting reason, the only constant is OIL. if you need to convince yourself otherwise at least come up with a theory that works and is based in fact. go on, drink the koolaid.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
[B]Yet it actually produces more, which is what would be most important if the war was a result of a temporary need. After all, wouldn't it be smarter to invade a place with a more readily accessible supply? Plus we'd already learned from Desert Storm that any time we're in the area, people set fire to the oil fields. Seems a little stupid to try and invade a place for something that people attempt to burn the moment we're in the area.
i dont know why, but im thinking big evil
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Where would you rather be if you had to lug around a bunch of equipment and run maintanence on any vehicles you might have? The middle of the desert, or someplace that actually lacks blinding sandstorms? (we've actually already lost at least one tank to a sandstorm; it drove into the river, drowning the crew). Now, I live in a desert that [thankfully] lacks sandstorms, and I'd have to say I'd much prefer South America.1.) Al-Dujail. Following an assassination attempt in 1982, he ordered the following:
-Bulldozing of thousands of acres of land used for growing date palms and fruit orchards. It's still a wasteland.
-Approximately 160 Shiites executed, 9 of which were between the ages of 13 and 15. Residents report up to 200 people still remain missing.
-Article first appeared in the New York Times, cross-posted to freerepublic.com (due to KMC's anti-spam, I can't post links. IM or PM me if you want it).
2.) The Anfal Campaign
-In short: Genocide. Kurds were subjected to air strikes, subject to being shelled with chemical weapons, and firing squads for any unlucky enough to be captured. Estimated death toll is approximately 100,000.
3.) The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
4.) The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
5.) The arrest of thousands of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
6.) The arrest, torture and executions of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
7.) The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
8.) The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
Now, do you need any more, or are you just one of those people that oppose the death penalty?
wow, what an explosive dodge of the question.
the president of venezuala. what has he done to warrant an invasion?
and btw, i dont care if he raped 100 babies. where's the threat to the u.s.?
oh, is it time to be smug and childish because i caught you twice just making shit up and passing it off as fact?
...you're saying this, after citing a reason for STAYING in a country as a reason for going there in the first place? You're the one citing an article in which he claims it's a reason to stay, yet trying to pass it off as an admission that "we went to war for oil."
name one other reason for staying in iraq that was not debunked, since every reason for going to war was completely incorrect in every sense of the word, to a tee.
I'll name two, and they're related: Vietnam and Lebanon.
Here's a bit of story time: during the Clinton administration, there was a bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 220 Marines. A radical group named Hamas claimed responsibility. At the time, it was a relatively new group of fanatic Islam. Rather than stay and wipe them out, Bill evidently thought it better to remove all US forces from the area. What's the case today? They've become a terrorist group to be reckoned with, and may as well run the area entirely.
Onto Vietnam:
Aside from the climate and area of the world the conflict took place in, it's really a lot like Iraq. The reason for invading is questionable, at BEST, and the VietCong quickly learned that it was in their best interest to resort to quick hit-and-run attacks and guerilla warfare than get involved in a knock-down, drag-out fight. Booby traps, bombs, attacking civilians (ESPECIALLY any that helped US troops), and the like. We just up and left Vietnam, like what most people are advocating we do in Iraq.
Do you have any idea, at all, of how many South Vietnamese were butchered, tortured, and murdered the moment we were gone? Given the fact that the insurgents in Iraq are already attacking civilians regularly, what proof do you have that just pulling out now wouldn't result in yet another massive bloodbath the moment the last US soldier left?
wow, what an explosive dodge of the question.
the president of venezuala. what has he done to warrant an invasion?
Oh hell, that one's my mistake. This is why I shouldn't be allowed to post tired, I thought you were still referring to Saddam (more than likely; it was the 'hanging' comment that threw me) >.<
He hasn't done anything. However the point remains: if going to war in Iraq for oil was the ONLY reason, then obviously we wouldn't be concerned with things like genocide or actual crimes. If that were the case, what reason would we have NOT to invade?
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If that were the case, what reason would we have NOT to invade?
diplomacy with the rest of the world. we just took iraq. its ours. understand? if we leave their government crumbles instantly. *WHOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH*. only trouble is we had no right to take it. no valid reason why we had to do it. NONE.
why did we invade? thats the question. how did saddam's regime pose a threat to america?
name one other reason for staying in iraq that was not debunked, since every reason for going to war was completely incorrect in every sense of the word, to a tee.
if we leave their government crumbles instantly. *WHOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH*.
Damn my impatience. If I'd just waited, you'd have answered your own question FOR me. Oh well.
why did we invade? thats the question. how did saddam's regime pose a threat to america?
How did it pose a threat during all the air-strikes that followed the Gulf War? Or is blowing shit up from a distance because he refused to comply with the UN a-okay, just because we don't have to actually rebuild it all?
Hahaha, 'rebuild' it. As if the US companies who are doing all the rebuilding are there out of philanthropic ideals! The US tax-payers get to see their dollars spent in Iraq as all of Bush's pals lap up all the multi-million contracts being pimped about. All this while at the same time the social system in the US is one of the least sympathetic out of all the developed countries in the world. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Especially when silly people still seem to believe there are some good intentions in there somewhere.
"Let's put in some more soldiers! We haven't raped you enough yet!"