Iran And Venezuela Launch Anti-us Fund

I dont support ANY imperalist actions by any country. But the point is that the US supported and ARMED a COUP against a democratically elected goverment. I dont care in what ever way you put it, overthrowing a democratically elected president is wrong and just relfects americas attiudie towards other nations.

 

If I use the same logic as conspiracy nuts, then you are saying iam one, stop dancing around words

 

i 100% agree. although i love the united states, and most of the things that they stand for, sometimes we cross the line. we think that we are the best, we think that we can do whatever we want, and that's just not true.

 

I just live here. I don't agree with the place though. Not much sense, huh?

 

No, you're using the same logic in the way of "well, they're not telling me something so my conclusion is automatically right." Quit dancing around the question and pop up with some sources as to whether or not we invaded over nukes so you can stop looking like a retard and I can get my twenty seconds of South Park re-runs back.

@Machaivelli, if you don't support it, why aren't you singling out other nations? It's always America, America, America, but never the others as well. If you're Iraqi, your nation was technically imperialist as well when it toppled Kuwait and knocked down its government. If you're British, your nation took over most of the world's landmass. If you're American, your nation has toppled governments in South America in the name of "stopping communism." If you're Russian, your nation took over a large part of Europe to spread its ideas on how to run a nation. You convienently leave out the others to single out America. Why?

 

explain to me how the administration defied congress?

two things-
there are two seperate branches
and congress voted overwhelming in support of the war.

 

I already gave you the link, and you seem to interpret it your own way....
No politician would have said back then we are going into iraq because of nuclear threat, cuz if he/she said so then they really need to find another job.
You dont believe anything unless it comes out from the adminstration officaly, thats so sad.

When i said the adminstration defied congress i meant on the issue of the surge.

 

the surge?

that's a softdrink according to wikipedia

other than that the only use of surge as a noun I've heard of involves gushing watter or electricity.

 

Ferret, I single out America because I see them as the number 1 threat at the moment. I do not support the actions of any imperalstic goverement but the US has more presnece at the moment.

 

you do realise that in time America will pull out of Iraq and leave you guys to yourselves, right?

it's rather expensive to be in there and the only "benefit" we get is arguement and controversy at this point, we allready got what we wanted(aka sadaam out)

If you didn't realize, the whole iraq thing didn't go over as smoothely as expected. Look at afghanistan, we were expecting it to be like that. As of this day, afghanistan has its own government established and US presence there is minimal, in fact Afghani government is urging us to pull more troops there in as while the area is more stable than iraq currently it's still not quite perfect.


=============

I'm going to ask you a simple question machiavelli

has your quality of life drastically declined? I'm not asking this sarcasticaly or anything, but seriously what is your life like? You're living there, not me and I'm just making inferences about what I've seen and heard and I realize that I don't know everything.



=============
on the US side, what's happening in iraq isn't generally all that popular, but it's not the most hated of things. Bushes popularity level is probably onyl slightly higher than the world average as well. I'm admittedly one of the disidents, I for the most part see Bush as a revolutionary who pusued what he thought was in the ebst interest of the world as a whole, and I see what's happening in iraq as part of that. I do note that it's far from perfect, but I'm sure ewveryone woudl admit it could be quite worse, look at israel and palestine. The israelites and the palestinians have been quarrelling since biblical days and it's only getting worse.

 

@Apostle

And again with the theories. How do you know this? There was a nuclear program in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein in power, that could seriously de-stabalize the Middle East. I've heard nuclear threat, in addition to the other two forms of weapons of mass destruction, as one of the reasons, but not the only one. You make it as if we went in over nukes, didn't find anything, said it was for Saddam, found him, made another excuse and so on and so forth. Got anything to back that up?

That whitehouse.gov link doesn't show anything other than the fact that it was thought Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. What's really sad is that your "overpowering logic" and "obvious facts" have yet to show themselves in any form of proof other than you calling those who don't believe them "retards" and calling it "sad" that people don't believe as you do. A guy named Hitler used that same thought process, too, you know, just with different reasons.

If you can't figure out how the American government works, then I pity you, especially since I'm some idiot who will only believe what I'm told by them. Congress voted on and supported overwhelmingly the reasons I showed you two pages ago. If we went for some alterior motive, those who sold those reasons to Congress have a bit of explaining to do. If you're really saying we went in over nukes, didn't find any, and are now making excuses, you're saying that just about everybody who spoke on that idea in front of Congress pre-March 2003 lied, and that's enough to get them impeached. Got anything to back that one up? Another "obvious" theory maybe?

The Bush administration isn't "defying" Congress because the job of the President is that of the Commander in Chief in time of war, meaning that he can order more troops in and more troops out. However, it has to go through Congress like just about everything else. If he pushed it through Congress and it passed, as it did with the latest 21,500 troops, he didn't "defy" Congress, Congress just didn't vote along the lines of your opinion, unless you happen to be everybody in the House and Senate.

So I'll tell you what's "sad." It's sad that people will think that, in an intelligent debate, they can make automatic conclusions without anything to back it up and then resort to insults when called on this. You wouldn't make it very far in even a high-school debate class, nevermind a real debate of any form.

 

figures of speech anyone?

Just to get back on the issue, the adminstration defied congress on the issue of troop "increase"
I hope you can read that.

now you are comparing me to Hitler?? wow

You cant stand that someone doesnt agree with you eh?

 

Yep, you're using the same logic/thought process that he used when justifying his "final solution" in that if people weren't like him and his "master race," there was something different/wrong with them (the fact that you said, quote "you've got to be a retard not to believe this"). Don't like the heat? Don't step into the kitchen. I can stand someone that doesn't agree me. I cannot, however, stand ignorance, especially when someone has the audacity to insult me because I don't agree with their conclusions. Remember, I'm a retard because I don't see eye to eye with you? Oops, forgot about that one. Start justifying. You've fallen back on getting to people's personalities instead of the topic at hand.

Get your facts. Interpret them. Explain them. Back them up. Easy enough, except when you don't have anything to back the thoughts up. It doesn't help your case when you're resorting to insults and then acting shocked out the ass when someone dishes something back out.

But excuse me, that's just the blind, brainwashed, Republican patriotic "America ---- Yeah!" redneck in me talking. Excuse me if I don't agree with your vastly superior opinions, logic, and political views. By the way, I consider myself an independant. That's what my voter's registration card says; I'm a registered independant in the county that I live in. That's what, four times you've inferred that I'm a Republican in threads because I don't scream "I hate Bush, it's all Bush's fault, and America is ----ing everybody else over!" in my posts. It's beginning to piss me off.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's go back to your post, your source from whitehouse.gov (why do you use them as a source and then call me ignorant when I base my views on facts instead of making radical conclusions without the slightest proof).

You selected this part of the interview. Here's a bit of logic for you: who do you believe? Do you believe the UN inspectors being shown around by the Iraqi government (there could be things they were not shown, things were hidden, things were discontinued while they were in the area; Saddam denied the inspectors access for quite some time. Why?)? Or, do you believe a guy that is/was deeply involved in their nuclear program? There is little better information on a program than that of someone personally involved in the program.

The Iraqis had made the purchases back in the eighties on equipment to produce weapons-grade uranium. They had this stuff at a reactor, in a place called Osirak. This place was bombed by the Israelis, who didn't think it would benefit them if they had a madman with a nuke in their general area. There's the hard information. Now, there had not been any significant intelligence on the nuclear program in a few years. That puts it at a very safe bet that he (Saddam) could still be attempting to produce nuclear weapons, despite the sanctions.

He still had the plans (they were captured in the invasion), still had the engineers (a few even defected, one of them is the informant that Mr. Powell speaks of). Who is to say that he could not have produced them at home instead of going abroad for the equipment (he had plans to for that, design specifications etc.)? It was a reasonable guess that he could be going for nuclear weapons. Combine that with the fact that he posessed and had used chemical/biological weapons in both war and on his own people and you get some pretty good evidence that he's got things called "Weapons of Mass Destruction." That was one of the reasons Congress was asked to go to war over, along with removing Saddam, stabalizing the Middle East, and bringing democracy and free self rule to the Iraqi people.

 

Almost every post you posted on these matters goes like this:

LINK
LINK
LINK
Stop believing what has been spoon fed to you.
LINK
LINK
LINK


Its starting to piss me off too.

I have just realized that there is no point to dwell on wether if the invasion was necessary or not....because it already happened, nothing you say will make it right, and nothing i will say will make it wrong..it just happened.

The issue that is more important now is the 21,000 more troops going into Iraq.
Iam not a military strategist to say wether its wrong or right, but Iam very skeptical about it.. A more sane solution will be a phased withdrawal, and the Iraqi government to take over, because if the troops remained there the Iraqi government will be 100% dependant on them, and wont care much about taking control of the streets, and why would they care when they have one of the best equiped soldiers in the world doing the job for them?

 

definition of imperialism:
1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
2. domination by an empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination
cultural imperialism

in this instance (and under most circumstances), it does infact imply military force, not too many countries would sell themselves to another country willingly. As far as the U.S being imperialistic...i think not, if the U.S. is, then that means that every major super power is. All of the super powers spread their influence among the smaller countries.

I grant you the fact that we (not really we...the govt.) tend to interfere in foreign affairs, but you have to protect your interest.

examples:
say there is a building on fire, your daughter and some stranger (kid) are stuck inside, are you going to help your daughter or the stranger? daughter

if a country needs (not want) something from another country, but that country is currently in conflict, are you going to protect your assets or allow the possibility of your arrangements to become void because the country you were getting it from lost the conflict and the winning country ups the price or refuses trade/selling arrangements? protect your assets.

it all comes down to a conflict of interest, if you want to take that as imperialism, then fine...we're imperialists.



the only thing that people could possibly call us imperialists for, is the iraq crap.