The Official Iraq War thread (country, show, quote, Kora)

[sleepy jack]

Its not the same. Even so, who cares? It has nothing to do with the main point which is that Saddam was a problem and we did a good thing by removing him from power.

How is it not the same?

In the imperialism age, the aggressors used moral-obligation reasoning to justify their occupation. (The obligation to spread civilization to these colored people, aka 'White-Man's Burden) Their true intentions however, were to gain natural resources bases (cotton) to fuel their industrializing homeland. (Western Europe/America)

In the modern age, the aggressors use moral obligations reasoning to justify their occupation (the obligation to spread democracy). Their true intentions however, are to gain natural resource bases (oil fields) to fuel their industrialized homelands. (America)

I know about the Trail of Tears, slavery, Cambodia, Nicaragua. I know it all god f*cking dammit. Nicaragua didn't slaugter thousands of its own people. Cambodia were not a potential threat to US homeland security. Nicaragua and Cambodia didn't lie to the UN about developing WMDs. Yet you draw such paralels, you're the one who dosen't know sh*t about history.

Iraq was not a threat to US security. Iraq wasn't even a threat to Kuwati security, and their a shit country which borders Iraq and has already been invaded by Iraq once. The US is a massive military force, thousands of miles away from Iraq, and have never once been invaded by them.

How were they a threat to the United States? It just got painted like he was a threat in a propaganda campaign to get people to support the war there, JUST LIKE WITH NICARAGUA, but wait, Nicaragua is a completely different situation right?

Prove it.

Um, hello? Lord Curzon's quote is widely available on the internet. How else can I prove to you that the public found out? Am I supposed to prove to you that controlling the biggest oil fields in the world, or having massive pull in multiple parts of the world is beneficial to leaders? I think just an explanation is sufficient enough to prove it.

Your remark "we will start an arab fecade in Iraq". Thats what I called fiction.

Ah, okay.

We already have, how is it fictional? 25 American appointed 'Mohhamedans' who drafted a US-supervised 'constitutional fiction'. That is Curzon's definition of an Arab facade and it is good enough for me.

Lord Curzon wasn't talking about Iraq. DO YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF REALITY?

What do you know of the 25 men, their policies, their interests? Do you distrust them just because they were appointed by an American?

I think its good that an outside source appoints them anyway. I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Iraqis appoint them. You do too

Actually Lord Curzon WAS talking about Iraq, granted though, it was the Iraq of 70 years ago.
I never insinuated that Curzon was talking about 2003 Iraq anyway. I'm telling you that we (and by we I mean 'the west') have done it before, and it is certainly not above us to do it again. In fact, we've already done it again.

Of course I distrust them because they were appointed by Americans. We are spreading democracy right? What democracy is ruled by 25 leaders appointed by a different country?

Also, in an earlier version of your post, instead of it saying

'I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Iraqis appoint them'

You said

'I know exactly whats going to happen if we let Muslim extremists appoint them'

Well, for one, Iraq is not filled with Muslim extremists. Two, you are missing the whole point of a democracy. Aren't the people supposed to be in charge? I mean, a few posts ago you said it was good of us to bring democracy to the Middle East, and now you are saying that you would rather not the Iraqi's be democratic. Contradiction?

Two copy and pasted examples, not a big demographic of people now is it? I DARE you to say thats worse than the terrorists being harbored in Venezuela or Iraq. Or hell, Canada and the UK.

Even if the examples were copy pasted, which they weren't, paraphrased, yes, copy pasted, no. But even if they WERE, how would that detract from the fact that the US is harboring these two terrorists? Is it even relevant that they were copy pasted? The point is just as valid.

Secondly, no one in Venezuela is harboring terrorists knowingly. Nor are they in Canada or the UK. Quit being ridiculous. You should really check your Chavez facts before you characterize him as a terror loving villian. He supports the US war on terror.

Originally Posted by boo boo

We're the biggest superpower in the world and more than anyone we could get it done. Who in the f*ck else would you suggest? Poland?

I suggest the Iraqis, the people who would be naturally inclined to deal with it anyways.

Links would be more appropiate.

Yeah, people get information from sources other than the internet sometimes. They're called books and articles, they are very informative. I gave you perfectly formatted sources, from a book and an article, I don't have a link to some website for you. Sorry.

Thats a no brainer. I agree with you completely.

Okay, why would they want to leave when it is making them billions of dollars? Consciousness? Don't be silly.

Right now, we're trying to keep whats going on in Iraq under somewhat of a giant glass, leaving would simply be removing that glass and allowing the civil war to escalate to god knows where.

boo boo, they want us to leave. US presence is fueling the fire, the insugents admit that. They are the fire.

One thing we should do the we aren't doing the way we should is securing Iraqs borders, to prevent terrorists from coming in, and a lot of them are coming in, this is a problem we should have dealt with much earlier. Another horrible decision on Bushs part.

Maybe, but like I said, that really isn't our interest there.

Revolution is good in the right hands, muslim extremists is not the right hands.

Oops, I thought you said Muslin extremists in the last post where I said something about an earlier version of your post saying Muslim extremists, I must have been getting it confused with this one. Either way you imply that the Iraqis are Muslim extremists and should not be allowed to control their government, which contradicts your main justification for going into the war, democracy and the overthrow of Saddam.
After 9/11, many Iraqis ran to the streets ran to the streets to celebrate, the idea of them appointing their officials scares me sh*tless.

In general communism is better for them, but Stalin was worse than any Czar. Whatever, that was just an example. Lets drop this.

Dropped.