Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
All right, give me some.
To support my point, I have China up to 1949 (US supported Chiang), Guatemala in 1954 (overthrew democratic regime w/ egalitarian designs), Chile 1973 (same as before), Indonesia (support of Suharto), Iran (overthrow democracy 1953), Nicaragua (support of Somoza, destruction of promising economy), Vietnam (support of brutal Diem), and Iraq (support of Saddam, refusal to put him out after Gulf War 1) and many more.
WW1 doesn't count: autocratic Russia was an ally, and Britain and France were fouling it up as usual in the colonies.
The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. Ditto for segregation.
Merkinball
Deity
Jolly Roger, sheer recuitment numbers for the services have gone up. What's needed to rebuild and bring numbers up in the military is what led to supposid "recruitment shortfalls." But in sheer numbers, we were recruiting more people than in years previous. Just because you're not meeting your recruitment goals, doesn't mean you're not recruiting more people.
Why doesn't WW1 count? You were using the Phillipines at the turn of the century?
I don't think you can use Pinochet, as Pinochet's economic reforms and rule platformed it from one of the poorest countries in South America, to the most economically sound and richest. I don't think you can use Nicaragua, because it was against the Sandanista's. I don't think you can use Diem or Saddam in their infancy, as they were both seen as very progressive leaders for their time and their location. It wasn't for quite some time before Diem and Saddam became brutal. So far as Diem goes, I'll take Diem's rule over Pol Pots any day of the weak. Diem didn't purge 5 million people.
How about...
Afghanistan twice, Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia, we were there for Sierra Leone if needed, Somalia as we speak, East Timor, Kuwait, and then all the countries we helped stabilize, monitor, and support post WWII, South Korea.
One of the last countries to abolish slavery and segregation? I got news for you, there are countries that STILL have slavery and segregation going on.
And if you're trying to compare our dirty hands, to the dirty hands of other world powers...gosh, don't even do it. Just be content to knit pick at America's variable, marginal inconsistencies in its claims to always support Democracy and what's right.
Why doesn't WW1 count? You were using the Phillipines at the turn of the century?
I don't think you can use Pinochet, as Pinochet's economic reforms and rule platformed it from one of the poorest countries in South America, to the most economically sound and richest. I don't think you can use Nicaragua, because it was against the Sandanista's. I don't think you can use Diem or Saddam in their infancy, as they were both seen as very progressive leaders for their time and their location. It wasn't for quite some time before Diem and Saddam became brutal. So far as Diem goes, I'll take Diem's rule over Pol Pots any day of the weak. Diem didn't purge 5 million people.
How about...
Afghanistan twice, Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia, we were there for Sierra Leone if needed, Somalia as we speak, East Timor, Kuwait, and then all the countries we helped stabilize, monitor, and support post WWII, South Korea.
One of the last countries to abolish slavery and segregation? I got news for you, there are countries that STILL have slavery and segregation going on.
And if you're trying to compare our dirty hands, to the dirty hands of other world powers...gosh, don't even do it. Just be content to knit pick at America's variable, marginal inconsistencies in its claims to always support Democracy and what's right.
How can pure recruitment numbers be going up when we were easily meeting our goals when they were higher (pre-invasion) and we are falling short or barely making them now that we have lowered the goals (post-invasion)?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
How can pure recruitment numbers be going up when we were easily meeting our goals when they were higher (pre-invasion) and we are falling short or barely making them now that we have lowered the goals (post-invasion)?
Here is the party line: http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/
And recruiting is going up because the incentives for signing up have gone through the roof.
Merkinball
Deity
Recruitment needs went up quite a bit after 9-11, and continued to go up after the war started. Again, just because you don't meet higher goals, doesn't mean you are recruiting MORE people. Retention rates are also much higher than pre-9-11, and prior service recruitment has also gone up substantially. (IE: people that got out, are coming back in)
Anyhow, the Army and all other branches of service met their recruiting goals last year. Which was 80,000 for the Army, and it appears all branches will fill spots again this year as well.
Anyhow, the Army and all other branches of service met their recruiting goals last year. Which was 80,000 for the Army, and it appears all branches will fill spots again this year as well.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
To try and fail does not mean it was not worthwhile to try.Emperor2 said:
I support Iraq War #2 (always did, still do) but the above argument is irrelevant to it.
Someday I'm going to die. Does that mean mine is a wasted life?? Hell, no. Well, some in here would say yes, but I never listen to them.
Edit: Quick side note. The poll results so far suggest that among us CFC'ers, support for/opposition to Iraq War #2 has changed hardly at all since it started. Way back in 2003 the numbers were about 2:1 opposed.
WW1 doesn't count because it had nothing to do with democracy. But it wasn't entirely an unjust war. So let's leave it out.
Speaking of Pol Pot, the US was quite opposed to the removal of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese. You can wiki that, or just read Hegemony or Survival by N.C.
I got news for you. South Korea had Presidents in name only. The first one, Syngam Rhee, was a corrupt autocrat. Then came political turmoil, a military coup, and Pak-Chung Hee. It took till the late 1980s for South Korea to get a real democracy. Again: wiki it, or Hegemony, or anything.
Haiti: Know who Emmanuel Constant is? He rivals bin Laden for kill count. Anyways he lives in the US, who refuses to allow Haiti to extradite him to stand trial. And why did the US deny refugee status to people fleeing the Cedras regime?
Chile: Allende was only allowed to be President for 6 years, and he was killed halfway through. His reforms were popular, however. Pinochet made sure to alter the constitution so that he could take 10 more years. If you give any economic regime 16 years, it will improve. And where does the wealth go? Allende was working hard at lowering the poverty rate. He must have been doing something right, or the Chileans wouldn't have continued to support him.
Kuwait has always been a semi-feudal monarchy.
Diem was supercorrupt. The US even admitted he was crappy. Haven't you read the Pentagon Papers?
Yeah, Saddam was instrumental in bringing many Iraqis into the Middle classes. But that was before 1982, when Reagan removed Saddam from the state terrorist list so he could support him. And now, since the US invasion, the Middle classes are leaving in droves. At least Time and others tell us this much.
In Afghanistan:
If you mean todays war, you are mistaken. In October 2001, a collection of Afghan leaders from all areas asked the US to stop the bombings and to let the leaders deal with the Taliban (H or S). Polls indicated that most of the world opposed military action, and wanted the US to extradite the criminals (H or S, I think the polls were Gallup or something). Abdul Haq, a respected-by-US Afghan opposition leader, asked the US to leave before he was killed. And the bombings are killing countless innocents.
I haven't heard about Kosovo. I will educate myself later.
Speaking of Pol Pot, the US was quite opposed to the removal of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese. You can wiki that, or just read Hegemony or Survival by N.C.
I got news for you. South Korea had Presidents in name only. The first one, Syngam Rhee, was a corrupt autocrat. Then came political turmoil, a military coup, and Pak-Chung Hee. It took till the late 1980s for South Korea to get a real democracy. Again: wiki it, or Hegemony, or anything.
Haiti: Know who Emmanuel Constant is? He rivals bin Laden for kill count. Anyways he lives in the US, who refuses to allow Haiti to extradite him to stand trial. And why did the US deny refugee status to people fleeing the Cedras regime?
Chile: Allende was only allowed to be President for 6 years, and he was killed halfway through. His reforms were popular, however. Pinochet made sure to alter the constitution so that he could take 10 more years. If you give any economic regime 16 years, it will improve. And where does the wealth go? Allende was working hard at lowering the poverty rate. He must have been doing something right, or the Chileans wouldn't have continued to support him.
Kuwait has always been a semi-feudal monarchy.
Diem was supercorrupt. The US even admitted he was crappy. Haven't you read the Pentagon Papers?
Yeah, Saddam was instrumental in bringing many Iraqis into the Middle classes. But that was before 1982, when Reagan removed Saddam from the state terrorist list so he could support him. And now, since the US invasion, the Middle classes are leaving in droves. At least Time and others tell us this much.
In Afghanistan:
If you mean todays war, you are mistaken. In October 2001, a collection of Afghan leaders from all areas asked the US to stop the bombings and to let the leaders deal with the Taliban (H or S). Polls indicated that most of the world opposed military action, and wanted the US to extradite the criminals (H or S, I think the polls were Gallup or something). Abdul Haq, a respected-by-US Afghan opposition leader, asked the US to leave before he was killed. And the bombings are killing countless innocents.
I haven't heard about Kosovo. I will educate myself later.
Merkinball
Deity
You're really getting into semantics here aren't you?
The fact that South Korea had political upheval doesn't mean we weren't there on the basis of Democracy. Nor does it evaporate the fight for the peoples sovereignty, or the fact that it undoubtedly prevented a genocide.
I don't know why the US denied refugee status to Haitians. I'm under the impression that the US CANNOT just open its doors to anybody claiming refugee status. That also has nothing to do with the premise that we were there with generally noble ideals.
Chile, I spoke in another thread about how ignorance and poverty was a powerful weapon for the left in conjuring up a populist movement. This is what Allende did. I have no doubt that Chile would be much closer to looking like Bolivia, than looking like modern day Chile if they had continued onward with leftist model. You say, give any model 16 years, and it will surely improve. Well...the model of Allende was in place in Argentina and Brazil. Those countries went into decline. Again, Pinochet's model wasn't just...something that kind of improved the situation a little bit... Pinochet's economic model took Chile from arguably the POOREST. To the RICHEST. Pinochet's model did more for reducing poverty rates than anything that stood the test of time in Brazil and Argentina.
Kuwait has always been semi-feudal. But it still has a Democratic basis to it, and it still upholds basic human rights, and most basic civil rights. Something that would have dissappeared if Saddam took over the country.
Middle classes are leaving all kinds of third world Arab countries...not just Iraq. It's called brain drain.
What does world popular opinion have to do with the fact that one reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban and implement a form of Democratic government there?
There are going to be flaws in any war that any party gets into. Governments are not infallible. I think you have valid points with Guatemala, and other parts of history. But by and large, I think you're devling too much into the semantics of the situations and ignoring the broader, more important, fundamental good of these interventions.
The fact that South Korea had political upheval doesn't mean we weren't there on the basis of Democracy. Nor does it evaporate the fight for the peoples sovereignty, or the fact that it undoubtedly prevented a genocide.
I don't know why the US denied refugee status to Haitians. I'm under the impression that the US CANNOT just open its doors to anybody claiming refugee status. That also has nothing to do with the premise that we were there with generally noble ideals.
Chile, I spoke in another thread about how ignorance and poverty was a powerful weapon for the left in conjuring up a populist movement. This is what Allende did. I have no doubt that Chile would be much closer to looking like Bolivia, than looking like modern day Chile if they had continued onward with leftist model. You say, give any model 16 years, and it will surely improve. Well...the model of Allende was in place in Argentina and Brazil. Those countries went into decline. Again, Pinochet's model wasn't just...something that kind of improved the situation a little bit... Pinochet's economic model took Chile from arguably the POOREST. To the RICHEST. Pinochet's model did more for reducing poverty rates than anything that stood the test of time in Brazil and Argentina.
Kuwait has always been semi-feudal. But it still has a Democratic basis to it, and it still upholds basic human rights, and most basic civil rights. Something that would have dissappeared if Saddam took over the country.
Middle classes are leaving all kinds of third world Arab countries...not just Iraq. It's called brain drain.
What does world popular opinion have to do with the fact that one reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban and implement a form of Democratic government there?
There are going to be flaws in any war that any party gets into. Governments are not infallible. I think you have valid points with Guatemala, and other parts of history. But by and large, I think you're devling too much into the semantics of the situations and ignoring the broader, more important, fundamental good of these interventions.
I think that the world, and many Afghans, didn't want us to kill the Afghan innocents. Human rights groups anticipated a disaster as well. The fact is, the Afghans wanted other means to be used to get bin Laden.
And let's remember former CIA senior analyst Michael Schuer.. He said "bin Laden has been telling us the exact reasons for his waging war on us...nothing to do with freedom, liberalism, or democracy...everything to do with US policies in Middle
East..." The US is succeeding in radicalizing the Middle East, which bin Laden has been trying to do without much success. This is the net effect of what is going on. So where is the fundamental good in this, except that Big Oil makes a killing?
Isn't Bolivia marked by extreme economic inequality, just like Colombia? Isn't less of this inequality a goal of socalists such as Allende?
Didn't you just say that we should give Saddam some credit? So why should we give Saddam any credit if he abuses human rights?
South Korea: In the Korean War, it was Northern dictator against Southern dictator. What does that have to do with democracy?
And East Timor: In 1999, Indonesia was committing atrocities there, around 200,000. More deaths were threatened if the population voted yes on the independence referendum, which they did. But Clinton had supported Indonesia since 1975, and stated that East Timor was the Indonesian's responsibility. It took strong international pressure for Clinton to say that he wouldn't support Indonesia. Then, a UN peacekeeping force went in there. Source: Joseph Nevins, Counterpunch, 16 May 2002.
More on Allende: Perhaps the economic problems had to deal with shock therapy. Its not an unreasonable hypothesis. The same thing happened in Eastern Europe. But i'll concede that Pinochet did an pretty good job with the economy, if he was brutal about it.
"Noble Ideals" sounds a lot like the white-man's-burden madness of last century (and into this one, too). Even Leopold 2 was in the Congo and killed about 10 million people there, and stated that he had "noble ideals".
And let's remember former CIA senior analyst Michael Schuer.. He said "bin Laden has been telling us the exact reasons for his waging war on us...nothing to do with freedom, liberalism, or democracy...everything to do with US policies in Middle
East..." The US is succeeding in radicalizing the Middle East, which bin Laden has been trying to do without much success. This is the net effect of what is going on. So where is the fundamental good in this, except that Big Oil makes a killing?
Isn't Bolivia marked by extreme economic inequality, just like Colombia? Isn't less of this inequality a goal of socalists such as Allende?
Didn't you just say that we should give Saddam some credit? So why should we give Saddam any credit if he abuses human rights?
South Korea: In the Korean War, it was Northern dictator against Southern dictator. What does that have to do with democracy?
And East Timor: In 1999, Indonesia was committing atrocities there, around 200,000. More deaths were threatened if the population voted yes on the independence referendum, which they did. But Clinton had supported Indonesia since 1975, and stated that East Timor was the Indonesian's responsibility. It took strong international pressure for Clinton to say that he wouldn't support Indonesia. Then, a UN peacekeeping force went in there. Source: Joseph Nevins, Counterpunch, 16 May 2002.
More on Allende: Perhaps the economic problems had to deal with shock therapy. Its not an unreasonable hypothesis. The same thing happened in Eastern Europe. But i'll concede that Pinochet did an pretty good job with the economy, if he was brutal about it.
"Noble Ideals" sounds a lot like the white-man's-burden madness of last century (and into this one, too). Even Leopold 2 was in the Congo and killed about 10 million people there, and stated that he had "noble ideals".
Let me just interject here and say you both have good points. I never supported the war, and I wished we had gone in with sufficient numbers and a plan to stabilize afterwards. Now that four years have passed, I wish we could somehow stabilize the country now, but I see that as an almost impossibility.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Do you desire stability for its own sake?
Or do you desire stability as a means towards something else? Saving lives, perhaps? (that's a popular one)
Or for some other reason entirely?
Vegita, what is your final, ultimate goal? What's the thing you want most here?
Or do you desire stability as a means towards something else? Saving lives, perhaps? (that's a popular one)
Or for some other reason entirely?
Vegita, what is your final, ultimate goal? What's the thing you want most here?
Merkinball
Deity
To kill the Afghan innocents? Whaaa? I don't think you really understand the concept here. There may have been alternatives to get OBL. I think the world in general would agree that an alternative would have been better. Unfortunately, there was a soveriegn government in place that wouldn't allow it, and supported and aided OBL. You can't go into a country and take out a para-military group like Al Queda, when it is supported by a sovereign government and another military. Our declaration of war against the Afghani government was part in parcel to going after OBL.
What does this have to do with anything. The Middle East has had an extremist element in many forms. You don't need the US for that. There are problably more terrorist groups associated with Kashmir than any other place. Even if the US dropped its support after the last war for Israel, they'd have elements of extremism there. Even a place like Algeria, the birth place of assymetrica Arab warfare, you didn't need the US. You have terrorist groups in Kurdistan that operate independent of US involvement. Terrorist groups in Kosovo and Chechnya that exist without our involvement.
Arab's don't need the US to be extremist, and Bin Laden's stated reasonings for terrorism against the US are downright ********, rooted in hate, intolerance, and ignorance. He walks all over the soveriegnty and political choices of the House of Saude. It's ridiculous. We protect Kuwait, help him fight for Afghanistan's independence, and then he turns around and declares jihad on us because we have some troops in Saudi Arabia?
I got news for you. If America was isolationist as hell, they would STILL be doing this crap. Do you seriously think that if we were to suddenly withdraw our troops from Arabia, and withdraw our oil interests in OPEC, that the fighting would stop? Hell no. They'll always find excuses. It's the only way for the leaders to build legacies, and to build wealth. OBL was after a legacy, he had the finances to build it, and the backers to plan it. All he needed was a convenient excuse. "Oh, hey, how about those troops in Saudi Arabia?"
I don't know about extreme economic inequality. Bolovia is just generally very poor, and will probably always be poor simply due to geographic location. Bolivia, like Venezuela, like Allende, and the socialists of Argentina and Brazil before them, have used the poor, uneducated masses, to well up a populist feel in an effort to "fight power." Just like...ohhhh, the Sandanista's you felt like defending above. Often times the most EXTREMELY poor, if they are lucky, are brought from the dollar a day level, to the two dollar a day level of poverty. The upper class and economic structre are destroyed, and the middle class is pushed down into a lower middle class. Unemployment goes up, particularly in key area's.
Keep your eye on Venezuela and Bolovia. You'll see all kinds of stories about how the extremely poor are now just poor. But if you look closely, you'll see their economies spiraling into deep recession with high inflation, and at the worst, Zimbabwe like disasters.
I don't recall saying this. All I said that I feel our initial support of Saddam was justified and within reason.
Everything. The northern dictator would have killed everyone. The southern dictator was a little more...oh, I dunno, less inclined to purge dissenters under the thumb of us and the UN.
Your East Timor thing doesn't make much sense...I think there are typos in there.
How brutal though? On the scale of modern brutality, just how far down the list does Pinochet rank? I mean, seriously. His fallout was 10,000 deaths, 50,000 imprisonments and deportations. And in the name of turning one of the worlds poorest countries, to at least something that can stand on its own. The fundamentals of Chile's economy are easily the best of any country in SA, and one of the best in the world. And that is without the vast richness of bountiful resources and farmland in Argentina and Brazil. And also...without a lot of the western aid and assistance.
I'll get to your last comments tomorrow, which in my opinion, condradict one another.
What does this have to do with anything. The Middle East has had an extremist element in many forms. You don't need the US for that. There are problably more terrorist groups associated with Kashmir than any other place. Even if the US dropped its support after the last war for Israel, they'd have elements of extremism there. Even a place like Algeria, the birth place of assymetrica Arab warfare, you didn't need the US. You have terrorist groups in Kurdistan that operate independent of US involvement. Terrorist groups in Kosovo and Chechnya that exist without our involvement.
Arab's don't need the US to be extremist, and Bin Laden's stated reasonings for terrorism against the US are downright ********, rooted in hate, intolerance, and ignorance. He walks all over the soveriegnty and political choices of the House of Saude. It's ridiculous. We protect Kuwait, help him fight for Afghanistan's independence, and then he turns around and declares jihad on us because we have some troops in Saudi Arabia?
I got news for you. If America was isolationist as hell, they would STILL be doing this crap. Do you seriously think that if we were to suddenly withdraw our troops from Arabia, and withdraw our oil interests in OPEC, that the fighting would stop? Hell no. They'll always find excuses. It's the only way for the leaders to build legacies, and to build wealth. OBL was after a legacy, he had the finances to build it, and the backers to plan it. All he needed was a convenient excuse. "Oh, hey, how about those troops in Saudi Arabia?"
I don't know about extreme economic inequality. Bolovia is just generally very poor, and will probably always be poor simply due to geographic location. Bolivia, like Venezuela, like Allende, and the socialists of Argentina and Brazil before them, have used the poor, uneducated masses, to well up a populist feel in an effort to "fight power." Just like...ohhhh, the Sandanista's you felt like defending above. Often times the most EXTREMELY poor, if they are lucky, are brought from the dollar a day level, to the two dollar a day level of poverty. The upper class and economic structre are destroyed, and the middle class is pushed down into a lower middle class. Unemployment goes up, particularly in key area's.
Keep your eye on Venezuela and Bolovia. You'll see all kinds of stories about how the extremely poor are now just poor. But if you look closely, you'll see their economies spiraling into deep recession with high inflation, and at the worst, Zimbabwe like disasters.
I don't recall saying this. All I said that I feel our initial support of Saddam was justified and within reason.
Everything. The northern dictator would have killed everyone. The southern dictator was a little more...oh, I dunno, less inclined to purge dissenters under the thumb of us and the UN.
Your East Timor thing doesn't make much sense...I think there are typos in there.
How brutal though? On the scale of modern brutality, just how far down the list does Pinochet rank? I mean, seriously. His fallout was 10,000 deaths, 50,000 imprisonments and deportations. And in the name of turning one of the worlds poorest countries, to at least something that can stand on its own. The fundamentals of Chile's economy are easily the best of any country in SA, and one of the best in the world. And that is without the vast richness of bountiful resources and farmland in Argentina and Brazil. And also...without a lot of the western aid and assistance.
I'll get to your last comments tomorrow, which in my opinion, condradict one another.
I want to kill/capture bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda.
No i dont support it, but im not really in favor of withdrawal either.
That being said, i do not see any chance for things in Iraq to get better soon, i honestly dont really belive it can be fixed unless you split the country.
In all honestly, i have no clue what to do in Iraq, im just glad its not my mess.
That being said, i do not see any chance for things in Iraq to get better soon, i honestly dont really belive it can be fixed unless you split the country.
In all honestly, i have no clue what to do in Iraq, im just glad its not my mess.
Gogf
Indescribable
What does this mean?
What does it say? It's not a complicated statement, if you're looking for some loophole around it, you're not getting one.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Does it mean you support the troops and hope they win in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete their mission are are victorious?
Or do you support them, but hope they fail misrably, get their butts kick and come home crying?
As in all things...there is 'support' and then there is 'support'. And personally, if someone says they support the troops, but dont want us to succeed, I think they are being extremely disengenuous.
The Sandinistas were better than the Somozas. They may not have been great, but give them some credit. They were a promising force to help the economy, before the US came and devastated the land and the people and the economy.
Fixed the typos. The point is, the US happily supported Suharto, and dind't actually care about East Timor, and the real intervention was an international effort. I have already given you my source.
The Korean situation wasn't that simplistic. Stop demagoging. Only Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin: the truth is never black and white. The point is, at the time, the South Korean regime was just as repressive as the North Korean one. Both Koreas were democracies in name only. We all know Syngman Rhee was a corrupt autocrat. Everyone hates North Korea, but that doesn't automatically put the Southrons in the right.
Fixed the typos. The point is, the US happily supported Suharto, and dind't actually care about East Timor, and the real intervention was an international effort. I have already given you my source.
The Korean situation wasn't that simplistic. Stop demagoging. Only Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin: the truth is never black and white. The point is, at the time, the South Korean regime was just as repressive as the North Korean one. Both Koreas were democracies in name only. We all know Syngman Rhee was a corrupt autocrat. Everyone hates North Korea, but that doesn't automatically put the Southrons in the right.
Gogf
Indescribable
I'm not looking for a loophole, I'm looking for a definition. What does it mean to support the troops?
Similar threads
- Locked
