# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Obama is president, but the war in Iraq continues.

## Universal Mind

At what point should people run out of patience and start protesting again?  

What will you say about Obama if the war is still going in two years?

----------


## DeathCell

Takes some time to clear up all the bull Bush has created. 

Rome wasn't built in a day, Iraq wasn't stable in a night.

I'll tell him to hurry his ass up.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Takes some time to clear up all the bull Bush has created. 
> 
> Rome wasn't built in a day, Iraq wasn't stable in a night.
> 
> I'll tell him to hurry his ass up.



So, at this moment, the war is necessary?

----------


## DeathCell

> So, at this moment, the war is necessary?



Necessary? No. But I'm sure leaving today is not an option.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Necessary? No. But I'm sure leaving today is not an option.



Why is it not an option?

----------


## Rozzy

well, i would think that it would take while to try to get our troops out of there. not mentioning the cost.

----------


## Universal Mind

> well, i would think that it would take while to try to get our troops out of there. not mentioning the cost.



They could be home in a matter of days.  Even if not, Obama could order that they start working on the move immediately.  He could have ordered it right after he was sworn in.

----------


## drewmandan

So, in other words, in the minds of left-socialists, the troops could leave on a dime when Bush was in, but now they "can't" just leave when Obama is in. How convenient.

----------


## Rozzy

very true. 

i can see why that would be a nuisance...

well the only thing i can really say is that it's easier to drop a glass of milk, and make a mess, than it is to try to clean it up.

i am not defending mr.bama cuz personally i would never had voted for him, i just think that we do have to give it time.
unfortunately.

----------


## Alric

He is right, he could have them out tomorrow if he wanted. Obama shouted change all through his campaign but we all know it was bullshit. Same status quo with a new face.

----------


## Rozzy

exactly why i wouldn't have voted for him.people just get so used to being spoon-fed all this bullshit that they can't seem to think for themselves. i am not atttacking those who voted for obama. i am simply ssaying that alot of the people i know voted for obama because he's a young(ish) attractive, black male, and it sickens me how they couldn't even talk on one of the current issues.

----------


## Hercuflea

I promise you if he was Ron Paul we would have already shipped everyone out on C-130's and burned all the permanent bases to the ground.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
(Oops, I meant even worse, if that's possible.)

----------


## tkdyo

heh, I dont think they would be out already.  but I do have a feeling he would have gotten done faster and safer.

----------


## nitsuJ

> Why is it not an option?



Because they'd _rip each other apart_, I'm sure that'd be the excuse.

I wouldn't care though, death to anyone that isn't American or a big-time ally of the U.S.A.

----------


## Hercuflea

^That attitude is part of the reason why we are in a recession right now.

----------


## nitsuJ

Yeah, I'm the leading cause of the recession. Smarty pants.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> At what point should people run out of patience and start protesting again?  
> 
> What will you say about Obama if the war is still going in two years?



Personally, I don't think anyone who's the least bit aware of what's going on over there expected him to have our military throw down their guns, and walk off the battlefield (except right-wing zealots, who probably much less thought he would than just wanted to make it look like that's what he was proposing all along), at a moment's notice. He's always talked about a 'responsible pullout,' while the other side has talked about being there "for as long as we need to," which is about as arbitrary as saying "we'll leave when I say we leave" - even throwing the "100 years if need be" rhetoric out there.

I may not have been one that was with Obama from the beginning, but I do know that he's talked for quite some time about a phased pull out, and his having been in office for less than a month should leave no one with expectations that half our military should be on their way home at this point. I'm not going to be someone marking my calendar every single day that Obama hasn't fulfilled what he's allegedly set out to do. I understand that it will take time. I'm also not saying, in any way, that it's somehow clear that he's going to deliver on his promises, but I think it's way too early to be chopping the man's head off for not ending our occupation on a dime.

Just my two cents, though.

----------


## Jeff777

> At what point should people run out of patience and start protesting again?  
> 
> What will you say about Obama if the war is still going in two years?



Rome wasn't built in a day.

----------


## drewmandan

> Rome wasn't built in a day.



But this seems a little inconsistent to me. When Bush was in, the people were (rightly so) shouting in the streets about how the war was unjust and genocidal and all that. So now, what, it's "OK"? You would think that if there's an unjust war going on, it should end immediately. That's certainly what left-socialists seemed to be shouting for prior to November, 2008. But now, killing innocent Iraqis and risking the lives of thousands of Americans is ok as long as it ends some time in the next 4 years or so? Umm...

----------


## Jeff777

> But this seems a little inconsistent to me. When Bush was in, the people were (rightly so) shouting in the streets about how the war was unjust and genocidal and all that. So now, what, it's "OK"? You would think that if there's an unjust war going on, it should end immediately. That's certainly what left-socialists seemed to be shouting for prior to November, 2008. But now, killing innocent Iraqis and risking the lives of thousands of Americans is ok as long as it ends some time in the next 4 years or so? Umm...








> "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" - Barack Obama



I'm not sure if you all listened to Obama's press conferences but he's said the above quote a number of times.  This war is a bigger mess than most of us realize.  It would take me two seconds to get a glass of water and turn it right side up, spilling the contents of the glass all over the floor.  It would, however...take me possibly 1 minute or so to clean it all up.  Same context applies here.  Obama simply can't withdraw every single man and woman from over there overnight.  Bush shat all over Iraq, and the American people handed Obama the broom, mop, dust pan, and soap and water bucket.  Give the man time.  By that I mean...more than one month to fulfill all of his campaign promises.

----------


## DeathCell

> So, in other words, in the minds of left-socialists, the troops could leave on a dime when Bush was in, but now they "can't" just leave when Obama is in. How convenient.



I didn't think we could leave right away, but Bush got us in this war and he was doing a lousy job of getting it closer to a close for many many years..

I'm unsure who ever thought we could just pull out overnight after the mess we created, I'm sure someone did... but.

I expect Obama to work towards pulling out of Iraq, he can't work miracles. The sooner the better. 



P.S. Just because a few people thought we could just walk out of Iraq and leave it to implode doesn't mean all left sided thinkers thought such. All we know was Bush created it and didn't seem to care if it ended any time soon, ignoring the problems in Iraq for years. Enter the Obama.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> But this seems a little inconsistent to me. When Bush was in, the people were (rightly so) shouting in the streets about how the war was unjust and genocidal and all that. So now, what, it's "OK"? You would think that if there's an unjust war going on, it should end immediately. That's certainly what left-socialists seemed to be shouting for prior to November, 2008. But now, killing innocent Iraqis and risking the lives of thousands of Americans is ok as long as it ends some time in the next 4 years or so? Umm...



I believe any intelligent American that is against the war wants to see a beginning of the end for the war. What you're saying is a bit of a straw-man, for a large number of anti-war Americans. Take myself for example. I still, to this day, believe the war is unjust. I believe it never should have been started. I believe that some of the goals the war was (allegedly) meant to accomplish should be reached, but not in the way it has been gone about. I also believe that an order for Americans to immediately lay down their arms and walk away is completely unrealistic, given the situation we have over there. 

So, yeah, as opposed to the Bush Admins policy of "stay the course until God-knows-when," I will be happy to see a process (even a sluggish one) of getting our troops out of the fight in a way that won't let the instability that Bush helped create in the region completely collapse upon itself and spiral into an even worse situation. This is something that Obama and our military will have to balance out, and I wish them luck with it.

----------


## Universal Mind

I have read all of the posts, and I will address a lot of you by addressing this...





> I believe any intelligent American that is against the war wants to see a beginning of the end for the war.



There has not even been a beginning, not even the slightest troop reduction.  What specifically is Obama waiting for to begin the end of this war that had so many dissenters going off so passionately for so long?  What is the event that has to happen?  

What do we need to be cautious about, in your opinion?  

A lot of what has been said in here is reminiscient of what the war supporters have been saying for so long.  I totally agree that we can't just suddenly pull the troops out of Iraq.  I have been saying that this whole time.  What confuses me is why you agree with me now.  What I think we need to wait for is the self-sufficiency of the new government.  When they are advanced, organized, and powerful enough to no longer need us, it will be time for us to go.  They are not quite there yet.  What I don't understand is... what do you war dissenters and Barack Obama think we need to wait for, exactly?  

Also, at what point do you draw the line?  When do you start accusing Obama of being an occupier and an agitator of the terrorist nest?  When, in theory, do you get pissed at Obama for keeping the troops in Iraq?  How many more years do you want the war to continue?

----------


## nitsuJ

I really don't feel like quoting what UM just said, but I will copy and paste one of his sentences:

*There has not even been a beginning, not even the slightest troop reduction.*

In reply to that sentence-- aren't they sending like 30,000 (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, THIRTY THOUSAND) troops to either Iraq or Afghanistan? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.

This war isn't going to end this year, I won't be surprised if it doesn't end for the next 5 if not more. Although I wish it would. Leave Iraq to themselves, if they want to kill each other let them have at it. There's more important things than protecting a country from ITSELF. If they'd get the troops out from Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan we'd be saving a SHIT LOAD of money. There's been so much money wasted on this war. We really don't have the money to be spending on the dumb war anymore.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> There has not even been a beginning, not even the slightest troop reduction.  What specifically is Obama waiting for to begin the end of this war that had so many dissenters going off so passionately for so long?  
> 
> What is the event that has to happen?



I am not a military strategist, so I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to answer this question. I do not know how long it takes to plan a phased withdrawal, trying to take into account the most immediate reactions in the region if we just suddenly disappeared. It's been _a month_. At this point, whatever date I assumed would be right for whatever stage of withdrawal would be completely arbitrary, uneducated, and pointless. What I want to know is that it is something being worked on. As per his word, that's something that I'm giving him benefit of the doubt on, and I'm willing to show a little more patience to someone who has expressed repeatedly that one of his main goals is a prompt, but responsible, pull-out than to someone who has been repeatedly caught lying to the American people, and has used nothing but cowboy rhetoric when justifying the atrocity that is the Iraq War.





> What do we need to be cautious about, in your opinion?



A lot of what you have said in the past - much of which I have not disagreed with you on. I'm very well aware of the _possibility_ of the region spiraling into chaos. I'm also very well aware of the possibility of continued, deadly anti-U.S. sentiment if we stay, fighting this war. There is a lot at stake, and the situation is very complex. You are selling myself, and a lot of anti-Iraq-War perspectives short if you think our opinions are based on ignorance of those ideas.





> I have been saying that this whole time.  What confuses me is why you agree with me now.



On that, I have never disagreed with you. What we disagree on is, while not being able to pull out now, _immediately_, should we work on a way to get out as carefully and responsibly as possible, or should we just keep plowing ahead, fighting this war in Iraq for the next few hundred years if "victory" has not yet been met.





> what do you war dissenters and Barack Obama think we need to wait for, exactly?



Again, I don't pretend to be a strategist. I don't know exactly what conditions need to be met, and it's not my place to weigh the lives that will be lost if we continue this campaign against the lives that may be lost if we leave the region to its own devices. What I want to know is that the people who _are_ educated enough to make those decisions (none of which are on this forum) are working on it, and we aren't just going to continue justifying a bloody war, which shouldn't have been waged the way it was, by just saying "oh well. Too late to stop now. ONWARD!!!!  ::sniper:: "





> Also, at what point do you draw the line?  When do you start accusing Obama of being an occupier and an agitator of the terrorist nest?  When, in theory, do you get pissed at Obama for keeping the troops in Iraq?  How many more years do you want the war to continue?



As of now, I don't _have_ a "point where I draw the line." I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get me to say, but I'm just being realistic. I have never once set a time table for anyone, during this war. It's not my job. As time goes on, if I see absolutely no work being done that shows Obama is living up to his promise that he is working on a phase out, my patience will begin wearing thing. That is how this works. I'm not marking any calendars, and I'm not letting my anti-(this)war sentiment dupe me into thinking I know how long a phase-out would take, given the circumstances. What I want to know, and am willing to hold out a bit longer for, is affirmation that it is being worked on. As of now, it's not something I believe that a month in office is enough time for a responsible person to even show signs of.

But to answer your final question: I want the war to be over _today_, but I believe it is completely unrealistic, and pointless in this context.

----------


## Xaqaria

> I focused on Reps because that's what UM was talking about lol



I know, and I'm not saying you did anything "wrong". My entire point is that there is this huge illusory argument that forms whenever someone says "the dems do x" and then someone else says "but the reps do y". Even if each person knows that both parties do both x and y, it builds a false dichotomy between the two in our minds, when they are really both essentially the same. This false dichotomy is the entire purpose of the two party system. Divide and conquer.

----------


## poopman

wow, this isnt a complicated subject. we should not have went and therefore we should not be there. i mean really, we went because of 9/11 which took 3000 lives and now we have lost 5000 american soldier lives in the war and well over 1000000 (1 million) iraqi civilian lives, what are we accomplishing? not to mention the monumental national debt we have already that is being used to enslave america. be real people, obviously its not a partisan issue (republican and democrat) FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER

----------


## Caprisun

> we should not have went and therefore we should not be there.



You're oversimplifying the issue.  And the number of Iraqi civilians killed is well below a million, not that it makes it any more acceptable.

----------


## poopman

> You're oversimplifying the issue.  And the number of Iraqi civilians killed is well below a million, not that it makes it any more acceptable.





maybe its not complicated man. and it is over a million dead iraqis. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...e_b_60396.html


http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

----------


## Caprisun

> maybe its not complicated man. and it is over a million dead iraqis. 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...e_b_60396.html
> 
> 
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq



It's one of the most complicated wars in human history. There are no _credible_ estimations of the Iraqi civilian death toll since nobody is responsible for keeping track. There is no official number and if you average all of the estimations out there, which range from less than 100,000 to 1,000,000, you get a much lower number than one million.

----------


## Xaqaria

> It's one of the most complicated wars in human history. There are no _credible_ estimations of the Iraqi civilian death toll since nobody is responsible for keeping track. There is no official number and if you average all of the estimations out there, which range from less than 100,000 to 1,000,000, you get a much lower number than one million.



Did you even read the sources he posted for you? The huffington post article is about the motivation behind the Justforeignpolicy website. It says that the reason why they made the website was because there was a credible estimate made by the Lancet Medical Journal in 2006 that put the number of iraqis dead at 655,000, but there was nothing to refer to since then. That was 4 years ago, and only 3 years into the war. I think it is pretty safe to say that judging by these numbers the death toll could easily be up over a million by now.

----------


## Caprisun

> Did you even read the sources he posted for you? The huffington post article is about the motivation behind the Justforeignpolicy website. It says that the reason why they made the website was because there was a credible estimate made by the Lancet Medical Journal in 2006 that put the number of iraqis dead at 655,000, but there was nothing to refer to since then. That was 4 years ago, and only 3 years into the war. I think it is pretty safe to say that judging by these numbers the death toll could easily be up over a million by now.



Of course I read it, I know all about the Lancet survey.  Like I said, there are no _credible_ sources for a true death count in iraq. The Lancet survey is no more credible than any of the others, and the numbers vary greatly from the Lancet findings.  The lancet survey is one of the highest numbers published so far and it has a margin of error of about 300,000, meaning their actual number could be as low as 300,000 or as high as 900,000, they are just splitting the difference with the 600,000.  That hardly sounds credible to me. There are many things that are misleading about these polls, one being the amount of assumption and estimation that goes into finding these numbers, and another being that these are estimations of _all_ deaths since the beginning of the war, not just deaths at the hands of Americans.  And when you say the number could have easily jumped to one million in three years, you aren't taking into account the fact that the violence level isn't steady and things have in fact improved over the past year or so.  It is widely excepted that you can divide any estimation by three and that is the number of Iraqis killed directly by Americans, the rest are killed by insurgents, criminal activity, sectarian violence, or died due to "poor healthcare."  You can't cite any one of these polls as a "credible" source since they all use the same unreliable methods and they all get vastly different numbers.  If you average all of these polls together, you get a number much lower than one million.

All of that being said, it is really pointless to argue about the death toll because it won't make a bit of difference whether the number is 100,000 or whether it really is over a million.  I just don't like when people go throwing large numbers around for shock value when that number bears no credence to the actual situation, it's misleading and dishonest.  People shout "one million Iraqi dead!" like we have slaughtered a million innocent people.  If he hadn't said "well over a million" like it was the absolute truth, I wouldn't have said anything.

----------


## Descensus

> i mean really, we went because of 9/11 which took 3000 lives



The U.S. went to Iraq because of 9-11?

----------


## Universal Mind

I get confused when I see statistics on the civilian death toll in Iraq. What exactly is a civilian in Iraq? The insurgents are not professional military soldiers wearging green uniforms and answering to people of higher military ranks. They are crazy terrorists who think Satan has invaded and set up a Satanic government, and they are blowing shit up. Are they civilians? If those are civilians, then I hope we have killed a million of that type of civilian and kill all that remain. As far as good folks who are minding their own business and peacefully enjoying their new rights, how many of them have we killed? We don't target them. We try hard to avoid them. We use precision weapons that are awesome. We drop leaflets on areas before we do battle in them. There is no way we have killed one million of those people. Now, the insurgents do target those people. If they have killed one million of them, they would have done it with or without our presence. In fact, they would have done it even more easily. It is the new democracy the insurgents are trying to take down. They are willing to set the world on fire to end the democracy. So, I wouldn't really call those killings war casualties. They are anti-democracy killings by insurgent terrorists.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> I get confused when I see statistics on the civilian death toll in Iraq. What exactly is a civilian in Iraq? The insurgents are not professional military soldiers wearging green uniforms and answering to people of higher military ranks. They are crazy terrorists who think Satan has invaded and set up a Satanic government, and they are blowing shit up. Are they civilians? If those are civilians, then I hope we have killed a million of that type of civilian and kill all that remain. As far as good folks who are minding their own business and peacefully enjoying their new rights, how many of them have we killed? We don't target them. We try hard to avoid them. We use precision weapons that are awesome. We drop leaflets on areas before we do battle in them. There is no way we have killed one million of those people. Now, the insurgents do target those people. If they have killed one million of them, they would have done it with or without our presence. In fact, they would have done it even more easily. It is the new democracy the insurgents are trying to take down. They are willing to set the world on fire to end the democracy. So, I wouldn't really call those killings war casualties. They are anti-democracy killings by insurgent terrorists.



Your better than this. Lots of hyperbole and propaganda. If my country was invaded by outsiders who claimed to be liberating my country when it was evident that they had economic motives, I'd join some form of resistance. The Iraqi insurgency is an extremely complex entity; there is a Radical Islamist section that is in its very nature anti-democratic, and there are those that simply wish to see an end to this foreign occupation. Peacefully enjoying their new rights? The USA has broken Iraq, yes they had some human rights issues and their government was "evil" for want of a better word, but literacy rates were rising, the health of the general population was rising, Iraq was improving in a number of ways. There are many countries around the world with un-democratic leadership, yet they are not in the state Iraq is in. The war is a farce, it always was a farce and still is. Your right with the original basis for this thread, that Obama has changed fuck all' but that doesn't change the fact that a great number of those involved in the Iraqi insurgency are civilians who are not terrorists but individuals fighting against foreign occupation. 

I'm sure you'd be aggrieved if your country was invaded by a foreign country that wanted to rape your national resources and instate a puppet government.

----------


## Universal Mind

Imran, you greatly undermine what kind of government the Hussein regime was. The country didn't just have "some human rights issues" under them. Why would you make such an understatement? They had genocide. They lived in absolute horror over the idea of doing anything to make them look like they might possibly oppose the government because those who were merely suspected of it were tortured and then killed. It happened by the tens of thousands and would have never ended if somebody didn't come in and stop it. The people did not have real elections. Hussein got 100% of the vote every time. Go figure. It was a brutally oppressive dictatorship. Well, guess what. We changed all of that. The people now have a democratic government, and they elect the leaders. The government does not commit genocide on them. That is factual. So yes, the people of Iraq are enjoying new rights. The fact that they are in a transition phase with insurgents trying to kill the democracy does not change that. 

By the way, how do you feel about the insurgent targetting of civilians? 

If the insurgents really wanted us to leave, they would stop doing exactly what is keeping us there. Use common sense here. It is their terrorism that is keeping us in Iraq because we know what the insurgent motive is. It is to bring down the new democracy. If you don't believe me, explain why so many of them have threatened to kill people for voting. Can you tell me that? Do you know who Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was? He was the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq. He said this...

*"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."* 

Also, why do the people vote in higher percentages than Americans in spite of the fact that they are threatened with death for doing so? It's because they value their new rights. Right????????

You cannot legitimately compare our presence in Iraq to a foreign invader coming to the United States and wrecking our democracy. My government is not like the Hussein regime was, and neither is yours. Do you really want to argue that they are on the same level? If my government were like the Hussein regime, I would enthusiastically welcome its overthrow by a foreign democracy that comes to bring us democracy. I am certain you would feel the same way. Do you deny it? 

About this fighting for natural resources accusation, I challenge you to prove it. I see the accusation all the time, but nobody can ever prove it. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it has not been proven. It is just an accusation so far. Do you have anything to offer other than an accusation? Besides, even if that were a motive, the other motives are legitimate.

Also, calling my points "propaganda" does not serve as a counterargument. Some propaganda is true.

----------


## DeathCell

Universal is correct, their is no gains of natural resources. At some point we may get more from Iraq, but we aren't stealing it and we get more from Canada.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries? 
Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics. 

You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject? 

The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate. 

Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?

----------


## Universal Mind

> The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries?



A long list of reasons was behind the war, and the other nations do not give us such long lists.  Very importantly, the Hussein regime broke a ceasefire with us for 12 years. Also, we would have loved for the U.N. to have handled the problem instead.  They wouldn't do it.  We don't want to be the world police.  





> Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics.



No, my entire argument does not hinge on democracy.  Taking down a terrorist government and enforcing a ceasefire are two of the big principles that I think legitimized the continuation of war.  

Let's assume that what you illustrated really is a threat.  Isn't it a much better scenario than Hussein regime or Sharia law?  Liberating nations from totalitarianism is always good.  The Zarqawi quote I posted illustrates a lot of the resentment toward democracy.  What kinds of government would you say top the list of insurgent goals?  What kind of government would you like to see Iraq end up with?  





> You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
> I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject?



A little bit.  I'm not a big fan of his.  





> The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate.



No, I did not say it's a few crazy Al Qaeda. I quoted Zarqawi to illustrate a common belief among Islamofascists.  If the insurgents gave a shit about freedom and rights, they would not be doing what they are doing.  Do you think they would?  Iraq has a chance to be free and become a prosperous nation.  The insurgents want to destroy the golden opportunity. Think about that. 

What do you think the insurgents are accomplishing?  How do you feel about their targetting of civilians?  Does it make you happy when you find out a U.S. or British soldier was killed by an insurgent?  





> Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?



One you might be especially open to and that has a brilliant author is _A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq_ by Christopher Hitchens.  The author is most famous for being an outspoken atheist, so you won't read the book thinking you are reading something from some brainwashed sheep who automatically worships the Republican Party platform. Hitchens is great at provoing thought.

----------


## Caprisun

> The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries? 
> Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics. 
> 
> You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
> I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject? 
> 
> The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate. 
> 
> Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?



I don't think anybody is pretending we went for _purely_ unselfish, humanitarian purposes.  America does do a lot of policing but we don't do it for free, there has to be a special incentive.  Though we sometimes put on the air of an altruistic, peace-keeping nation, I am not so naive as to believe that is our only motivation for getting involved in conflicts around the world. Its got to be a win-win situation for us to invest any amount of resources in the cause, a "mutualistic" relationship. That's why we don't give a fuck about Africa.  This isn't _just_ about ending an oppressive regime and it isn't _just_ about resources, though they play a part.  It is a strategic move that helps protect the interests of America, that is it.  All other pros and cons are secondary.

It is also important to point out that the war going on now has very little to do with Saddam Hussein.  The distinction between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq becomes more blurred with every passing day.  It is essentially the same enemy with the same goals.  We may be responsible for the influx of insurgencies in Iraq but that is just the reality of the current situation.  Playing the blame game doesn't do a lot of good at this point, but that is not to absolve us of any responsibility.  Not many people supported America in overthrowing the Hussein regime, but it is hard to justify criticism for the _only_ real effort to end an oppressive insurgency that is spreading throughout the world like a disease.

*Edit:* If you'd like some reading material, try _The Utility of Force_ by Gen. Rupert Smith (from your native land) or anything talking about special forces in the Middle East.  I just finished reading _The Masters of Chaos_ which is about the green berets, it is more about the US Army special forces in general but it talks about operations in Iraq and goes into detail about the work they do as special forces operators.  Neither of those books are necessarily pro-American, but they discuss the most effective ways to fight the war and they also touch on the potential positive outcomes of the war which I think lends credence to the pro-American argument.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Caprisun I must admit you've completely confused me. First you talk about the Iraq war being a strategic move to further and protect US interests; something i would most certainly agree with. Then you move on to talking about Afghanistan and almost seek to draw a parallel between the two.

The problem here is your attempts to merge the Islamic Jihad and the Iraq Insurgency. The insurgency is composed of a few main groups; nationalists who view the invasion as simply that, Ba'ath Party loyalists and a handful of die hard jihadists; some of whom come from the rest of the Arab world. However, in Iraq it is accepted that the majority of the resistance is being fought by secular Iraqi Nationalists who wish the foreign invaders to leave. The war being fought primarily with Jihadists in Afghanistan is not similar to the war being fought primarily against a predominately secular Iraqi resistance.

If your interested in the true nature of the Iraqi insurgency I highly reccomend the book by Loretta Napoleoni.

UM, I want to reply to your points carefully and at length when I have time to  respond, I'm not ignoring your points. I just want to answer these questions though quickly.

*How do you feel about their targetting of civilians? Does it make you happy when you find out a U.S. or British soldier was killed by an insurgent?* 

This is not the first time you have asked me questions of this nature; I'd think you know me better than this now. The targeting of civilians is disgraceful, it's wrong. I find the second question slightly offensive if it is asked in seriousness. I don't feel happy when the death of soldiers is reported, death does not make me happy. I feel sad when an insurgent dies and I feel sad when a soldier dies.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't feel happy when the death of soldiers is reported, death does not make me happy.



What? It is exactly what you support. Isn't it? You are in favor of the insurgency, and the insurgency's method is to kill Coalition soldiers and Iraqis. If you don't support the killing the insurgents are doing, what actions of theirs do you support? You expressed that you are pro-insurgency.  Or did you not express that?

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Come on UM, stop playing games. I stated that if my country was invaded by some Arabs, with their foreign culture, their foreign ideals and foreign vested interests to coerce my country into operating along certain economic lines, to prevent my country developing in the way it had been for the last 30 years that I would want these foreigners out of my country and I would resist. Just because I support resistance to the occupation does not mean it makes me happy to see soldiers killed. I understand and empathize with the cause of the resistance, not of Jihadists who are committing acts of terror.
My supporting the resistance does not mean the death of my countrymen or yours makes me happy. If I was alive during the Second World War I would have fully supported opposing Nazi expansion yet the death of German soldiers would not have made happy. This is quite basic and I'm 100% sure you understand the distinction.

----------


## Universal Mind

Imran, you seem to be all over the place with this. You don't support the killing? Then what exactly do you support? Do you like just the insurgent speech? Do you like their signs? What is it about what they are doing that you support? You acted like you were their public advocate two days ago, and now you say you are against the major game they are playing. What specifically are you in favor of?  Saying that you sympathize does not answer the question.  

It is the killing I spoke against.  Are you with me on that?

----------


## dajo

You're either with us, or against us.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You're either with us, or against us.



... or neutral.  People who condone what you do are _with_ you.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Come on your smart, this is easy. Your question was, does the death of soldiers make you happy? 

Your debating style is effective yet I think sometimes you intentionally generalize and try to simplify incredibly complex situations and opinions.
You want my view on the insurgency?

I understand it. I understand armed resistance to occupying forces. I understood the response of the Mujahedin against the invading Soviet forces. If I was an Iraqi I would probably bare arms against coalition soldiers. I understand their pain, their anger and their response. Do I think their response will achieve anything worthwhile? No. Am I happy when they kill soldiers; no I'm not happy when these primarily working class men die. 

Do I even understand or empathize with the elements of the insurgency that come from all over the Arab world to kill the "White Devils", and bomb innocent civilians? No. The Jihadists are sick people and are a problem that the US has created. Despite US propaganda, there was very little if any Jihadist movement in Iraq prior to the invasion. 

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I understand the resistance. I agree with the principles of armed resistance against an invader. I am not happy when people die. Especially people with whom I share a great deal in common.

In my eyes, the insurgents and the soldiers are both pawns, both victims in a game played out by those who don't give a shit about the human cost of their ambition.

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay, so you are not made happy by killings of Americans and Brits in Iraq. You are just _in favor_ of such killings. Is that right? 

You said that if you were an Iraqi you would probably be part of the insurgency and kill Coalition soldiers. What kind of government would you be pushing and hoping for during your rejection of the golden opportunity for lasting democracy and prosperity in Iraq?

----------


## dajo

> ... or neutral.  People who condone what you do are _with_ you.



Actually, not really, no. There are far more positions than right, left and centered.

I think what you are doing here, is painting a bit of a black and white picture. 

'If you say this,... then you must ultimately also mean this,.. and therefore you 
are in favour of allied soldiers being killed.' 

what..?

Edit: 

Ok, I don't want to read everything. Could you quote him, where he 
actually said that stuff? And also,.. US foreign policy is far from democratic. 
If you read Chomsky, you'll see that this is actually a reason for all the hate 
against the United States, and not because of envy (or whatever it is you 
think the reason is)

----------


## Universal Mind

> Actually, not really, no. There are far more positions than right, left and centered.
> 
> I think what you are doing here, is painting a bit of a black and white picture. 
> 
> 'If you say this,... then you must ultimately also mean this,.. and therefore you 
> are in favour of allied soldiers being killed.' 
> 
> what..?



What you are thinking of is the fact that there are degrees of support and degrees of opposition.  A little bit of support is not the same as extreme support, etc.  However, you either support a cause, oppose the cause, or neither support it or oppose it.  Can you tell me a fourth alternative?  

How carefully have you been reading Imran's posts?  He expressed belief in the legitimacy of the insurgency. Did you not catch it?

----------


## Indecent Exposure

No it is not right that I am in  favour of the reaction either. Try for a moment to stop being so objective. I understand why these people would react in this way, I don't know because I am not them, but I imagine if I was in a similar situation I would resist. It isn't black or white. If we want to get right down to the nitty gritty I don't support their reaction because I know it will achieve nothing; yet i fully understand why one would react in that way, and I judge nobody who fights against the occupation, I see them merely as a side in a war.
This is not an opportunity for lasting prosperity in Iraq. Your so fond of your "democracy". I don't really believe in it to be honest. I don't see how you can even call a two party system a democracy. You get two choose between two almost identical individuals who will almost certainly never represent the beliefs and views of the people. The countries you invade do not prosper, they continue to suffer for your benefit. Iraq will become like a number of other Arab countries now, a few ultra rich at the top but that doesn't help the rest of the people. The wealth wont filter down, it leaves the country in truck loads.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Ok, I don't want to read everything. Could you quote him, where he 
> actually said that stuff? And also,.. US foreign policy is far from democratic. 
> If you read Chomsky, you'll see that this is actually a reason for all the hate 
> against the United States, and not because of envy (or whatever it is you 
> think the reason is)



You made those wise cracks without reading the posts I was addressing?  Here's an excerpt...





> I understand it. I understand armed resistance to occupying forces. I understood the response of the Mujahedin against the invading Soviet forces. If I was an Iraqi I would probably bare arms against coalition soldiers.



I know the U.S. is not a perfect democracy. There isn't one anywhere.  Still, the people here have the ultimate power.  We choose the leaders.  

The main reasons for the hate against the United States by Islamofascists are our support for Israel, our presence in the Middle East even where it was always consentual (Islamofascist xenophobia and religious intolerance), and our allowances of the party lifestyle and other freedoms, including the legality of alcohol and stock trade.  

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...den%27s+letter

----------


## dajo

> What you are thinking of is the fact that there are degrees of support and degrees of opposition.  A little bit of support is not the same as extreme support, etc.  However, you either support a cause, oppose the cause, or neither support it or oppose it.  Can you tell me a fourth alternative?  
> 
> How carefully have you been reading Imran's posts?  He expressed belief in the legitimacy of the insurgency. Did you not catch it?



First part: 

The _reason_ why you, lets say: approve or disapprove, is crucial as well. 

And if you seperate every smallest event into it's own entity, then you get a 
massive amount of possibilities. With each of those, you can probably say 
that you'd either approve or disapprove, but as soon as it gets to a level like 
the Iraq war, it becomes a lot more complexe. 

You can disapprove of the behaviour of the insurgence and marines, 
but whilest being against both, you certainly aren't neutral. This would 
just be the most obvious example. But furthermore, it would be important 
to ask: 'Why do you disapprove', not 'If you disapprove, it must mean that...'

Second Part: 

I'll read them more carefully. 

You might technically be right, but I doubt that it is this, what imran wanted to convey.

Edit:





> You made those wise cracks without reading the posts I was addressing?  Here's an excerpt...



I read the thread and your posts. Not as carefully though and not in regard of your position. 

I will now.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No it is not right that I am in favour of the reaction either. Try for a moment to stop being so objective. I understand why these people would react in this way, I don't know because I am not them, but I imagine if I was in a similar situation I would resist. It isn't black or white. If we want to get right down to the nitty gritty I don't support their reaction because I know it will achieve nothing; yet i fully understand why one would react in that way, and I judge nobody who fights against the occupation, I see them merely as a side in a war.
> This is not an opportunity for lasting prosperity in Iraq. Your so fond of your "democracy". I don't really believe in it to be honest. I don't see how you can even call a two party system a democracy. You get two choose between two almost identical individuals who will almost certainly never represent the beliefs and views of the people. The countries you invade do not prosper, they continue to suffer for your benefit. Iraq will become like a number of other Arab countries now, a few ultra rich at the top but that doesn't help the rest of the people. The wealth wont filter down, it leaves the country in truck loads.



So you have sympathy but are neutral and would probably not be neutral if you were Iraqi? 

We have a two party system because it is what the people choose. That is democracy. The two party system is not mandated by law. 

Do you know what the #2 and #3 richest nations in the world are? Japan and Germany. We occupied them and changed their governments. Look at them now. Why wouldn't Iraq be able to make the climb?


Dajo, you can agree with aspects of a cause and disagree with others, but overall, you are either for the overall package, against it, or neutral.

P.S.- I have been asking Imran questions, not telling him what he thinks. My statements about what he appears to think and feel have been followed by questions about the accuracy of my assessments of appearance. He seems like a good guy, which makes this conversation confusing.

----------


## Descensus

> We have a two party system because it is what the people choose. That is democracy.



Which people? I don't want a two-party system.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

UM I think your missing the point. For me there is no moralistic good or bad here when it comes to the insurgents and soldiers. Unlike yourself, I don't see the soldiers as some heroes come to save these people and the insurgents as some crazy Muslims who want to fuck up Iraq's change to be free and happy. I see a reaction to a invasion, as has happened down the ages. This time, just like the rest we have lots of propaganda to accompany it. These people aren't evil they just want the invaders to leave. I understand the reaction. I feel sorry for all parties involved, the working class soldiers risking their lives so some fat capitalist can benefit from the war, the Iraqis who feel forced to take up arms to protect their homes from an enemy from across the sea.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Which people? I don't want a two-party system.



I don't either, but Republicans and Democrats are very loyal to their parties. Party membership/loyalty is consentual. It's not that people directly want a two party system. They just want their party to have the power, and there are two major camps that people fall into. The point is that there is no law saying we have to have just two major parties.





> UM I think your missing the point. For me there is no moralistic good or bad here when it comes to the insurgents and soldiers. Unlike yourself, I don't see the soldiers as some heroes come to save these people and the insurgents as some crazy Muslims who want to fuck up Iraq's change to be free and happy. I see a reaction to a invasion, as has happened down the ages. This time, just like the rest we have lots of propaganda to accompany it. These people aren't evil they just want the invaders to leave. I understand the reaction. I feel sorry for all parties involved, the working class soldiers risking their lives so some fat capitalist can benefit from the war, the Iraqis who feel forced to take up arms to protect their homes from an enemy from across the sea.



Again, if they wanted us to leave, they would stop doing exactly what is keeping us there. That is not what is really happening. 

So you are neutral in regard to the killers but have sympathy for them and their killing ways? 

What kind of government do you hope Iraq ends up with?

----------


## Descensus

> I don't either, but Republicans and Democrats are very loyal to their parties. Party membership/loyalty is consentual. It's not that people directly want a two party system. They just want their party to have the power, and there are two major camps that people fall into. The point is that there is no law saying we have to have just two major parties



Well that's not quite fair to say. True, it may be voluntary to join, but information on other parties isn't exactly readily available through the television media. Most people don't even know of other parties. Hell my mom thought there were only two candidates during the last presidential election.

The problem is that people don't know of other options. They think any other party is just some fringe radical association of political failures.

Remember that two parties are rich beyond belief due to special interests, lobbying, and government/corporate favors. 

And yes, I know there is no law saying we have just two major parties. It's de facto.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Your acting like these are random murderers, I've already made a clear distinction between those committing acts of terror and those fighting for their independence. US and British soldiers are no better than those who oppose them. It is a war, the insurgency are the opposing side in this war. Neither are to blame for the circumstances that place them where they are. 

I think the argument of governance is a whole different argument. I think it is obvious that Iraq was doing well. Maybe we need to replicate the economic conditions that was there under Saddam, in relation to oil and the development of the country. I think the US has made a very big mess and the people of Iraq will be suffering as a result for a long time. Sure they'll create a new class of rich oil sheiks in Iraq. The people in general will suffer.
The truth is, the US does not want a prosperous Iraq with a nationalist leader who wants to nationalize the countries extremely valuable resources' the same reasons the US dislikes South American leaders who wish to do the same things. I think you should study the recent history of your country more carefully and look at the real reasons you invade countries. To maintain the globe as you require it. The US has been since the Second World War seeking some form of economic imperalism in most of the world, slowly spreading its influence and "rules". If you do something we don't like we get rid of you and bring in somebody more sympathetic.

----------


## Universal Mind

So you want a Hussein regime style government for Iraq? Can I assume you want to somehow leave out the fascism, genocide, third world status, and mass starvation?

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> So you want a Hussein regime style government for Iraq? Can I assume you want to somehow leave out the fascism, genocide, third world status, and mass starvation?



Come on mate, I was talking about economics, which is what this war is being fought over. The country needs individual freedom and also economic freedom. I am saying that economically he was doing something right. I'm not smart enough to tell you what direction Iraq should take, but being a puppet government for the US and leaving its people to starve whilst creating a capitalistic ultra rich and an ultra poor is not the answer. The answer probably lies somewhere in the realm of democratic socialism and pan-Arabism. Most certainly the nationalisation of the countries resources. In terms of government, whatever the people want. Maybe a referendum to find out. I just don't think more US economic imperialism designed to further Us interests around the globe is what Iraq needs.

----------


## Universal Mind

> In terms of government, whatever the people want.



That is what we have given them.  It is called democracy.   :wink2: 





> being a puppet government for the US and leaving its people to starve whilst creating a capitalistic ultra rich and an ultra poor is not the answer.



That is not how it is in the U.S., Germany, or Japan.  We all have poor people that are rich by world standards.  Why would Iraq be any different?

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Western Democracy is a lie. It does not exist. The majority of the people in my country never wanted to invade Iraq. We want the legalisation of cannabis. We have three major parties, they are all tools of the same forces. They offer very little variance, different colour ties is the most notable differences. If the people do not make the decisions it is not democracy, surely?

How about the Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Democratic Republic of Congo? I think your a very open minded individual with a very close minded attitude to the foreign policy of your country. You see altruism and integrity where I think its obvious there is only self interest and deception.

----------


## Caprisun

> Caprisun I must admit you've completely confused me. First you talk about the Iraq war being a strategic move to further and protect US interests; something i would most certainly agree with. Then you move on to talking about Afghanistan and almost seek to draw a parallel between the two.
> 
> The problem here is your attempts to merge the Islamic Jihad and the Iraq Insurgency. The insurgency is composed of a few main groups; nationalists who view the invasion as simply that, Ba'ath Party loyalists and a handful of die hard jihadists; some of whom come from the rest of the Arab world. However, in Iraq it is accepted that the majority of the resistance is being fought by secular Iraqi Nationalists who wish the foreign invaders to leave. The war being fought primarily with Jihadists in Afghanistan is not similar to the war being fought primarily against a predominately secular Iraqi resistance.
> 
> If your interested in the true nature of the Iraqi insurgency I highly reccomend the book by Loretta Napoleoni.



I understand the complexity of the Iraqi insurgency.  Al Qaeda is an umbrella term that we sometimes use to refer to the collection of semi-unrelated _terrorist_ cells that are operating in the Middle East.  I know they do not all identify with Al Qaeda.  It matters little where they come from or what their true intentions are, they still use the same dispicable tactics and they still have the same goals.  Though I have a hard time believing the majority of these men fight for their old government, especially when the last words that come out of their mouth before they blow up and American convoy or a supermarket are "ALLAH AKBAR!"  These people kill many more civilians than coalition soldiers, and they do it on purpose.  It isn't collateral damage, its a major tenet of their strategy.  Are their acts justified by their national pride?  They are fighting for a broken nation, and a nation that would spiral deeper and deeper into chaos if their objectives were realized.  They don't have the ability to set up a government, it would be the start of a never ending, multilevel civil war.  Think Somalia on a much larger scale.  If you want to see what it was like to live in Europe in the Dark ages, pull the coalition out of the Middle East.

You seem caught up on an injustice thrusted upon the Iraqi people seven years ago, and I may even agree with you a little bit on that aspect, but the current situation is much more fragile.  We can't pick up and leave.  The fact that you support the insurgents in their endeavour means not only that you condone the killing of civilians and the use of human shields, but the prolonging of the war and the deterioration of the entire region.  I see you and Universal Mind going back and forth on this issue, but Universal Mind is right.  You can't support an insurgency without supporting insurgent tactics, there is no way around that one.

You also used the argument that if an Arab country were to invade your country that you would want them out.  I would feel the same way and it is good that you try to see it from their perspective, but both England and America are very affluent countries with some of the more enlightened goverments on our planet.  There is no justification for invading a nation like that.  Iraq was a third world nation with an oppressive dicator in a region filled with other third world nations that are ruled by governments steeped in Islamic extremist dogma that foster ani-Western sentiments.  I certainly cannot speak for the Iraqi people, but I would not want to live in those conditions.  If I lived in Nazi Germany, I would want to be liberated.  That is just my personal opinion, it's not meant to justify the invasion of Iraq.  I wish we had stayed more focused on Afghanistan.  Saddam Hussein was a human rights criminal who controlled his people through fear.  I don't think these nationalist insurgents want to go back to that way of life and I don't think they realize that if they were victorious, they would get something much worse.  Maybe their anger is clouding their vision to the extent that they are unable to see the problems they are causing by fighting a futile battle.  If they really care about their country and their people, they wouldn't form an insurgency.  They are only prolonging the occupation and ultimately killing more of their family and friends.  There _are_ a lot of parallels between the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban.  People who speak out against the resistance mysteriously disappear all the time (then reappear dead.)  Does that sound like peace-loving family men who simply want their country back?  What kind of government would they employ if they won their power back?  Maybe then we could see just how similar they are to the Taliban.





> How about the Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Democratic Republic of Congo? I think your a very open minded individual with a very close minded attitude to the foreign policy of your country. You see altruism and integrity where I think its obvious there is only self interest and deception.



We have ongoing operations in all of those nations except Iran.  Special forces are deployed all over the world at all times essentially keeping an eye out for any insurgencies they may be forming.  The special forces have been very successful in the past of disbanding insurgencies, but they have been grossly misused/underutilized in the Middle East.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> I understand the complexity of the Iraqi insurgency.  Al Qaeda is an umbrella term that we sometimes use to refer to the collection of semi-unrelated _terrorist_ cells that are operating in the Middle East.  I know they do not all identify with Al Qaeda.  It matters little where they come from or what their true intentions are, they still use the same dispicable tactics and they still have the same goals.  Though I have a hard time believing the majority of these men fight for their old government, especially when the last words that come out of their mouth before they blow up and American convoy or a supermarket are "ALLAH AKBAR!"  These people kill many more civilians than coalition soldiers, and they do it on purpose.  It isn't collateral damage, its a major tenet of their strategy.  Are their acts justified by their national pride?  They are fighting for a broken nation, and a nation that would spiral deeper and deeper into chaos if their objectives were realized.  They don't have the ability to set up a government, it would be the start of a never ending, multilevel civil war.  Think Somalia on a much larger scale.  If you want to see what it was like to live in Europe in the Dark ages, pull the coalition out of the Middle East.
> 
> You seem caught up on an injustice thrusted upon the Iraqi people seven years ago, and I may even agree with you a little bit on that aspect, but the current situation is much more fragile.  We can't pick up and leave.  The fact that you support the insurgents in their endeavour means not only that you condone the killing of civilians and the use of human shields, but the prolonging of the war and the deterioration of the entire region.  I see you and Universal Mind going back and forth on this issue, but Universal Mind is right.  You can't support an insurgency without supporting insurgent tactics, there is no way around that one.
> 
> You also used the argument that if an Arab country were to invade your country that you would want them out.  I would feel the same way and it is good that you try to see it from their perspective, but both England and America are very affluent countries with some of the more enlightened goverments on our planet.  There is no justification for invading a nation like that.  Iraq was a third world nation with an oppressive dicator in a region filled with other third world nations that are ruled by governments steeped in Islamic extremist dogma that foster ani-Western sentiments.  I certainly cannot speak for the Iraqi people, but I would not want to live in those conditions.  If I lived in Nazi Germany, I would want to be liberated.  That is just my personal opinion, it's not meant to justify the invasion of Iraq.  I wish we had stayed more focused on Afghanistan.  Saddam Hussein was a human rights criminal who controlled his people through fear.  I don't think these nationalist insurgents want to go back to that way of life and I don't think they realize that if they were victorious, they would get something much worse.  Maybe their anger is clouding their vision to the extent that they are unable to see the problems they are causing by fighting a futile battle.  If they really care about their country and their people, they wouldn't form an insurgency.  They are only prolonging the occupation and ultimately killing more of their family and friends.  There _are_ a lot of parallels between the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban.  People who speak out against the resistance mysteriously disappear all the time (then reappear dead.)  Does that sound like peace-loving family men who simply want their country back?  What kind of government would they employ if they won their power back?  Maybe then we could see just how similar they are to the Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> We have ongoing operations in all of those nations except Iran.  Special forces are deployed all over the world at all times essentially keeping an eye out for any insurgencies they may be forming.  The special forces have been very successful in the past of disbanding insurgencies, but they have been grossly misused/underutilized in the Middle East.




Once again you've misunderstood the insurgency. Your trying to claim that the entire insurgency is part of the wider Islamic Jihadist movement. This simply is not true. There is lots of different elements involved in the insurgency, some are directly opposed. If the only information you have on the Iraqi insurgency comes from government sources or "news" then I suggest you develop your knowledge of the situation before engaging in debate surrounding it. Once again I reccomend the book by Napoleoni, an expert on Islamic terrorism. I'm not going to answer the accusations regarding my personal beliefs fully as I believe I already have. I do not support the use of human shields or any of the above things that you accused me of. Ongoing operations basically means furthering US interests and overthrowing governments and replacing them with ones that will do what you tell them to. The United States supports certain principles around the globe' democracy is not really one of these principles. The US has at numerous times in its recent history overthrown popular governments; governments very much supported by the masses. The US also has an appalling track record of supporting tyrannical and oppressive dictatorships. Global economics have always been the issue. The is a great deal of good material out their surrounding American economic imperialism, I suggest you digest some of it.

----------


## Caprisun

> Once again you've misunderstood the insurgency. Your trying to claim that the entire insurgency is part of the wider Islamic Jihadist movement. This simply is not true. There is lots of different elements involved in the insurgency, some are directly opposed. If the only information you have on the Iraqi insurgency comes from government sources or "news" then I suggest you develop your knowledge of the situation before engaging in debate surrounding it. Once again I reccomend the book by Napoleoni, an expert on Islamic terrorism. I'm not going to answer the accusations regarding my personal beliefs fully as I believe I already have. I do not support the use of human shields or any of the above things that you accused me of. Ongoing operations basically means furthering US interests and overthrowing governments and replacing them with ones that will do what you tell them to. The United States supports certain principles around the globe' democracy is not really one of these principles. The US has at numerous times in its recent history overthrown popular governments; governments very much supported by the masses. The US also has an appalling track record of supporting tyrannical and oppressive dictatorships. Global economics have always been the issue. The is a great deal of good material out their surrounding American economic imperialism, I suggest you digest some of it.



Why do you assume my ignorance?  If I say I understand something then I understand it.  Not that I need to prove myself to you, but I am very well read on the subject.  Probably 75% of the books I read are on the Iraq/Afghan war, I read it in the news everyday, I know plenty of people who have been there, and I have seen countless documentaries on the subject (*all portraying different viewpoints*.)  You could almost say I am a student of modern military tactics, since it will eventually be my career. I acknowledged that not all of these insurgent cells identify with Al Qaeda, meaning they are _not_ all Islamic Jihadists.  Then I went on to explain why that doesn't matter because an insurgency is a nasty organization no matter where they come from or what they _think_ they stand for.  So tell me where the misunderstanding is?  Insurgency 101: Strap bomb to chest, walk into crowded supermarket, detonate bomb.  They are _all_ guilty of it because that is the reality of insurgent tactics in Iraq, all Middle East insurgencies employ these tactics.  Not all insurgencies in the history of the world employed these tactics, but the ones in Iraq do.  They kill Americans and then run, they hide in the homes with woman and children, they hide in mosks, they pick fights in crowded areas, they bomb crowded areas and then blame the Americans.  There is nothing honest or just about the Iraqi insurgencies, _no_ exceptions.  Maybe you should expand _your_ knowledge base past Napoleoni's book.  Im not sure I want to read that book since it seems to have skewed your view of reality.

I thought I would point this out: _"Once again I reccomend the book by Napoleoni, an expert on Islamic terrorism"_





> I'm not going to answer the accusations regarding my personal beliefs fully as I believe I already have. I do not support the use of human shields or any of the above things that you accused me of.



You don't have you justify yourself to me, I just wanted to point out the fatal contradictions in your beliefs.  You can't support an insurgency and not support their tactics.  I also noticed you keep saying "I understand why they would react the way they do."  Is that supposed to justify their actions? Do you understand them or do you support them?  There is a big difference. (These aren't meant to be accusations, they are just reality.)





> Ongoing operations basically means furthering US interests and overthrowing governments and replacing them with ones that will do what you tell them to.



That's not what special forces do.  They keep the peace, they are the peace corps with rifles.  The main reason the special forces are called to a neutral region is to remove oppressive dictators/leaders such as Manuel Noriega, who are especially violent and don't seem to be mentally stable.  I suggest you read about the special forces operations in Central America to learn about their true purpose and their true capabilities.  Special forces learn the language, the culture, and the politics of whatever region they are in.  They build schools, water wells, bring electricity, build relationships, and raise the standard of living in general.  They make life better for the people in the region and they take great pride in providing that service.  They do all this while fighting off the local insurgencies who seek to undermine any signs of progress so they can rekindle the population's dependence on them.  Yet you side with the insurgents who don't hold any interest in peace or the well-being of their people?





> The United States supports certain principles around the globe' democracy is not really one of these principles. The US has at numerous times in its recent history overthrown popular governments; governments very much supported by the masses. The US also has an appalling track record of supporting tyrannical and oppressive dictatorships. Global economics have always been the issue. The is a great deal of good material out their surrounding American economic imperialism, I suggest you digest some of it.



I never said America was a model of high ethics in the world, but again, don't assume I'm ignorant.  I think where you and I don't see eye to eye is that you are stuck in the past while I am trying to analyze the current situation.  You are adhereing to the logic of "we should have never gone, therefore we should leave."  I hear that all too often in America and I just saw somebody use those exact words on this site the other day, this line of reasoning is severely flawed.  The just or unjust reasons for entering the country do not and should not have any effect on the decision to leave.  It doesn't look like you have given any thought to the repercussions of a sudden withdrawal.

Also when you say we've overthrown "popular governments," the Nazi government was extremely popular.  When you said we support tyrannical dictators, it isn't because we support their actions, we teamed up with Stalin to defeat a greater evil.  All cases aren't as clear cut as those two but this argument holds little relevance to the topic.

----------


## poopman

> Which people? I don't want a two-party system.



classic....shows the brain washing goes deep. a two party system is what the population wants?? i would say its what they are fed. speaking of fed, end the FED.

----------


## Descensus

> classic....shows the brain washing goes deep. a two party system is what the population wants?? i would say its what they are fed. speaking of fed, end the FED.



Could your posts be any more confusion?

----------


## poopman

> Could your posts be any more confusion?



sure could sir. i dont understand the confusing

----------


## Descensus

> sure could sir. i dont understand the confusing



I don't understand what you were trying to say in your post whatsoever.

----------


## Original Poster

Obama is a cunt.

----------


## dajo

you're back  ::banana::

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay, it's now February of 2011. Barack Obama has been president of the United States for more than two years. How is his end the war thing coming along? Are there going to be a lot of anti-war protests this weekend? Are the insurgents still "freedom fighters"?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Okay, it's now February of 2011. Barack Obama has been president of the United States for more than two years. How is his end the war thing coming along?




U.S. Officially Marks Last Phase of Iraq War - CBS News
It's going. Not perfectly, or altogether quickly, but it's going...

----------


## Universal Mind

> U.S. Officially Marks Last Phase of Iraq War - CBS News
> It's going. Not perfectly, or altogether quickly, but it's going...



I'll believe it when I see it. I think Obama might have done the right thing in keeping the mission going (My optimism concerning the future of Iraq is not what it once was.), but I am baffled by how the anti-war outrage has diminished so much since a Democrat took office, in spite of a glaring broken campaign promise. Still, I think calling all troops home two years ago, as Ron Paul would have done, might have been a total disaster. But how long is too long?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I'll believe it when I see it.



Heh. Same here. I was just giving the 'official' story.  ::cheers:: 





> I think Obama might have done the right thing in keeping the mission going (My optimism concerning the future of Iraq is not what it once was.), but I am baffled by how the anti-war outrage has diminished so much since a Democrat took office, in spite of a glaring broken campaign promise.



To a point, I agree with this. But what was the broken promise? (I ask because I honestly can't recall.) As far as I know, he has always talked about a 'phase-out,' rather than an immediate pull-out.





> Still, I think calling all troops home two years ago, as Ron Paul would have done, might have been a total disaster. But how long is too long?



Agreed again. I really don't want to put too fine a point on it, though (because I really don't know how long is too long, in such a volatile situation). 2-3 years is long, don't get me wrong, but it's a lot sooner than the "100 years, if necessary" rhetoric that John McCain was spitting.

----------


## Spartiate

What exactly qualifies as the end of the war?  I have a feeling the US will have a permanent base in Iraq forever...

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> What exactly qualifies as the end of the war?  I have a feeling the US will have a permanent base in Iraq forever...



Which war? The war in Iraq, or the "War on Terror?"

The War in Iraq could go on for years, but if it's a war that the Iraqi people are able (and apparently willing) to be the driving force of, then I say let them - even if we have a few troops there in supporting roles, for however long. If it can remain their war, instead of ours, I would say that that's enough.

The 'War on Terror,' though, has no end. Even putting a name on it was a complete farce.

----------


## Caprisun

The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever.  I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever.  I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."



 I believe that's how it's always been presented. Maybe not so literally, but it's how it's always been 'talked up.' How do you interpret it?

----------


## Caprisun

I interpret it as a denunciation of all tangible terrorist organizations in the Middle East first and foremost, and then prominent terrorist organizations outside the Middle East second.  I'm suprised so many people take the title literally, as if we are trying to delete the word from the dictionary.  It's the same idea as a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs." It's a political ploy meant to draw attention to a certain cause, not a literal war on an intangible concept.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I interpret it as a denunciation of all tangible terrorist organizations in the Middle East first and foremost, and then prominent terrorist organizations outside the Middle East second.  I'm suprised so many people take the title literally, as if we are trying to delete the word from the dictionary.  It's the same idea as a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs." It's a political ploy meant to draw attention to a certain cause, not a literal war on an intangible concept.



My problem with it - much like the term "War on Drugs" - is that it's a bit of a misnomer. It denotes having an unequivocal, no-tolerance policy toward the cause. When you call something a "War on Terror," you are drumming up a War against Terrorism. The fact of the matter is that there are already a lot of people out there who equate Islam with "Terrorism," as if the two words are interchangeable. Above that, tacking the words "War on Terror" onto a campaign, to help garner support for an operation that is essentially localized to one area (of American Interest, 'coincidentally') is arguably propaganda. The 'War on Terror' has been billed as a global campaign against 'terrorists' (on far more than one occasion), which is rhetoric that has quelled quite a bit, the further we got into this quagmire in Iraq. It sends a message to the world that we are stead-fast in a cause that is for the good of humanity in general, not localized to one economically important area. That is why people from so many other different regions are left wondering "what about us?"

As I said, it's much like the 'War on Drugs'; a political ploy (as you said), which paints the picture that they are cracking down on the drug dealers of America for a _humanistic_ purpose, instead of a monetary one - only to end up being a selective campaign against high-end (high-monetary-return) traffickers, while not only granting pardon, but _protection_ to relatively smaller operations, in exchange for information. 

When I call it a farce, I don't mean to say it doesn't serve a purpose. I mean to say that it's billed as something it's not, in an effort to garner support.

----------


## DeletePlease

> I think this applies to both parties. Look at everything Obama promised and what he has done. He promised to close Gitmo. He signed a bullshit executive order that everyone thought closed it, but turned out was just an informal promise to examine the possibility of closing it after a year. Now, after a year it is still open with no sign that it will ever be closed. Obama has done the exact opposite of almost all of his campaign platform points.



I could be mistaken but didn't he _try_ to do something about those campaign platform points? The current Republican party has been making an effort to stonewall, at times even undermine, the current administration has it not? Like with that healthcare bill for example, they wanted to start all over again and complained that it was too long (since when is being thorough a bad thing?). 

Don't bite me, I said I could be mistaken. D:
-----
The USA will not pull out completely. Obama pulled combat troops but that's as far as they'll go, I can't imagine them doing any more any time soon. They'll just set up a handful of bases for "strategic purposes" and then remain in the area like they always do.

----------


## Caprisun

> My problem with it - much like the term "War on Drugs" - is that it's a bit of a misnomer. It denotes having an unequivocal, no-tolerance policy toward the cause. When you call something a "War on Terror," you are drumming up a War against Terrorism. The fact of the matter is that there are already a lot of people out there who equate Islam with "Terrorism," as if the two words are interchangeable. Above that, tacking the words "War on Terror" onto a campaign, to help garner support for an operation that is essentially localized to one area (of American Interest, 'coincidentally') is arguably propaganda. The 'War on Terror' has been billed as a global campaign against 'terrorists' (on far more than one occasion), which is rhetoric that has quelled quite a bit, the further we got into this quagmire in Iraq. It sends a message to the world that we are stead-fast in a cause that is for the good of humanity in general, not localized to one economically important area. That is why people from so many other different regions are left wondering "what about us?"
> 
> As I said, it's much like the 'War on Drugs'; a political ploy (as you said), which paints the picture that they are cracking down on the drug dealers of America for a _humanistic_ purpose, instead of a monetary one - only to end up being a selective campaign against high-end (high-monetary-return) traffickers, while not only granting pardon, but _protection_ to relatively smaller operations, in exchange for information. 
> 
> When I call it a farce, I don't mean to say it doesn't serve a purpose. I mean to say that it's billed as something it's not, in an effort to garner support.



I still don't get what the  big deal is.  The name is a non-issue to me.  They can call the war on terror whatever they want as long as they are working against terrorism. You say your problem is that it "denotes having a no tolerance policy towards terrorism."  Why do  you have a problem with that?  People equate terrorism to Islam because there are not many other other notable terrorist organizations that are not Islamic.  Humans have a natural tendency to associate things when they see them together a lot.  That doesn't mean it's ok to assume this is actually a war on Islam (if that's what you are saying, I don't really know what point you are trying to make.)

There are political games being played constantly with any sort of war, that should be taken as a given.  I don't think it's fair, however, to expect America to fight terrorism all over the world. It is clearly most prevalent in Middle Eastern cultures and our military is spread thin enough as it is.  "What about us?" is not a reasonable complaint in my opinion. The word propaganda has had such a negative stigma attached to it because of all the blatantly racist and stereotypical posters that were created during WWII, but propaganda is not an inherently negative thing.  It's public relations.  Public relations used to be known as propaganda until WWII when the field had to distance itself from the negative connotations that go along with that word.  It's simply spreading information about your cause to make people more aware.  It can put a more positive spin on something to help garner support, but it would be considered highly unethical to actually lie about the facts (not to mention an incredibly stupid PR move.) It might support an honorable cause or it might not.  I suppose it would be up to the individual to judge whether or not it is a cause worthy of their support.  If a simple name change is all it takes to change their opinion, then it's not likely that they are a person who has any sort of power.

----------


## Laughing Man

> The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever.  I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."



'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.'
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

Yea looks like you support the war under misconstrued reasons.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> 'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.'
> President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"
> 
> Yea looks like you support the war under misconstrued reasons.



Thank you. I was beginning to figure I was the only person who actually knew what the "War On Terror" actually meant.
(And, frankly, I just didn't feel like getting caught up in a battle over semantics.)

----------


## Caprisun

What don't I understand?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> What don't I understand?



I think it's just a matter of interpretation. The problem (or what I see as the problem) is that you are skewing - perhaps unintentionally - what was said, to make the declaration of the War on Terror something that it wasn't advertised as. You can say "well this is what he meant," but the way it was actually advertised was as something different.

In the end, you _could_ be right - and I wouldn't blame you for making that speculation - but the fact of the matter is that the WoT was billed as a global campaign to aggressively pursue terrorists "around the world." Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan, but (in the former President's own words:





> This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.  There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.  They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror.  They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.
> 
> ....Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. 
> 
> ....We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. 
> 
> ....Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  (Applause.)  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
> 
> ....As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.



The above clearly outlines the way that the WoT has always been advertised. You can twist the words to say "Oh, well it's not a global War on Terror. He just meant the Middle East" but those are your words, not the President's.

----------


## Caprisun

Ok, so clearly we just just interpret it differently.  I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics, which means I am not likely to quote speeches and take claims and promises at face value. So I see a speech by President Bush as much more of an effort gain support rather than a precise declaration of our intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth.  Even if it was such a declaration, and there was some plan written up to mirror his words, I would argue that you can only fight one battle at a time.  Terrorism isn't as rampant anywhere else in the world as it is in the Middle East.  It would make more sense to focus completely on the Middle East.

A plan to fight all terrorist groups around the world simultaneously is unrealistic, and I think most of our military's leaders knew that.  I think maybe even President Bush knew that.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Ok, so clearly we just just interpret it differently.  I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics, which means I am not likely to quote speeches and take claims and promises at face value. So I see a speech by President Bush as much more of an effort gain support rather than a precise declaration of our intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth.  Even if it was such a declaration, and there was some plan written up to mirror his words, I would argue that you can only fight one battle at a time.  Terrorism isn't as rampant anywhere else in the world as it is in the Middle East.  It would make more sense to focus completely on the Middle East.
> 
> A plan to fight all terrorist groups around the world simultaneously is unrealistic, and I think most of our military's leaders knew that.  I think maybe even President Bush knew that.



So what he said and what he meant are two different things? Is this a game of riddles? And saying "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" is not declaring the United States' "intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth?" I have to ask, how high is your reading comprehension?

----------


## DrunkenArse

> *So what he said and what he meant are two different things?* Is this a game of riddles? And saying "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" is not declaring the United States' "intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth?" I have to ask, how high is your reading comprehension?



In regards to your first question, I have to ask. How accurate is your understanding of typical politics? Specifically, when precisely are what our elected political leaders say and what they mean ever the same? 

Bush was very plainly engaging in typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation. It was political showmanship and nothing more.

----------


## Laughing Man

> In regards to your first question, I have to ask. How accurate is your understanding of typical politics? Specifically, when precisely are what our elected political leaders say and what they mean ever the same? 
> 
> Bush was very plainly engaging in typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation. It was political showmanship and nothing more.



I understand the difference between theory and practice but I challenge you to show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency. If it was 'political showmanship' like you said it was then it would follow that we did not engage in war.

----------


## DrunkenArse

He continued to support the Saudi Arabian royalty while they were openly allowing wealthy citizens to openly fund terrorist groups?

Here's an article from 2008 I dug up on the first page of a google search: Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorism - Saudis faulted for funding terror - Los Angeles Times.

EDIT: And while it's not directly related to terrorism, might I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with nothing vaguely approaching democracy which Bush claimed to be attempting to spread. I say not directly related but you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions. So there is some relation there

----------


## Laughing Man

> He continued to support the Saudi Arabian royalty while they were openly allowing wealthy citizens to openly fund terrorist groups?
> 
> Here's an article from 2008 I dug up on the first page of a google search: Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorism - Saudis faulted for funding terror - Los Angeles Times.
> 
> EDIT: And while it's not directly related to terrorism, might I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with nothing vaguely approaching democracy which Bush claimed to be attempting to spread. I say not directly related but you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions. So there is some relation there



Firstly, this is a 'war on terror,' not a 'war on dictatorships.' Secondly, how are you defining 'terrorism?' Is it the systematic use of violence as a means of coerce? If you are then the US has been committing terrorism in its foreign relations since the 1890's, perhaps even earlier. Since the US is a democratic country then this would contradict your statement. Third, the United States was/is already engage in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while suffering through a recession therefore where would the logic be in attacking the prime US supplier of oil? Just because the US doesn't attack them first doesn't mean they don't matter. If anything they would snuff out the weaker countries first in order to prevent them from allying with the stronger force.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Firstly, this is a 'war on terror,' not a 'war on dictatorships.'



Right which is why I primarily cited a source indicated that we were allied with a government that is essentially directly funding terrorism in direct contradiction to you assertion that Bush's claim that "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." should be taken at face value and in response to your request to "show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency."





> Secondly, how are you defining 'terrorism?' Is it the systematic use of violence as a means of coerce?



I would say that it's the use or support of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of its government (edit: or the practice of genocide). The way you define it, all war is terrorism. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I prefer to restrict the definition to keep it meaningful. Nuking Hiroshima and flying planes into the World Trade Centers would qualify as terrorism. Bombing the U.S.S Cole or other attacks against military targets would not in contradiction to how our propaganda machines would like to paint it.





> If you are then the US has been committing terrorism in its foreign relations since the 1890's, perhaps even earlier



We were giving smallpox infected blankets to Indians in the 1700s so yeah, I'd say earlier. Jeffery Amherst and Kit Carson were two terrorists that have a bunch of shit named after them to this day. I'm generally of the opinion that the US government is the largest terrorist organisation in existence and is essentially an illegal entity over most of the continental "united states" which is just illegally occupied Indian territory and all of my country which is illegally occupied Hawai'ian territory. I was trying to keep my points conventional but if you're willing to concede that the US government is a terrorist organisation then I might as well bring out the big guns. So by not declaring war on the US, Bush acted in direct violation of his claim.





> Since the US is a democratic country then this would contradict your statement.



I suppose It would. So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.





> Third, the United States was/is already engage in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while suffering through a recession therefore where would the logic be in attacking the prime US supplier of oil?



Why were we in Iraq? What did that have to do with terrorism. Was it a "war on terror" or a "war on dictatorships"?  So, yes, the opportunity cost of waging a "war on (some) dictatorships" is that you can't wage a "war on terror". We could have done both with Saudi Arabia.





> Just because the US doesn't attack them first doesn't mean they don't matter. If anything they would snuff out the weaker countries first in order to prevent them from allying with the stronger force.



I'm sorry. Are you honestly suggesting that you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we're going to attack Saudi Arabia?

----------


## Laughing Man

> Right which is why I primarily cited a source indicated that we were allied with a government that is essentially directly funding terrorism in direct contradiction to you assertion that Bush's claim that "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." should be taken at face value and in response to your request to "show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency."



Yes and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and supposedly in Iraq. Again two weak nations, one that already had sanctions against it thus showing my point about the US seeking out weak targets. So again, no disconnect in Bush's theory and practice. Just because he didn't attack the strongest nation in the region, doesn't mean there was a disconnect.  







> I would say that it's the use or support of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of its government (edit: or the practice of genocide). The way you define it, all war is terrorism. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I prefer to restrict the definition to keep it meaningful. Nuking Hiroshima and flying planes into the World Trade Centers would qualify as terrorism. Bombing the U.S.S Cole or other attacks against military targets would not in contradiction to how our propaganda machines would like to paint it.



So there can be no such thing as "domestic terrorism" in the sense that an individual is carrying out terror attacks against government institutions or officials?






> We were giving smallpox infected blankets to Indians in the 1700s so yeah, I'd say earlier. Jeffery Amherst and Kit Carson were two terrorists that have a bunch of shit named after them to this day. I'm generally of the opinion that the US government is the largest terrorist organisation in existence and is essentially an illegal entity over most of the continental "united states" which is just illegally occupied Indian territory and all of my country which is illegally occupied Hawai'ian territory. I was trying to keep my points conventional but if you're willing to concede that the US government is a terrorist organisation then I might as well bring out the big guns. So by not declaring war on the US, Bush acted in direct violation of his claim.



That's funny because you just claimed that democratic nations usually aren't terrorists. Is the US your exception? 







> I suppose It would. So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.



So everyone who supports the war and gives aid to it isn't guilty of helping to commit acts of terror?







> Why were we in Iraq? What did that have to do with terrorism. Was it a "war on terror" or a "war on dictatorships"?  So, yes, the opportunity cost of waging a "war on (some) dictatorships" is that you can't wage a "war on terror". We could have done both with Saudi Arabia.



As I have explain to you before, Iraq was a relativity weak country that was already under economic sanctions and military scrutiny. The thrill of an easy victory can help ignite nationalist fervor toward continued war while a protracted one only causes declining interest. Also as I said before the US is still in a recession so where is the sense in attacking the primary exporter of oil to the US as the first target? At least until economic self-sufficiency can be obtain which is, gasp, something neo-conservatives are pursing in their economic policies. 







> I'm sorry. Are you honestly suggesting that you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we're going to attack Saudi Arabia?



I don't think it is possible or even advisable but there are people in power or who are advisers to power individuals who think there is a chance. If you'd like I can name names.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Yes and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and supposedly in Iraq. Again two weak nations, one that already had sanctions against it thus showing my point about the US seeking out weak targets. So again, no disconnect in Bush's theory and practice. Just because he didn't attack the strongest nation in the region, doesn't mean there was a disconnect.



Except Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until _after_ the US invaded and everybody that was vaguely paying attention knew it. So _again_ Iraq had no relation to "terrorism" in the sense that George Bush was talking about.





> So there can be no such thing as "domestic terrorism" in the sense that an individual is carrying out terror attacks against government institutions or officials?



Are they attacking civilians? If so then they're terrorists. If not then they're ill-advised revolutionaries engaging in guerrilla warfare.





> That's funny because you just claimed that democratic nations usually aren't terrorists. Is the US your exception?



No I never made a statement about if _nations_ are terrorists. I said that 





> you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions.



Which I had revised to





> So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.



Where do you get from either of those that I'm making any judgement at all about whether _nations_ are or are not terrorists. My  ::wtf::  feeling is compounded by the fact that I specifically called out the US government as being _the largest terrorist organisation in the world_. I have to ask: How's your reading comprehension?





> So everyone who supports the war and gives aid to it isn't guilty of helping to commit acts of terror?



It's a tricky question. There are a lot of things that they finance that is "legitimate" war, i.e., not terrorism. And most people don't see how the government is a terrorist organisation that does things like train central american death squads to support dictatorships that are friendly to US companies. So it would come down to whether the person providing the material support knows that they're supporting terrorism or not. At any rate, I really don't see the relevancy.





> As I have explain to you before, Iraq was a relativity weak country that was already under economic sanctions and military scrutiny. The thrill of an easy victory can help ignite nationalist fervor toward continued war while a protracted one only causes declining interest.



But what does this have to do with the "war on terrorism"?





> Also as I said before the US is still in a recession so where is the sense in attacking the primary exporter of oil to the US as the first target? At least until economic self-sufficiency can be obtain which is, gasp, something neo-conservatives are pursing in their economic policies.



So, it looks like a key step in the "war in terror", that is removing the state the does more to provide material and moral support to (edit: islamic, non-state-actor) terrorists than any other, is not practical. So it looks like Bushes statement was comprised of





> typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation.



and that





> It was political showmanship and nothing more.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Except Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until _after_ the US invaded and everybody that was vaguely paying attention knew it. So _again_ Iraq had no relation to "terrorism" in the sense that George Bush was talking about.



Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Whether or not Bush believed Al Qaeda was actually in Iraq we will never know but he did say they were and that was one of the reasons the war with Iraq happened. It was only after it was discovered that Al Qaeda wasn't around is when the administration started really trumpeting the humanitarian causes. 






> Are they attacking civilians? If so then they're terrorists. If not then they're ill-advised revolutionaries engaging in guerrilla warfare.



A revolutionary is a terrorist. 







> No I never made a statement about if _nations_ are terrorists. I said that 
> Which I had revised to
> Where do you get from either of those that I'm making any judgement at all about whether _nations_ are or are not terrorists. My  feeling is compounded by the fact that I specifically called out the US government as being _the largest terrorist organisation in the world_. I have to ask: How's your reading comprehension?



To which I asked you whether you thought individuals aiding the government were not terrorists themselves. At least have the decency to group together my statements to show a line of logic. 







> It's a tricky question. There are a lot of things that they finance that is "legitimate" war, i.e., not terrorism. And most people don't see how the government is a terrorist organisation that does things like train central american death squads to support dictatorships that are friendly to US companies. So it would come down to whether the person providing the material support knows that they're supporting terrorism or not. At any rate, I really don't see the relevancy.



Firstly, you don't see the relevancy in questioning whether individuals who aid a terrorist nation are terrorists themselves but beforehand claim that peoples from a democratic nation rarely commit terrorist acts? Second, what is a "legitimate" war?







> But what does this have to do with the "war on terrorism"?



Because George Bush thought Al Qaeda was in Iraq. 







> So, it looks like a key step in the "war in terror", that is removing the state the does more to provide material and moral support to (edit: islamic, non-state-actor) terrorists than any other, is not practical. So it looks like Bushes statement was comprised of
> and that



Neo-Conservatives are not pragmatists. They are ideologues. They believe in American exceptionalism and American global hegemony and they will probably believe in such things until the crumbling of the American empire. Afterward they will give great eulogies in honor of it and claim it was the greatest force on Earth. However, do not confuse non-pragmatic people with idiocy.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Whether or not Bush believed Al Qaeda was actually in Iraq we will never know but he did say they were and that was one of the reasons the war with Iraq happened. It was only after it was discovered that Al Qaeda wasn't around is when the administration started really trumpeting the humanitarian causes.



Given the fact that they were lying every which way to get us into the war was common knowledge at the time, this is a flimsy argument for stating that, from the perspective of a global "war on terror", we should have been in Iraq. By any reasonable standard, Saudi Arabia is far more pressing. 

EDIT: 
This is not hindsight by the way. At the time, I knew that they were lying to get us in and so did many other people. I was frankly a little shocked when I met people that honestly believed the things that were coming out of the white house at the time.






> A revolutionary is a terrorist.



By your definition of terrorism, anybody engaging in violence for anything other than enjoyment or self defense is a terrorist. This is a pretty useless definition if you ask my. But yes, by your definition, a revolutionary is a terrorist. By my definition, they are only a terrorist if they are engaging in, knowingly supporting or threatening the use of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of that population's government or if they are engaging in genocide. 





> To which I asked you whether you thought individuals aiding the government were not terrorists themselves. At least have the decency to group together my statements to show a line of logic.



My apologies. I was off base there and did not mean to obfuscate your reasoning. I misunderstood it. It was however entirely unreasonable to go from the statement that "non-state-actor terrorists do not come from democratic countries with a few notable exceptions" to the assumption that I was talking about nations as terrorists and somehow excluding the US.






> Firstly, you don't see the relevancy in questioning whether individuals who aid a terrorist nation are terrorists themselves but beforehand claim that peoples from a democratic nation rarely commit terrorist acts? Second, what is a "legitimate" war?



I do not see the relevancy to the original point of this conversation which is if the statements made by Bush should be taken at face value or not. By my definition, a "legitimate" war is one which does not use terrorist tactics. Given that that is the way that our wars are portrayed to the general populace and given the efficacy of our propaganda machines, I would not want to call the typical US citizen a terrorist. 





> Neo-Conservatives are not pragmatists. They are ideologues. They believe in American exceptionalism and American global hegemony and they will probably believe in such things until the crumbling of the American empire. Afterward they will give great eulogies in honor of it and claim it was the greatest force on Earth. However, do not confuse non-pragmatic people with idiocy.



If neo-conservatives are not pragmatists, then why did they make the closer to pragmatic decision to attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia which would be much more in line with their stated goals which you seem to think that we can take at face value?

To remind you, this whole thing started because I said that their actions clearly indicate disingenuity on their part. You asked me for one example of where their actions did not match their stated goals. Out of a hat, I picked their decisions to stay cozied up to Saudi Arabia.   You claim that that is not a practical example because they are our largest supplier of oil. Why didn't we start buying Iraqi oil again? Everybody and their dog knew that a secular state where women were allowed to wear mini-skirts in public was not associated with Al Qaeda. Why didn't we start buying our oil from them and take out the Saudi princes which everybody and their dog knows _is_ allied with Al Qaeda?

----------


## Laughing Man

> Given the fact that they were lying every which way to get us into the war was common knowledge at the time, this is a flimsy argument for stating that, from the perspective of a global "war on terror", we should have been in Iraq. By any reasonable standard, Saudi Arabia is far more pressing. 
> 
> EDIT: 
> This is not hindsight by the way. At the time, I knew that they were lying to get us in and so did many other people. I was frankly a little shocked when I met people that honestly believed the things that were coming out of the white house at the time.



Well you thinking it was a lie and it actually being a lie are two different things. Now there were intelligence agencies who were saying that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq but they could of been lying also. I will address your Saudi Arabia below








> By your definition of terrorism, anybody engaging in violence for anything other than enjoyment or self defense is a terrorist. This is a pretty useless definition if you ask my. But yes, by your definition, a revolutionary is a terrorist. By my definition, they are only a terrorist if they are engaging in, knowingly supporting or threatening the use of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of that population's government or if they are engaging in genocide.



How is it a useless definition? Just because it applies to a multitude of people doesn't mean that it is void of explanatory value. Also why this added new tenet of genocide? Before it was only if you are targeting civilians and now it is civilians and genocide. And finally, if I were a revolutionary who was committing violence against government officials in order to bring about my perfect state, then I wouldn't be a terrorist? 







> I do not see the relevancy to the original point of this conversation which is if the statements made by Bush should be taken at face value or not. By my definition, a "legitimate" war is one which does not use terrorist tactics. Given that that is the way that our wars are portrayed to the general populace and given the efficacy of our propaganda machines, I would not want to call the typical US citizen a terrorist.



Well what constitutes terrorism is a central issue in discussing the 'war on terror.' Don't you agree? And if you define 'legitimate' war as one devoid of terrorist tactics, terrorist tactics being defined as the targeting of civilians in order to change a government's policies then such wars as Vietnam, the Korean war, WWII, WWI were all legitimate wars because while civilians were targeted in these wars, the goal of the aggressive nation, namely the US, was never to change the policies of the governments they were attacking but to destroy that form of government. 







> If neo-conservatives are not pragmatists, then why did they make the closer to pragmatic decision to attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia which would be much more in line with their stated goals which you seem to think that we can take at face value?



It wasn't a 'pragmatic' decision to attack Iraq. It was an ideological one. The United States believed that Al Qaeda resided in Iraq and such a residency would equate to a destabilizing nature in the region. This instability would infect surrounding nations thus compromising American global hegemony especially in an area that is an economic power house in the form of crude oil. Pragmatism preaches that something is only true if it can be satisfactorily applied. It was never a question of whether it would work or if it wouldn't work, it was demanded by the intellectual framework behind the Neo Conservative ideology. Think of it in this fashion. If we were to magically time travel back to the early 2000's and told the government that they would waste billions of dollars on the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, they would kill thousands of Iraqis and US service men and they would put more effort into rebuilding Iraq then we would get out of it, do you think that making such statements to Congress would of prevented them from engaging in war? A pragmatist would say that we are taken on more faults then we are shrugging off. Why take up such an increased burden?





> To remind you, this whole thing started because I said that their actions clearly indicate disingenuity on their part. You asked me for one example of where their actions did not match their stated goals. Out of a hat, I picked their decisions to stay cozied up to Saudi Arabia.   You claim that that is not a practical example because they are our largest supplier of oil. Why didn't we start buying Iraqi oil again? Everybody and their dog knew that a secular state where women were allowed to wear mini-skirts in public was not associated with Al Qaeda. Why didn't we start buying our oil from them and take out the Saudi princes which everybody and their dog knows _is_ allied with Al Qaeda?



I claimed that it was believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and since Iraq already had military and economic sanctions, had a dictator who was thought to be, both in past and present tense, destabilizing the region. I would also ask where you got your information on Saudi PRINCES supporting Al Qaeda. 

Al Qaeda threatens to kidnap Saudi royals: TV | Reuters
Al-Qaeda claims Saudi prince attack - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Before you were saying 'Saudi Arabia' supports Al Qaeda to which I would agree, there are people in Saudi Arabia who support Al Qaeda but now you are claiming it is the princes.

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay, how about now? Is the killing over? If not, are people killing U.S. troops and Iraqi innocents still deserving of the label "freedom fighters?"

----------


## DeletePlease

So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?





> He's closing down legitimately licensed dispensaries left and right - depriving suffering/dying patients of their medicine. Yet he's always paying lip service to the marijuana users, trying harder than any other president before him to make it look like he's "pot friendly"... even though Obama has amped up the drug war even more-so than Bush. 
> 
>  Americans have no rights whatsoever. None. At all. Because of the Obama administration, "possible terrorists" can be arrested and detained indefinitely without any trial. You can be stripped of every "legal right" you thought you had, and thrown in a cell without ever going to court or being proven guilty. Just sit there and rot. 
> 
> And "possible terrorist" doesn't mean someone who builds bombs for fun. Anyone who pays with cash, owns firearms, or even has 7 days worth if food in their house is technically a "possible terrorist." 
> 
> And internet censorship? The Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail for that. Bill after bill after bill, each one proposed in hopes of being able to censor the internet. This is the only place left where freedom of speech truly exists, it's the only way for us to get the real facts since the mainstream media is constantly putting a spin on major stories, sometimes ignoring them altogether. Censor the internet, and you effectively bar the public of finding out the truth. Just look at how hard they're going after WikiLeaks - simply because it shows people just how corrupt the system really is.

----------


## Descensus

> So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?He's closing down legitimately licensed dispensaries left and right - depriving suffering/dying patients of their medicine. Yet he's always paying lip service to the marijuana users, trying harder than any other president before him to make it look like he's "pot friendly"... even though Obama has amped up the drug war even more-so than Bush.
> 
> Americans have no rights whatsoever. None. At all. Because of the Obama administration, "possible terrorists" can be arrested and detained indefinitely without any trial. You can be stripped of every "legal right" you thought you had, and thrown in a cell without ever going to court or being proven guilty. Just sit there and rot.
> 
> And "possible terrorist" doesn't mean someone who builds bombs for fun. *Anyone who pays with cash, owns firearms, or even has 7 days worth if food in their house is technically a "possible terrorist."*
> 
> And internet censorship? The Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail for that. Bill after bill after bill, each one proposed in hopes of being able to censor the internet. This is the only place left where freedom of speech truly exists, it's the only way for us to get the real facts since the mainstream media is constantly putting a spin on major stories, sometimes ignoring them altogether. Censor the internet, and you effectively bar the public of finding out the truth. Just look at how hard they're going after WikiLeaks - simply because it shows people just how corrupt the system really is.



Underlined statements are true. So most of what you said is true. The bolded + underlined statement is true, though I'm not sure if their standard of what consitutes a possible terrorist is that broad. Is it pretty expansive though.

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Rozollo

> So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?



The majority of this is pretty correct, though he did come out AGAINST SOPA and PIPA, which effectively killed it, but he was kinda forced to do that. I think that was 2 parts public reaction and 1 part actual concern.

The other two are my reasons for disliking Obama: He's probably the toughest on pot of any president ever, and he signed NDAA with the indefinite detention rider. He also uses drone attacks, which I really don't agree with at all.

The problem is I don't think Romney would have fixed any of those, and I think he would have made them worse if anything else.

----------


## Warheit

Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.

----------


## Descensus

> Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.



Nixon initiated the war formally. But Obama has ordered more DEA raids than Bush, so in that sense he has been tougher.

----------


## ♥Mark

Voting is like taking a multiple choice test where every answer is a wrong answer.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.



I have seen two of your asinine posts now. Either make an argument or shut your blind Obama worshipping ass. 

Tell me something good Obama has done with the war on drugs. Anything.

----------


## DeletePlease

> Underlined statements are true. So most of what you said is true. The bolded + underlined statement is true, though I'm not sure if their standard of what consitutes a possible terrorist is that broad. It is pretty expansive though.

----------


## Woodstock

> Voting is like taking a multiple choice test where every answer is a wrong answer.



Gary Johnson was the right answer.

----------


## cmind

> Gary Johnson was the right answer.



I'm a libertarian myself (actually I'm just anarchist but that word scares stupid people), but please consider not voting. Even a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote FOR the system. We libertarians say we don't like rulers, but then how can we vote for a ruler, even if it's Gary Johnson? 

The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, and raise our children non-violently.

----------


## Descensus

> I'm a libertarian myself (actually I'm just anarchist but that word scares stupid people), but please consider not voting. Even a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote FOR the system. We libertarians say we don't like rulers, but then how can we vote for a ruler, even if it's Gary Johnson? 
> 
> The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, and raise our children non-violently.



The issue with this is that it doesn't convince people. It doesn't even really convince me anymore. I support not voting when you have a legitimate reason to do so, i.e. you vehemently disagree with ALL candidates available. But if you have some guy who is consistent and has strong convictions about minimizing the size of government, you might as well throw your vote at him.

I agree with the second part of your post, but I would just amend it to the following: "The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, raise our children non-violently, and oppose any of the state's encroachments." By opposing encroachments I mean either actively educating others AND/OR voting for certain candidates or measures. At some point you're not gonna be able to ignore the state.

----------


## cmind

> The issue with this is that it doesn't convince people. It doesn't even really convince me anymore. I support not voting when you have a legitimate reason to do so, i.e. you vehemently disagree with ALL candidates available. But if you have some guy who is consistent and has strong convictions about minimizing the size of government, you might as well throw your vote at him.
> 
> I agree with the second part of your post, but I would just amend it to the following: "The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, raise our children non-violently, and oppose any of the state's encroachments." By opposing encroachments I mean either actively educating others AND/OR voting for certain candidates or measures. At some point you're not gonna be able to ignore the state.



I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.

----------


## Descensus

> I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.



I'm quite familiar with Stefan, and I can tell you've been influenced by him based on your statement regarding non-violent parenting. Personally I have to take him with a grain of salt. Some things he says are great, others are pretty off-track.

My statement still stands, by the way. I'd rather you present a response than turn me to Stefan. My argument is that there should be a two-pronged approach. Ignore when necessary, oppose when necessary.

----------


## Original Poster

No one voted for him to end the war this time around. They voted for him because he is a turd of a lighter consistency than Romney. I live in a red state though so I voted for the green party.

----------


## DeletePlease



----------


## StonedApe

> I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.



I voted for Vermin Supreme(<-the guy with the boot on his head) this year. I considered voting for Johnson, but I didn't, because in the end I don't want a representative democracy. To me this was the best way to voice this in the modern political arena. If you don't vote then this can be interpreted as not caring.

----------

