Thread: Obama is president, but the war in Iraq continues.

Originally Posted by dajo

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...

Originally Posted by imran_p

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Originally Posted by imran_p

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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.

Originally Posted by imran_p

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?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by imran_p

In terms of government, whatever the people want.

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

Originally Posted by imran_p

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?

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.

Originally Posted by imran_p

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.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

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.

Originally Posted by imran_p

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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.

Originally Posted by poopman

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?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Could your posts be any more confusion?

sure could sir. i dont understand the confusing

Originally Posted by poopman

sure could sir. i dont understand the confusing

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

Obama is a cunt.

you're back

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"?

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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?