You don't know shit about Iraq - Page 2

jaguar · 06-14-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

America does not oppress them, they want to oppress America.

Apart from removing the first democratic government in Iran, supporting the house of Saud, invading Iraq, supporting Israel.....

Catwoman one thing to note is that nation states will, by their very nature always do what is best for them, principles be damn which is exactly why the US has supported more despotic and cruel regimes than anyone else - they're better at it.

As far as I am aware Al-Queda's goal was to destroy the great satan and establish a pan-islamic states that consisted of most of the middle east and asia. Or something. Thing is we're not dealing with Al Queda anymore, hell even the media (usually last to the party of these things) has started to realize the only ties most of these groups have to Al Queda is thinking along the same lines, most have their own little goals and targets.

Undertoad · 06-14-2004, 11:13 AM

al Qaeda is not anti-Imperialist. They are imperialists themselves. Since the US is not imperialist attacks against it or its interests are not anti-imperiaist.

al Qaeda does not view capitalism as the world's oppressor. They have not mentioned much in the way of economics at all.

As is often the case in capitalism, American's actions around the world support the rest of the world's interests even more than they support their own interests. But not Europe's... India, China, and Brazil's:

yearly percentage increases in petroleum consumption averaged to 2025

"destroy the cock-sure, money-orientated, imperialist principles they believe it is built upon" I believe the psych term for this is "projection": that's not what al Qaeda wants, that's what YOU want, and as you admire their strong horse you want to empathize with the parts of them you find intriguing.

al Qaeda wants to BE the cock-sure etc. They believe that Allah has willed the actions that take place and that they are merely the triggers. They believe they have the upper hand.

If you cannot believe this is wrong, I feel sorry for you.

Undertoad · 06-14-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Apart from removing the first democratic government in Iran, supporting the house of Saud, invading Iraq,

These three don't make sense when used together because they are contradictory.

Happy Monkey · 06-14-2004, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
These three don't make sense when used together because they are contradictory.

In what way? It shows that there are no principles involved in US intervention.

Undertoad · 06-14-2004, 11:42 AM

It shows that they were different decades ago.

The House of Saud is supported partly because the alternatives are far worse right now. US intervention in Iraq is (was?) supposed to create power vacuums that eventually lead to its downfall by demonstrating how democracy can be an alternative even there.

Like in poker, sometimes your current bluff is to set up a big win later...

richlevy · 06-14-2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on NATO (news - web sites) on Tuesday to get more peacekeeping forces into his country ahead of planned September elections, but said he was not seeking additional U.S. troops.

Why no additional U.S. troops? Because they are all in *(&()*&ing Iraq!

richlevy · 06-14-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
al Qaeda wants to BE the cock-sure etc. They believe that Allah has willed the actions that take place and that they are merely the triggers. They believe they have the upper hand.

If you cannot believe this is wrong, I feel sorry for you.

That's funny, we have guys on this side of the Atlantic who believe that they are the instruments of God's will. If the Israeli ultra-nationalists, the extremist Christian fundies, and the militant Islamists could all pick some nice barren real estate and have their own completely contained mini-Armageddon, the world would be a safer place.

Catwoman · 06-15-2004, 07:54 AM

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology:

Demonstrates the Clausewitzian perception of war (as rational and instrumented for political gain) as unsuitable in the context of militant Muslim terrorism (UT at first glance this will support your argument, and to some extent I think you are right about imposing my perception onto theirs... goes back to whether you consider the speaker as important as what is said). This is why I do not agree with the war (yes of course it was to deflect attention from 9/11 and thus a direct result of it), and why GWB doesn't understand who or what he is fighting against. How can you win a war when you don't know your enemy?

America to them represents satan - they are fighting a fantastical, religious battle which we are attempting to counter with bombs and occupation. By trying to establish a democracy in Iraq we are merely preparing for the emergance of a new legal brand of terrorism (Hitler, Mussolini). History, history.

Undertoad · 06-15-2004, 08:21 AM

I think that's a very good piece.

Arliquin · 06-16-2004, 04:44 AM

But whose job is it to know Iraq? Evidently, a lot of people 'know' something? Where were the PhD Orientalists, Historians, Middle East fundis etc? There is like an expert in every field conceivable nowadays. There could not have been a lack of information. But no-one seems to have been at hand to tell the politicians any sense against venturing to Babylon, as it was known when Alexander the Great fell there. Not like they needed a PhD advisor. Was this all hinging on ...'intel'?

You named a good many almost at random, so to someone whose job it is to study the middle-East , would'nt he have immediately said that the facts, as viewed from a historical & religious perspective should be against adopting the role of villian, in a tale that is completed by the presence of one.

jaguar · 06-16-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

It shows that they were different decades ago.

The House of Saud is supported partly because the alternatives are far worse right now. US intervention in Iraq is (was?) supposed to create power vacuums that eventually lead to its downfall by demonstrating how democracy can be an alternative even there.

Like in poker, sometimes your current bluff is to set up a big win later...

Bullshit, they're all examples of the US meddling in the affairs of soverign middle eastern nations and fucking it up badly, the wondering why everyone hates them. The only difference in IRaq is instead of the CIA wacking someone they sent the army instead.

The thing is that now the dust has settled, it's fairly clear what happened, the CIA, since it blows goats on human intel relied on dodgy sat photos and confessions from ex-baathist generals who had defected (who had their own agendas) for intel about Iraq's WMD capacity, hell Saddam himself was probably being lied to - would you tell him that you didn't actually have any left after the weapons inspectors?

Hawks in the adminstration ignored protestations of the real intel guys that everyone was far too hazy and grabbed every posssible thing (uranium from africa) as though it was concrete.

People knew what was going on, they were just ignored by neocons with stars in their eyes.

Undertoad · 06-16-2004, 07:12 AM

Well at least they got the al Qaeda connection right.

jaguar · 06-16-2004, 07:18 AM

What Al Queda connection would that be exactly? I've seen precisely jack shit linking them. Yes, Zarqawi active in Iraq but how does that link him to Saddam Hussien exactly? It's pisspoor smoke and mirrors. Look! We have evidence, or something, or maybe we don't but they're there now so they must always have been!

I mean look at this:

Quote:

In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.

In short, he fucking lied.

Christ, remote lime pit somewhere, one bullet each and the world would be a much safer place than if someone offed bin laden. If the SS spooks want to visit me here, feel free.

Undertoad · 06-16-2004, 07:34 AM

Whenever evidence is brought out, everyone blithely ignores it. Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes published his findings in a book after writing several articles.

russotto · 06-16-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
I think that's a very good piece.

Yes. I'm not totally convinced by it, but it is interesting. However, the best course of action for the US doesn't seem to change regardless of whether Al Queda is engaging in rational war or irrational fantasy-fulfillment. In either case, the only answer seems to be to crush them and drive their women into the arms of McKinnon and Dworkin (solving several problems there...)

06-15-2004, 07:54 AM	#23
Catwoman stalking a Tom Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: on the edge of the english channel Posts: 1,000	Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology: Demonstrates the Clausewitzian perception of war (as rational and instrumented for political gain) as unsuitable in the context of militant Muslim terrorism (UT at first glance this will support your argument, and to some extent I think you are right about imposing my perception onto theirs... goes back to whether you consider the speaker as important as what is said). This is why I do not agree with the war (yes of course it was to deflect attention from 9/11 and thus a direct result of it), and why GWB doesn't understand who or what he is fighting against. How can you win a war when you don't know your enemy? America to them represents satan - they are fighting a fantastical, religious battle which we are attempting to counter with bombs and occupation. By trying to establish a democracy in Iraq we are merely preparing for the emergance of a new legal brand of terrorism (Hitler, Mussolini). History, history. __________________ I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.

06-14-2004, 11:13 AM	#17
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	al Qaeda is not anti-Imperialist. They are imperialists themselves. Since the US is not imperialist attacks against it or its interests are not anti-imperiaist. al Qaeda does not view capitalism as the world's oppressor. They have not mentioned much in the way of economics at all. As is often the case in capitalism, American's actions around the world support the rest of the world's interests even more than they support their own interests. But not Europe's... India, China, and Brazil's: yearly percentage increases in petroleum consumption averaged to 2025 "destroy the cock-sure, money-orientated, imperialist principles they believe it is built upon" I believe the psych term for this is "projection": that's not what al Qaeda wants, that's what YOU want, and as you admire their strong horse you want to empathize with the parts of them you find intriguing. al Qaeda wants to BE the cock-sure etc. They believe that Allah has willed the actions that take place and that they are merely the triggers. They believe they have the upper hand. If you cannot believe this is wrong, I feel sorry for you.

06-14-2004, 11:42 AM	#20
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It shows that they were different decades ago. The House of Saud is supported partly because the alternatives are far worse right now. US intervention in Iraq is (was?) supposed to create power vacuums that eventually lead to its downfall by demonstrating how democracy can be an alternative even there. Like in poker, sometimes your current bluff is to set up a big win later...

06-15-2004, 08:21 AM	#24
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I think that's a very good piece.

06-16-2004, 04:44 AM	#25
Arliquin Jotter of Notes Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 11	But whose job is it to know Iraq? Evidently, a lot of people 'know' something? Where were the PhD Orientalists, Historians, Middle East fundis etc? There is like an expert in every field conceivable nowadays. There could not have been a lack of information. But no-one seems to have been at hand to tell the politicians any sense against venturing to Babylon, as it was known when Alexander the Great fell there. Not like they needed a PhD advisor. Was this all hinging on ...'intel'? You named a good many almost at random, so to someone whose job it is to study the middle-East , would'nt he have immediately said that the facts, as viewed from a historical & religious perspective should be against adopting the role of villian, in a tale that is completed by the presence of one.

06-16-2004, 07:12 AM	#27
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well at least they got the al Qaeda connection right.

06-16-2004, 07:34 AM	#29
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Whenever evidence is brought out, everyone blithely ignores it. Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes published his findings in a book after writing several articles.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)