I afford the Economist quite a bit of credibility on most matters of economics and world affairs. If its analysis endorsed the Bush war, I would certainly take that as encoraging news for those of use who believe that democracy in Arabia will lead to prosperity and peace there, and that a US invasion of Iraq could facilitate just that. However, this analysis reaches the opposite conclusion.
My buddy in Iraq visits me this weekend in Detroit, a stop over on his way back to our hometown of Austin, Tx (specifically, the negro badlands known there as "the Eastside"). He supports Bush's goals, but concludes that too many people in Iraq are violently retarded, and that the downfall of Hussein merely opened the door for various other brutal, mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers. He sees only one possible mechanism of victory there: total war, which Nadir and the lefties claim Bush is already waging. In my friend's analysis, US troops are causing enough destruction to upset people and disturb various tyranical beehives, but not enough to wear-down the tyrants. He suggests that the US leave and let these people kill each other until they get tired of it.
He says the US made two enormous blunders: (1) Abu Graib. (2) A time or two they had neighborhoods full of tyrant madmen surrounded by war-lusting marines. In each case the marines could have eliminated those KKK-like bastards, and each time political considerations saved the bastards.
I supported Bush's war, though never 100%. My support is at pretty low point now...
2006-09-29
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The Bush cabal never committed the troops to wage total war. This stupid imperialist adventure was never a good idea, and I don't understand how you ever supported it.
I was against it from the very beginning for all the reasons that have come to light over the last three years. Most of the world saw these same things happening, but you blind flag-waving nuts supported this criminal regime and this tripe. How were so many people fooled when so many others saw right through it?
Wake the phuck up!!
Now how are we going to fix this problem?
Nadir: There was nothing to "see through"; the effort wasn't "imperialist." And even if it was, that has nothing to do with why it's failing. Those who before the war claimed, essentially, that Iraqis in general at this time overall lack the capacity to establish and maintain a civilization are the ones whom developments seem to validate.
People like you had 1,000 other reasons to claim that this effort would fail, including Hussein having WMDs that he would employ against invading troops from the civilized world. You guys also claimed that "freedom fighters" would resist US troops, though no such fighters have materialized, only various viscious tyrants.
Some pre-war critics may have predicted that as a massive government effort, the war would produce shocking inefficiencies and stupid mistakes, including Abu Graib. That takes us to another pre-war warning: against anything but zero toruture. These people are also being proven correct (with you belonging with me to the anti-torture crowd).
The facts do not confirm your claims of "imperialism".
My two friends last night who lived in Iraq (one still does) believe that Bush, the US military, and even Halliburton are attempting to do something wonderful for Iraq, and that if their violent opponents there would just step back and give them a chance, the country would be wonderul. But they believe that there are too many super violent, completely retarded people there devoted to establishing a tyrantical rule. These buddies of mine say that the religious aspect is overstated for the Iraqis acting this way; they are a bunch of gangsters. Meanwhile, lots of religious devil "foriegners" from Saudi Arabia and Syria fight simply to oppose the US, and a bunch of Iranians and their local supporters are trying to win the old Iran-Iraq war from the 1980s.
These friends of mine say that some Halliburton employees do commit curruption, but nothing compared to rampant, massive curruption by the Iraqis themselves. They say that their list of "bad guys" in Iraq does not include any Americans (military or civillian). They say that the only reason most Iraqis want the US to leave is that they hope that this will cause the actual bad guys -- Iraqi gangsters, foriegn jahadi KKKers -- to settle who will establish a dominant tyrany, and consequently stop all the terrorism.
"People like you had 1,000 other reasons to claim that this effort would fail, including Hussein having WMDs that he would employ against invading troops from the civilized world."
I NEVER believed that Hussein had WMDs or that he would use them against invading troops.
"Those who before the war claimed, essentially, that Iraqis in general at this time overall lack the capacity to establish and maintain a civilization are the ones whom developments seem to validate."
There is nothing "civil" about the illegal war of aggression that is being waged on the Iraqi people, and there is nothing "civil" about your advocacy of this imperialist barbarism.
"These friends of mine say that some Halliburton employees do commit curruption, but nothing compared to rampant, massive curruption by the Iraqis themselves."
Your friends also admitted that the US was there for the oil. They admitted that Paul Bremer created a new Iraqi dinar so that Americans could invest in it and become rich. This is neo-imperialism.
They admitted that the US government is paying cash for reconstruction contracts with little or no oversight. This is merely a waste of taxpayer money.
The conversation with your friends last night did nothing to change my belief that Iraqis are simply people who would rather have been left alone to deal with their own dictator (who was recruited by the CIA during the Iraqi revolution, kept in power by the US government, and was the purchaser of US-made chemical weapons which he used against Iran and the Kurds.)
The conversation confirmed for me that the US is there to pillage and plunder the Iraqi treasury and its oil reserves, and that US companies are there to enrich themselves at the expense of the people of Iraq and the people of the US who are financing this adventure.
Vassar and Emmitt are doing their "jobs", but they are participating in the looting of the US treasury. They are taking advantage of the greed of their corporate bosses by trying to enrich themselves.
Vassar works in the department that is directly responsible for the mismanagement of millions of taxpayer funds. Emmitt doesn't agree with Bush's actions, but is taking the opportunity to get rich at the expense of the Iraqi people.
They are nice enough brothers and all, but they are capitalists to the core, meaning they will take every opportunity to capitalize on another people's weaknesses.
=========Nadir======
Your friends also admitted that the US was there for the oil. They admitted that Paul Bremer created a new Iraqi dinar so that Americans could invest in it and become rich. This is neo-imperialism.
====================
Nadir: You are either misrepresenting what they said, or you somehow managed to misunderstand them. They did not "admit that Bush is there for the oil"; rather they merely agreed that if the madman Hussien did not possess a stockpile of oil, his madness would not have provided a concern, as he would lack resources to fund anti-US terrorism, and his oil would not be available to pay for the invasion which would enrich everyone and lead to lasting stability and prosperity for all of Iraq.
They both adamantly insisted that Bush did not go there to steal any oil. They both agree with me that the US benefits financially not from "stealing" oil, but by having Iraq tranform from a massive petro exporter run by a govt that sponsors terror and that lords over an impovershed, impotent people to one charactorized by prosperous people who manage their own affairs.
They agreed with you that while the Bush invasion force acted immediately to secure the oil, they both argued forcefully against your interpretation of that fact as evidence that Bush is "stealing" oil. As they tried to point out to you, that oil represents the Iraqi people's most immediate resource, and as such a primary target of the various groups who want to detroy any attempts to impliment a democracy there. Given the invasion, would you have *not* acted to secure that resource first?
And would you have been smart enough to have predicted that Iraqis would respond to invasion by looting their own meusams... which US forces were careful not to destroy?
Nadir: You keep charactorizing the Iraqis situation as a "US war against the Iraqi people." But last night you heard two first-hand accounts fingering who the only people there who are fighting the "Iraqi people": foriegn jahadis and native gangsters of various factions. The US troops are not preying on the Iraqi people, not according to the guys last night. That's why they say that if the US troops leave, the blood shed will *increase*, because the exiting US troops far from shedding Iraqi blood are actually protecting innocent Iraqis from the savages amoungst them (none of whom are Americans, except in some rare exceptional cases).
=========Nadir=====
The conversation confirmed for me that the US is there to pillage and plunder the Iraqi treasury and its oil reserves, and that US companies are there to enrich themselves at the expense of the people of Iraq and the people of the US who are financing this adventure.
=================
How did their insistance to the contrary "confirm" the very conclusion that they argued against?
=============Nadir========
Emmitt doesn't agree with Bush's actions, but is taking the opportunity to get rich at the expense of the Iraqi people.
==========================
Which actions does Emmitt oppose? He supported Bush's invasion, and supports Bush's attempt to erect a democracy there. He and Vassar both opposed your contention that Bush should have waited any longer for the UN to finally after 12 years obtain WMD compliance from Hussain. They both denounced the UN as a worthless, impotent sham. They both said that if Bush has his way, Iraq will be a wonderful place to live.
And, Nadir, Emmitt doesn't believe that he's going to get rich "at the expense of the Iraqi people." He has invested in the new Dinar, and believes that its stock will rise only as will the fortunes of the Iraqi people. The dinar will not rise as a result of Iraqis wallowing in poverty, living in ruins without sanitation or power, as their petroleum gets stolen by US corporations. You might think that such a scenario would improve the dinar, but like Emmitt, I challange you to find any nation like that which has a strong currency. Many nations have impoverished people subsisting while their national resources make it to the international market where other people profit; Venezuala is one such place. How's the currency there? Emmitt and I believe that the only way for the dinar to increase in value is for the fortunes of the Iraqi people to improve, and the absolute strongest possible dinar could only result from a free market democracy that succeeds in building a thriving middle class. Emmitt perceives himself as betting on overall massive improvement in the fortunes of the Iraqi people; and I believe that his perception is correct.
======Nadir===========
I NEVER believed that Hussein had WMDs or that he would use them against invading troops.
======================
I wasn't sure that you had, though I was sure that many peaceniks made this prection, which I why I wrote, "people like Nadir."
If Bush found WMDs, or if we find evidence that Hussein jettisoned them to Syria between Bush's invasion announcement and the invasion, would that change your mind and make you a war supporter?
Post a Comment