This Iraq debate thing !

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:40 pm

Whether or not you like the medium is immaterial. It's the best we've got and so far, it's worked pretty darn good for the people who frequent SYM. We've had a lot of heated discussions here, including between some of our Muslim and Christian members and the discussion is often constructive if a little lively. Everyone here is expected to abide by the rules, which are posted plainly for all to see. If Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden want to come here and spout their views, they are welcome to do so. If Dubya or Tony Blair want to stop by, they're welcome, too. Their welcome, however, is conditional upon their commitment to the community, as is yours.

People have reacted negatively to your posts because you have overstepped the bounds of debate and resorted to name-calling and what amounts to poor sportsmanship. Whether you think you're being funny doesn't matter; other people, including the site owner, haven't found some of your remarks amusing. I have put forth several unpopular views on this forum, but at no time do I believe that anyone has taken personal offense to my remarks, nor do I generally take personal offense to what people post here because I expect better of myself and of the other GameBanshee members.

Generally speaking, the moderators here leave a wide berth for the membership in terms of their conduct. This is partly because we are a self-policing constituency. If you've done something to draw their ire, or a warning from the administrator, you should probably re-think your approach to posting here.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:27 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
..Whether or not you like the medium is immaterial. ...

Thats was not my problem , I dont mind the technology but was making the general point -
it does not matter how advanced the technology is it cant make up for human failure!

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:31 pm

I think I have got off the topic too much.

I think the reason there has been no war so far , is because of Tony Blair. Bush would have gone for war by now but he wanted International Support and Tony Blair and Powell have been the important players here (Outside the US) IMO.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 10:47 pm

Hey Gwally, have you seen this article?

War in Iraq Would Halt All Digs In Region

War in Iraq would halt archaeology not just in that country but across the Middle East, experts say, and could result in some of the earliest cities of Mesopotamia being bombed or looted into ruins of ruins.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:11 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
American foreign policy is inconsistent. Saudi Arabia, known worldwide for its horrendous human rights record , is an ally of the United States. Iraq, also known worldwide for its horrendous human rights record, is an enemy. Saudi Arabians made up the vast majority of the September 11th hijackers. Is there a reason we're threatening to attack one country, but not the other?...
...Why yes, there is: ...

Everyone here in SYM knows I am a Bush supporter. I vote Republican only because I don't feel the libertarians have a strong enough base for a victory, and I don't want to split the ticket on the only conservative show in town. I know I may sound like a waffler here, but you have touched on something that frightens me. I have tried very hard to give this administration the benifit of the doubt, however, it is becoming harder and harder to push this thought out of my mind.
(Thanks to fable adn Voo

Never think you do not make an impact

)

I am even reluctant to post this, but I have decided to voice my concernes because I have not seen anyone else address this so far.

It seems to me that Saudi Arabia has been the origin for most of the assailants and the funding in attacks against America. Also much of the anti-American propoganda seems to stem from there. After 9/11, Americans cried out for justice. So GB was put on the spot to "Hang 'em High" so to speak.

Here is the part that I dearly hope I am wrong about. The US, due to a bended knee to world opinion, did not go after the culprits on Saudi soil, but instead bombed the hell out of a bunch of moutains in the desert in the persuit of a rogue mad-man which will only be replaced by another. It is starting to feel like we are doing the same thing again in Iraq. I do not think oil is the only issue here. I think it is much more a show of might, trying to indirectly intimidate enemies that are politically unfeasable to declare openly.

Somebody....please tell me I am wrong.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:35 pm

Pragmatism reigns supreme

Scayde: it's called pragmatism, and it has owned every politician that has ever made it as far as the White House. It is also responsible for most of the horrible foriegn policy of US history.

That said, I do not believe that routing the Taliban and putting OBL on the run (or in his grave) was just some kind of gesture to placate US anger. OBL was almost certainly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and elmininating him and his rather extensive Afghanistan network was a good thing to do. Just because the hijackers were Saudis doesn't necessarilly mean that we need to invade the place. We can work with Saudi Arabia (to an extent), and they will at least make an attempt to help quash terrorist organizations within their borders - the Taliban regime certainly had no such intention.

So, yeah, it is a pragmatic course. It'll look immoral and capricious from time to time (and it will be), but that is what we are stuck with.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:47 pm

Re: Pragmatism reigns supreme

Originally posted by Lazarus
Scayde: it's called pragmatism, and it has owned every politician that has ever made it as far as the White House. It is also responsible for most of the horrible foriegn policy of US history.

That said, I do not believe that routing the Taliban and putting OBL on the run (or in his grave) was just some kind of gesture to placate US anger. OBL was almost certainly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and elmininating him and his rather extensive Afghanistan network was a good thing to do.

Oh Laz....I believe so too.....I just wondered if it was really the root we wnt after...or jsut the weed.

Just because the hijackers were Saudis doesn't necessarilly mean that we need to invade the place. We can work with Saudi Arabia (to an extent), and they will at least make an attempt to help quash terrorist organizations within their borders - the Taliban regime certainly had no such intention.

If I sounded like I want to invade Saudi..or any other country for that matter...I did not do a good job of explaining myself. I believe we can work with the Saudi government I just wonder if we are doing all we can to illicit their coopeation, before launching into more "Pruning " sprees...???

So, yeah, it is a pragmatic course. It'll look immoral and capricious from time to time (and it will be), but that is what we are stuck with.

This does not make me feel much better Laz.....

But thanks for trying .......*HUG*

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:39 pm

Just heard over the BBC that the leader of the coalition government in Turkey has announced in Parliament that if troops move into Iraq from Turkey, they will be Turkish troops, not US/UK ones. I don't know if this is a brag or a statement of fact, but it unfortunately bears out the domino theory that some of us have been saying for months: if the Kurds seem restive, when the US enters Iraq, Turkey will enter Northern Iraq. That will bring in Iran, which has sworn that if Turkey, the Western laptog of the Great Satan, invades Iraq, it will, too.

I hate being right.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:44 pm

Originally posted by fable
Just heard over the BBC that the leader of the coalition government in Turkey has announced in Parliament that if troops move into Iraq from Turkey, they will be Turkish troops, not US/UK ones. I don't know if this is a brag or a statement of fact, but it unfortunately bears out the domino theory that some of us have been saying for months: if the Kurds seem restive, when the US enters Iraq, Turkey will enter Northern Iraq. That will bring in Iran, which has sworn that if Turkey, the Western laptog of the Great Satan, invades Iraq, it will, too.

I hate being right.

*HUG*.......I hope with all my heart that this can somehow all be avoided..

CM · Post by CM » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:47 pm

Welcome to World War 3. However Iran will not attack. Rather it will encroach on Iraqi soil and that is about it. Get some of the oil and land. Maybe take over the entire riverbasin which caused the Iran Iraq wars of the 80s. The Iranis arent stupid enough to mess with the US.

But Bush wants war.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:07 pm

It is my sincere hope that this can avoided as well.

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:59 pm

Wow!

(Disclaimer; the statements below are IMO and are not intended to be an attack on other SYM members).

I think there are issues here (the 'war' against Iraq, oil, profit margins, SUVs, the 'war' against terrorism/poverty/world hunger/drugs-take your pick - , economic stimulus', world opinion, the left/right-liberal/conservative-democracy/socialist paradigm - again take your pick-) that go well beyond this mundane debate.

America is the last standing example of an armed populace left on earth (populace as different than a national army). As long as that remains so then those entities/people that seek the actualization of globalization are thwarted from attaining those goals.

All the nuances that you are arguing about are fluff and smoke screens and do nothing more than help cover up the true agendas that are being hammered out behind the scenes. (I can hear it now - especially from the intellectuals of this forum - "stupid conspiracy theorists nonsence"). Perfectly executed don't you think? When truth is denounced as bunk then tyranny wins. Reread your Orwell.

Those of you that live in EU or elsewhere have already been marginalized. The French's protests at the UN don't mean anything as the truely powerful factions of the world (of which Bush is but a small potato - as was Clinton, Stalin, Mao, and is still Saddam, Kim Jong Il and all the other world 'leaders') will prosecute this war, and any others they deem 'appropriate' over all protests save one. Armed revolt by any people that will not stand for tyrannical subjugation to a 'one world order'.

I will not advocate the 'theroy' that 9-11 wasn't an act of international terrorists. It just depends on whom you name as those terrorists. I will say that the executive branch of the US government has capitalized on those attacks in such manner to promt questions of what is actually happening here. That and the blind headlong rush toward global suicide this war will unleash in earnest.

For those of you that would like to see some examples of what I am refering to I reccomend that you gather information on four pieces of current US legislation; USA Patriot Act (already law), Homeland Security Act (already law), USA Partiot Act II (not law yet) and the Our Lady of Peace Act (also not law yet). You can find reference to all these through any web search engine.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:55 am

All the nuances that you are arguing about are fluff and smoke screens and do nothing more than help cover up the true agendas that are being hammered out behind the scenes. (I can hear it now - especially from the intellectuals of this forum - "stupid conspiracy theorists nonsence"). Perfectly executed don't you think? When truth is denounced as bunk then tyranny wins. Reread your Orwell.

First, welcome to SYM. I hope you'll hang around, and take part in the discussions.

Second, nobody is going to call what you wrote "nonsense." After all, you really haven't put down anything concrete to argue with at this point; why should anybody argue with a general prospectus?

But it's probably fair to say that folks are going to request facts backing up any conspiracy theories you actually do state. Leaving aside such absolutes as truth (which are hardly beacons of light to guide investigations in the clthonic world of politics), evidence backing any theory is what determines IMO the difference between a seriously considered POV and wild, off-the-cuff sumises. I hope you'll give us your take on this. (Note, HSA and the Patriot Acts have had their own discussion subjects before. Feel free to perform a search on these, and comment if you wish. I'm sure it's time to revisit those themes.)

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:27 am

Fable MISPELLED.

4 entries found for chthonic.
chthon·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thnk) also chtho·ni·an (thn-n)
adj. Greek Mythology
Of or relating to the underworld.

Muahahahahha

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:43 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
Fable MISPELLED.

4 entries found for chthonic.
chthon·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thnk) also chtho·ni·an (thn-n)
adj. Greek Mythology
Of or relating to the underworld.

Muahahahahha

Thug miSSpelled.

tr.v. mis·spelled, or mis·spelt (-splt) mis·spell·ing, mis·spells
To spell incorrectly

Hehehehe....

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:56 am

Auugh... the irony.

I hate it all. Kill everything.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:16 am

I thought you would approve...

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 9:51 pm

Thank you, @Audace, for fatally wounding that callow fiend who attempted an assault on the virginity of my language.

...But I think we are moving away from the topic at hand. So without any further ado, I return you to the Iraqi War, already (at least verbally) in progress.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:23 am

Interesting article in the NY Times Magazine on problems with Post-War Reconstruction of Iraq:
Dreaming of Democracy

In recent weeks, President Bush himself has appeared to embrace the idea (Iraqi exceptionalism) as a geopolitical rationale for war. The story being told goes like this:

The Arab world is hopelessly sunk in corruption and popular discontent. Misrule and a culture of victimhood have left Arabs economically stagnant and prone to seeing their problems in delusional terms. The United States has contributed to the pathology by cynically shoring up dictatorships; Sept. 11 was one result. Both the Arab world and official American attitudes toward it need to be jolted out of their rut. An invasion of Iraq would provide the necessary shock, and a democratic Iraq would become an example of change for the rest of the region. Political Islam would lose its hold on the imagination of young Arabs as they watched a more successful model rise up in their midst. The Middle East's center of political, economic and cultural gravity would shift from the region's theocracies and autocracies to its new, oil-rich democracy. And finally, the deadlock in which Israel and Palestine are trapped would end as Palestinians, realizing that their Arab backers were now tending their own democratic gardens, would accept compromise. By this way of thinking, the road to Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh and Jerusalem goes through Baghdad.

The idea is sometimes referred to as a new domino theory, with tyrannies collapsing on top of one another...

..."It's called magical realism, Middle East-style,'' says Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Exactly how, he wonders, would this chain reaction occur? Arab countries are stuck between autocratic governments and Islamist opposition, he says, and ''our invasion of Iraq isn't going to remove those political forces. They're going to be sitting there the next day.'' The war, which is vastly unpopular in the Arab world, is far more likely to improve the fortunes of the Islamists, he says, and provoke governments to tighten their grip, than to ventilate the region with an Arab spring.

The chances of democracy succeeding even in Iraq under American occupation are highly questionable, Carothers argues. War seldom creates democracy; according to a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one -- Panama. Democracy takes root from within, over a long period of time, in conditions that have never prevailed in Iraq. For democracy to have a chance there would require a lengthy and careful American commitment to nation-building -- which could easily look to Iraqis and other Arabs like colonialism. Nor can we be sure that democracy, in Iraq or elsewhere, will lead to pro-American regimes; it might lead to the opposite. ''The idea that there's a small democracy inside every society waiting to be released just isn't true,'' Carothers says. ''If we're pinning our hopes on the idea that this will lead to a democratic change throughout the region, then we're invading for the wrong reason.'' Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment, adds, '''We've suffered so much that the only alternative is democracy' -- as soon as you say it, you realize there's a mile between the beginning and end of that sentence.''

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:06 am

G'Day

First, thanks for the welcome Fable.

Second, I have browsed the other threads re: USA Patriot Act, et al. Interesting conversations.

Third, I do not intend to incite verbal riots with unsubstantiated theories (conspiratorial in nature or not) but to embark on a quest of understanding - the curse, if you will, of an inquiring mind.

Therefore;

@Fable; what information/opinion/knowledge do you have regarding the Council on Foreign Relations? The Illuminati? The concept of 'New World Order'? The Bohemian Grove? Skull and Bones? (perhaps enough for starters).

Thanks. I eagerly await your expert analysis and depth of knowledge.