Can America Win an Ideological War?Follow

Edit - Mental notes posts referring to dead kittens are going to far

Edited, Sat Oct 2 00:51:07 2004 by bhodisattva

I disagree with you on many accounts, Smash, but I've got to admit you have got a certain way putting things so they land with a resounding SMACK!

That first part is a tad opinionated. For every hundred experts/documents/etc/etc there's always an equal number that say exactly the opposite thing. I don't particularly care about whether or not he was a threat to the U.S. though. Saddam was a nut, and needed to be dealt with.

Even if you do think all the WMD/threat stuff was BS though, I personally would rather support a good lie than a bad truth. If that vial of anthrax they waved infront of Congress for however long was actually sugar, it was still one of the things that got the administration enough sway to go to war. The ends justifies the means as far as I'm concerned in this particular situation.

Bush could go plant a germ bomb in Iraq for the soldiers to find as far as I'm concerned if it'll manage to get some world opinion on our side. Not that it would ever happen.. Getting world opinion on our side I mean. :-P


We did try to intervene in Liberia. Yet again though, we had to di[/i]ck around with other nations to try and get a international force going so it didn't look like the U.S. was running in and stomping the poor Africans around. People are going to hate what the U.S. government does either which way, that's been proven.

If you want my opinion on Sudan.. Vote Bush. ;)

A lot of people on all sides complained about going into Afghanistan. If you checked their lil' website, I'm pretty sure their national motto was "The Most Assbackward Muslim Nation in the World, Possibly the Universe." I think in the long run though, people finally decided that yeah, this place was pretty fu[i]cked up, something needed to be done about it, and they were kind of asking for it with the whole twin tower fiasco. Everybody eventually shut up about it, and now the first free election they've had since the begining of time isn't even getting all that much coverage... (Unless of course you want to hear about possible assassination attempts and how "lackluster" the whole thing is. Apparently Afghanis aren't up to throwing big *** political conventions with streamers and laser light shows yet, so we should be pissed at them about that.)

And then we had Iraq...

Considering all the stink people have put up about Iraq, you REALLY think Bush is going to go into another country that needs reform and set them straight when he's trying to get re-elected? He's already going to have the vote from the people that supported the war.. Getting into another war (or even a conflict) would just shirk off what percent of the leftist vote he's going to get.


As far as that last part goes about Kerry's plan, we all know how Bush never, eevveerr asked the U.N. for any support in going to war. Or asked for support after the wars. Or asked for support in trying to get the governments set up. I remember quite clearly how we went up to the U.N., told them we were attacking Iraq, and then did it the day after.

Smash, you're nothing but double talk and arguments. You're the perfect picture of the "leftists" that go to those "peaceful" protest marches wearing a bandana or a ski mask to hide their identity with "A.N.S.W.E.R." plastered on their chest. They don't respond with any sort of coherence. They snipe at anything they think they can, then run away from any issue they can't. If you keep pushing them for an actual opinion to back up their stance, they get angry and lash out with violence. Rather than violence though, you rather use aggressive words and thoughts, understandably enough.

If you'd like, I can suggest another forum that has plenty of people that do the same thing, but happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum. And yes, I'm not particularly fond of them either, even if they are voting for Bush (for the most part). I'm not saying you should move permanently or anything of course, but for those days where the forum just isn't doing it for you, you could buzz over there.

Everybody's opinion matters, even yours oddly enough. Even the people I mentioned above have an opinion that matters. I don't agree with it in the least, nor do I really care when they don't agree with mine so long as they are willing to hear me out. What you said was facist. Why bother making statements of such a nature to other people if you apparently have no principles you hold yourself to? Mill that one over in your head for a few if you want.

If you want to debate, I'm generally lurking. If you want to take potshots, don't expect me to fuel the flame much past this post.

You have a nice day too.

Edit: "Everybody" refers to politically active people that actually vote, debate, protest, etc. Not the aforementioned "experts" and such.

Edited, Sat Oct 2 05:36:19 2004 by Zaene

There are three reasons we are in Iraq.

1. Oil

2. Oil

3. Oil

Democracy had nothing to do with it, WMD's had nothing to do with it, Saddam's oppression of his people had nothing to do with it.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) has long advocated seizing the oilfields of the Middle East as a measure to secure American economic interests.

So what is the PNAC? Its a nec-con think tank. Notable members include D1ck Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Daniel Perle, Scooter Libby and other members of Bush's administration. (Not surprisingly many of these people also have strong ties to the oil industry)

The PNAC has been pushing for regime change in Iraq since it was formed in 1997, although many of its members were advocating the seizure of oil reservs as early as 1992. On a larger scale, the PNAC has consistently promoted the idea of a world dominated by America and its interests. They admit however that the changes the PNAC would like to come about will take years "absent some catastrophic and catalzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

In April of 2001 a report commisioned by James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled 'Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century' was submitted to VP **** Cheney. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil in order satisfy the American need for cheap, plentiful oil and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience.


At about the same time, and article in the Army War College's Journal, written by Jeffrey Record argues for the legitimacy of "shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower oil prices". He also advocates the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict and explicitly urges painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as necessary for moblizing public support.


That's basically the blueprint that the Bush administration has used for its war in Iraq, including the noble, high-minded veneer and presidential subterfuge.

I know republican and conservative die-hards will claim that all of this is irrelevant or worse, entirely acceptable. But I hope that the rest of you might understand just why we have sent our young to fight in Iraq. Oil. Oil and more Oil

Edited, Sat Oct 2 09:52:54 2004 by Deathwysh

Or how about Sudan, why are we not helping them out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Help who? Last I checked there isn't a real government. There's just a bunch of rival factions fighting for power. Helping one would lead to people crying foul and serious problems into the foreseeable future.
-------------------------------------------------------------

yea, anytime you see a group of people commiting mass murder, dont interfere, cause the people committing the murder might cry foul.

this is a moral call. the current addministraition has none, even thought they claim it is the bassis for their decision making.

if you are sitting on oil, we are jonny on the spot. if you are sitting on dirt, and your women and children are getting murdered and raped in mass......well.......lets see if we can get a collition together and mabe sanction them. read sudan, liberia, and the hutu tribe in africa.

other than the mass murder of iraqi,s by american troops in our two attemps to own them, more innocent, defenseless people have been butcherd in a shorter time frame in sudan, then at any time during hussins rule.

but hussin is bad guy number one.

alqueda smacked us hard across the face.

but hussin is bad guy number one.

the taliban is still staging large scale attacks against our assets in afganistan.

but hussin is bad guy numer one.

iran HAS a VERIFIED nuclear program, and admitts as much.

but hussin is bad guy number one.

N.Korea is waiving nukes around saying "i got da bomb, i got da bomb, and im gonna sell it"

but hussin is bad guy number one.

we are better than this. impeach the stupid basterd, loosing an election is letting him off way to easy.

Edited, Sun Oct 3 12:17:28 2004 by shadowrelm