A bunch of semantics really. The best defense is a good offense.
What happened to Chechnya happened under 'free market' Russia, not that the USSR would have been that different (Hungarian, Czech abortive revolutions). Putting down the Czech revolution can be likened to putting down civil unrest and resistance to occupation in the likes of Sadr City, northern Baghdad.M.O.A.B wrote:
Take a look at Chechnya and the state of Grozny and then comapre that to say Iraq or Afghanistan's cities.
A response to threat is also know as offence and military personnel train primarily to fight. Militaries are not primarily for defence and they are not primarily for offence, both fall under their banner of operation. A defence force like I said, such as the IDF or JSDF, is a force primarily aimed at defence rather than offence. Militaries will generally move more toward offence than defence.
I also ask, if you owned factories in one country and they were suddenly attacked, making an impact on your economy, are you not allowed to use your military? Considering the threat to your country would be economically based.
A military is designed for offence and defence, not primarily defence.
Armies are used for offensive actions yes - IN WARS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Not for subverting the politics of other sovereign nations. No you are not allowed to use your army in situation where factories in another country are nationalised or attacked. They fall under the jurisdiction of the country in which they are situated and their jurisdiction alone. Factories are private enterprises that transcend borders. They take up an element of risk in selecting to invest in a particular country and on their head be it. If I set up a Starbucks in a shopping centre and the shopping centre turns around in 5 years and says 'we do not want a Starbucks here anymore, out you go' - then that's it, I have to fucking leave and respect the rights of the owner of the shopping centre. Property is not owned, it is merely guaranteed to you by the state - who can suspend those rights at any time (compulsory purchase orders for highways and transmission lines in western countries for instance). If you want reparations you take it up with the WTO through legal channels.
Militaries ARE NOT ECONOMIC TOOLS. It's barbaric to equate money to human lives. Pathetic actually.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-01-22 14:52:23)
SOOO ... about the celebrity puppets this thread was originally about ...
I would pledge for some of the stuff they mentioned if I was millionaire 2
I wish they'ed all pledge to shut the fuck up about politics.s7lin wrote:
SOOO ... about the celebrity puppets this thread was originally about ...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
To want to reshape the middle east for the betterment of it's own citizens, and in turn serving our interests (and the world's) by reducing the dysfunctional regimes there with the end goal of reducing terrorism is not imperialism.Spearhead wrote:
Your words speak for themselves... doublethink ftlVax wrote:
american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination"
its very hypocritical to say its any countries fucking business to reshape an entire region of the world and then deny its imperialistic. BTW, the Nazis did reshape the middle east. And we're seeing the results of them today.
ps- anyone who thinks a think tank is anything but an innocent organization of do-gooders has their heads up their ass. How are they any better than lobbyists? Oh right, because they're non-profit research based organizations... rofl
And it absolutely did become "our business", in an urgent way, when the radicals attacked us on our soil.
I don't care if Saddam had nothing to do with that attack, either. The stakes were raised; threats reevaluated... the time of him defying the international requirements placed on him came to an end.
As for "do-gooders" where is your evidence demonstrating otherwise? I know all the cool kids say these guys are evil and that's the standard line, but how do you really know what their goals were ?
Maybe some of their ideas were wrong, overly idealistic, or just poorly implemented (iraq) but the intentions might have been good...you don't really know.
ThisDBBrinson1 wrote:
I wish they'ed all pledge to shut the fuck up about politics.s7lin wrote:
SOOO ... about the celebrity puppets this thread was originally about ...
Not much else to say on the topic
That's not a very honest look at what we did though. There was a lot more emphasis on reshaping energy dynamics than on bettering the people.Vax wrote:
To want to reshape the middle east for the betterment of it's own citizens, and in turn serving our interests (and the world's) by reducing the dysfunctional regimes there with the end goal of reducing terrorism is not imperialism.Spearhead wrote:
Your words speak for themselves... doublethink ftlVax wrote:
american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination"
its very hypocritical to say its any countries fucking business to reshape an entire region of the world and then deny its imperialistic. BTW, the Nazis did reshape the middle east. And we're seeing the results of them today.
ps- anyone who thinks a think tank is anything but an innocent organization of do-gooders has their heads up their ass. How are they any better than lobbyists? Oh right, because they're non-profit research based organizations... rofl
Inevitably, we were probably going to fight Saddam a second time in the near future, but the buildup to the war was rather revealing. The countries mostly against the war were profiting from the Oil for Food scandal, whereas the interests lobbying hardest for war were connected to contractors specializing in nation building (like Halliburton).
Ultimately, this war was a business opportunity vying against an already present business. Neither side was really that concerned about the fate of the Iraqis, especially given how badly the reconstruction was initially planned out.
It was as if eliminating the chaos of toppling a government was an afterthought to Bush.
Afghanistan was our business, but Iraq really wasn't. It wasn't when the Democrats supported invasion beforehand either.Vax wrote:
And it absolutely did become "our business", in an urgent way, when the radicals attacked us on our soil.
I don't care if Saddam had nothing to do with that attack, either. The stakes were raised; threats reevaluated... the time of him defying the international requirements placed on him came to an end.
As for "do-gooders" where is your evidence demonstrating otherwise? I know all the cool kids say these guys are evil and that's the standard line, but how do you really know what their goals were ?
Maybe some of their ideas were wrong, overly idealistic, or just poorly implemented (iraq) but the intentions might have been good...you don't really know.
The problem is that we let special interests run our policy. With Iraq, it was the military industrial complex. With these bailouts, it's the banking industry and the auto industry.
Either way, these groups are steering the government away from what really benefits the people most -- shrinking government.
Ya, the cool kids told me the PNAC was a bunch of evil masterminds trying to take over the world. lolVax wrote:
To want to reshape the middle east for the betterment of it's own citizens, and in turn serving our interests (and the world's) by reducing the dysfunctional regimes there with the end goal of reducing terrorism is not imperialism.Spearhead wrote:
Your words speak for themselves... doublethink ftlVax wrote:
american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination"
its very hypocritical to say its any countries fucking business to reshape an entire region of the world and then deny its imperialistic. BTW, the Nazis did reshape the middle east. And we're seeing the results of them today.
ps- anyone who thinks a think tank is anything but an innocent organization of do-gooders has their heads up their ass. How are they any better than lobbyists? Oh right, because they're non-profit research based organizations... rofl
And it absolutely did become "our business", in an urgent way, when the radicals attacked us on our soil.
I don't care if Saddam had nothing to do with that attack, either. The stakes were raised; threats reevaluated... the time of him defying the international requirements placed on him came to an end.
As for "do-gooders" where is your evidence demonstrating otherwise? I know all the cool kids say these guys are evil and that's the standard line, but how do you really know what their goals were ?
Maybe some of their ideas were wrong, overly idealistic, or just poorly implemented (iraq) but the intentions might have been good...you don't really know.
Dude most people my age probably have never even heard of the PNAC not to mention the fuckwits that were in it. Did I ever call it evil? Nope. But calling it an innocent do gooder objective "think tank" (its not a timetable now, its a time horizon!) when half of the people in it were hired by the Bush administration is bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit, whether it be liberal or conservative or whatever label you want to call it. Are you saying you'd keep your mouth shut if Obama filled his cabinet with moveon.org people?
If you want to debate reshaping regions of the world, and how it affects the people there, fine. Dont say its not imperialistic though. That goes against the very meaning of the world...
@Turquoise
That's not a very honest look at what we did though. There was a lot more emphasis on reshaping energy dynamics than on bettering the people.
Whatever your pet theories are, it is absolutely an honest look at the openly stated intentions of the architects of the war. There is no argument.
I mean if you are privvy to insider conversations where Rummy or Wolfowitz discussed how to position halliburton to maximise profits as part of the goal of the war, I'm interested.
And I don't even have an answer for the nonsensical froth you are spewing there; I guess they are just "fuckwits" and you hate them because bush hired a few of them -- that's enough of you then. Insert some "lols" and "rofl's" here and there, imply something and then supply nothing to even make your point, let alone back it.
As I suspected, you don't really have a cogent point.
That's not a very honest look at what we did though. There was a lot more emphasis on reshaping energy dynamics than on bettering the people.
Whatever your pet theories are, it is absolutely an honest look at the openly stated intentions of the architects of the war. There is no argument.
I mean if you are privvy to insider conversations where Rummy or Wolfowitz discussed how to position halliburton to maximise profits as part of the goal of the war, I'm interested.
You are the one who is misusing the word imperialism.Spearhead wrote:
Ya, the cool kids told me the PNAC was a bunch of evil masterminds trying to take over the world. lolVax wrote:
To want to reshape the middle east for the betterment of it's own citizens, and in turn serving our interests (and the world's) by reducing the dysfunctional regimes there with the end goal of reducing terrorism is not imperialism.Spearhead wrote:
Your words speak for themselves... doublethink ftl
its very hypocritical to say its any countries fucking business to reshape an entire region of the world and then deny its imperialistic. BTW, the Nazis did reshape the middle east. And we're seeing the results of them today.
ps- anyone who thinks a think tank is anything but an innocent organization of do-gooders has their heads up their ass. How are they any better than lobbyists? Oh right, because they're non-profit research based organizations... rofl
And it absolutely did become "our business", in an urgent way, when the radicals attacked us on our soil.
I don't care if Saddam had nothing to do with that attack, either. The stakes were raised; threats reevaluated... the time of him defying the international requirements placed on him came to an end.
As for "do-gooders" where is your evidence demonstrating otherwise? I know all the cool kids say these guys are evil and that's the standard line, but how do you really know what their goals were ?
Maybe some of their ideas were wrong, overly idealistic, or just poorly implemented (iraq) but the intentions might have been good...you don't really know.
Dude most people my age probably have never even heard of the PNAC not to mention the fuckwits that were in it. Did I ever call it evil? Nope. But calling it an innocent do gooder objective "think tank" (its not a timetable now, its a time horizon!) when half of the people in it were hired by the Bush administration is bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit, whether it be liberal or conservative or whatever label you want to call it. Are you saying you'd keep your mouth shut if Obama filled his cabinet with moveon.org people?
If you want to debate reshaping regions of the world, and how it affects the people there, fine. Dont say its not imperialistic though. That goes against the very meaning of the world...
And I don't even have an answer for the nonsensical froth you are spewing there; I guess they are just "fuckwits" and you hate them because bush hired a few of them -- that's enough of you then. Insert some "lols" and "rofl's" here and there, imply something and then supply nothing to even make your point, let alone back it.
As I suspected, you don't really have a cogent point.
There's a difference between having a pet theory and reading between the lines.Vax wrote:
@Turquoise
Whatever your pet theories are, it is absolutely an honest look at the openly stated intentions of the architects of the war. There is no argument.
I mean if you are privvy to insider conversations where Rummy or Wolfowitz discussed how to position halliburton to maximise profits as part of the goal of the war, I'm interested.
Ask yourself what makes more sense....
Guy connected to nation building company cares so much about a foreign country that he wants to invade to "save the people" that he hasn't really planned out a reconstruction agenda for.
or....
Guy connected to nation building company wants to make a shitload of money from an invasion while being "greeted as a liberator."
Simply put, their expectations were unrealistic because of the greed they used to justify the war to themselves. Do you really expect them to tell you publicly that they want to profit from the war?
You can't be that naive.
dictionary.com
imperialism : the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
I guess thats enough of you then, Vax (lol you think any co-worker of Bill Kristol isnt a fuckwit? ok)
imperialism : the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
I guess thats enough of you then, Vax (lol you think any co-worker of Bill Kristol isnt a fuckwit? ok)
Last edited by Spearhead (2009-01-22 20:29:45)
Still theories unless you have evidenceTurquoise wrote:
There's a difference between having a pet theory and reading between the lines.Vax wrote:
@Turquoise
Whatever your pet theories are, it is absolutely an honest look at the openly stated intentions of the architects of the war. There is no argument.
I mean if you are privvy to insider conversations where Rummy or Wolfowitz discussed how to position halliburton to maximise profits as part of the goal of the war, I'm interested.
Ask yourself what makes more sense....
Guy connected to nation building company cares so much about a foreign country that he wants to invade to "save the people" that he hasn't really planned out a reconstruction agenda for.
or....
Guy connected to nation building company wants to make a shitload of money from an invasion while being "greeted as a liberator."
Simply put, their expectations were unrealistic because of the greed they used to justify the war to themselves. Do you really expect them to tell you publicly that they want to profit from the war?
You can't be that naive.
We were talking about the PNAC, and the ideas behind it...but I guess you are saying they were all lying and it was just bs'ing for halliburton profits.
BTW if you are talking about Cheney, (i'm not sure who else you would mean) he makes no money from said "nation building company" it's documented, and I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before.
I don't think I'm being naive, I think I've just outgrown the type of cynicism that makes people think the corporations and the government are all (and always) in on evil conspiracies to make money by purposely starting wars for NO Other reasons than to make more profits.
You seriously think they did that ? The dead piling up on Iraqi streets, and our body bags coming home has no effect at all on these people..
That's comic book stuff, evil villains and shit.
These people are human, in positions of power and had real thoughts about trying to fix actual security threats -- I'm not saying they were all dreaming about "saving the Iraqi people" -- they were all about trying to change things for the better in places that produce terrorism, because they had a huge responsibility at the time, being the administration that had 9/11 happen on THEIR watch.
I think people forget that.
I find it much more plausible that they turned to taking the pre-emptive approach ( adopted more PNAC style ideas ) to the terrorism problem, and actually did believe the answer was to make some bold moves in the ME, and that after Afghanistan, the next 'elephant in the room' was Saddam.
Who has authority in Iraq ?Spearhead wrote:
dictionary.com
imperialism : the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
I guess thats enough of you then, Vax (lol you think any co-worker of Bill Kristol isnt a fuckwit? ok)
Seems to me the Iraqi gov't just negotiated some status of forces agreements that are not only keeping key points of 'authority' that they wanted, but they also have an exit date for our troops set, albeit a rough date
Not very imperial.
Also Kristol has a PHD from Harvard, and taught at U of Penn and Harvard's Kennedy school of government.
The evidence has been the last 5 years.Vax wrote:
Still theories unless you have evidence
That's exactly what I'm saying. To use another think tank as an example, do you think the American Enterprise Institute only cares about the hallowed ideals of capitalism? No... They're people connected to big business that want the government to allow them to do what they please regardless of the consequences.Vax wrote:
We were talking about the PNAC, and the ideas behind it...but I guess you are saying they were all lying and it was just bs'ing for halliburton profits.
PNAC is just a front for imperialists, basically.
You can't document all soft money or all favors. But Cheney isn't the only one I'm talking about, and Halliburton isn't the only company either.Vax wrote:
BTW if you are talking about Cheney, (i'm not sure who else you would mean) he makes no money from said "nation building company" it's documented, and I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before. .
Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely... Hitler was real. Stalin was real. Mao was real.Vax wrote:
I don't think I'm being naive, I think I've just outgrown the type of cynicism that makes people think the corporations and the government are all (and always) in on evil conspiracies to make money by purposely starting wars for NO Other reasons than to make more profits.
You seriously think they did that ? The dead piling up on Iraqi streets, and our body bags coming home has no effect at all on these people..
That's comic book stuff, evil villains and shit.
Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld aren't anywhere near that level of evil, but part of the reason why is because we don't give them the ability to be that powerful.
If you give a leader enough power, he will eventually become evil because of the intoxication that power has over ambitious people. Between FISA and the once-solid Republican majority in Congress, Bush was surely intoxicated with power when he decided to push for the second war.
Given this same principle, it's going to take a lot of self-discipline by Obama to keep himself from falling into the same trap with a now solidly Democratic Congress.
With time, I think bettering the Iraqi people did become more of a focus. But initially, it seemed pretty clear to me that this was about war profiteering. The first few years seemed pretty much like a feeding frenzy by contractors.Vax wrote:
These people are human, in positions of power and had real thoughts about trying to fix actual security threats -- I'm not saying they were all dreaming about "saving the Iraqi people" -- they were all about trying to change things for the better in places that produce terrorism, because they had a huge responsibility at the time, being the administration that had 9/11 happen on THEIR watch.
I think people forget that.
I'm sure there are plenty of true believers among their ranks (yourself perhaps), but the guys in charge.... not so much. Rumsfeld seemed pretty clearly just an imbecile with a lust for power. How else do you explain the incompetence of someone with so much experience?Vax wrote:
I find it much more plausible that they turned to taking the pre-emptive approach ( adopted more PNAC style ideas ) to the terrorism problem, and actually did believe the answer was to make some bold moves in the ME, and that after Afghanistan, the next 'elephant in the room' was Saddam.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-22 21:32:07)
Oh well, I'm going to agree to disagree for the most part
Things I have read about some of these people suggest that they were passionate about the ideas, idealistic about them to a point of arrogance, and to a fault, and overreaching with their power(and 9/11 kicked it all into fever pitch) -- but not simply cold conniving liars who knowingly invented stuff like PNAC as 'false fronts' so they could boost the bottom line. Fuck all these guys were rich to begin with, they don't need to invent fake think tanks or drum up wars; plenty of work for Halliburton and other defense contractors without doing that.
The first few years seemed pretty much like a feeding frenzy by contractors.
I agree with you there, but where we differ is that I think it was incidental, and opportunist; you appear to think it was all by design.
Add: I can kinda see what you mean about Rumsfeld.
He is a case where (imo) the arrogance of power went to his head. I don't think it was about money, it was more an out of touch ..pompous stubborness.
I think he may have been going senile...
Things I have read about some of these people suggest that they were passionate about the ideas, idealistic about them to a point of arrogance, and to a fault, and overreaching with their power(and 9/11 kicked it all into fever pitch) -- but not simply cold conniving liars who knowingly invented stuff like PNAC as 'false fronts' so they could boost the bottom line. Fuck all these guys were rich to begin with, they don't need to invent fake think tanks or drum up wars; plenty of work for Halliburton and other defense contractors without doing that.
The first few years seemed pretty much like a feeding frenzy by contractors.
I agree with you there, but where we differ is that I think it was incidental, and opportunist; you appear to think it was all by design.
Add: I can kinda see what you mean about Rumsfeld.
He is a case where (imo) the arrogance of power went to his head. I don't think it was about money, it was more an out of touch ..pompous stubborness.
I think he may have been going senile...
Last edited by Vax (2009-01-22 22:06:49)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LOL Kerry.
I actually watched the whole original video and it's hilarious. Especially P.Diddy because he's a retard, and according to a poster on YouTube, Jason Bateman with: "I pledge to flush only after a deuce, and never a sinker".
I actually watched the whole original video and it's hilarious. Especially P.Diddy because he's a retard, and according to a poster on YouTube, Jason Bateman with: "I pledge to flush only after a deuce, and never a sinker".