Is This Real? (WARNING VERY SAD AND GRAPHIC!!)

[Junk Bond Trader]

I'll add a few cents here. I'm surprised at what appears to be a larger contingent of FReepdom here than I would have thought for a site such as this, but then I suppose I have to put my own preconceptions aside. Edible, I admire that you stand up for your convictions, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. I'll admit, firstly that I am unflinchingly progressive or liberal (not to give the impression that I'm hiding behind the progressive label to avoid the dreaded "L" word--I'm proud to be considered either).

You mentioned you want the troops out because no more should die for the Iraqi's cause. To echo Colin Powell: you break it you buy it. We've broken it, and so we own it. The PNACers have been planning this for years. They tried to get Clinton to do it. (before you call me a lock-step Democrat, I state for the record that I'm no huge fan of Clinton as he, like many of "The People's Party" are actually Republican-lite--Clinton was simply a corporatist that I could stomach. My personal view is that we actually have one party here in America: the party of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, and that it has a right wing, the Dems, and a far right wing, the Reps., but that's a whole other story.) Now that they have their puppet in power, they used the tragedy of 9/11 to further the foreign policy they wrote about in the 90s and dreamed about even before that.

Now that we're in Iraq, it is hard to see what course of action is correct. I think it depends on what the reality of the Iraq situation is. I think there is an insurgency because the Sunnis, who were western in terms of way of life, are seeing the rights they had as a secular society under Sadaam being threatened by a constitution that would turn Iraq into a Theocracy. They, as well as insurgents from outside the country are seeing what is going on and they are fighting against it. They see the corporate take over of Iraqi oil, oil that was supposed to belong to its people, oil that was supposed to, according to the Bush administration, pay for reconstruction. I will advocate to bring the troops home as soon as possible just as you do, but for the reason that our presence there is the reason there is an insurgency in the first place. The administration has no desire to pull out now, because the chaos, both in terms of politics with the infighting over the terms of the constitution and the ground situation with the insurgency, allows for the corporatists to do what they always dreamed of: essentially stealing oil for their own benefit.

As Bill Mahar has said, maybe down the road, we'll see the PNACers as visionary. Right now they are a (in my view) gang of un-American radicals dragging our country down a dangerous road who have hijacked our country to drive their own corporatist agenda.

I'm an American, but I guess I have a different view of what it means to be one.

Fallen Angel, I agree with your position. F911 was only a popular documentary that put into an easy to swallow capsule form a vast body of well documented facts and research that many of us who were following alternative news sources were familiar with. It was attacked by the right wingers in our mainstream media because of some artistic liberties Moore took with the film to make presentation funny or interesting, but what the film says is true.

As far as dogs as bait go, considering the source, it is highly questionable. The Sun is apparently as useful as a news source as our very own New York Post. Even if the story is true in any way, it is insane to condemn an entire people for it, but I do hope they put an end to the practice and find a way to bring those responsible to justice.

[Junk Bond Trader]

Final thought:

Billions of dollars, 2000 American and British and 100,000 Iraqi lives later, Iraqis still have limited to no running water or electricity. What have they got to show for our intervention? What is the ultimate goal? Are we any closer to getting there?

[MrMaelstrom]

There where? Is there still a clear cut and concise objective?

Free Iraq!

Iraq is free...

[Junk Bond Trader]

Exactly my point. It's hard to say you want to win a war that should never have been started, which is why I held my nose and voted for John Kerry, but at least he put forth a vision of "winning" in Iraq that appeared to have Iraqis in mind. He would have brought a larger coalition together to give it an international face rather than the UK/US and some scattered friends ("Don't forget Poland"--no offense to Poland, of which I am one quarter Polish). He would be training Iraqis outside the country in places like Germany where they could train without fear of getting blown up every day.

Now, I'll state again just for clarity: I was against this war. I would have chosen a Kucinich or a Dean for the presidency. But the fact is, the war was begun against the will of many of us, and at least Kerry would have given us a vision of what "winning" would look like and follow through with it.

[angleangel_doom]

You know thats a fake newspaper, right? Much like our Globe and National Enquierer...only more intelligent...I guess.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally Posted by Junk Bond Trader

Now, I'll state again just for clarity: I was against this war. I would have chosen a Kucinich or a Dean for the presidency. But the fact is, the war was begun against the will of many of us, and at least Kerry would have given us a vision of what "winning" would look like and follow through with it.

Junk, there is someone behind your shoulder...OMG it's E_E!! ruuun !!! ^^'

But seriously i'm waiting for his answer since he isn't really ''in love'' with Kerry...

[edible_eye]

i knew i'd seen this post somewhere but for the life of me, i thought it was in POLITICS and had been deleted. couldn't figure it the fuck out. found it though, obviously. and so, without further ado...

Originally Posted by Junk Bond Trader

Edible... I'm going to respectfully disagree.

excellent. debate is good. make edible happy.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

You mentioned you want the troops out because no more should die for the Iraqi's cause. To echo Colin Powell: you break it you buy it. We've broken it, and so we own it.

iraq was broken through saddam's reign, not because of this war. america declared war because we believed our country was in imminent danger. as a bonus, we found and removed saddam and his boys - read that as a clear slate for iraq to do for themselves. since when did an entire nation of people become absolutely determined to NOT be able to take care of themselves? if they want their country back, it's theirs now - once our military declared that no weapons were to be found in iraq, our reason for being there ended. everything we do there now is in direct violation of our power as a sovereign nation acting within the borders of another supposedly sovereign nation, according to the constitution

americans dying for iraqi sovereignty and calling that legitimate, calling that OUR responsibility? asinine.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

The PNACers have been planning this for years. They tried to get Clinton to do it. (before you call me a lock-step Democrat, I state for the record that I'm no huge fan of Clinton as he, like many of "The People's Party" are actually Republican-lite--Clinton was simply a corporatist that I could stomach.

citing the goals and objectives of some obscure political group doesn't interest me. i just don't see the benefit of screaming "conspiracy" whenever a piece or two of some outside puzzles might somehow fit into the main picture.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

My personal view is that we actually have one party here in America: the party of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, and that it has a right wing, the Dems, and a far right wing, the Reps., but that's a whole other story.) Now that they have their puppet in power, they used the tragedy of 9/11 to further the foreign policy they wrote about in the 90s and dreamed about even before that.

as ricky once said to lucy... well as he said many, many times - you got some s'plainin' to do.

i can understand and consider the "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation" analogy. after all, this country was built on the genesis and perpetuation of jobs, of work, of trade and commerce which ultimately provide tax money to the governmental body. it makes sense, following that logic. i don't agree with it, especially given all the wasted resources the government pisses away on social programs that fail and fail and fail - but i understand what you're getting at.

the other stuff - you've got some sort of self-defined theory rattling around within that head of yours. bring it out if you'd like to discuss it.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

Now that we're in Iraq, it is hard to see what course of action is correct.

it's only hard when your eyes stray from the initial directive, which was to find and remove weapons of mass destruction. stay focused.

the government is like a kid in a candy store with this war - a kid with a credit card. that kid was sent there to get a kit kat, that's it. but when he got there, his eyes got too big, he had the card in hand and his stomach began grumbling. before he knew it, he was throwing all sorts of shit onto the counter, racking up a bill he was never supposed to have. and still, that kid is running through the store, buying more and more shit. someone needs to give him a swat on the bottom to snap him out of his frenzy.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

I think it depends on what the reality of the Iraq situation is. I think there is an insurgency because the Sunnis, who were western in terms of way of life, are seeing the rights they had as a secular society under Sadaam being threatened by a constitution that would turn Iraq into a Theocracy. They, as well as insurgents from outside the country are seeing what is going on and they are fighting against it. They see the corporate take over of Iraqi oil, oil that was supposed to belong to its people, oil that was supposed to, according to the Bush administration, pay for reconstruction.

ok - pay attention to what you just said. all of this, every single word of it is an iraqi problem. what the fuck is a sunni to an american? if iraq wants a constitution, let them work on it. if iraq wants to be free, let them fight for it. if iraq wants to continue living in a bent over position, taking it up the ass because they have no will to fight for their rights - fuckin' a - who are we to say that's wrong or try to change it? that's not our business. that's not the reason our military was sent there.

iraqis never owned their oil. their government owned it. saddam owned it. and that same oil absolutely CAN pay for their reconstruction now that he's gone. let their men and women band together and rebuild their country. they have the money (oil), the manpower, the need for work, whatever. it's iraq's deal now. quite a bit of pride and a sense of ownership and accomplishment comes from working to achieve what one desires. handing them a remade country and government guarantees failure. one can not respect what one has been given for free.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

I will advocate to bring the troops home as soon as possible just as you do, but for the reason that our presence there is the reason there is an insurgency in the first place.

the insurgency is not america's business. iraq will fight and persevere or they will lay down and be overtaken. either way, america's boys and girls should not be killed in order for iraqis to survive.

and you do not support bringing them home as soon as possible - don't twist your words around. you believe they should stay and continue to fight. you believe "We've broken it, and so we own it". you believe what the government tells you - that we should stay there because we have work to do. you pick and choose the pieces you want to protest, but your main contention is that you want us to stay and fight for iraq.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

The administration has no desire to pull out now, because the chaos, both in terms of politics with the infighting over the terms of the constitution and the ground situation with the insurgency, allows for the corporatists to do what they always dreamed of: essentially stealing oil for their own benefit.

and american govenmental thinking is the problem here. they think too much and muddy the water. they want too much and get confused. they should have stuck to the basics. declare war to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, secure iraq to search, no weapons of mass destruction found, time to come home.

we have no end objective now. we have nothing against which to measure success or failure. we have, for all intents and purposes - nothing, except americans dying for some deluded fantasy that iraq will be free.

iraq. fuck iraq.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

As Bill Mahar has said, maybe down the road, we'll see the PNACers as visionary. Right now they are a (in my view) gang of un-American radicals dragging our country down a dangerous road who have hijacked our country to drive their own corporatist agenda.

fuck bill maher and fuck the pnac also.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

I'm an American, but I guess I have a different view of what it means to be one.

maybe. or maybe you just have a different view, period. i'm curious about your democrat / republican theory contrasted against the view of american government as being for the corporation.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Junk Bond Trader

Exactly my point. It's hard to say you want to win a war that should never have been started, which is why I held my nose and voted for John Kerry, but at least he put forth a vision of "winning" in Iraq that appeared to have Iraqis in mind.

he had no vision. and whatever vision he might have had changed with the blowing of the wind or he changing of his underwear. kerry's a douchebag.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

He would have brought a larger coalition together to give it an international face rather than the UK/US and some scattered friends ("Don't forget Poland"--no offense to Poland, of which I am one quarter Polish). He would be training Iraqis outside the country in places like Germany where they could train without fear of getting blown up every day.

kerry would have done nothing. that's what kerry does. he's a senator in my state - he was a nothing before the race, never heard of him or about him until he ran. haven't heard anything from him or about him since the race ended. kerry was the puppet, if there was a puppet to be named between the two candidates.

kerry is nothing.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Fallen Angel

Junk, there is someone behind your shoulder...OMG it's E_E!! ruuun !!! ^^'

But seriously i'm waiting for his answer since he isn't really ''in love'' with Kerry...

"in love" with kerry... shudder. that's just fuckin' horrible.

oh - and there's your answer, fallen. hope you enjoy.

[MrMaelstrom]

Spilt milk.
Just move on, people.
There's a shitload of ongoing things worth quabbling about. Like me, for example...shall we start the bidding?


wot?

[edible_eye]

yeah, let's talk about maelstrom - that gorgeous, portuguese ladies-man with the dazzling smile, shaggy locks and a twinkle in his eye to melt your heart...

- sigh -

and i'm straight. imagine that?

[Fallen Angel]

Yeah
wish i could speak english well enough to challenge you on your own playing ground ^^
Maybe later, i'm still working on it

i made some research about the original subject :

http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hoaxteam/f...2&idMess=41408

it's all in french sorry but here is my summary :

Actualy yes, some fishermen are using alive dogs as shark bait, though there are very very few and actively hunted by authorities. ( the max penalty is 2 years jail + $30,000 )
But this picture might be a fake one as those fishermen are in fact using wild dogs (wandering dogs?). (which are far from looking like this cute healthy dog).
those wild dogs are a plague for this island (about 150,000 dogs) since they even attack humans.
But it's still be a fucking shame to use them like that...
here is the link for the french petition against such acts :
http://www.30millionsdamis.fr/FR/Dos...auxrequins.asp

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Fallen Angel

Yeah
wish i could speak english well enough to challenge you on your own playing ground ^^
Maybe later, i'm still working on it

the fact you're working on your english and intend to challenge me later is inspiring, fallen - and a helluva lot more aggressive than i am. lord knows i'm not gonna learn french.

i honestly look forward to chat / debate. and anytime you want to bring something up - my rule with you - absolutely NO criticism for spelling, grammar and if i'm confused about something, i'll ask what you meant before making an obscure interpretation.

[Junk Bond Trader]

Edible, i'll never shy away from a good debate, and I'll certainly reply to all of your points at a later time when I'm less busy (I had the day off work yesterday and need to do some catching up). I may even open a new topic in politics about it.

But I will say this. I think, to some degree, I haven't been as clear about my positions as I could have, or I tried to cover too many aspects of the subject in one post. What I attempted to do was give my view on the Iraq war in a nutshell as well as give an idea of where I'm coming from politically to pre-emptively counter any misconceptions one who leans to the political right might have of me during the debate. It obviously caused my post to be too scattered and I'll likely refrain from these asides in the future. I say this because I apparently led you to conclusions about my point of view that were not intended. Conversely, I'll admit that I may have made certain suppositions about your views that were, perhaps, not entirely true. You seem like a fairly critical thinker with whom I happen to disagree on some things. I did assume from a few of your comments that you were a Bush supporter through and through. I don't know you well enough to know what the full range of your political views are, but a better understanding of them will enrich future debates.

Without going too far into it, I think you read into my words a bit regarding whether we should pull out or not. I am, however, willing to admit that my agument may have gotten muddled because I tried to cover too much ground in a simple post. No. I'm pretty much a raging Cindy Sheehan loving, Nation reading, Air America listening proponent of the "Bring them home now" philosophy. Many on the right say that we should stay there because leaving would be an admission of defeat and would embolden terrorists. I disagree. I think the troops need to come home now, and I was explaining why I think it will be fine to do so. We go away, the insurgency goes away. Iraqis work out for themselves what is right for them.

When I said "You break it, you buy it," it was really in response to the principal of your contention that we owe Iraq nothing because, to your mind the country was broken before then. You say to hell with Iraq and Iraqis. We did our job. Let them figure it out. I'm sorry, but I view that as an arrogant point of view. Either you're saying we have the right to roam the globe removing any leader we don't like because we are rich and powerful as a nation and the people of the countries we invade be damned, or you're saying that we should be able to remove leaders we don't like, and the people should be grateful that we came in and saved them from their horrible dictator, and now that we've done our job in all of its righteousness that they should just become good little capitalists and figure it out for themselves. If either of these is correct, then I'm sorry. Good luck. I couldn't disagree with you more. They may have had a cruel dictator, but they had utilities, running water and security. To say the people of Iraq are better off, well, we'd have to ask an iraqi about that one. But when we are the ones who knocked out their infrastructure to "free" them, I dare say we have a responsibility to help them rebuild, and we don't need troops to do it. If Bush would do what he said he was going to do in the lead up to the war and let the oil benefit the people in the form of money to fund reconstruction, then we'd have an entirely different situation. These were not stone age people; these were secular people who liked western culture until we bombed them back to it.

So there is no inconsistency in my position. I say bring the troops home now, but I also felt the need to respond to a view I thought was at best nihilistic and at worst arrogant. I won't judge, but I'd ask you to rethink that.

Other than that, I think the bottom line is that we agree that the troops should be pulled. If that is is your position, then we have that common ground. I can't agree with the idea that you appear to set forth that condemns whole nations of people with sweeping generalities. You said that Fallen Angel appears to be a Dubya hater. It gave me the impression that on some level, you are a Dubya defender. I formulated alot of my post based on that, stating simply that Bush and his handlers have no interest bringing the troops home or doing anything that changes an unacceptable situation.

Far as PNAC being a leftist conspiracy theory, it's right there out in the open on their website for all to read for those who will. The neo-conservative architects of the PNAC foreign policy are in power right now. I'm not going to go down the slippery slope of conspiracy theories. I'm sure you've heard them all. I believe what I believe with regard to them and that's all I'll say. PNAC is not a conspiracy theory, which is what, in my view, makes all the more unsettling. I'm not talking about fitting certain damning sentences into conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the whole nutty thing. It is a vision of American foreign policy that basically spells out what the Bush administration is actually doing in Iraq. The reason they will not leave is that one of the key components of their vision is having permanent military bases in the M. E. It calls for the spreading of American values by nation building by means of military might if necessary or, where possible, through diplomacy. But the vision starts with Iraq. This much is not conspiracy. They did exactly what they said they would do. It remains to be seen what this misadventure will lead to. I see it as dangerous and against what America is supposed to stand for.

[Junk Bond Trader]

btw - forgive some minor grammar and spelling errors in my above post. I typed it fast during my lunch hour. It's no excuse though, I guess. Just know that bad grammar, especially when it's my own, upsets me more than it upsets you.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Junk Bond Trader

Many on the right say that we should stay there because leaving would be an admission of defeat and would embolden terrorists. I disagree. I think the troops need to come home now, and I was explaining why I think it will be fine to do so. We go away, the insurgency goes away. Iraqis work out for themselves what is right for them.

Perhaps you don't understand al-Qaeda's mission in the Middle East. It doesn't stop with the withdraw of US troops. A few foriegn fighters will receed, but this whole time our favorite group there has been networking and recruiting. Ask any analyst in the CIA, DIA, or ISI. They'll all explain to you what someone like al-Zawahiri's ambitions and intentions truely are. They want the US and other foreign governments out of the Middle East so that they can establish their own theocracies.

The good Dr. has written several publications, all of which outline his plans for places like Egypt, Afghanistan, and now... Iraq. First two have failed horribly due to US intervention, but with the WMD fiasco, suddenly Iraq looks to be prosperous if the US and other governments are compelled to yank most of the Coalition out of there right now and be left with security forces that are not equipt enough to deal with this. To better put it into perspective, it will be a repeat of Afghanistan. The Russians withdrew prematurely and the jihadists did not stop fighting the government until Kabul fell.

Same thing can happen with Iraq, which would only mean that we'd have to return there again if it turned into another terrorist haven from which major attacks on the US were staged. It's not about saving face. It's about leaving when it's time to kick the crutches out from under Iraq.

They may have had a cruel dictator, but they had utilities, running water and security. To say the people of Iraq are better off, well, we'd have to ask an iraqi about that one.

Your idea that the Iraqis had all this running water under Saddam is a misconception. Coalition forces knocked out a number of water facilities durring Desert Storm. Facilities that were supposed to be repaired under Saddam through the "Oil for Food" program, but were neglected and ignored. The water there eventually became so filthy that alot of Iraqis died, due to the fact they were drinking water that had been contaminated with sewage. And security. The security in Iraq was like the security under Joseph Stalin. You'd be safe as long as you didn't say anything disagreeable with the regime and obeyed all the laws.

Those who didn't. Well... it wasn't too long ago that Saddam had annourced to the Iraqi people that he was going to release all of the political prisoners that were being held on a certain date. When that day came, all these families amassed around the prison gates awaiting their loved ones to come out. No one came out though because everyone in there had been killed long ago.

Trying to say that life under Saddam was all peachy compared to now is a hard arguement to win. Human rights have improved, health conditions have improved, and the infrastructure has greatly improved. If you want a list of all that has been accomplished there, I can run over to the DoD website and pull up a massive list of accomplishments that the Associated Press will not print in any article.

But when we are the ones who knocked out their infrastructure to "free" them, I dare say we have a responsibility to help them rebuild, and we don't need troops to do it.

Tell that to the people of New Oreleans who were running around with weapons because law and order had completely broken down and the police were not capable of handling it alone.

[MrMaelstrom]

The soviets really believed they were freeing people everywhere.
Their arguements to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's were very much like those of the coalition*, especially when it came to women.

Actually, women in any socialist country (even in China) always had a lot more say on the way the country/house/their own life was run then the closest non-socialist cultural equivalent.

The soviets allegedly invaded Afghanistan in order to free the local people and end regional warfare in their borders (besides the obvious dominion policy). Bullshit. Tell that to someone who got bombed.

The coalition* went in to find the alleged leader of a militarized political organization who is allegely responsible for 9/11 1st asnd foremost, and also to free up the people trampled under the rule of some Taliban that one of the coalition partners gave a few millions to to cut down on opium production right before they blew up some budhist statues and the WTC. Bullshit. Acceptable god-sent excuse for pre-Iraqui foreplay? Maybe. Whatever the reason, tell it to someone who got bombed.

It's history's point of view that will decide the worth of our opinions today. I mean, the past is horrid by the morals of today. But when "today" is horrid and sordid by current values... then the legacy we'll be judged upon by future generations isn't really very good... (for the rest of you, of course, 'cause I'm in a class of mine own - the people in white call it the "maximum security ward", so it must mean that I'm really very important and am going to do great things.



* a coalition is not a brute, his henchman a a bunch of arse-kissers.
A coalition is the coming together of many as one. Under the rule of all or a chosen leader, not a self-appointed bully with his own agenda in the backpocket.





*politics? I really do apologize to all for ever suggesting a forum such as this. I am sorry because I think it contributed to the tearing apart of quite a few of us here, especially concerning things we can never change, despite how often we we cheated out of our vote by our electee's commitment to what we voted him in for in the 1st place.

Politics? A lie repeated 100 times becomes truth. Just keep repeating yours and hope it sticks.

I'm out.





.

[MrMaelstrom]

And you know, no matter how much bullshit we've argued regarding the pro's and con's of a governments policies, we stuck to that.

The title of this thread alone is disgusting for anyone thinking clearly and without prejudice (we all are prejudiced, but when we knowingly act upon it, it becomes something else - in the dictionary it's called xenophobia). So I'm leaving it.


.

[Binkie]

Jigga whaaaa? Soviets went in to remove their own guy who wasn't cooperating at the time. The communist party in Afghanistan took power back in like 1978 in a coup. From there, the Soviets just provided arms and advisors to Hafizullah Amin in bringing the country under control. When he couldn't do it and stopped cooperating with Moscow, Spetsnaz troops were sent in to kill Amim and that's when the rest of the brigades rolled in to help restore order. The government didn't really change way too much. Well... it did, but it didn't. In reality, rolling in there proved to be a great chance for the KGB to move in and gain greater control over the communist regime there to benefit their own interests while Soviet troops could provide security. But the Soviet way of dealing with insurgency is quite different from that of the Coalition troops.

[MrMaelstrom]

I'm sure any afghan prefers to be bombed by the US rather than by the soviets.

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to figure out what an insurgent is and how he differs from a rebel or guerrilla.

Is there a new term for invader yet?

Oh, yeah, occupier. Someone who just kicked the door down, points a gun at you and says he's gonna sleep over a couple of nights, after which, you will pay him for the trip he made and the damage he caused to your house and the damage you caused him by trying to keep him out.

...

[MrMaelstrom]

Though a moderator, as not to be accused of anything, I ask before acting on this:

why is this on news and not political? Are there any reasons other than political to hate the french?

French: the WHOLE FUCKING people that belong to a nation.

Not even Sternn was so thick. And if he was, he hid it better.

[Binkie]

Well, if there's a villiage where a suspected terror cell exists in Afghanistan or Iraq, the US will use precision-guided bombs to level just that house or will send in troops who can at least differentiate an insurgent from a noncombatant most of the time. If it were handled by the Soviets, they'd carpet bomb the entire villiage and call it a day.

[MrMaelstrom]

Precision? Are you kidding me? You gotta, of course. I don't care how precise a depleted uranium bomb is. The radiation stays and kills any future passerby. But I'm probably making this up, 'cause I didn't watch it on Fox.

Carpet-bombing?

When did that last occur in Afghanistan? Let me hear it from you, please.

[MrMaelstrom]

Nation-building? You mean like South America in the 60's, 70's and 80's?

God know what it must have been like before Pinochet, the contras and Noriega we given a little helping hand, or Indonesias Sukarno, Egypt's Mubarak, Iraq's Saddam Hussein...oops, wait. That never happened....

[edible_eye]

aw, binkie - i had a feeling you'd jump in here soon enough.

and i'll respond also, albeit to a small portion of junk bond's post. i'll wait 'til the cannons begin firing once he has more time to post his response before i unload myself.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

Edible, i'll never shy away from a good debate, and I'll certainly reply to all of your points at a later time when I'm less busy (I had the day off work yesterday and need to do some catching up). I may even open a new topic in politics about it.

excellent.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

I did assume from a few of your comments that you were a Bush supporter through and through.

i supported bush over kerry and would do so again, but no - i'm not a pro-bush guy, per se. my political leanings move toward the libertarian party. i do, however give president bush the respect he deserves as the president of our country - the same respect i would give any president.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

I'm pretty much a raging Cindy Sheehan loving, Nation reading, Air America listening proponent of the "Bring them home now" philosophy.

we will most definitely disagree on many, if not all points then - which, of course, is fine.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

When I said "You break it, you buy it," it was really in response to the principal of your contention that we owe Iraq nothing because, to your mind the country was broken before then. You say to hell with Iraq and Iraqis. We did our job. Let them figure it out. I'm sorry, but I view that as an arrogant point of view.

you did a fairly decent job of capturing my point of view here. i don't know what happened after this but you're about to go off on a tangential rant in the next paragraph and apply it to me.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

Either you're saying we have the right to roam the globe removing any leader we don't like because we are rich and powerful as a nation and the people of the countries we invade be damned, or you're saying that we should be able to remove leaders we don't like, and the people should be grateful that we came in and saved them from their horrible dictator, and now that we've done our job in all of its righteousness that they should just become good little capitalists and figure it out for themselves. If either of these is correct, then I'm sorry. Good luck. I couldn't disagree with you more.

actually, i never said any of this. what i said was - we declared war because of the global belief that iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that america believed we were in danger because of it. that was our reason to invade iraq. i also said that when the weapons were declared nonexistant, we should have packed up and left. that's it. the fact that saddam and his boys were removed was a bonus for iraq, like finding two prizes inside the cracker jack box.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

They may have had a cruel dictator, but they had utilities, running water and security. To say the people of Iraq are better off, well, we'd have to ask an iraqi about that one. But when we are the ones who knocked out their infrastructure to "free" them, I dare say we have a responsibility to help them rebuild, and we don't need troops to do it.

i disagree that we have a responsibility to rebuild. when we put forth warning after warning that our presence in iraq was imminent if saddam didn't cooperate, it was at each point understood that damage to his country would be inevitable. it was his responsibility as a leader, a president, a dictator to mind his country. he didn't. he and parts of his country were destroyed. the onus was on him, and by default his country to clean up whatever mess he invited into his land.

america has a duty to our sense of morality, though and unfortunately that boils down to our feeling as though we should rebuild, although we have no obligation to do so. and again - we didn't knock out their infrastructure to "free" them, we did it to locate and destroy weapons of mass destruction. the goals changed mid-stream and that's where we went wrong.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

If Bush would do what he said he was going to do in the lead up to the war...

he did. he went in, searched for and ultimately declared their land free of weapons of mass destruction.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

...and let the oil benefit the people in the form of money to fund reconstruction, then we'd have an entirely different situation.

this was not something george bush had the power to promise. the oil was not a piece of this war. we had no jurisdiction over it then and have none over it now - other than to make sure it stays safe from insurgent attacks. it would be up to the iraqis to use the oil for this purpose - something they would have to do if they weren't being treated like children and now had to take their own responsibility for their own country.

[quote-junk bond trader]So there is no inconsistency in my position. I say bring the troops home now, but I also felt the need to respond to a view I thought was at best nihilistic and at worst arrogant. I won't judge, but I'd ask you to rethink that.[/quote]

unfortunately, the inconsistency just reared up again. bring the troops home now... we have a responsibility to rebuild. can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

You said that Fallen Angel appears to be a Dubya hater. It gave me the impression that on some level, you are a Dubya defender.

anyone who takes f-911 to heart has a predisposition to hating / despising george bush. that movie makes them feel justified in their disgust. it's not an accurate "documentary". it's hugely biased to fuel the fires of those who already harbor negative feelings. 'nuff said.

Originally Posted by junk bond trader

Far as PNAC being a leftist conspiracy theory, it's right there out in the open on their website for all to read for those who will. The neo-conservative architects of the PNAC foreign policy are in power right now. I'm not going to go down the slippery slope of conspiracy theories. I'm sure you've heard them all. I believe what I believe with regard to them and that's all I'll say. PNAC is not a conspiracy theory, which is what, in my view, makes all the more unsettling. I'm not talking about fitting certain damning sentences into conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the whole nutty thing. It is a vision of American foreign policy that basically spells out what the Bush administration is actually doing in Iraq. The reason they will not leave is that one of the key components of their vision is having permanent military bases in the M. E. It calls for the spreading of American values by nation building by means of military might if necessary or, where possible, through diplomacy. But the vision starts with Iraq. This much is not conspiracy. They did exactly what they said they would do. It remains to be seen what this misadventure will lead to. I see it as dangerous and against what America is supposed to stand for.

a fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. they're a bunch of fanatics. they have no more power than gay rights groups, the naacp, the working mothers union, or nambla. special interests always have a big voice.

anyway, i await your more thought out response. hope your lunch was decent.