Originally posted by Steve
Iraq had been devastated for two decades before this war. Saddam Hussein's regime was a terror state, as the torture chambers and disgusting prisons indicate. And the looting is rather minor, don't you think, compared to the 20 years of theft by Saddam?
The economic sanctions were upheld by, among other criminals, the Clintonite peaceniks who wanted to avoid a real fight at all costs (they'd rather bomb a defenseless peripheral nation like Sudan, instead of remove a tyrant.)
So George W. Bush's answer to the problem is to bomb Iraq some more--kill more innocent civilians--more women and children--level the city of Baghdad to the ground in a supposed attempt at liberating it? I'm not convinced that this was the appropriate course of action to take. I think that the Bush administration could have achieved its objectives through diplomatic channels, such as through the measure of "
coercive inspections".
Originally posted by Steve
By that rationale the NRA benefits every time a person is shot in this country.
True. However, in the case of the Iraq war, the NRA-sponsored Bush administration was directly responsible for violence on a massive scale, apparently giving an authoritative endorsement to the culture of violence and, in particular, of
VIOLENT XENOPHOBIA.
Originally posted by Steve
Let the barons come, if only to cut the Saudi monopoly on oil. You're attacking this war from a left-wing peacenik position, but you don't realize how the oil is going to benefit the people. Do you care how much money a rich man makes when a poor man is getting his due? If so, that's a private issue you need to work out on your own, because it's not a reason to be against the oil companies.
I'm not an anti-capitalistic peacenik. By all means, let the rich make all the money they want. However, I
AM against
EXPLOITATION, and from where I stand, the Iraq war has been a
MAJOR case of exploitation, as I have described above. It's just like the slave trade, another case of exploitation for profit. I'm not opposed to businessmen making money through legitimate means. However, I am opposed to unscrupulous capitalists exploiting the poor and downtrodden for personal profit.
Originally posted by Steve
I only wish to defend a few things about Bush, and this anti-Arab thing is one of them. He has been remarkably well-spoken concerning this matter and has not capitalized on any of it. He warned against it multiple times.
Bush is taking advantage of the situation to further his right-wing political agenda and profiting from it both financially and politically by exploiting what is a
HUMAN TRAGEDY on an enormous scale. Because a
SMALL MINORITY of fanatical religious zealots or extremists chose to commit a horrendous atrocity against civilized humanity does not give George W. Bush the right to arbitrarily declare war against anyone he happens to dislike on some trumped-up charges with no basis in reality. And this is
EXACTLY what Bush has done in Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Originally posted by Steve
You could say the same things about the Bosnia-Herzegovina war in the 1990s. Or any other war. I don't see the point of posting this.
Well, it applies in this war too.
Originally posted by Steve
If you're talking about the governments of France (who have been against lifting the sanctions since the cease fire - a position almost criminal in its stupidity), Russia (led by Vladimir Putin, butcher of the Chechen Muslims), or Germany (so peripheral now it may as well not exist), then good riddance. If these governments wish to placate terrorists and refuse to evolve internationally, then they are more than welcome to hate the United States for picking up their slack.
Firstly, I hardly think these governments are placating terrorists. Secondly, no, I'm not referring to these governments exclusively. What I'm referring to is the fact that pretty much EVERYONE outside the US was opposed to the Iraq war. There were demonstrations protesting the war everywhere, all over the world--in Italy, Greece, Canada--everywhere. I'm referring to the fact that the world at large now perceives the
US--not Iraq, not North Korea, not Germany, not France, not Russia, not Syria, not Uzbekistan--as the No. 1 threat to world peace, being the only military super-power in existence today and governed by an extremely militant and aggressive administration that, in my mind at least, borders on being a military dictatorship.
Originally posted by Steve
This is all speculative and is inaccurate when judged with recent history. People said the same thing when protesting the invasion of Afghanistan, and look what happened there: the al Qaeda network suffered the loss of a protective state, which conducted its own reign of terror against the Afghani people, the safehouse in Kandahar was blown to smithereens, Osama was nowhere to be found, and many al Qaeda members were killed in the fight.
I hardly think it is speculative to claim that Osama bin Laden is no longer a fringe figure in the Islamic world. Also, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, because it meant the dismantling of a terrorist state that directly sponsored Al Quaeda (one of the major victims of its terrorist attacks being, incidentally, the Kashmir province of India). The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and was a blatant case of right-wing racism and exploitation of the poor (in my mind, at least). This only gives Osama bin Laden added legitimacy in his anti-American sentiments (which I do not share in the least), and can only serve to make more and more people take him seriously in the future. Even if Bin Laden is captured or killed in the near future, I don't see how the US can prevent him from becoming a martyr in the Islamic world. I, frankly, would view this with incredible distaste, because in my mind, Bin Laden is a fanatical psychopath--however, in the minds of many Muslims, my guess is that he will become increasingly popular in the future, possibly even being equated with genuinely heroic Islamic historical figures such as Saladin, who fought against the atrocities of Medieval crusaders. Bin Laden has, in his own speeches, equated himself with the likes of Saladin, by referring to the Bush administration as "crusaders". This is obviously an attempt on his part to appeal to the majority of the Islamic world. Again, this is a scary situation, because Bin Laden is obviously a psychopath. However, you can see for yourself that the Iraqi people bear considerable ill-will towards the American army. There have been any number of incidents of violent protests against the American occupational forces in Iraq--such as an incident when an Iraqi civilian shot an American soldier dead at point blank range. Obviously there are an increasing number of people in Iraq who are violently opposed to the US military action, and I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that many of these same people will end up being recruited by Al Quaeda.
Originally posted by Steve
What else is new? And the Iraqi poor now at least have a chance.
I won't comment on that. However, I will comment on the fact that it seems that the poor in Iraq have more of a chance than the poor in the US, given the current state of the economy.
Originally posted by Steve
I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:
1. How has the US exploited the Iraqi people economically?
2. Do you care if the American rich benefit if the Iraqi poor do as well?
3. How was public opinion exploited?
1. By bombing the crap out of the nation in a supposed attempt at liberating the nation from an evil tyrannical regime, while, all along, as I have pointed out above, the
REAL motivation for the Iraq war has been a profit motive on the part of arms manufacturers and oil barons all along. This is so painfully obvious that the only reason people are blind to this fact is the aftermath of 9/11. I call this exploitation. I don't know what you call it.
2. Like I said above, I am not against people benefiting from anything. I am happy if people benefit from anything. However, I
AM against
EXPLOITATION, as I said above--exploitation for personal gain. When a right-wing administration sponsored by munitions manufacturers, the NRA and oil barons, goes to war in the Middle-East, the way I see it, unscrupulous people are profiting from blood-money. I am opposed to this. The only real reason Bush wants to go to war is because war happens to be
PROFITABLE to the concerns sponsoring his administration. That's my basic point. That is disturbing to me. I just don't trust Bush and his motives.
3. This is so obvious that I feel as if I'm flogging a dead horse by repeating it. Could Bush really have gotten away with his invasion of Iraq if it weren't in the aftermath of 9/11? Need I say more?
Originally posted by Yoda
My spidey sense tells me you have no source for this.
Your dubious spider sense is seriously out of whack. Anyway, this is obvious. Bush's tax cuts inordinately benefit the upper tax bracket, resulting in the obvious conclusion that the middle-income tax bracket will end up bearing the majority of the burden of the cost of war.
Originally posted by Yoda
Ignoring the fact that your underlying implication is at fault, since when is Bush's tax plan in any way contingent on or directly related to the war?
Does it alter the inevitable consequences of the tax plan as spelled out above? In any case, I would even go so far as to speculate that the tax plan is a part of Bush's ongoing plan to carry out a never-ending Orwellian war against his so-called "Axis of Evil" (an almost ridiculous contrivance that seems to come out of bad pulp fiction) while neatly foisting the tax burden and, thereby, the cost of war, on the middle-income tax bracket. Let's see who Bush declares war on next!
Originally posted by Yoda
Seeing as how such contributions are a matter of public record, why don't you go ahead and demonstrate that the arms industry did, in fact, donate heavily to Dubya's campaign?
Well, only recently, Bush paid a visit to the Bay Area (I saw it on TV news)--and he made an inspiring speech at a
DEFENSE CONTRACTOR--an arms manufacturer which contributed heavily to his presidential campaign and which profited tremendously from the Iraq war. I saw the workers in the munitions factory cheer him heartily as he made a hackneyed, xenophobic speech and then proceeded to demonstrate his "military skills" by entering a simulation and blowing up a couple of simulated "enemy tanks". Of course, video games are great for kids--maybe he should demonstrate his prowess by enlisting and going to Iraq himself! Anyway, the fact that arms manufacturers and the NRA sponsor the Bush administration is common knowledge.
Originally posted by Yoda
Steve already pointed out how ridiculous this is.
And I have already refuted his claims above.
Originally posted by Yoda
You know, if you invested in the oil industry beforehand under the assumption that Bush would be sure to take care of his so-called buddies, you'd have lost a sh*tload of money.
I'm not so sure about that. Let's see what happens next. Incidentally, I would hardly call the oil industry Bush's "buddies"--more like "family", considering that Dubya himself has major concerns in the petroleum industry.
Originally posted by Yoda
Uh, that'd include the Democratic elite, too. Though elite members of both parties will STILL be paying through the nose...which is something apparently lost on you.
Well, the Democratic "elite" are hardly for tax exemptions for the rich and profit-induced war. If they benefit from Bush's tax measures intended to favor the priveleged few, then it is not thanks to their own measures. I have no doubt, however, that if Bush could, he would introduce tax legislation that favors Republicans and excludes Democrats!
Originally posted by Yoda
An unbalanced tax cut which is a response to an unbalanced tax policy. When the scales are tipped, it's impossible to restore balance if you apply the same ratio to both sides.
What's the matter, man? Weren't enough holes in your foot already?
I hardly consider tax legislation that inordinately favors the wealthy complemented with major cut-backs on benefits for the poor (including, I might add, benefits for
VETERANS, which is particularly cold-blooded) and an ongoing state of war in any way constitutes a balance. What the Republican adminstration is doing is this: they are engaging in a costly, ongoing foreign war which is profitable to the concerns sponsoring them--namely the arms and petroleum industries. At the same time, they are cutting back on benefits to the poor, needy and down-trodden. Meanwhile, their tax measures are giving relief to the wealthy, esp. the wealthy who are profitting from the war, while taxing the middle-class, who are suffering under adverse economic conditions (which the administration is doing nothing to alleviate). So the severely taxed middle-class ends up paying for a war that happens to be profitable for the wealthy, while their own children are the ones who end up dying on the battlefield, instead of for benefits for the poor. If you call this seriously screwed up scenario "restoring balance", I have lost all hope for you! What the administration SHOULD be doing, to alleviate the economy, is what FDR (I think) did during the Great Depression, namely, it should be instituting PUBLIC WORKS which would not only be beneficial to society at large, but would create jobs and so introduce cash into the economy. In this way, the taxes paid by American taxpayers would be put to some worthwhile usage, namely boosting the depressed economy and restoring confidence in the consumer. Instead, what Bush is doing is so blatantly criminal that, were it not the aftermath of 9/11, he could never have gotten away with something this cold-blooded. He is literally sucking the blood of the middle-class to pay for a war that only profits the wealthy. Before you check out the holes in my foot, I suggest you consider the holes in your head!