War - What The Hell Is It Good For - Page 10

Well I'll tell you what - when you have the time please connect the dots for me because this should be truly educational. I truly wait with bated breath!

If I only had a brain!

"You listed a quote? You believe he said that? OMG you more naive than I had imagined!"

What reason should I not believe he said that? Like I said I simply listed a quote that I've heard, please inform me of why it isn't legitimate I'm trying to figure all this information out, this is information it exists, I would like to know if it is valid or not.

And as for his personality, I have every right to believe he would say that. He has spoken in so much religious referrencing self righteous holier than thou talk, about evil and god that it actually fits right in, to the point where your saying it unfathomable is itself hard to make sense of.

Look, it wouldn't surprise me either way if he did or didn't, you on the other hand seem to think it not even possible, I'm just hoping you have a good reason for it, because I have more than good reason to think it at least possible, not that I could personaly prove or coroborate it past other quotes or people confirming.

So please refer to or provide some factual evidentual reason as why not to believe it a quote, and thats not a challenge or anything, its an honest request.

"No shit, what a freakin coincidence right?"

Pretty smart 'coincidence' right?

So from when had they planned on getting strategicly placed for Iran? And for what purpose at the time of such planning?

As for the oil, the amount we get from them is significant but yes not exceptional, about 11.4% but it still affects daily gas prices and the stock market, and other countries are buying their oil too, and they use it I'm sure, there is money to be made by controlling it.

Did you ever see the any stats on the percentages of military units provided to protect American oil contracters and select media?

And some marines weren't to happy to be riding in a rig next to a guy with better armor on and a way fatter pay check, who apparently weren't shy to tell marines about how happy there were that they got to go home.

But the point isn't just about our import or even Iraq's overral export, its about regional land and resource control, what companies, what leaders, our bases, who will benefit in all the various forms.

PENAC describes the region as significant in many ways, but all inovlving our direct control of them militarily of course.

There is definite political and genuine gain for creating peace in the region, however, regardless of whether you have concern about American puppet regimes or not, I do.

Oh, so what is America's responsibility then? Its seems awfully important to know.

"What reason should I not believe he said that? Like I said I simply listed a quote that I've heard, please inform me of why it isn't legitimate I'm trying to figure all this information out, this is information it exists, I would like to know if it is valid or not. "

Of course it's not valid. Why shouldn't you believe it? Because it contradicts what he has said numerous times.

Ok this is how legitimacy works - unless you have the direct quote where he admits to making it or unless you have him on tape then you can not believe something attributed to him if it contradicts his current position. I am sorry - I know you like to - I know you want to - but you cannot. It is not fair and it means that you have shady intentions.

"And as for his personality, I have every right to believe he would say that."

You have no right unless he has said something even minutely similar in the past - which of course he hasn't since he has said the exact opposite. To believe that means that you are judging him by your own personal beliefs and not by facts and the record.

"He has spoken in so much religious referrencing self righteous holier than thou talk, about evil and god that it actually fits right in, to the point where your saying it unfathomable is itself hard to make sense of."

No it does not fit right in - there is no comparison in context - that's like me saying that you absolutely believe that aliens have abducted you and jammed probes up your ass simply because you are a conspiracist and its not uncommon for conspiracists to make such claims.

George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln also spoke in great detail about religious themes and used religious rhetoric - are you judging them in the same manner?

"Look, it wouldn't surprise me either way if he did or didn't, you on the other hand seem to think it not even possible, I'm just hoping you have a good reason for it, because I have more than good reason to think it at least possible, not that I could personaly prove or coroborate it past other quotes or people confirming."

Exactly you believe it even though you cant prove it or corroborate it. You believe it even though it contradicts numerous other things he has said. You believe it because it fits your preconceptions and makes you feel all warm inside. lol

"So from when had they planned on getting strategicly placed for Iran? And for what purpose at the time of such planning? "

Iran is the largest terrorist sponsoring state in the region - I think even the world. Iran was from the beginning included in the axis of evil. Iran is understood as being a far greater threat than Iraq in the long run as well as a much more difficult problem to overcome. I predicted in October of 2001 that Iraq would follow Afghanistan because looking at a map reveals the strategic importance of such a move if one wants to win a generational war.

"But the point isn't just about our import or even Iraq's overall export, its about regional land and resource control, what companies, what leaders, our bases, who will benefit in all the various forms. "

Now you are touching on a bigger picture except you taint it in anti-corporate American globalism instead of thinking in purely militarily strategic terms.

"There is definite political and genuine gain for creating peace in the region, however, regardless of whether you have concern about American puppet regimes or not, I do. "

I do not have such concerns because I understand the intentions of our being there. Now if in the future I am lied to I may change my position and agree with you - however I am not so foolish as to assume that I am being lied to already when the evidence doesn't support it nor do I have any reason to believe it.

"Oh, so what is America's responsibility then? Its seems awfully important to know."

As the sole superpower it is our responsibility to lead. When we sign a ceasefire agreement with an enemy nation and they violate it and we don't respond or resume the war we are not keeping our word nor are we leading. All we are doing is setting a bad example and showing other potential enemies that we are a weak and, from their perspective, a morally corrupt, nation. It is far better to be feared and respected than dismissed and mocked by those that would love to have your blood on their hands simply because you are an American.

"Ok this is how legitimacy works - unless you have the direct quote where he admits to making it or unless you have him on tape then you can not believe something attributed to him if it contradicts his current position. I am sorry - I know you like to - I know you want to - but you cannot. It is not fair and it means that you have shady intentions."

Do you know where the quote is from? You had better for the claims your making.

"You have no right unless he has said something even minutely similar in the past - which of course he hasn't since he has said the exact opposite. To believe that means that you are judging him by your own personal beliefs and not by facts and the record."

What is Bush's religious denomination?

"Exactly you believe it even though you cant prove it or corroborate it. You believe it even though it contradicts numerous other things he has said. You believe it because it fits your preconceptions and makes you feel all warm inside. lol"

I believe it possible. That leaves me at no conclusion, you have the conclusion based on preconceptions based on what could be PR damage control for all you know. All presidents have to speak along politically correct guidelines, the quote is claimed to be taken from a different context and situation.

Then reproduce it - give me a link to the quote and a link to where I can hear him saying it.

"Perhaps but since it is Iraqis and fellow Muslims that are trying to assassinate them I think they are more likely to trust America's motives than the islamo-fascists. They probably like the protection we provide as they rebuild their security forces, dontcha think?"
The thing is, we don't know what they're thinking. And neither do you. IF they trusted the Islamists then they would still have to be America's bitch until the troops leave.

"The thing is, we don't know what they're thinking. "

We know how they voted and they surely didnt vote for anti-Americanism when the leaders of the party that one made it clear they wanted America to stay before the elections and the second largest majority went to overwhelmingly pro-American party.

Ahem, excuse me? Stop self-congratulating yourself.

The Sunnis, the part of Iraq which is violently anti-American all boycotted the elections. Or alternatively, you can believe we conveniently didn't give enough anti-American Sunni voters security for them to vote and get into parliament. Either way, that's 20% of Iraq which hates you.

The Kurds are overwhelmingly pro-American, that's not in dispute, 20% love you.
The 10% that voted secular shiite are pro-American.
The 50% that voted Religious Shiites did NOT vote for America. They voted for Grand Ayatollah Sistani. If he had said "kill the infidel crusaders" well sure as hell they would have boycotted the elections and Al Sadr would be making a lot more noise.

It is *entirely* possible that the Ayatollah is just waiting for America to occupy the Sunnis into oblivion, a few more Fallujahs should do the trick. Once we leave, he'll be free to create his own Islamic Shiite Arab Republic and align itself with the Iranian Islamic Republic.

But I don't know what he is thinking, I know little Arabic and Shia culture, I suspect you know even less. So stop jerking off your fellow conservatives and just accept that democracy in Iraq could be very dangerous for the 2 minorities (indeed, its bleeding the Sunnis to death) and accept that there is no "pro-America" consensus in Iraq. There is a pro-Ayatollah consensus, a pro-religious one, a consensus which could easily turn against America if the Ayatollah decides its time. Don't worry, he won't do that just yet. He'll wait until we've finished destroying Sunni Iraq for him.

Demographic breakdown:
- 30% is pro-American or secular
- 20% is anti-American
- 50% is more religious than it is anti-American (and I'm not sure that's a good thing)

quote:

---

The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes." The UIA also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects." In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand the public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel Abd al-Mahdi gets his way--he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted as leader of Iraq's next government.

---

Now that's the NEW American way - Make them think that's what they voted for.

The whole article is very interesting.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=klein

Congratulate myself? I don't understand the context.

All the Sunnis did not boycott - about 20% voted. I also read a piece that many Sunnis now realized they made a huge mistake and are seeking a larger role in the new gov't

"The 50% that voted Religious Shiites did NOT vote for America"

Nor do you know that they voted against us either. They voted for a party that made it clear they would ask the US to remain until Iraqi security forces were up to par. From what I understand Grand Ayatollah Sistani has also said that American forces should remain.

Of course large portions of the Iraqi population are worried and are not willing to blindly trust their fate in the hands of another nation. Nor would I if I were an Iraqi - nor would you I presume.

But here's the thing - As the US continues to keep its word and as it becomes absolutely clear that Iraqi sovereignty is just that - Iraqi - those polls you cite - much of which contradicts other polls Ive seen - but Ill give you your numbers - those polls go in the completely other direction - just as the Indonesian polls have and the Iraqi people - vast majorities of - even Sunnis eventually - will consider America a close ally and good friends.

"accept that democracy in Iraq could be very dangerous for the 2 minorities "

Could be but it is more likely that the three strong factions will strengthen Iraqi democracy - not diminish it.

"From what I understand Grand Ayatollah Sistani has also said that American forces should remain."
Yes he did, the Ayatollah's will is the only thing keeping Al Sadr and his thugs from waging war on you like the Sunnis are. You seem completely oblivious to that fact that of course the Shiites want democracy. Of course they the want will of the majority, they *are* the majority.

And the fact of the matter is, they aren't stupid. Even if they hate America, they're going to wait until America does their dirty work by destroying Sunni Iraq. After that they can make their Arabic Islamic Shia Republic.

"Could be but it is more likely that the three strong factions will strengthen Iraqi democracy - not diminish it."
That seems like a random/arbitrary statement.

What you are oblivious to is the import of factions in a successful democracy. The differences between the American North and South were just as large as the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites, maybe even larger. Also weren't you the one that was arguing earlier that Iraq was fairly secular? Of course the recently oppressed majority wants majority rule - what nation wants minority rule?

"After that they can make their Arabic Islamic Shia Republic."

You really believe this? You are going have to eat those words. lol You continuously dismiss the Iraqi factor. Almost every Iraqi has a close friend or family member that is of a different sect.

" Also weren't you the one that was arguing earlier that Iraq was fairly secular?"
SADDAM was secular. Not Iraq, Iraq is currently voting what their Grand Ayatollah is TELLING them to vote. A bit like if the Irish voted 51% for a Papist party.

How much of the vote did the secular party get? 10%. 1 in 10 Iraqis is secular. Woop de frickin doo.

"You really believe this? You are going have to eat those words."
LOOK YOU FOOL.

I don't KNOW. I am saying, that is certainly a possibility. And IF that's what the Ayatollah wants, then his current policy of letting Americans destroy Sunni Iraq plays right into his hands.

If I am ever to have an intelligent discussion with you you are going to have to learn to admit ignorance on some subjects and accept the possibility of unwanted outcomes.

Chill out - quit being so emotional. Geez lol

So you believe that religious people cant also want a secular gov't? I disagree and do not make the same connections you do because I am not anti-religion like you are.

"If I am ever to have an intelligent discussion with you you are going to have to learn to admit ignorance on some subjects and accept the possibility of unwanted outcomes"

Give me a break! Look back through this thread and see how many times I acknowledge that you may be right.

"Chill out - quit being so emotional. Geez lol"
No, our discussions are always the same. As soon as I say a "maybe" you don't agree with you dismiss it and forget that you're ignorant like everyone else of what's going on. Believing too hard and accusing others of anti-Americanism or telling them to "eat their own words" is just plain arrogance.

"So you believe that religious people cant also want a secular gov't?"
If the Shia wanted secular government they would have voted for the Secular Shia party. They voted for the religious Shiah party backed by a Grand Ayatollah. In any case, he has nothing to lose. I don't know his intent. An (illiberal) democracy is certainly exactly what he wants, and if America can bleed the Sunnis to death that's even better.

Does that mean its impossible that a true secular liberal democratic Iraq exists? No, its not impossible. But given that the electorate is religious (and the electorate is, in principle, approving the constitution) the "secular" part may be compromised (a bit like Afghanistan's new constitution). The constant terrorism by Sunnis against Shia might either spark a civil war or inspire a crackdown on Sunnis and generally compromise civil liberaties, compromising the "liberal" part.

Which isn't to say that liberal secular democracy in Iraq is impossible, but it certainly seems to have a long uphill battle. And frankly, I don't think the Iraqis care much for democracy when they're being blown up in the streets. A *tough* Putin-style leader who will compromise liberty but make them feel safe (Bush?) might be what they want.

" I disagree and do not make the same connections you do because I am not anti-religion like you are."
I am non-secular religions and ideologies. I am against anything which believes too hard in its own righteousness. Religion doesn't always do that, it is certainly capable of it, and religious people do it quite often.

"Give me a break! Look back through this thread and see how many times I acknowledge that you may be right."
Where?