America: are we too arrogant?

  • Thread starter Jetboy.
  • 445 comments
  • 12,404 views
That just looks like a bland political attack from the liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had a few more of those (same site) in the next years.

Personnally, I'm quite curious about how much oil-related money will be made by some corporations in the end of Iraq's reconstruction. This doesn't demonstrate that it was the goal of the war, but I think it's sane to keep an eye on such numbers, seeing how much attention has been drawn from the international community over this.
 
Famine
Just on this level - no other - I should point out that we pay roughly 3 times as much for petrol as the customer in the US does, on average.
Just on this level, I should also point out that at least 200% of that 300% is in additional taxes, not in additional cost of the raw material.
 
Too far behind...

If you think paradise is when the world is dominated by the Neo-Conservative "ReligiGoverNation Inc." Go ahead and keep supporting them.

I will paraphrase Jesus, "Go with the flow, it's easier. Be a hypocrite. Those who want the most and take the most are gods chosen; the meek are whiners. He who has the most gold is the holiest. All lives are of variable worth, starting with Republicans and going down."

If you are enlightened, don't give up. 💡
 
Point 1.
I did read the first few pages.

Point 2.
What I'm saying is that Bush failed to gain control of Iraq's oil. I didn't ever think that the US would steal the oil, but if you put a puppet government in, you can get them to produce far more oil, flood the market and reduce prices. I never said your prices went down, DID I?

Point 3.
When did Saddam gas his own cities?

Point 4.
I HATE Saddam. He was a total ******* (how come I said b*****d and it wasn't censored? I've editted it now) that bullied and murdered his own people. But America should have tried to get the rest of the world on their side instead of going in, all guns blazing without any agreement from 90% of the world.

Point 5.
The main reason we were told for going to war was that Weapons Of Mass Destruction threatened our presence. While I don't deny that Iraq without Saddam is better, the US simply changed its reason for war once it had started, since it realised WMD didn't exist.

I don't hate Americans, I feel that Bush has been far too arrogant. The title of the thread says it all. I like American people in general, I like most of the Americans in this thread, I am saying Bush has been too arrogant himself. Ever since he entered office, he was determined to attack Iraq.
 
I think everything has been said ten times over by now. Sanity lies only between the "America - Hyper Power" camp and the "Euro - Please don't make the arabs mad" camp.
Clearly, the invasion of Iraq was 95% political and 5% military. The disintegration of security in Afganistan is a testament to the illogic of putting 150,000+ troops in Iraq. The professional military / intelligence people will tell you (as they've told me) that pre-invasion iraq was quite incapable of striking the US in any meaningful way, and that due to Saddam's megalomania, he would never have given bio / chem weapons to any group related to Al Qaeda or any other muslim fundo group. Could they be wrong? But of course! However, if the WAR ON TERRORISM is really a war against terrorists, why are we starving that theater of operations? Sure, there are terrorists in Iraq - now!
America should be applauded for doing away with Saddam. He was every bit as evil as Bush says. However, along the way we managed to damage important relationships with our allies, screw up the war on terrorism, and build a whole new generation of wild-eyed whackos ready to march themselves into Macy's or the Chicago Board of Trade and blow it up.
When our fathers / grandfathers were running the world, we gave little thought about what Europeans thought of America. This isn't 1948 anymore. If you don't understand the importance of Europe to America, you slept through your economics class.
 
Party for GT4
Point 2.
What I'm saying is that Bush failed to gain control of Iraq's oil. I didn't ever think that the US would steal the oil, but if you put a puppet government in, you can get them to produce far more oil, flood the market and reduce prices. I never said your prices went down, DID I?
How many times do we have to say this? Iraq is using all of the income produced from their oil to pay off their billions of dollars of debt which Saddam created.

Party for GT4
Point 3.
When did Saddam gas his own cities?
In 1988 and 1991, he killed over 400,000 Kurdsish people.

Party for GT4
Point 4.
I HATE Saddam. He was a total ******* (how come I said b*****d and it wasn't censored? I've editted it now) that bullied and murdered his own people. But America should have tried to get the rest of the world on their side instead of going in, all guns blazing without any agreement from 90% of the world.
I love how Liberals and Anti-Americans love to say that the Americans went in alone. Here is the list of countires that are in the Coalition in Iraq, right now. The count is 48 (not counting the US). Is that not international enough for you?

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Party for GT4
Point 5.
The main reason we were told for going to war was that Weapons Of Mass Destruction threatened our presence. While I don't deny that Iraq without Saddam is better, the US simply changed its reason for war once it had started, since it realised WMD didn't exist.
The UN, Germany, Russia, John Kerry, Bill Clinton all said that Iraq had WMD. Were they lying? WMD wasn't the only reason. Once again, I post the reasons why we went into Iraq.

Viper Zero
Liberals seem to forget why they voted for the war in the first place. Here's a list of why the US and the Coalition attacked Iraq:
  1. Had illegal Biological and Chemical weapons
  2. Had interest in developing Nuclear weapons
  3. Had the ability to attack Middle East neighbors like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
  4. Had illegal long range missiles beyond the 90 mile limit
  5. Used those weapons to attack Iraqis
  6. Supported terrorism throughout the Middle East
  7. Disallowed UN weapon inspectors to search fully, without restriction
  8. Disobeyed 17 UN resolutions to disarm
  9. Continually disobeyed the north and south No-Fly Zones
  10. Repressed the Iraqi people under dictatorship
Sometimes, you just gotta' clean up the mess.

I used http://www.globalsecurity.org as my source.

Solid Lifters added these as well:

11. Launched missiles at American military aircraft in both No-Fly Zones
12. Shot down Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
13. Smuggled crude oil
14. Smuggled weapons
15. Aided terrorists to attack the USS Cole
 
Viper Zero:

Yes, the Marshall Islands and Eritrea are our allies. It's just me, but I would rather have had the French and German military to work with than the Vanuatu police force. Like Bush, you have spewed forth a list of countries that , with a few exceptions, can do little or nothing to help us. As I recall, Bush "41" was really good at convincing and coordinating allies. He even got Syria on our side in '91. Let's face it, Bush '43 is not his daddy.
I can see now that knee-jerk right wingers and whimpering leftists are equally capable of not seeing clearly.
 
IMO, I would not want the French or the German military in Iraq, especially after seeing how corrupt their governments are.
 
France and Germany corrupt? I give you Dick Chaney!

The sad fact is, France, Germany and the United States all helped (via private corporations) to make Saddam's bio / chem warfare unit what it was. I guess it seems like a good alternative to Iran. It wasn't.
 
I still don't accept why the American felt they needed to fly their planes over Iraq to get fired at.

I'm not too arrogant to admit some of the comments I have said are wrong and you've explained some of the things I didn't understand.

Some of the WMD intelligence was clearly faked in the UK. For example, we were told that Iraq had the ability to strike within 45 minutes. That was clearly proven wrong.

The whole world is both corrupt and arrogant. We have a Prime Minister who licks Bush's ass, we have German and French governments who insist on trying to control the EU (I'm not saying anything about Germans or French, just about their governments).
We have Israelis who feel it is right to destroy people's homes and lives. We have Palestinians that feel it is good to murder innocent Israelis.
The list goes on, and on, and on.

I am not Anti-American, I object to Bush's (and Blair's) foreign policies, that's all.
 
Here, Here! Bush does not equal America. If he did, America would be no better than Saddam's Iraq. Bush is simply the guy who "won" the 2000 election. I am extremely PRO American, which is exactly why I'm anti-Bush!
 
Some do not want to solve the problems - they want them to exoist so they can point at them and blame their domestic opposition (Democrats, Labour, Social Democrats, whatever). There are others who only see one problem - they can't "privatize" the world fast enough. It's that small government/big business thing!
 
^ still seeing the big smilies giving me a rasberry.

I agree with Frenchie although i wish i wasn't agreeing with someone who had a french flag as their avataar ;)

Party I think if your first post had been written more like your second post, then you wouldn't have been attacked so hard. Because now that you've explained yourself, I actually agree with most that you have to say.
 
Yes, the Marshall Islands and Eritrea are our allies. It's just me, but I would rather have had the French and German military to work with than the Vanuatu police force.

We don't need France or Germany to do anything. It's hard to convince a country to help you enforce justice in Iraq when they get so much oil from it (ehem France). I'm sorry you don't like it but I think it has been proven at this point that we don't need them. France and Germany will be wise to remember that in the future.

I would not want the French or the German military in Iraq, especially after seeing how corrupt their governments are.
France and Germany corrupt? I give you Dick Chaney!

All of these statements need to be qualified. But I think Viper would have a much easier time proving that some corruption existed in those countries than Frenchie would have proving that one man is corrupt.

I still don't accept why the American felt they needed to fly their planes over Iraq to get fired at.

Policing the Iraqi no-fly zones (as in Iraq can't fly there)? So that Iraq doesn't invade another one of our allies??? How about enforcing our cease fire terms?

The whole world is both corrupt and arrogant.

So now you're just mad at the world huh? Quite the cynical guy aren't you?

Here, Here! Bush does not equal America. If he did, America would be no better than Saddam's Iraq

Here you basically suggest that president Bush has done something equivalently bad as gassing 400,000 innocent people. Perhaps you are suggesting that he he raped and tortured innocent people as well?


ViperZero should try and become President. He can twist anything to suit whatever he wants. Same goes for Danoff.

The only twisting I do is to untwist opinions that have already been skewed.

We can start vomitting all over each other and screaming 'Anti-American' at each other again now.

I challenge you to find a thread where I personally have done that.

It's that small government/big business thing!

Yay for small government! Too bad we don't have one.
 
Danoff, Ahh - you're one of those... A Libertarian perhaps? I admit that I am a "Statist", a somewhat underused word in America. I believe that there are some things the people should never trust private enterprise to do... But hey, look at Somalia - they have no government at all! So now you can call me a socialist and get it out of your system.
 
danoff
We don't need France or Germany to do anything. It's hard to convince a country to help you enforce justice in Iraq when they get so much oil from it (ehem France).
Ok. let's sum this. Bush's administration would never, ever had a thought about going to Iraq for its oil, that didn't influence any of their decision in any way. But the evil Frogs would try anything to keep their hands on it. Bastards.

What's funny (or sad) is that had Saddam been born in a thirld world african country we wouldn't have this discussion. His actions would make a brief and quickly forgotten newsflash that would only make us feel better about ourselves and how wonderful are the countries we're living in, for a few minutes.

But hey, when the second largest reserves of oil of the planet is at stake, that's a different and serious thing. Now everyone pay close attention to what's happening.


I'm sorry you don't like it but I think it has been proven at this point that we don't need them. France and Germany will be wise to remember that in the future
Yep. Our way or the highway. They got it.
 
Frenchie4256
Danoff, Ahh - you're one of those... A Libertarian perhaps? I admit that I am a "Statist", a somewhat underused word in America. I believe that there are some things the people should never trust private enterprise to do... But hey, look at Somalia - they have no government at all! So now you can call me a socialist and get it out of your system.

if danoff represents Libertairianism then i'm not sure i like that. A smaller government would be good. But BIG business in not healthy for the nation as a whole in my opinion. I fully agree with Frencie on that. There are a lot of Sci-Fi movies, books, even games, that portray the future world being run purely by Corporations. Now, of course all this is fiction, but I think there is some sense behind this view. I would not want to live in a world like that. (ok, sorry going on a wild tangent)
 
I still don't accept why the American felt they needed to fly their planes over Iraq to get fired at.
The whole reason for the no fly zones is to protect the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north along with Iraq's nieghbors.
America was attacked by a world wide terror orginization . When the twin towers went down, not only was it the first attack on US soil since the Brits burnt down Washington DC . But it also brought about a new type of war. A war with the enemy not being represented by a country or group of country's and thier leaders.
Our leaders after this devastating attack rightly felt that the US needed to go on the OFFENSIVE, against this new enemy. We put the world on notice that no terrorist or SUPPORTER OF TERRORIST would be safe , anytime, anywhere.
We first removed the Taliban and went looking in Afghanistan for Osama. We then removed the next threat Saddam. Screw the rest of the world they either help us or they dont, if you wont help get out of the way. This is a war.
So why Saddam ? In this context ? When Saddam ruled Iraq you had a dictator with the will and the means to cause massive damange in the US , an avowed ememy with deep pockets , with his own suicidal fanatics along with conections to WORLDWIDE terrorist, including traing camps an financial assistance. Someone said in the above post that Saddam would not give his weapons to anyone...well whose life's are you betting on that ?
Bottom line is if your a terrorist we will kill you or capture you. If you support terrorist or give them succor we will remove you and your country is open to destruction or invasion.
Now I read in here is that we are creating more terrorist blah blah blah.
I say we are killing more of the asswipes and scaring the turds out of any country that would give them aid. And that two potential sources of trouble have been delt with with extreme predudice.
Vive la United States !
 
Danoff, Ahh - you're one of those... A Libertarian perhaps?

Yup.

I admit that I am a "Statist", a somewhat underused word in America. I believe that there are some things the people should never trust private enterprise to do...

I agree.

But hey, look at Somalia - they have no government at all!

Which is, of course, not the way to go.

But BIG business in not healthy for the nation as a whole in my opinion.

Big businesses are great for the nation as a whole. They provide jobs and boost the economy.


Ok. let's sum this. Bush's administration would never, ever had a thought about going to Iraq for its oil, that didn't influence any of their decision in any way. But the evil Frogs would try anything to keep their hands on it.

Do you want to supply an alternative reason for why France wouldn't help us with Iraq? I listed 5 alternative reasons why we needed to invade.... I can't think of many for why they wouldn't want to help. They are part of the UN afterall, I would imagine they would want it to have some teeth for diplomacy.
 
Viper Zero
Did you actually read the article, Silvia?

Actually?....

Is it hard to believe that someone would actually read the article?....

Or give any weight to anything from Fox News?....

Fox News is hardly a viable source.... A broad range of information is important to come to a conclusion, over any matter.... Fox News is notorious for making mistakes, and giving very one sided (often ultra conservative) views on social, and political issues....

Not that conservative views are necessarily bad, but without the other side of the story, an informed conclusion cannot be made, in my opinion.....


;)
 
Viper Zero
Can you back that up with facts or examples?

lol... Watch Fox News for examples....

The point of my post, was that all media is biased (for the most part)... I keep hearing, "Canada's news is biased"... Well yeah, it is.... So is American media, or pretty much any news source.... It's very arogant to say that the American media is not as biased as Canada's.... Therefore, to come to an informed decision on any matter, multiple news sources (different stations/countries/etc...) should be viewed IMHO....


;)
 
The point of my post, was that all media is biased (for the most part)... I keep hearing, "Canada's news is biased"... Well yeah, it is.... So is American media, or pretty much any news source.... It's very arogant to say that the American media is not as biased as Canada's.... Therefore, to come to an informed decision on any matter, multiple news sources (different stations/countries/etc...) should be viewed IMHO....

Which is exactly why (if you read the article) Canada should carry foxnews in addition to CNN.

America carries foxnews and CNN (and whoever else can get viewers).
 
Back