Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[Sir Bandelot]

So very clever of you. But let me be the one to address what you "fixed" - the reason they don't have enough money is because, as bush_cheney actually said, they don't have enough support.

From the people with the really big money.

[Sir Bandelot]

.....having established that, the US nevertheless has more political parties and far more "democratic" elections than in Canada, where some actually whine about the cost of having "yet another" election. Go figure....

That's because your elections are actually a "racket" in themselves.

[Guest American Woman]

As for your democracy in the States, why is it the media only focuses on two parties, why is it that out of the hundreds of candidates that run for president the media only focuses on around 5 candidates that generally have the same views on major issues. I think you guys need to work on your democratic process before forcing it onto others.

Let me get this straight. You think democracy is being "forced" on the people of Iraq? You think they preferred having Saddam?

As for the media's "focus," it focuses on two parties because we have, for the most part, a two party system. A three+ party system can sometimes result in splitting the vote so the least popular platform wins. I don't see that as better than ours; ie: something that "needs to be worked on."

[Sir Bandelot]

Correct....modifying another members post is verboten.

I did not modify your post. Your post is still there. And I was clear about the change I made, in my post. So don't worry, your intentions were not at all obscured.

Are you going to report me now

[jbg]

No thats a false question, because they would keep on selling us that oil whether we exploded random dark skinned folks or not. They are completely dependant on selling us that oil.

Not if the politicization and chaos in the production process reduces output; which is exactly what's happened since nationalization.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Are you going to report me now

No...you have reported yourself.

[Sir Bandelot]

No...you have reported yourself.

No, because forum rules were not broken. Your ad hominem on the other hand does qualify as reportable.

[maple_leafs182]

Well, I am quite certain that you don't.

I probably don't fully understand them, I have never been in a war. At least I am not a chicken hawk.

Because those minor party candidates do not have enough support to win, just like the joke Green Party in Canada.

The green party still get coverage.

Then you are obviously in no position to tell Americans what they should or should not do, though I know it is very very difficult for you to follow the exact same advice you described above.

We don't even vote for senators, they are appointed.

I will still stand by my words, spreading democracy threw war is wrong...I still don't believe these wars are about democracy, I think they are about oil.

[Guest American Woman]

The green party still get coverage.

And Ron Paul isn't getting coverage? Ralph Nader didn't? Ross Perot didn't?

I will still stand by my words, spreading democracy threw war is wrong...

Seems to me democracy is better than the unending reign of a brutal dictatorship - where thousands of people would continue to die indefinitely, even if the reason that brought it about is "wrong." In other words, that doesn't make the end result "wrong" or any less "right."

I still don't believe these wars are about democracy, I think they are about oil.

It doesn't matter if they were about democracy or not if democracy is the result. I didn't agree with going to war, but I will never say that democracy, because it's the result of a war, is "wrong."

I have to wonder if some people who were against the war are going to stick to their point of view to the extent that they can't even recognize any good that comes out of it. Or refuse to recognize it.

One can be against the war and still hope for the best - and that includes recognizing that democracy, if that is the result, is not "wrong."

[bush_cheney2004]

...I have to wonder if some people who were against the war are going to stick to their point of view to the extent that they can't even recognize any good that comes out of it. Or refuse to recognize it.

I think you are right about that...even separating out the true pacifists, we can find those who are against any interventions at all, for any reason. Ignoring Canada's own complicity in such things is just a given. They are stuck in the ideological spin cycle, while the world moves on.

[GostHacked]

Correct....modifying another members post is verboten.

All of a sudden MLW's top troller is invoking the rules of the board? Have I entered Bizzaro World?

But you like to derail the threads, which also is against the forum rules. But keep protesting if you like. Not fooling anyone.

So what was this thread about again?

[Army Guy]

They went above and beyond the very rules governing these very sanctions themselves.

Let me ask you this if regular sanctions do not work or are ineffective what does the UN do to make a country comply? is that make tougher sanction rules or do nothing and have these rougue nations do anything they wish, in this case invade another nation

While we don't know what the criminals who intentionally caused the deaths of innumerable Iraqis were thinking, I too believe this is likely the answer: they wanted to increase the suffering of the people to compell them to overthrow their government.

Then how do you force a country to comply with lawful sactions ?

Aside from the fact that this plan was a criminal failure, do you not suppsoe it raises questions about our grand humanitarianism and noble motives?

So based on your opinion ALL sanctions are criminal failures, if you examine any UN sanctions they are designed to put undo hardship on the people of the country Assuming their leaders will bend and comply with the UN intentions....these are not the only sanctions that have caused deaths, or untold suffering...Somilia is a huge example....

As for our grand Humanitarianism and noble motives go.... i think it has a huge learning curve, for every government, and every leader, and starts over as governments change leaders change...hence why we seem to repeat our mistakes...But i don't think we can call these mistakes criminal, and while deaths and suffering did occur Change within nations seldom occur with out it. Lets all ask ourselfs what about Somilia we tried to force change there and were are we today were are they today...every second info merical is send money please to help feed the starving...what they dont tell you is how much of that money goes to helping the poor , hungry and sick....and how much goes to feeding the terrorist that have caused the hardship there....

But they failed. They failed. That means all those people--possibly hundreds of thousands--were made to suffer and die for no good reason, except for the piolitical motives of the United States and the United Kingdom.

No they did not regime change did happen, failure to comply with sanctions did lead up to military action....Sadam

and his merry gang where hung, as a result...Iraq now has a government which will sprout and grow into itself...

This is insupportable. I can't believe you're trying to justify it.

I defend it because change is what the majority of Iraqis wanted, most of the fighting now is how that change is to look like that is what the majority can not come to an agreement on. but sooner or later they will...living under a dictatorship is brutal, even persons devoted to sadam were punished without rime or reason, for nothing...living in fear of your life and the lifes of your family is just one of the small reasons change was needed....

Saddam should be blamed precisely for everything he did that was awful, and the list is very long.

The United States should be blamed precisely for everything it did that was awful.

What's the difficulty with this concept again?

It is hard to see that very piont in all your posts....which are a fair number and yet you've taken one line to describe that and many para's to describe the US involement in all this..

The US has been the worlds policemen for decades, and when they spring into action we or i should say most of us sit back and piont fingers or Quaterback from the sidelines...and when they don't spring into action we all scracth our heads and yell why not....

So your poin t is this: the UN Sanctions, to which the United States was principle architect, were inhernetly useless before they began (mayeb that's true, I don't know); so it's ok for the United Sattes to break all the rules, including thsoe it had helped set up themselves, specifically to make the people suffer more than they already had.

We both agree that UN sanctions are pretty much a useless and ineffective ....Kind of like sending your child to their room....

You have also just stated that "UN" sanctions being the key word here are still "UN" sanctions regardless who is the architect, they are still voted on and many countries have veto power and yet NONE used it...and yet we are sitting here pionting the fingers at the US and UK, because why ?

The UN monitors all sactions and can change or cancel any or all sanctions IS THIS TRUE according to the UN web site it is "ANY nation could have put forth a motion to stop this sanction in place or have it changed....and none did including Canada who according to your sources strongly objected....So to all these nations all these deaths from these sanctions meant what exactly ? The US did not break any rules that the UN or for that matter the rest of the world nations within it did not allow to happen...

Further, it's not the US's fault that they behaved as they did; it's not as they're responsible for their own actions, or that anyone should criticize them for their behaviour.

Instead, we'll wag our fingers at the Official Enemy and say "the Devil made me do it."

That's an awesome get-out-of-jail-free card. They can do no wrong; everything is someone else's fault.

where can I get me some of that intrinsic justification?

If we are going to lay blame at someones feet then atleast lets lay it at where it belongs,and list everyone that is guilty ....Canada or for that matter anyone could have stood up and said NO this is wrong...But they did not, they let it run it's course, why because they wanted the same results, they wanted Sadam and his merry band stopped....they wanted regime change and they got it....how through the US and UK governments holding the Iraqi peoples feet to the flame to answer for their governments actions....and although this sanction was tougher than any historically put in palce ...the entire piont of a sanction is to inflict pain and suffering on the people to force change.....but not a mention on that because that would mean taking a look at all sanctions....and perhaps ourselfs...

Iraq answered for the injustice it had inflicted on others just as any other nation has....and in the big picture had not even scratched the surface on what Japan or german suffered for theirs...Still today it is rare to say those actions taken again'st Germany and Japan were criminal....So why now, why Iraq...Why Afghan....

[Army Guy]

That wasn't a civil war, that was one country invading another country for their resources.

I call Bullshit....need a valid source....are you saying the US spent trillions of dollars in this conflict to have all Iraq's oil....One would think a trillion dollars buys a shit load of oil....and this money could of been spent securing a better more reliable source than Iraq....so maybe there is more to the story.....

[GostHacked]

I call Bullshit....need a valid source....are you saying the US spent trillions of dollars in this conflict to have all Iraq's oil....One would think a trillion dollars buys a shit load of oil....and this money could of been spent securing a better more reliable source than Iraq....so maybe there is more to the story.....

Iraq wanted to be able to sell it's oil in another currency other than US dollars. The USA was not about to let that happen. Because even if they cannot control the oil, they can control the currency it is traded in. Libya was posed to do the same thing, and we see that is not happening as well.

[Army Guy]

Life in Afghanistan was no different under the Taliban than it ever was. They, the Afghan people, want to live that way. If they don't, they would have changed things for themselves by now. But the fact that several empires have marched through their in the past 100 years or so and waged war on them did not help them to develop a better society.

Life in Afghanistan is changed by maga leaps and bounds....The Average Afghan does not want to live that way, they want peace, they want work, they want to eat, they want a decent place to live....sound familar....ya hard to believe that sheep hearders and poppy growers want pretty much what we want....As for change they all want it , but live in fear....amasing what a few thousand fanitics can do when they want to live at the top of the power ladder, and force their will on all those below them....

YA YA history is full of armies trying to conquor Afghanistan....how many wanted to assist the legitimate Afghan Government in rebuilding their nation they way they seen fit....

[Army Guy]

Iraq wanted to be able to sell it's oil in another currency other than US dollars. The USA was not about to let that happen. Because even if they cannot control the oil, they can control the currency it is traded in. Libya was posed to do the same thing, and we see that is not happening as well.

My piont is regardless if it was for control, or to secure what currancy it was sold in ....do you think it was worth the trillions they have spent todate....or do you think there was more to it, if so what would be worth a trillion....

[eyeball]

Ignoring Canada's own complicity in such things is just a given.

So you are guilty of the things we're complicit in after all. You actually think AW will take that as a given?

Good luck with that.

[Wild Bill]

My piont is regardless if it was for control, or to secure what currancy it was sold in ....do you think it was worth the trillions they have spent todate....or do you think there was more to it, if so what would be worth a trillion....

And yet Army Guy, Uncle Sam never got the oil anyway! It went and still goes to Russia and China, who had existing contracts.

So much for getting all the oil wealth. As for using US dollars, what has that got to do with anything? What does Uncle Sam get from that? You can't pay for all your soldiers wages and that exploded ordinance with pride.

This just sounds like more goofy anti-Americanism than an actual dollars and cents argument.

[GostHacked]

And yet Army Guy, Uncle Sam never got the oil anyway! It went and still goes to Russia and China, who had existing contracts.

So much for getting all the oil wealth. As for using US dollars, what has that got to do with anything? What does Uncle Sam get from that? You can't pay for all your soldiers wages and that exploded ordinance with pride.

This just sounds like more goofy anti-Americanism than an actual dollars and cents argument.

A country needs to buy US dollars in order to trade their oil. IF the US currency is not needed, then those countries would sell their lot in US currency, guess who needs to buy that back if they do.

Let me add that the US is constantly borrowing money from countries like China. So it gets to be a vicious circle. Since the US is borrowing money, how does one expect the US to buy back all their currency that is being used to trade oil with?

Edited September 19, 2011 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

So you are guilty of the things we're complicit in after all. You actually think AW will take that as a given?

Good luck with that.

I don't speak for AW...obviously she is capable of determining either without your/my help.

[CitizenX]

A Radical Experiment in Empathy

[dre]

My piont is regardless if it was for control, or to secure what currancy it was sold in ....do you think it was worth the trillions they have spent todate....or do you think there was more to it, if so what would be worth a trillion....

Well its not like the US put a trillion dollars into that war. It was defecit financed and completely paid for by holders of US bonds.

Youre trying to look at this from the standpoint of a cost benefit analysis for the US government or for Americans but that doesnt work when you are spending other peoples money. The corporations that lobbied for this policy and the profiteers that jumped on board made a MINT. And all the politicians did was spend borrowed money they didnt even have, knowing full well they would be long gone when it came time to pay the bar tab.

Having said that theres no single reason for that policy, and ALL the various motivations suggested probably play a part to one degree or the other.

To really get an idea, you have to follow the money. The trillions of dollars spent on Iraq is in SOMEONES pockets now. Find out WHO and youll have an idea WHY. From what I can tell only a fraction of that money went towards reconstruction. Im gonna take a wild guess that the vast majority of that money ended up in the pockets of other Americans. Defense contractors, oil services companies, and others. My guess is that they pushed for these policies from the beginning. Garden variety profiteering.

The point being... Even IF that trillion dollars (and I think that figure is low) is not a good deal in terms of aquiring oil and access, that policy had a lot of winners. The American people in GENERAL are losers for sure... they got taken to the cleaners. But a whole lot of people got their hands on a whole lot of that money.

It would be interest if all those dollars had miniature GPS chips in them, so you could look at a map and see where they all are. I doubt that the vast majority it ever left the United States. And of the money that DID leave the US much of it was probably just stolen. I remember a story of a large plane full of US dollars somehow "dissappearing". Wonder where that went?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I remember a story of a large plane full of US dollars somehow "dissappearing". Wonder where that went?

Some of those US dollars somehow managed to find their way to Canada too. Gosh, now how could that be?

[GostHacked]

Some of those US dollars somehow managed to find their way to Canada too. Gosh, now how could that be?

What do you want from a former Executive Director of Goldman Sachs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney

[Sir Bandelot]

YA YA history is full of armies trying to conquor Afghanistan....how many wanted to assist the legitimate Afghan Government in rebuilding their nation they way they seen fit....

Totally corrupt. Good luck with that.

Hey man, who made you the in charge of the world? Let these people reform their own society, if they want.

I'm not against taking the fight to them if they do things that threaten us. So clean that up, and move on. The whole nation building idea is just a farce, proven to fail, proven to be a money sucking black hole for corrupt elements that want to take the billions pouring in, including our own people. Contractors and the like. Let these people help each other. What you think places like Saudi Arabia can't afford to help them? But they don't. Why, because they're just as corrupt, and even worse in their laws and observance of human rights. So let's see you try and go clean that up, if you want to be the world savior.