Toribash
Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
blame imperialism, no need for discussion, evidence not required bla

Each single country on this planet will protect its own interests. Using one single word to describe their actions is rather ignorant. You can't just mark everything the USA does with imperialism, it's far more complicated than that, seeing as many factors are involved in that matter. Oversimplifying matters and then saying that there is no evidence required, when clearly there are people who disagree with you is… I dunno, silly?

If you think that it is not discussion worthy, why post in the first place? :v

Either way, I think Arglax estimated the situation somewhat accurately when he said that the USD pretty much depends on oil.
It's a vicious circle of inflation so ultimately it does not really benefit US but private interests.
honestly in my own opinion, because we want to act like were doing something. the middle east affair that's going on is their own problem. personally i say fuck em. they take our help and supplies but yet absolute fuck us over on the pricing of oil so i honestly don't see why we are even over there "helping" them.

Arglax Moderated Message:
[Citation needed]
Last edited by Arglax; Aug 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM.
[M]etal RIP - (R)ust - (Ph) Phase
BTW if my background is illegal, please message me staff member. don't do warning
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
we deposed and ultimately lead to the hanging of a violent, genocidal, theocratic dictator

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Bush took USA to war because God told him to, and ended up causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths - and this was just another fight in the anti-muslim campaign.

> violent
> genocidal
> theocratic

But at least he was elected democratically.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Bush took USA to war because God told him to

I'm sure Bush went before congress and said "God commands we wage war with the middle east!"

Just as the otherwise secular Obama has done, Bush likely invoked the concept of God to gain approval from the masses. Regardless of what Bush personally thought, we went to war for political and economic reasons. Albeit those reasons are almost entirely bullshit, it wasn't started as a campaign against Islam.
-----
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
> violent
> genocidal
> theocratic

But at least he was elected democratically.

What does this have to do with anything? He violated all sorts of international laws and killed thousands of his people for being of a different creed. Like I stated in my previous post, he should have been dealt with a decade sooner.

And since we're on the subject, I'll elaborate on the importance of intervention in Iraq.
Suppose, for a second, that the US was isolationist - that we keep our troops and our politics out of the middle east.
Saddam and his family, who owned the entirety of Iraq's treasury, who killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds, up to 10,000 of which with poison gas, and who committed several other crimes against humanity...They would still be in power. They would own Kuwait just like they owned Iraq. And countless more Kurds and Shia would have been killed.
And this is just Iraq. In the last 20 years, the US conducted military operations in over 15 different countries, including intervention which ended the genocide of Albanians living in Kosovo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...0.E2.80.932009
It's easy to watch the media and exclaim that the US has some convoluted agenda, whether it be religious or a bid to gain more power or wealth, but the reality is that those elements are secondary to what are actually justifiable causes, such as ending genocide.
I don't agree with how our government and military have behaved since 9/11, many things should have been done differently, but the criticisms that have been leveled against them are ridiculous.
Last edited by Thellian; Aug 19, 2013 at 07:12 AM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
My signature sucks
In other words "USA is the lesser of two evils"?

Besides that... I don't think it's wise to blindly believe Kurdish estimates instead of HRW etc. And that happened in late 80s, years before the invasion. USA is estimated to have killed over 100,000 civilians in Iraq. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

WHAT A SURPRISE - the number of deaths caused by a genocide is overshadowed to the number of civilian casualties caused by US actions!

The lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
And since we're on the subject, I'll elaborate on the importance of intervention in Iraq.
Suppose, for a second, that the US was isolationist - that we keep our troops and our politics out of the middle east.
Saddam and his family, who owned the entirety of Iraq's treasury, who killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds, up to 10,000 of which with poison gas, and who committed several other crimes against humanity...They would still be in power. They would own Kuwait just like they owned Iraq. And countless more Kurds and Shia would have been killed.
And this is just Iraq. In the last 20 years, the US conducted military operations in over 15 different countries, including intervention which ended the genocide of Albanians living in Kosovo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...0.E2.80.932009
It's easy to watch the media and exclaim that the US has some convoluted agenda, whether it be religious or a bid to gain more power or wealth, but the reality is that those elements are secondary to what are actually justifiable causes, such as ending genocide.
I don't agree with how our government and military have behaved since 9/11, many things should have been done differently, but the criticisms that have been leveled against them are ridiculous.

So according to you, the US intervenes in the Middle East because they want justice in the world? I would like this to be true, but I struggle with this since
1) There are different, cheaper, non-violent ways to deal with the world's problems such as simple food and ration distribution or long-term infrastructure improvement
2) Other places around the world suffer terrible wars/poverty/natural disasters too, but the US government doesn't intervene in the same scale as in the Middle East (The continent of Africa, Asia)
3) There are always these side-effects which, for some reason, happen to benefit the US(D)
4) There is still poverty in the USA itself, why not spend the 600billion dollars annually used on the military to solve those problems first?

Imagine what would have happened if any of the nations that were stated earlier would have started selling oil for gold without consequences. The dollar would have suffered hyperinflation because everyone would have stopped using it. America can't let that happen, and it's taken some measures not to. I will continue to believe this until some factual evidence is posted that America has gone to war to end injustice and not benefitted from it in any way at all.
Last edited by Arglax; Aug 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM.
f=m*a syens
Originally Posted by Arglax View Post
I would like this to be true, but I struggle with this since
1) There are different, cheaper, non-violent ways to deal with the world's problems such as simple food and ration distribution or long-term infrastructure improvement
2) Other places around the world suffer terrible wars/poverty/natural disasters too, but the US government doesn't intervene in the same scale as in the Middle East (The continent of Africa, Asia)
3) There are always these side-effects which, for some reason, happen to benefit the US(D)
4) There is still poverty in the USA itself, why not spend the 600billion dollars annually used on the military to solve those problems first?

1) How would this have deposed a dictator?
2) The US still sends aid, and you're losing context. Military operations are expensive.
3) No one is saying the US doesn't look out for its interests. The question is whether those interests are the only motivating factor.
4) I agree with this. The cost of the wars have been terrible, both economically and in human lives lost. This is why I think we should have gone in, removed Saddam, and got out asap. As for Afghanistan, I question if we should have intervened at all. (And what overshadowing benefit was there to enter Afghanistan, to further rebut your previous points?)
-----
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
USA is estimated to have killed over 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

That estimate includes any violent deaths that have occurred, such as suicide bombings. Saying the US killed these people is a stretch to say the least. I will concede that the amount of civilian casualties is too damn high no matter how you measure that statistic, but I'm doubtful that letting Saddam and his crime family continue to own Iraq would be a better alternative.
Last edited by Thellian; Aug 19, 2013 at 03:36 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
My signature sucks
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
1) How would this have deposed a dictator?

It wouldn't have.
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
2) The US still sends aid, and you're losing context. Military operations are expensive.

Yes, but the utilitarian question "What else could have been done with the money invested in those wars? Could more lives have been saved [elsewhere] had the money been put into humanitarian aid?" comes to mind. It's not about why they don't intervene on a military scale. There's no need for a military operation after an earthquake or a drought: this can be solved with only a fraction of the cost of a military organisation.
Originally Posted by Thellian View Post
3) No one is saying the US doesn't look out for its interests. The question is whether those interests are the only motivating factor.

I believe that they are the true motivating factor, I believe that without this factor, they would not have acted as they have now. Sure, helping out people is great, but I don't think the US would invest that kind of money into it if it were only to help out people. As said earlier, there are people to be helped in the US and it would cost less to help them out first. If people in need are equal, why go to the other side of the planet to help that group of people in need first if you have a group you could help in your own country?
what overshadowing benefit was there to enter Afghanistan, to further rebut your previous points?

None so far, but Afghanistan sits on over a trillion worth of minerals such as copper. I'm not saying that America is going to go and steal it all. They might just prohibit the local inhabitants to mine it to prevent terrorism. Since Afghanistan is a sponsor of terrorism, the US would definitely protect itself would their economy collapse.

http://www.mining.com/afghanistan-mi...dollars-82470/
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/pers...ospectors.html
Last edited by Arglax; Aug 19, 2013 at 04:00 PM.
f=m*a syens
Actually, the reason for the invasion of Iraq was not ending mass genocide. Bush fabricated a lie regarding weapons of mass destruction, which got never discovered after the invasion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/ns.../#.TyIEBVyiF5Y
Sure, you can argue that it was the humane thing to do, however, that was nowhere near the administration's intentions.

Even if it was for the cause of ending a dictatorship it would still have been immorale.
The CIA was responsible for Hussein's raise to power in the first place. They supported the Ba'ath Party They fucked up big time, then went to war to fuck shit up even more. How anyone could defend those actions is beyond me.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...itchfield.html

Heck, Saddam was even a celebrety in the US.
http://web.archive.org/web/200312211...87/detail.html
Originally Posted by Meniken View Post
Actually, the reason for the invasion of Iraq was not ending mass genocide. Bush fabricated a lie regarding weapons of mass destruction, which got never discovered after the invasion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/ns.../#.TyIEBVyiF5Y
Sure, you can argue that it was the humane thing to do, however, that was nowhere near the administration's intentions.

That was the reason stated in the media. I still stand by my point that it was because of Iraq selling oil for gold. (see above posts + my thread about Syria for sources.) Open for arguments why this was not the reason the US invaded Iraq, though.
f=m*a syens