Don't gimme that shit. The Iraqi 'government' is a fallacy. Marches numbering hundreds of thousands demanding an end to occupation occur sporadically. If the Iraqi 'government' truly represented Iraq, which in reality is three countries from what I can make out, then the US would have been sent packing a while ago. It's the Iraqis fight - not the coalitions.M.O.A.B wrote:
And the Iraqi government would no doubt ask for our assistance, without us they wouldn't have a better trained and equipped security force.CameronPoe wrote:
Iraq can - but not the coalition. The coalition shouldn't be there. Every nation has a right to defend itself - the nation in this question being Iraq.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, we can rightfully attack Iran because they're sending operatives over the border? I mean they're not minding their own buisness so why should we do it back to them?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- US Ships sitting at Iran's doorstep. Are we on the verge of war!?
Iran's using operatives to target coalition forces, they're fighting us and that's good enough a reason to fight them back, none of that take a hit and don't do anything back crap, that's how you lose. There's also a hell of a lot of Iraqi's who like what we've done there, only reason you don't see it is because the media likes to report the bad or undesirable aspects of the conflict and are always eager to stamp FAIL on the operation the second a rally of protestors emerge.CameronPoe wrote:
Don't gimme that shit. The Iraqi 'government' is a fallacy. Marches numbering hundreds of thousands demanding an end to occupation occur sporadically. If the Iraqi 'government' truly represented Iraq, which in reality is three countries from what I can make out, then the US would have been sent packing a while ago. It's the Iraqis fight - not the coalitions.M.O.A.B wrote:
And the Iraqi government would no doubt ask for our assistance, without us they wouldn't have a better trained and equipped security force.CameronPoe wrote:
Iraq can - but not the coalition. The coalition shouldn't be there. Every nation has a right to defend itself - the nation in this question being Iraq.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-05-09 05:10:38)
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The only reason you're being attacked is because you're somewhere you aren't supposed to be. Simple as that. I have one Arabic friend who talks with me about the realities of Arab opinion on the occupation. Unsurprisingly they're largely against it. His cousins had to flee Baghdad for Bahrain after holding out for a couple of years under the occupation. He is very dismayed at developments there. Of course he is only one man with only one opinion but it is of value. I'm sure there are people who think well of the US but the existence of the Mehdi army, the fact the coalition has had to arm militias to keep the peace, the fact that Iraqi communities have now become almost totally segregated, the fact that electricity and running water is a luxury not a necessity and the fact that most polls suggest a majority of Iraqis want the coalition gone suggest that number must be small.M.O.A.B wrote:
Iran's using operatives to target coalition forces, they're fighting us and that's good enough a reason to fight them back, none of that take a hit and don't do anything back crap, that's how you lose. There's also a hell of a lot of Iraqi's who like what we've done there, only reason you don't see it is because the media likes to report the bad or undesirable aspects of the conflict and are always eager to stamp FAIL on the operation the second a rally of protestors emerge.
2007 BBC Poll of Iraqis
Opinion on US and UK occupation forces:
Great deal of confidence 6%
Quite a lot of confidence 12%
Not very much confidence 30%
None at all 52%
Refused/don’t know 5%
Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country
better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?
Better 21%
Worse 69%
No Effect 10%
Overall, please say if you think each of these countries is playing a positive, neutral, or
negative role in Iraq now?
Positive Neutral Negative
Russia 15% 72% 13%
Saudia Arabia 20% 28% 52%
Iran 17% 16% 67%
Syria 7% 30% 63%
Turkey 10% 44% 46%
United States 12% 11% 77%
You just can't let go of the old arrogant 'we know best, let's save the world by imposing our way of life on everyone else' idiocy of the colonial era can you? It's the same shit we Irish had to put up with under the Brits.
It's in no way a colonial or imperialist occupation or expansion, if it was we'd say 'screw it' and practically waste the place, then just defend the oil fields and not the cities. Our prescence there is to help restablish order after creating a power vaccum which unsurprisingly cannot be done overnight. But classing every bit of foreign interventionism or the fact we're staying to get the job done as colonialism or imperialism is rather narrow minded and displays a lack of facts about what we're actually doing there. Long story short, its a media orientated view.CameronPoe wrote:
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The only reason you're being attacked is because you're somewhere you aren't supposed to be. Simple as that. I have one Arabic friend who talks with me about the realities of Arab opinion on the occupation. Unsurprisingly they're largely against it. His cousins had to flee Baghdad for Bahrain after holding out for a couple of years under the occupation. He is very dismayed at developments there. Of course he is only one man with only one opinion but it is of value. I'm sure there are people who think well of the US but the existence of the Mehdi army, the fact the coalition has had to arm militias to keep the peace, the fact that Iraqi communities have now become almost totally segregated, the fact that electricity and running water is a luxury not a necessity and the fact that most polls suggest a majority of Iraqis want the coalition gone suggest that number must be small.M.O.A.B wrote:
Iran's using operatives to target coalition forces, they're fighting us and that's good enough a reason to fight them back, none of that take a hit and don't do anything back crap, that's how you lose. There's also a hell of a lot of Iraqi's who like what we've done there, only reason you don't see it is because the media likes to report the bad or undesirable aspects of the conflict and are always eager to stamp FAIL on the operation the second a rally of protestors emerge.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl … pollf2.gif
2007 BBC Poll of Iraqis
Opinion on US and UK occupation forces:
Great deal of confidence 6%
Quite a lot of confidence 12%
Not very much confidence 30%
None at all 52%
Refused/don’t know 5%
Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country
better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?
Better 21%
Worse 69%
No Effect 10%
Overall, please say if you think each of these countries is playing a positive, neutral, or
negative role in Iraq now?
Positive Neutral Negative
Russia 15% 72% 13%
Saudia Arabia 20% 28% 52%
Iran 17% 16% 67%
Syria 7% 30% 63%
Turkey 10% 44% 46%
United States 12% 11% 77%
You just can't let go of the old arrogant 'we know best, let's save the world by imposing our way of life on everyone else' idiocy of the colonial era can you? It's the same shit we Irish had to put up with under the Brits.
WTF?!?M.O.A.B wrote:
It's in no way a colonial or imperialist occupation or expansion, if it was we'd say 'screw it' and practically waste the place, then just defend the oil fields and not the cities. Our prescence there is to help restablish order after creating a power vaccum which unsurprisingly cannot be done overnight. But classing every bit of foreign interventionism or the fact we're staying to get the job done as colonialism or imperialism is rather narrow minded and displays a lack of facts about what we're actually doing there. Long story short, its a media orientated view.CameronPoe wrote:
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The only reason you're being attacked is because you're somewhere you aren't supposed to be. Simple as that. I have one Arabic friend who talks with me about the realities of Arab opinion on the occupation. Unsurprisingly they're largely against it. His cousins had to flee Baghdad for Bahrain after holding out for a couple of years under the occupation. He is very dismayed at developments there. Of course he is only one man with only one opinion but it is of value. I'm sure there are people who think well of the US but the existence of the Mehdi army, the fact the coalition has had to arm militias to keep the peace, the fact that Iraqi communities have now become almost totally segregated, the fact that electricity and running water is a luxury not a necessity and the fact that most polls suggest a majority of Iraqis want the coalition gone suggest that number must be small.M.O.A.B wrote:
Iran's using operatives to target coalition forces, they're fighting us and that's good enough a reason to fight them back, none of that take a hit and don't do anything back crap, that's how you lose. There's also a hell of a lot of Iraqi's who like what we've done there, only reason you don't see it is because the media likes to report the bad or undesirable aspects of the conflict and are always eager to stamp FAIL on the operation the second a rally of protestors emerge.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl … pollf2.gif
2007 BBC Poll of Iraqis
Opinion on US and UK occupation forces:
Great deal of confidence 6%
Quite a lot of confidence 12%
Not very much confidence 30%
None at all 52%
Refused/don’t know 5%
Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country
better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?
Better 21%
Worse 69%
No Effect 10%
Overall, please say if you think each of these countries is playing a positive, neutral, or
negative role in Iraq now?
Positive Neutral Negative
Russia 15% 72% 13%
Saudia Arabia 20% 28% 52%
Iran 17% 16% 67%
Syria 7% 30% 63%
Turkey 10% 44% 46%
United States 12% 11% 77%
You just can't let go of the old arrogant 'we know best, let's save the world by imposing our way of life on everyone else' idiocy of the colonial era can you? It's the same shit we Irish had to put up with under the Brits.
That's preposterous. Virtually every example of imperialist Western colonialism has followed almost exactly the same model as Iraq. Stop basing your posts on (just) your beliefs rather than what has been explicitly demonstrated throughout history, India being a perfect case in point.
Colonialism and imperialism are not the same. I'm going to ban someone the next time they use those words interchangeably in this thread..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Opposing views always are aren't they?Bertster7 wrote:
That's preposterous.
Right so Iraq is the new India, ok. Tell me this, if we just went in to steal the resources like India, why aren't we? Our presence there is strictly at this time security, with the Iraqi security forces gradually taking over every day. When they are fully confident and established we will pull back and they can handle it themselves. Hardly the pinnacle of the Colonial dream that is it?Bertster7 wrote:
Virtually every example of imperialist Western colonialism has followed almost exactly the same model as Iraq. Stop basing your posts on (just) your beliefs rather than what has been explicitly demonstrated throughout history, India being a perfect case in point.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-05-09 08:16:24)
Long story short it is neo-colonialism. In terms of public opinion it is unpalatable for governments to indulge in such behaviour. As such, no matter how immoral their intentions might be they have to at least maintain a facade of honour. If Iraq falls into line with the whole 'globalisation' thing and eventually benefits from it is not a primary concern, it's just an added bonus and auxiliary goal, the ultimate one being the strategic benefit gained by the interventionist. The fact of the matter is that whether you think what you're doing for another nation is noble, honourable and benificial or not you are in fact being arrogant, imperious and, in the case of place like Iraq and Afghanistan, culturally subversive. I wouldn't go into the Amazon Jungle to coerce some tribe who've never had contact with the outside world to hold elections, drink Coke, dilute their religious beliefs and suspend their traditional way of life. You would truly not be out of place as one of those 'Rule Britannia' types of yore 'nation-building' in India, Ireland and elsewhere.M.O.A.B wrote:
It's in no way a colonial or imperialist occupation or expansion, if it was we'd say 'screw it' and practically waste the place, then just defend the oil fields and not the cities. Our prescence there is to help restablish order after creating a power vaccum which unsurprisingly cannot be done overnight. But classing every bit of foreign interventionism or the fact we're staying to get the job done as colonialism or imperialism is rather narrow minded and displays a lack of facts about what we're actually doing there. Long story short, its a media orientated view.
wrote:
Economic imperialism is the term used to describe a form of Imperialism a practice by which powerful nations seek to extend and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples.
Since the end of World War II, when most of the formal empires were dissolved, what is called economic imperialism has come to predominate. Control is exercised informally and less overtly. The U.S., for instance, exerts considerable influence over certain Third World nations, as a result of its national economic power and its dominance of certain international financial organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Similarly, European powers have continued to affect significantly the politics and the economics of their former colonies, and they have consequently been accused of neocolonialism—the exercise of effective sovereignty without the formality of colonial rule.
Not stealing, controlling. Instead of say Russia, China or Iraq themselves controlling. Undermining Iraqi sovereignty by 'building THEIR nation' the way you want it to be.M.O.A.B wrote:
if we just went in to steal the resources like India,
Like it or not every Western country benefits from this supposed 'economic mission'.CameronPoe wrote:
Not stealing, controlling. Instead of say Russia, China or Iraq themselves controlling. Undermining Iraqi sovereignty by 'building THEIR nation' the way you want it to be.M.O.A.B wrote:
if we just went in to steal the resources like India,
They are different things. But imperialist colonialism is a perfectly valid description of what I was referring to in historical context. Iraq is clearly not being colonised, it's too fucked up. The invasion and occupation does have extremely distinct imperialist parallels though.Kmarion wrote:
Colonialism and imperialism are not the same. I'm going to ban someone the next time they use those words interchangeably in this thread..lol
So there....
Stupid child like views (like yours) always are. Opposing ones can make an awful lot of sense.M.O.A.B wrote:
Opposing views always are aren't they?Bertster7 wrote:
That's preposterous.
We are. It's just far, far more complex these days. The war in Iraq has been one of the main triggering factors of the massive, massive rise in oil profits. Shell and BP have both had record profits recently and their stock is through the roof.M.O.A.B wrote:
Right so Iraq is the new India, ok. Tell me this, if we just went in to steal the resources like India, why aren't we? Our presence there is strictly at this time security, with the Iraqi security forces gradually taking over every day. When they are fully confident and established we will pull back and they can handle it themselves. Hardly the pinnacle of the Colonial dream that is it?Bertster7 wrote:
Virtually every example of imperialist Western colonialism has followed almost exactly the same model as Iraq. Stop basing your posts on (just) your beliefs rather than what has been explicitly demonstrated throughout history, India being a perfect case in point.
Also, the security model follows a very similar pattern to India. I'm struggling to see how it differs at all (apart from the obvious differences due to era), other than meeting much stiffer resistance.
The only point that is significantly different is the speed of the process. The establishment of a working independent Iraqi political system has been rushed through for PR reasons and is probably a bad idea. This all boils down to the fact that the war was sold as something it was not and no one wants to let on. A brutal coalition government could've put down resistance and got the country into workable shape before trying to establish an Iraqi government (or rather, waiting for them to demand an Iraqi government (much as Ghandi did in India) which would have far more popular support than one just placed in power at the whim of the coalition government).
Ah the classic 'your opinion is ridiculous and stupid and childish and mines best', that's what makes a lot of these debates so repetative. None of you guys will in any way accept an opposing view and simply brand it ludicrous, ridiculous, proposterous and all manner of other words ending in ous. To be frank, you guys just think your opinion is the right one and the best every time. You also rely on more than often a single side to an argument, one guy out of Iraq says it was bad, so it must be true. I don't think I've seen any of you post a single positive thing that goes on there and there's plenty of them. That's bias for you right there.Bertster7 wrote:
They are different things. But imperialist colonialism is a perfectly valid description of what I was referring to in historical context. Iraq is clearly not being colonised, it's too fucked up. The invasion and occupation does have extremely distinct imperialist parallels though.Kmarion wrote:
Colonialism and imperialism are not the same. I'm going to ban someone the next time they use those words interchangeably in this thread..lol
So there....Stupid child like views (like yours) always are. Opposing ones can make an awful lot of sense.M.O.A.B wrote:
Opposing views always are aren't they?Bertster7 wrote:
That's preposterous.
The nations rarely benefit - the elite in each of the protagonist nations benefit but rarely the laypeople to any considerable degree.M.O.A.B wrote:
Like it or not every Western country benefits from this supposed 'economic mission'.CameronPoe wrote:
Not stealing, controlling. Instead of say Russia, China or Iraq themselves controlling. Undermining Iraqi sovereignty by 'building THEIR nation' the way you want it to be.M.O.A.B wrote:
if we just went in to steal the resources like India,
Nope. I like to hear opposing viewpoints. When they are properly argued, with decent reasoning and evidence. Even if someone's clearly wrong and they make a good case, then kudos to them. You have just totally failed to make a case whereas on "this side of the argument" there is a very clear case with historical and incidental evidence backing it up.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ah the classic 'your opinion is ridiculous and stupid and childish and mines best', that's what makes a lot of these debates so repetative. None of you guys will in any way accept an opposing view and simply brand it ludicrous, ridiculous, proposterous and all manner of other words ending in ous. To be frank, you guys just think your opinion is the right one and the best every time. You also rely on more than often a single side to an argument, one guy out of Iraq says it was bad, so it must be true. I don't think I've seen any of you post a single positive thing that goes on there and there's plenty of them. That's bias for you right there.Bertster7 wrote:
They are different things. But imperialist colonialism is a perfectly valid description of what I was referring to in historical context. Iraq is clearly not being colonised, it's too fucked up. The invasion and occupation does have extremely distinct imperialist parallels though.Kmarion wrote:
Colonialism and imperialism are not the same. I'm going to ban someone the next time they use those words interchangeably in this thread..lol
So there....Stupid child like views (like yours) always are. Opposing ones can make an awful lot of sense.M.O.A.B wrote:
Opposing views always are aren't they?
My issue with your argument is not the opinion you hold, but the fact that it isn't any sort of argument at all. It's not based on anything of substance. Try bringing in some examples and comparisons, numbers might be good too.
It's not my fault you try and make your point in the way a 13 year old kid would....
I base what I know from hearing stories and seeing videos of what goes on over there, not the media. Shame GS isn't here any more as he was one of the few who can tell you the actual truth of what goes on.Bertster7 wrote:
Nope. I like to hear opposing viewpoints. When they are properly argued, with decent reasoning and evidence. Even if someone's clearly wrong and they make a good case, then kudos to them. You have just totally failed to make a case whereas on "this side of the argument" there is a very clear case with historical and incidental evidence backing it up.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ah the classic 'your opinion is ridiculous and stupid and childish and mines best', that's what makes a lot of these debates so repetative. None of you guys will in any way accept an opposing view and simply brand it ludicrous, ridiculous, proposterous and all manner of other words ending in ous. To be frank, you guys just think your opinion is the right one and the best every time. You also rely on more than often a single side to an argument, one guy out of Iraq says it was bad, so it must be true. I don't think I've seen any of you post a single positive thing that goes on there and there's plenty of them. That's bias for you right there.Bertster7 wrote:
They are different things. But imperialist colonialism is a perfectly valid description of what I was referring to in historical context. Iraq is clearly not being colonised, it's too fucked up. The invasion and occupation does have extremely distinct imperialist parallels though.Kmarion wrote:
Colonialism and imperialism are not the same. I'm going to ban someone the next time they use those words interchangeably in this thread..lol
So there....
Stupid child like views (like yours) always are. Opposing ones can make an awful lot of sense.
My issue with your argument is not the opinion you hold, but the fact that it isn't any sort of argument at all. It's not based on anything of substance. Try bringing in some examples and comparisons, numbers might be good too.
It's not my fault you try and make your point in the way a 13 year old kid would....
Btw 13 year old kids will generally type in capitals or use persistent profanities to get their point noticed. There's nothign different in the way I present my opinion to anyone elses, only difference is I don't try and base everything off a news report. Telling me I present what I say as a 13 year old is no more than an elitist attitude.
I love the way you jump in with the media this, the media that, base everything off a news report....M.O.A.B wrote:
I base what I know from hearing stories and seeing videos of what goes on over there, not the media. Shame GS isn't here any more as he was one of the few who can tell you the actual truth of what goes on.Bertster7 wrote:
Nope. I like to hear opposing viewpoints. When they are properly argued, with decent reasoning and evidence. Even if someone's clearly wrong and they make a good case, then kudos to them. You have just totally failed to make a case whereas on "this side of the argument" there is a very clear case with historical and incidental evidence backing it up.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ah the classic 'your opinion is ridiculous and stupid and childish and mines best', that's what makes a lot of these debates so repetative. None of you guys will in any way accept an opposing view and simply brand it ludicrous, ridiculous, proposterous and all manner of other words ending in ous. To be frank, you guys just think your opinion is the right one and the best every time. You also rely on more than often a single side to an argument, one guy out of Iraq says it was bad, so it must be true. I don't think I've seen any of you post a single positive thing that goes on there and there's plenty of them. That's bias for you right there.
My issue with your argument is not the opinion you hold, but the fact that it isn't any sort of argument at all. It's not based on anything of substance. Try bringing in some examples and comparisons, numbers might be good too.
It's not my fault you try and make your point in the way a 13 year old kid would....
It's funny. Especially since nothing I've written in this thread is based off news reports. It's based on a familiarity with British imperialist history, an interest in global economics, large scale statistical data about Iraq and the viewpoints of my Iraqi friends, Iranian family and a number of journalists who I've worked with on various articles related to, or specifically about, this field. Quite a wide variety of sources, with wildly contrasting viewpoints. Helps me to build a good picture of the larger scale scene quite nicely.
Do they?M.O.A.B wrote:
Btw 13 year old kids will generally type in capitals or use persistent profanities to get their point noticed.
Your opinion is based on hearing stories, as you've said. I doubt I could think of a more subjective way of getting your info. Subjectivity should be avoided when trying to make a rational argument.M.O.A.B wrote:
There's nothign different in the way I present my opinion to anyone elses, only difference is I don't try and base everything off a news report.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-09 09:54:15)
I think we should impose a duty on Tea in Iraq.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- US Ships sitting at Iran's doorstep. Are we on the verge of war!?