Iraqis fucking love us

[Displaced]

Displaced, the US already pulled its forces out of Saudi Arabia like a year ago, because the Saudi government asked us to. Terrorists cannot use that arguement anymore to bolster their cause.

AFAIK there are still troops in places like Hufuf and Jeddah.

AS for Enforcer, there is hardly any "lower" class in countries like Saudi or the UAE.

locals are taken care of, none of them pay for electricity or water, they are allowed to take loans with 0% inflation for as long as they like, as often as they like (well nearly)

The poor people in Saudi are usually from other ME states, such as Syria whom do not get the same supports as Saudis.

[Displaced]

Those extremist you talk about well you cant do anything to change thier mind, but when it comes to recruiting people to join thier extremitism then money is an issue many Hamas sucide bombers kill themselves because they get paid to do it (doing for thier family) its also alot harder to go and kill youself when you are living a prosperous life would you kill youself when you are in a mansion living the good life even if your religon says you will go to heaven well you are virtually in heaven if you are prosperous so why kill youself to get the same thing. Generally the people that phsycially go out and do the terrorist acts do it for money the people who co-ordinate, preach and organise the attacks do it for religon-not much you can do to these people except to ensure that citizens get the full picture which is where democracy comes in, every citizens is treated equally and can have free exchange of ideas under democracy so someone opposed to extremitism can say so without being afraid.

didnt see this earlier, but suicide bombers kill themselves because they believe they are doing allahs work, and will go straight to paradise with 7 virgins.

the "money" comes in as organisations such as Hamas promise to take care of their families after they are gone. How much money they actually recieve for their deeds or if anyone looks after their family i dont know.

[TajaUk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some asshat came out of the closet to say:
1.humanitarin reasons- Saddam as a ruler was cruel and people lived in terror getting rid of him helped all Iraqis and Iraqis know this!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hehe. Bullshit. There are certainly humanitarian reasons for supporting ousting Saddam. There are also humanitarian reasons for ousting most of the governments on the planet, about half of which we've propped up or installed at one time or another. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the Diamond Wars than just another pissant dictator, but I don't suspect the original poster knows what the Diamond Wars are.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.economically- with OPEC increasing prices just for greed they have a tighter grip on the world liberating Iraq enables the world to appreciate oil and fair market value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yawn. The US is the world's largest exporter of food, not to mention holding a strong share of the tech and other resource markets. Like it or not, life is not analagous to Command & Conquer: Red Alert, where you have one resource. I don't see anyone jumping up to invade America because we hold such a grip on the world's industry and raw resources. Oh, wait...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. World Threat- although Iraq probably didnt pose any threat today the track history of Saddam, the power and availablility for Saddam to obtain nuclear weapons he could quite easily pose a threat tomorrow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But at the same time, we can cozy up to the wonderful and entirely human rights violation free Pakistanis, Israelis, South Africans, Indians, and Chinese?

With the "track record" of Saddam, he would have just kept stealing money from the UN and eventually died of old age.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. If US successfully changes Iraq into a democratic state this provides hope to all other countries whom are full of terrorists and are frustrated which democracy will solve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, the American Domino Theory. First of all, there has already been a democracy in the region, as was a theocracy, monarchy, republic, socialism, and virtually everything else. None of these states has caused the neighbors to randomly convert to their ideology. The Domino Theory is still just that - a theory. It hasn't been proven to actually happen one way or the other anywhere on the planet. In many cases, the neighbors end up getting threatened by a differing form of government and start going in the reverse direction, picking up a demonstrated loathing for that form. Of course, we all know how radically the fall of Vietnam to communism changed Southeast Asia as a whole, and brought the Red Horror to America's doorstep.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe each point byitself isnt ground enough but all four together it overwhelming evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evidence of what? That the poster can type semi-coherent sentences?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. humantarin- this doesnt make sense if you are for the iraqi people you would support freedom of the iraqi people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm a strict humanitarian. Like I said above, there are a few dozen more vital human rights concerns than Iraq (China, Rwanda, Chechnya, Angola, Congo, Haiti, Algeria, Pakistan, to name a few). Further, most human rights advocates (I can tell the poster is new to the field) tend to support more stable regime change and international cooperation, not unilateral invasion and establishment of a puppet regime.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.economically- Bush spending too much, this doesnt not reallymake sense because lower oil prices will outwiegh this and also Iraqis will import alot of US goods in the future. You may argue that the compostition of spending could be better utilized in the war effort but the spending in general to Iraq isnt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, bub, you make a mistake here. A few. First of all, you just freely admitted that the war effort was to make money for America. Second of all (and contrary to what you said), it was decided long ago that the Iraqi oil revenue would go to rebuilding Iraq, and it has been promised that the oil companies will remain in Iraqi hands. There may be some profit for Halliburton in rebuilding the oil industry, but that's about it. Third of all, where do you get off saying that they will "import a lot of US goods in the future?" Do you have cites for expected sales revenue for Iraq? Or will they just be another Afghanistan, Kuwait, or whatever?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Politically- used as a basis to invade other countries- this is the only argument i will accept any other arugment is just plain stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are too kind.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have i summarised your ideas properly? anything you want to add?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, no, you failed miserably, probably due to lack of trying.


I can not STAND it when people support this war based solely on the fact that Saddam is "mean!" and he was "hurting people!" and "what a tragedy!" and "we've just got to go help those poor wittle Iwaqi's!"

There is killing, tragedy, poverty and corruption everywhere in the world. EVERYWHERE. If you think the pre-war situation in Iraq was the worst thing happening in the world at the time, then you need to pull your head out of your ass. The simple fact of the matter is this: Bush is a member of the Good Ol' Boys Club, and he's out to get the bad, bad man who disrespected his daddy. He's greedy, personally and politically, and he wouldn't dream of helping out a country in turmoil unless there was something in it for us (oil).

"Uganda? Fuck 'em. Africa? Let AIDS kill 'em off. Iraq? Whoa, wait a minute, they have oil. Plus, I heard he has weapons of mass destruction. Let's go."

If you believe Richard Clarke, which I do, the Bush administration had been looking for a reason to attack Iraq since 9/11. His advisors told him there was no reason. Then he came up with this WMD crap. Remember the WMDs? And how that was the sole reason we went to war? What the hell were we doing there after we didn't find any, and what the hell are we doing there now?

[THE ENFORCER]

quote:
hehe. Bullshit. There are certainly humanitarian reasons for supporting ousting Saddam. There are also humanitarian reasons for ousting most of the governments on the planet, about half of which we've propped up or installed at one time or another. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the Diamond Wars than just another pissant dictator, but I don't suspect the original poster knows what the Diamond Wars are.

Inconjunction with the other reaons,

Yawn. The US is the world's largest exporter of food, not to mention holding a strong share of the tech and other resource markets. Like it or not, life is not analagous to Command & Conquer: Red Alert, where you have one resource. I don't see anyone jumping up to invade America because we hold such a grip on the world's industry and raw resources. Oh, wait...

What are you talking about? US is highly dependent on oil and will continue to be so until renewable energy sources are used. Note:i havent played C&C before.

But at the same time, we can cozy up to the wonderful and entirely human rights violation free Pakistanis, Israelis, South Africans, Indians, and Chinese?

Inconjunction with the other reaons,

Oh, the American Domino Theory. First of all, there has already been a democracy in the region, as was a theocracy, monarchy, republic, socialism, and virtually everything else. None of these states has caused the neighbors to randomly convert to their ideology. The Domino Theory is still just that - a theory. It hasn't been proven to actually happen one way or the other anywhere on the planet. In many cases, the neighbors end up getting threatened by a differing form of government and start going in the reverse direction, picking up a demonstrated loathing for that form. Of course, we all know how radically the fall of Vietnam to communism changed Southeast Asia as a whole, and brought the Red Horror to America's doorstep.

In order for the theory to work US has to change the govt successfully.Communism domino theory is not relevant in this case.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe each point byitself isnt ground enough but all four together it overwhelming evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ive left this statement here because you take each point individually as a reason to invade but your not suppose to do that.

I'm a strict humanitarian. Like I said above, there are a few dozen more vital human rights concerns than Iraq (China, Rwanda, Chechnya, Angola, Congo, Haiti, Algeria, Pakistan, to name a few). Further, most human rights advocates (I can tell the poster is new to the field) tend to support more stable regime change and international cooperation, not unilateral invasion and establishment of a puppet regime.

Your making unfair presumptions of the future.
Inconjunction with the other reaons,


Actually, bub, you make a mistake here. A few. First of all, you just freely admitted that the war effort was to make money for America.

I never said USA wont benefit from this war it will cost too much money for it to not. But that doesnt mean Iraqis will also benefit they will too. So its a win-win situation for both sides if done correctly.[COLOR]

Second of all (and contrary to what you said), it was decided long ago that the Iraqi oil revenue would go to rebuilding Iraq, and it has been promised that the oil companies will remain in Iraqi hands. There may be some profit for Halliburton in rebuilding the oil industry, but that's about it.
[
COLOR=Red]Im not talking about revenues from oil, im talking about purchasing oil, read the post more carefully.

Third of all, where do you get off saying that they will "import a lot of US goods in the future?" Do you have cites for expected sales revenue for Iraq? Or will they just be another Afghanistan, Kuwait, or whatever?

Because firstly Iraq will need to import alot of American machinery to kick start thier economy agian and i predict Iraqis will live an "american style" life such as purchasing luxury goods once thier living standards increase (be for quite awhile though) its possible that Iraqis may purchase Japanese/Asian goods more than US too, but that will help the Asian economy in turn will help the US economy through globalisation and technology.

Actually, no, you failed miserably, probably due to lack of trying.

I think you have misinterpreted alot of my points i suggest you re-read them.

[DOTSY]

what ships do they use ? warbirds or spiders ?

[THE ENFORCER]

what ships do they use ? warbirds or spiders ?

If you are depicting what ship would classify America in the war in Iraq i would have to say Javelins. Since USA have high firepower and are reasonably quick. I would think alot of you people would say Levis because of their destructive force?- but thats obviously not my viewpoint.

[lunch3]

The domino theory did work and recently. The US got its democracy 200 something years ago, and since then at least 50 or more countries have followed suit. Most of which were successful on one degree or another. The Iraq War will 'hopefully' hasten this trend in the ME, and I think it has a decently good chance of doing that. Whether or not the US fails in Iraq, Iraq will be more of a democracy then it used to be, and as such will be better off in the long run. Our [US] democracy did not reap the fruits of its labor until 30 years after the revolution, but it did, after we continually tweaked our laws, constitution, and form of government. I'm just saying this because I'm sure some dickheads will say democracy already failed because things are not working out well, democracy needs time to lay its own foundation. And once it does word will probably spread that Iraq is a better place to live in, then people will want democracy in their own countries....or instead move to Iraq.

[Sarien]

Before this whole democracy is the anti-terrorism thing goes any further, people really ought to stop and think.

Even Greece had Socrates.
The USA has had more than a few "terrorist groups" in its time.
Terrorists.. by the literal definition of that word, the US government itself has been guilty of more than its fair share of Terrorism throughout the world.

You know what is the anti-terrorism thing to me? Songs like Wigwam by Bob Dylan. How can you possibly listen to that, in the space of that 3 minutes and 8 seconds... how can you be mad about anything?

[Nethila]

so many times THE ENFORCER says he will stop posting and try to change our opinion, and yet, he's still posting.

dude, if you'd stop posting, we'd stop posting, and this whole argument would just end. get it?

ps - in your other thread, you said something about we can only blame us if another terrorist attacks us. hmm, then i guess you can blame the american government for the 9/11 to happen at first place.

[THE ENFORCER]

so many times THE ENFORCER says he will stop posting and try to change our opinion, and yet, he's still posting.

dude, if you'd stop posting, we'd stop posting, and this whole argument would just end. get it?

I will clarify, i meant i will stop posting replies that will force me to repeat myself or that arent worth repling to. If someone places an intelligent argument i will reply.

As for your other comment it is a good example of something i wont reply to because you obviously misinterpreted it, go back and re-read my post.

[Cylor]

I make the best threads.

I think it's safe to say that this thread sucks. Subspace and politics is like...retarded kids talking about politics.

[Nethila]

I will clarify, i meant i will stop posting replies that will force me to repeat myself or that arent worth repling to. If someone places an intelligent argument i will reply.

As for your other comment it is a good example of something i wont reply to because you obviously misinterpreted it, go back and re-read my post.

and yet, you replied about my other comment.. how.. someone is a genius

[THE ENFORCER]

I think it's safe to say that this thread sucks. Subspace and politics is like...retarded kids talking about politics.

I dont know if that analogy is entirely correct because inessence your saying that subspace players are retarded.
I think this is better subspace and politics is like women playing sports the rules are the same, they play the same but somehow its only half as entertaining. Is that what you meant?

[Subjugation]

duh, it was a joke. it's called self-depricating humor.