[Kazan]

Bobboau: the Iraqi's that directly /. don't open their mouth themselves about the issue as far as i know - they did talk to us through an US IT guy who is helping them get their LUG up and going.

According to them the average iraqi's life is indeed better - and tanks rolling through town and gun fire is uncommon enough in most cities that they actually take note of it again.  

Mostly they're just trying to get life back to normal, and they're finding 'normal' life is going to be better now.  No matter what some sects want to do.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: you're being a jackass - you know most of america felt like they had been "Pearl Habor"ed after 9/11 and thought some reasonable powerful government was going to be behind it - and not afghanistan -- technically that invasion was reprisal as they did have enough evidence to link the attack to Bin Laden and his Taliban support -- I can remember most of the world supported us on that call


As for your "supporting american dominance" - it sounds like your jealous, it honestly does.  You ever consider we don't _have_ to use our military to be on top - you really are a jackass -- by your logic no country on the planet can have an army - but you seem to be directing that logic just at the US --- you are being stupid, illogical and more-or-less a bigot.

In order to be jealous, I would have to want that power for myself or for someone else. I don't When a single nation wields as much power as America does today, there is only one word for it: Empire. I am simply against Empires. There's no envy in it, I just don't think anyone should have so much power, not even me. And don't delude yourself, without your Army, the States would be unable to defend its ill gotten gains, not to mention taking them in the first place. Do you think that bases in 130 nations are a defensive tool?

As you remember in the days and months after 9/11, the US populace went into ultra defensive mode and gladly gobbled up any rhetoric that Dbya cared to dish out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not why laws exist, to prevent individuals (or nations) from acting out of rage immeditatly after an attack. You said it yourself, it was a reprisal attack.

Also, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence linking 9/11 to Afghanistan. Am I wrong in assuming that the vast majority of people take it on good faith? I mean, hace you seen any independently confirmed evidence. Maybe its just me, but I actually haven't seen *any* evidence to indicated who did it, and I think that I am more informed than most.

______

But what I was talking about was not 9/11 or US dominance, I was talking about America soldiers and the US Army. Here's a question, please answer it. Do you believe the United States military to be a defensive organization, and if so, to defend against whom?

[Bobboau]

have you seen any evedence that the USA landed on the moon, I mean real evedence independently confermed, none of that American propaganda fake photo ****, untill someone flys up there and shows me that flag I ain't beleiveing it

Usama admitted it, hell he bosted about it, and the Talaban was suporting him, only a bigoted (hey, I like this buzz word) moron is going to BS there way through saying the Afgahnastan war was not justified.

[Kazan]

I never "galdly gobbled up any rhetoric" - EVER, being from a long line of military minds I analyzed the situation myself.  I don't need some moron mouthpiece telling me what to think.

the UN supported US actions in afghanistan - which is enough for me to for once take what the government mouth pieces are saying as possibly true.  


"Nobody should have that much power" - somebody must be on top, there is always someone on top - that's kinda of a definition.

You still failed to address the fact that your logic leads to saying every country on the planet cannot have an army.  ANY country not having an army is just plain stupid - the country without an army is a country quickly overrun by the slightest enemy.   Wecleom to reality

[Rictor]

When was the last time that the United States was threatened to be "overrun by enemies"? In other words, when was the last time that a foreign power attempted to stage an invasion of America? WW2? WW1? The Mexican War? when?

In an ideal world, no nation would have armies. However, we are not living in an ideal world. Having armies is, however much a drain on other vital programs, necessary. But I never said that the US should not have an Army. I said that that Army should not be used to conquer, should not be used in an offensive fashion.

Holland has an army. They just never use it to attack. If they were threatened, they would use it to fight off an invasion, but until that time the Army takes no action. Is that really too much to expect?

Yes or No, is that too much to expect?

_________________

And no, Bobboau, I have no evidence that the moon landing occured. None that can't be easily faked. But I take it on good faith, or actually I just don't care much. If the moon landing was faked, would that affect thw world much? No. If the evidence to link 9/11 to Afghanistan fakes, would that affect the world much? Sure would.

If you care, I do believe that Osama planned it. Again, good faith. But I was just saying that I saw no evidence. Maybe you've got access to some great source of information that I don't. And Osama admitting it is not much evidence. If it was not indeed him, do you thyink he would still claim he did it? Yes, so that pretty much negates him admitting it.

Again, not saying it wasn't him, just saying that I have seen no evidence.

[Kazan]

Rictor: so you're saying we shouldn't keep an army in peace time? Peace time would last exactly ZERO SECONDS and we'd get our arses kicked because we didn't have a trained army


You are changing your stance now - you origionally said that anyone in the army is evil, etc, etc

You know it's like i said - most of them joined to DEFEND our country against threats - but since our asshole president is technically commander-in-chief they do have to follow his orders, whether they like them or not

[Rictor]

No, I said that you can keep an Army whenever you damn well please, just don't use it to attack. Its like, you can own a gun, but the second you use it to attack someone, you become a criminal. Owning the gun itself is not a crime. A drain of social programs, yes, but not a crime.

I am not reversing my position. If I said something and it came out the wrong way, sorry. But I thought i was qute clear on the matter.

And you say that "most of them joined to DEFEND our country against threats", but when was the last time the US was threatened? This is what I have been asking all along, but you don't get the point. If the organization you join has spent the past 50 years on the OFFENSE, it is not reasonable to say that anyone joining it can expect to perform DEFENSIVE duties. Not saying that the people joining it do not THINK they are defending America, but history has shown that the US Army is used almost exlusivelly for offense.

edit: to clarify, I think I get where you got mixed up. I said anyone in the US army is "evil" (not the term I used, and not I term I would use in  this situation, but for conveniece sake). That quite a step from "anyone in any army is evil". As I steted above, ther US Army specifically has been used pretty much 100% for offense during the past 50 years, and before then it wasn't much of an issue since the US was isolationist. The logic being that if you join an organization which is an offensive one, then you yourself are supprting the war, conquering etc, which makes you and "evil" person.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
I thought i was qute clear on the matter.

Originally posted by Rictor
anyone in the American military as a career has to demostrate a healthy disregard for human life and the prinicples of justice.

[Rictor]

read my edit

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
unemployeement hasn't changed since before we went in AFAIK

the economy of that country has been in the ****ter since UN sanctions were handed down 13 years ago

Wrong Kazan, its gone completely to ****, even Paul Bremer acknowledges this. Life is improving slowly, but its nowhere near the level enjoyed pre-gulf war which is when this conflict really began. As for the tanks and gunfire, that wasnt really an everyday event before the invasion now was it?

Originally posted by Kazan
I never said I think we're justified to be there - but I'm not going to let you talk out your ass

"Americans getting kicked out" - yeah freaking right, that's going to happen all of _NEVER_ especially with the arrogant unelected president we have

Who said its going to happen in his term? Who said its going to happen in the next presidents? The US is in Iraq for the long haul, and without the support  of the general populance, which its loosing, it cant mantain control on the country. I think we both know why the US invaded Iraq kazan, as do the majority of Iraqis, if it was your country what would you do?

Bobbaou,  I shot JFK.

[Kazan]

oh yes.. and being offensive when we're asked to be by the UN is so many cases is SOOO evil


If you don't like us using it offensively _EVER_ then go ***** to all the UN member nations who have asked us to do so repeatedly in the past

until then STFU


fact of the matter is: no matter what we do you hate us - so maybe i should just said **** YOU and get it over will

[Liberator]

Rictor, your initial statement that the USA is an empire is a fallacy.  Empires grow by absorbing smaller, weaker states, they don't help setup independent nations to conduct commerce with.  

The current actions by the USA in Iraq are an effort to get the undesirables, criminals and warlord-thugs, out before the Iraqis begin self-government in June.

[Kazan]

Gank: if it was my country i'd play along and actually try and work diplomatically, because that would be the fatest way to get rid of them in this case

if that requires me giving them permission to have one military base on our soil so be it - i'll make them promise [sign a treaty] that they have to help us if a neighbor invaded us

[Rictor]

Wait, wait, I must have missed the part where I gave holy authority to the UN to govern on all matters justly and fairly.

Oh yeah, I didnt. The UN doesn't make decisions for me, and just becuase I agree that they are in theory a positive organization does not mean I agree with everything they do.

Obtaining UN support is next to meaningless. The US can exert enough influence (via its position on the security council, as well as economic and political influence) to sway the UN any which way it wants. The fact that **** was unable to do it only shows how very incompetent he is. Clinton did it many times, as did any capable US president before him.

So, in essence, I have proven that I'm right, but you choose to generalize and state that I agree with every word that comes out of the UN's mouth, so if they gave it the thumbs up I can't complain.

_____

And I like how you put the empahsis on _EVER_. Like thats such an unusual a request. Yes, ever. Its like someone asking "so you mean I can't kill someone, EVER. Wow, thats harsh"

[Kazan]

You haven't proven jack Rictor, you keep ranting on like some tinfoil hatted madman.

If most of the world supports us doing something - like trying to stop genocide in Kosovo or the incursion into Somalia, etc and you disagree? tough **** - WE WERE ASKED, are we evil because we said yes because we have the capability

[Rictor]

You are not evil becuase you have the capability.

I would advise you to get informed on Kosovo before stating that genocide occured, it is a specially touchy topic for me so I think you shoudl drop it or get educated before I start *really* ranting.

And at which point do I come off as a "tinfoil hatted madman"? Is it because I am skeptical of the "official story" that is put out by the government? I thought you were too.

And again, you assume that the UN represents "the world". Now, I'm going to skip the whole "people of the world" speech, and play it by your terms. Lets assume that a UN resolution is the equivalent of "world support". This UN resolution is, as I've said, menaingless becuase of the huge amounts of influence that the US exerts over other nations.

Its hardly a free decision when coercion, bribery, and other factors are used to influence the decision. Or do you deny that this is happening. Are you saying that the US exerts no influence over UN member nations when it comes to decision making?

[Kazan]

My brother was in Kosovo - thank you very much - he was in the army to pay for college, they tried screwing him out of his benefits - and in the end because of lawyer fees that effectively did happen

I am skeptical of the official story - however you're acting like the US is _ALWAYS_ evil and _ALWAYS_ wrong, even when most of the world WANTS it to do something - this is exactly the bias vaalidates the extremely poor behavior of some of my country men in relation to europeans

Resolutions we've wanted have been blocked before on many occasion, and they can still be blocked, and will be blocked in the future.  All it takes is one vote "no" on the security council.   We don't say "SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION OR WILL DROP THE BOMB ON YOUR ASS"

I do not deny that we can throw our weight around - but at the end of the day we don't always get what we want in the UN

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: if it was my country i'd play along and actually try and work diplomatically, because that would be the fatest way to get rid of them in this case

if that requires me giving them permission to have one military base on our soil so be it - i'll make them promise [sign a treaty] that they have to help us if a neighbor invaded us

In an ideal world thats the way it would go, except the world aint ideal and the middle east even less so. There'll always be armed resistance to the occupiers of a country, and the way the US deals with this resistance only generates more. Look at Fallujah, full of anti-american hatred, so the US surrounds it and bombs it. The guy responsible for yesterdays violence is holed up in Kufa mosque, Shia's holiest site. The US has issued a warrant for his arrest. Whats going to happen? Whats going to happen then? Doesnt take a genius to figure that one out. I'm not saying this is the way things should happen, I'm saying its the way they're going to, and anybody that expected anything else needs their head examined.

[Kazan]

Gank: no the world isn't ideal, but you can TRY DIPLOMACY before getting out the guns. Al Sadr didn't try diplomacy,

We've surrounded Fallujah - but we haven't BOMBED it at all - we shot ONE ROCKET at a strategic target -- not all those "plain clothes" people are non-combatants - that entire crowd the other day made themselves combatants under international law.   Most other countries would have outright carpet bombed that city, don't kid yourself.

We issued a warrant for his arrest (technicalyl they said an iraqi judge did, but being that we appointed that judge) because they suspect he murdered a rival - that's a rather justified reason to issue an arrest warrent in my personal opinion.  

This guy has ARMED support, if they fire on the police/troups that come to arrest him then they're criminals and they're firing on military/police and they've just made themselves combatants - that's a CHOICE they made - we by no means are forcing those paramilitaries to stand around that mosque with AK-47s to support Al Sadr

I never said I expected otherwise - but be careful when you pain people for being "evil"

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: no the world isn't ideal, but you can TRY DIPLOMACY before getting out the guns. Al Sadr didn't try diplomacy,

Diplomacy's been going on for the last year, Al-Sistani, the major player on the Shia side has rejected the US drawn up constitution. The US is pushing ahead with it regardless.

We've surrounded Fallujah - but we haven't BOMBED it at all - we shot ONE ROCKET at a strategic target -- not all those "plain clothes" people are non-combatants - that entire crowd the other day made themselves combatants under international law.   Most other countries would have outright carpet bombed that city, don't kid yourself.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D43A5CDF-E1AF-4572-B027-B2AE9F4AC150.htm
I know its al-jazeera but its the only decent article I could find. And most countrys wouldnt carpet bomb the place, most countrys wouldnt have invaded Iraq in the first place.

We issued a warrant for his arrest (technicalyl they said an iraqi judge did, but being that we appointed that judge) because they suspect he murdered a rival - that's a rather justified reason to issue an arrest warrent in my personal opinion.  

True, not saying otherwise, just saying the place is going to go to **** because of it. Its worth mentioning no US soldiers have been brought up on murder or even manslaughter charges for the deaths of unarmed Iraqis though.

This guy has ARMED support, if they fire on the police/troups that come to arrest him then they're criminals and they're firing on military/police and they've just made themselves combatants - that's a CHOICE they made - we by no means are forcing those paramilitaries to stand around that mosque with AK-47s to support Al Sadr

Aye, but wtf did the US expect them to do?

I never said I expected otherwise - but be careful when you pain people for being "evil"

I never called anyone evil, dont put words in my mouth.