[3extra]

(08-28-2013 01:22 PM)SexyBack Wrote:  

Nothing really changes for the better or worse on the ground.

Troll.

Could someone actually believe that? How many die in Iraq on average everyday?

[scorpion]

(08-28-2013 01:22 PM)SexyBack Wrote:  

Let me ask you this, are you the designated authority on this forum tasked with determining what value my posts have? Can a third party please confirm this. Otherwise all I'm receiving from you is a whole load of needless insults and the static that you are convinced what the world seems like isn't what it really is. Now I don't have a problem with you seeing it that way, I don't see any pressing reason why you take such grave offence with me seeing things my way.

You know what I don't get about conspiracy theorists and those of you that see the truth. This shit comes around ever couple of years. Someone schmuck somewhere oversteps, US/UK tells em to stop. Russia and whoever always opposes intervention. It happens regardless. The press loves it. Armageddon and Vietnam are always foretold. After a few months everything calms down. We all forget. The schmuck who overstepped usually has gone away, either right away or during some kind of political process. Nothing really changes for the better or worse on the ground.

In a few years from now you nor I will remember this conversation. A couple of days of airraids won't change the course of history. It'll make for a 2 screen wikipedia entry.

If you think it will change nothing, then why bother in the first place?

Just to "punish" Assad for being such an evil dude?

Will that make you feel better after having been bamboozled by the government propaganda?



And of course it might just "blow over". That's not the point. The point is that there is no fucking point to this whole charade. It's completely unnecessary. There's no legitimacy. There's no reason for the West to be sticking its dick in the boiling cauldron that is the Middle East yet again. There's absolute no public support for attacking Syria outside of utter dimwits like yourself who swallow government propaganda whole.

Plus your entire position on this is a great ball of incoherence. A few posts ago you were comparing this to the noble crusade of WW2, now you're saying it's just a blip in history. Which is it?

And by the way, I hope this DOES just blow over. That would be the best case scenario. The reality is that once we start attacking Syria, things become entirely unpredictable, and the law of unintended consequences comes into full effect. You must have had your head buried in the sand over the entire past decade to not understand what happens when the United States starts fucking around in the Middle East and stirring things up.

[SexyBack]

Oh boy. Firstly, what is it with grown men using images and gifs to substitute words - I will never know. Charts and statistics I understand, but these hideous images? Sup with that?

- My position isn't a ball of incoherence, a lack of understanding on your part Scorpion (and I suspect a lack of effort to understand) has led you to that conclusion. But for the sake of clarity I'll gladly summarise once again:

I never assumed to be in a position to explain to you why the world is what it is, I'm just stating how I see it. I don't know if the following is sensible, moral or reasonable, it just is what it is. These strikes are happening. Obama has no choice at this stage. He outlined that omnious red line, it's been crossed, probably by a moronic battlefield commander. Now Obama has to do something. Obama never wanted to get involved, nor did the UK, God knows the public doesn't want to get involved. I don't want us to get involved either. All of it is a huge clusterfuck. You might as well liken this to a petulant child being warned over and over again to not do something. And what do you know, they fucking go and do it. So what are you to do, let it slide or smack their bottom. That's what this is. That's what Kosovo, Desert Shield, Lybia, Panama, Grenada and all those recent adventures were, a bottom spanking. And yes, people die. History of man is filled with violence and death. Perhaps cynically I wonder why 2013 would be any different.

Note, I'm not trying to make sense of it or defend any of it. What is clear to me is that no one wants this to turn into some kind of proxy war, nobody. There's nothing to be gained, for no one in the first or second world. Al Quaida, what's left of them, perhaps. God knows everyone is tired of these damn wars. So the upcoming 'intervention' will definitely "blow over".

I didn't mention the crusades, I did state that personally I don't want to live in a world where someone is gassing civilians and little children. Whoever pulled that stunt needs to fucking go already. So if someone takes initiative to put their sorry ass down, they have my blessing. Have at it.

Again, I didn't mention ww2 but I'm glad you do. To understand our (western) behaviour you have to appreciate it too is a result of history. Appeasement politics has kicked us in the teeth hard in the past. That's not coming back. No more trying to pacify and make things work with crazy dictators. That lesson is deeply ungrained into US and even more so into UK and french security politics. Of course the support of dictators during the cold war era seemingly contradicts this whole outlook, but those were considered a necessary evil.

Did I have my head in the sand in for the past decade? Well, you might say for a while I did, I was in the reserves until 2006 and did do a 5 1/2 half month stint with the 47th CSH and 102nd FST in 2004 in Iraq providing health care. Whether Iraq is a catastrophy or not, I know this, that the people I was there with on a whole came with honest, decent intentions and gave it their best shot to make things work for the better. Whether some politicians tried to take over the world or not, the combined well-intended effort from those westerners that went there in my mind outweigh potentially corrupt politicians intentions. I actually think it's still too early to make a final verdict on Iraq. Maybe in 30 years time history won't look at it with such utter disgust and dispair. Maybe it will be seen as a catalyst to the arab spring which resulted in democracy for an unspecified number of middle east nations or allowed for a renewed effort to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict. Maybe America and the UK will find a more positive way to deal with this particular chapter of their history as well as with the countless maimed and traumatised veterans. Yes, that is indeed a whole lot of optimism coming from cynical old me.

edit: I feel fine about myself as is. I don't have answers for your questions in regard to the sense of it all. Why go if it makes no difference? Our history compels us to. That's the only sensible answer I've got for you. Why not sit this one out? The fear of what might happen if we do nothing is greater than the fear of what might happen if we do something.

I'm often reminded of early 2001 when G.W. Bush came into office and announced the intention to withdraw troops from Kosovo, and gradually reduce US troops presence in Germany and overseas in general. I was in Europe, not sure if you heard the political analysts over in the US lamenting a new period of american isolation much like prior to the world wars.

[Farmageddon]

Any time I hear the term "chicken-hawk" being used, I know the person employing the term is being decimated in the argument. The notion you can't argue for or against a certain proposition if you have not served in the military is completely absurd.

I remember in the Iraq war thread I outlined very carefully the case for an international intervention in terms of international law, human rights abuses, repeated violations of cease-fire treaties along with many other supporting topics and stated that I had supported the removal of Saddam Hussein since the late 1990's and that the removal of his regime has been the policy of the United States government since 1998 with the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act" by both houses of Congress and that it was signed into law by President Clinton. gmanifesto and several other high-repped members - repeatedly - called me a "chicken-hawk", "coward", "pussy" amongst other derogatory terms, so I feel for you SexyBack.

If the only people who could argue for or against military intervention were veterans of the military our foreign policy would be the hostage of a military dictatorship. There is a reason why the Constitution places the supreme command of the military in CIVILIAN hands.

I have a lot more to say about Syria but not a lot of time to work out my thoughts.

Scorpion, you are one of my favorite posters on the forum and I always enjoy what you have to say but SexyBlack just destroyed you in this argument. I have yet to see him call you a name and you have repeatedly broken the forum rules by personally attacking him in every single one of your posts. For shame.

[Aliblahba]

(08-28-2013 04:21 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

If the only people who could argue for or against military intervention were veterans of the military our foreign policy would be the hostage of a military dictatorship. There is a reason why the Constitution places the supreme command of the military in CIVILIAN hands.

I personally don't believe anyone that hasn't served the government should be allowed to vote or hold office. My case in point: your post.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

I personally don't believe anyone that hasn't served the government should be allowed to vote or hold office. My case in point: your post.

I worked for the office of the majority leader from 2003-2005.

Good point.

[Yatagan]

(08-28-2013 04:21 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

gmanifesto and several other high-repped members - repeatedly - called me a "chicken-hawk", "coward", "pussy" amongst other derogatory terms,

If the shoe fits...

[scorpion]

If you are a grown ass man advocating for other men to kill people on your behalf while you sit in safety, then I call you a chickenhawk.

If you come to the forum and do nothing but spout government talking points that have been totally discredited, then I call you a worthless poster.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. We're just talking here at the end of the day, and men with strong opinions are bound to disagree from time to time. I don't take it personally.

I can't suffer anyone who talks shit about the posting of gifs, though. That's straight up heresy.

[Damedius]

If anybody is paying attention the US(west) is slowly conquering the middle east and Africa. It's neo-colonialism, using a divide and conquer strategy.

Iraq - scroll down to the map and regions.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Iraq

Lybia-smaller forces fighting with each other for control of regions inside Libya
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ju...n-militias

Obviously it will easier to control the region when it's been divided into weaker factions that are fighting with each other.

Syria is the current target. The US has been training mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey to overthrow the Syrian government.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-...cus-324033

After that Iran in probably next. Though the war against Iran has already begun. Embargoes are acts of war.

The US is training terrorists to fight in Iran.
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-terr...ada-2012-4

The use of the Stuxnet virus to attack Iran's Nuclear plants.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-5759...net-virus/

France invades Mali
http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-inv...on/5325454

There is also the ongoing drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

There is probably much more that I left out. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. However the West is looking for global hegemony. Divide and conquer seems to be a huge part of this strategy.

On side note, most of this information concentrates on the US. They are the biggest weapon being used right, so they get the most heat. Which means it easier to get information on the. However most western countries are involved in some capacity. I also left out economic warfare besides the embargo and sanctions on Iran. That could get it's own post in itself.

[CactusCat589]

Quote:

Any time I hear the term "chicken-hawk" being used, I know the person employing the term is being decimated in the argument.

The term is employed to accurately describe the ultimate hypocrite. That's it. Everyone who made the accusation, at least in the modern United States, has been vindicated. And that you contributed to the War on Iraq in even a small way - I'm actually not sure how to react. I've never personally interacted with anyone in that company. The idea that they are STILL among the American people alone is disturbing on an existential level. And that they don't even have the grace to slink away, and continue to propagandize even *more* wars with the same lie, is even more so.

Although the concept of the chickenhawk community trying to reclaim the term, like feminists reclaiming the epiphets Jezebel and slut, is amusing in an abstract kind of way.

[jaakkeli]

(08-28-2013 03:30 PM)SexyBack Wrote:  

I didn't mention the crusades, I did state that personally I don't want to live in a world where someone is gassing civilians and little children. Whoever pulled that stunt needs to fucking go already.

Except we still have no proof whatsoever that anyone was "gassed", much less proof of who gassed who. Simple question: tell me who the victims are (ethnicity? party? religion? etc) and why they were targeted? I bet that you can't.

Meanwhile, the Bahraini government has been gassing to death protestors but you don't care because the TV hasn't told you to care about it. In fact, nearly every state in the Middle East is torturing and killing dissidents or minorities but there's one magical difference between the regimes that get branded as evil and the ones that do not. Can you guess what that magical difference is?

There would be a ton less anti-Americanism in the world if the Americans would simply stop claiming that they're fighting for world peace, rainbows and the good of all and go for honest empire building instead.

Quote:

Again, I didn't mention ww2 but I'm glad you do. To understand our (western) behaviour you have to appreciate it too is a result of history. Appeasement politics has kicked us in the teeth

Ooh yes, let's repeat the interventionism of World War II. How did that turn out?

World War II killed more people than after any other conflict in world history, entire ethnic minorities in both German and Russian lands were branded enemies and nearly wiped out, half of Europe ended under tyranny, entire cities were bombed to rubble and Yugoslavia and China ended falling to the communists leading to those aftershock wars in Asia and the Balkans where the US spent two more generations intervening.

I don't know if the end result would have been much better had the US and the UK tried to stay out but it's hard to go any worse from the way it turned out. World War II was the worst disaster in human history and if the way it turned out is the biggest argument for liberal interventionism then we should bury liberal interventionism and never again let it come to power anywhere in the world.

Quote:

Maybe it will be seen as a catalyst to the arab spring which resulted in democracy for an unspecified number of middle east nations

"Unspecified number of nations"

[CactusCat589]

And even WWII was the consequence of yet another intervention called WWI.

Winston Churchill Wrote:

America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.

The chickenhawks have been wrong and been responsible for astronomic numbers of deaths for a hundred years. And they're still not satisfied.

[Sonsowey]

We are definitely not going to help anything by bombing Syria. Ridiculius. Will be pure war prifiteering.

[Farmageddon]

(08-28-2013 06:45 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

And that you contributed to the War on Iraq in even a small way - I'm actually not sure how to react. I've never personally interacted with anyone in that company. The idea that they are STILL among the American people alone is disturbing on an existential level. And that they don't even have the grace to slink away, and continue to propagandize even *more* wars with the same lie, is even more so.

To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

There is an assumption that it is only those of us who supported the democratic revolution in Iraq who have the explaining to do.

If you actually examine the record of the so-called "anti-war" movement and imagine what would have happened had their council been listened to over the last several decades, we would have a world in which the following would be the case:

1. Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait. He would have succeeded in the annexation, not merely the invasion, but the abolition of an Arab and Muslim country that was a member state of the Arab League and of the United Nations.

2. Slobodan Milosevich would have made Bosnia a part of greater Serbia. Kosovo would have been ethnically-cleansed and also annexed.

3. The Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda would still be their guests.

4. Saddam Hussein and his crime family would still be privately holding ownership over a terrorized people in a country that has been best described by Kanan Makiya as a "concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it".

4. Gaddafi would have been able to commit wholesale genocide against the city of Bengazi as he promised, in his own voice on the radio, to do here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyaPnMnpCAA#t=02m56s (at 2:56, I don't think the link will work on the forum).

These are all consequences of anti-war politics. What I have just stated is what would have happened.

Now, if I had this record - I would be EXTREMELY MODEST. I would not be demanding explanations from those of us who said it is about time we stop the continual capitulation to dictatorship, to racism, to aggression and to totalitarian ideology. That we will not allow to be repeated in Iraq, the failures in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, and elsewhere.

We take pride in having taken that position and we take pride in our Iraqi and Kurdish friends who conducted the struggle beforehand on our behalf.

..........

Don't get me wrong: If we had heeded your advice and stayed out of Iraq there would have never been democratic elections, no constitution stipulating a federalism that helps to minimize the differences between the various sects and ethnicities which in the past has only been solved by dictatorship, partition, or civil war. No, we would still be living with an Orwellian nightmare state in which a genocidal dictator exercised complete and utter control over the people, threatened their neighbors, and continuously flouted international laws, treaties, and norms.

Live with that if you can.

Quote:

Although the concept of the chickenhawk community trying to reclaim the term, like feminists reclaiming the epiphets Jezebel and slut, is amusing in an abstract kind of way.

I'm as much a chicken-hawk as you are a tacit-genocideer.

We don't necessarily want war, we just recognize it's inevitability. Confrontation with totalitarianism is always inevitable and it will be until it is eradicated.

[Sherman]

No Proof, But Kerry Insists Syria Allegations ‘Undeniable’

The US attacks on Syria could begin any day now, and the administration is hard at work selling the American public on the dubious narrative presented by the rebels as an excuse for war, with Secretary of State John Kerry leading the charge.

There’s no solid proof for the allegations of chemical weapon use by the Assad government, and the US is vigorously trying to keep the UN investigators from taking a serious look at the matter.

Rather, Kerry reiterated the story, noting that something happened in Syria and that Assad is known to have chemical weapons, and insisting that makes it “undeniable” that it was a chemical weapons attack, even though the experts say that the symptoms of chemical exposure shown in the rebels’ videos are not necessarily in keeping with the sorts of weapons Syria is known to have.

Still, this has never been so much about “proof” as about being officially convinced, and Kerry’s comments underscore that the US plans to attack very soon, with recent sources saying it could happen in the next two weeks.

Oddly, nobody seems to have told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel about the plan, as Hagel today reiterated days-old talking points that the US is still looking at intelligence and hadn’t drawn any conclusions, even though everyone else in the administration is long past that point, and has set about trying to ridicule anyone who rejects their conclusion.

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/26/no-pr...ble/print/

[3extra]

(08-28-2013 08:09 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

No Proof, But Kerry Insists Syria Allegations ‘Undeniable’

John Kerry. Says it all. . . . .

"Is the John Kerry talking of "cowardly crimes" in Syria the same John Kerry who participated in the massacre of millions of people in Vietnam,Laos and Cambodia? Many of them slaughtered by, er, chemical weapons, dropped in a toxic torrent upon Vietnamese civilians by the US airforce? Do these things EVER even occur to western politicians? Or to the teenage scribblers and telly dollies (both genders) in the western media?"
George Galloway MP
House of Commons
London

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Except we still have no proof whatsoever that anyone was "gassed"

Absurd. Even the organization Medecins Sans Frontiers, an organization which I personally donate about 5% of my income to, a completely apolitical charity, has stated there was use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, they do not say who used them, but there was definitely a chemical attack in Syria.

We know Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, Bashar al-Assad has said in public that they are in secured facilities. So, in all seriousness, would have been more likely to use them? A state that is backed into a corner that we know for certain has these munitions or a rag-tag rebel group who may or may not have them?

Medical Charity MSF says 355 dead in chemical attack in Syria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/2...AV20130825

So, whom, in all honesty, has more credibility? One of the most effective charitable NGOs on the planet with doctors who actually treated victims of the attack or some random anonymous guy on the internet? I think the answer is clear.

And before scorpion accuses me of being a government shill or a useful idiot or some sort of paid-off stooge of the military industrial complex, remember, I just cited the most respected apolitical NGO on the planet. They have no dog in this fight.

[3extra]

(08-28-2013 08:17 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:

Except we still have no proof whatsoever that anyone was "gassed"

Absurd. Even the organization Medecins Sans Frontiers, an organization which I personally donate about 5% of my income to, a completely apolitical charity, has stated there was use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, they do not say who used them, but there was definitely a chemical attack in Syria.

We know Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, Bashar al-Assad has said in public that they are secure. So, in all seriousness, would have been more likely to use them? A state that is backed into a corner that we know for certain has these munitions or a rag-tag rebel group who may or may not have them?

Medical Charity MSF says 355 dead in chemical attack in Syria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/2...AV20130825

So, whom, in all honesty, has more credibility? One of the most effective charitable NGOs on the planet with doctors who actually treated victims of the attack or some random anonymous guy on the internet? I think the answer is clear.

And before scorpion accuses me of being a government shill or a useful idiot or some sort of paid-off stooge of the military industrial complex, remember, I just cited the most respected apolitical NGO on the planet. They have no dog in this fight.

Dateline aside, I don't think the issue is if gas was used, but who used it?

Are the UN inspectors going to determine this? I doubt it.

Who had most to gain from using chemical weapons?

The 'rebels'.

[Sherman]

We know people died. The question is who did it?

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Dateline aside, I don't think the issue is if gas was used, but who used it?

Dateline? The quote I just provided is from a post above that stated there is absolutely no evidence of a chemical attack. I just provided proof from an NGO with doctors on the ground who actually treated patients who had been subjected to a chemical attack.

Quote:

Who had most to gain from using chemical weapons?

The 'rebels'.

This sentiment presupposes that the Assad crime family is a rational actor. All evidence thus far is to the contrary.

My friend who works as a correspondent in international news told me earlier this week that from everything he can gather, the chemical attack seems to have originated from Maher al-Assad, the brother of Bashar, and head of the armed and security forces, seemingly without the knowledge of Bashar and the executive branch, as retribution for an attack earlier this month on the convoy of Bashar al-Assad when he was visiting a mosque in the little village that was gassed. I have absolutely no evidence of this and I am just telling you what I was told; but it seems a more likely explanation than the rebels were somehow able to launch munitions that HAD to be dropped from a airplane to disperse across such a large area. The rebels don't have access to airplanes.

[Damedius]

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

Christopher Hitchens is a bigot. If he the same things about jews, that he does about muslims, his career would have been destroyed and you would have never heard about him again.

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

1. Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait. He would have succeeded in the annexation, not merely the invasion, but the abolition of an Arab and Muslim country that was a member state of the Arab League and of the United Nations.

Now it's the under control of the west who put him in power in the first place. Hussein would have never come to power without US guns and money. On top of that people are dying everyday in iraq. For the people in Iraq, the situation has worsened not improved.

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

2. Slobodan Milosevich would have made Bosnia a part of greater Serbia. Kosovo would have been ethnically-cleansed and also annexed.

I'll give you this one because I don't know enough to make a comment

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

3. The Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda would still be their guests.

Don't fool yourself. This isn't about democracy. This was about getting control of the poppy fields and getting the flow of drugs going again. It was also about setting up forward operating bases. The US also made and trained Al-Qaeda . They still work with them at times even now.

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

4. Gaddafi would have been able to commit wholesale genocide against the city of Bengazi as he promised, in his own voice on the radio, to do here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyaPnMnpCAA#t=02m56s (at 2:56, I don't think the link will work on the forum).

I fail to see anything wrong with the clip. Any country might do and say the same in his position. You are sensationalizing his comments to make a case for our aggression.

The real reason he was taken out was because he was so outspoken against the west and was working on a currency to challenge it's hegemony. He warned muslim and african leaders that any one of them might be next. History has proven him right.

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

These are all consequences of anti-war politics. What I have just stated is what would have happened.

Now, if I had this record - I would be EXTREMELY MODEST. I would not be demanding explanations from those of us who said it is about time we stop the continual capitulation to dictatorship, to racism, to aggression and to totalitarian ideology. That we will not allow to be repeated in Iraq, the failures in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, and elsewhere.

We take pride in having taken that position and we take pride in our Iraqi and Kurdish friends who conducted the struggle beforehand on our behalf.

..........

Don't get me wrong: If we had heeded your advice and stayed out of Iraq there would have never been democratic elections, no constitution stipulating federalism that helps minimize the differences between the various sects and ethnicities which in the past has only been solved by dictatorship, partition, or civil war. No, we would still be living with an Orwellian nightmare state in which a genocidal dictator exorcised complete and utter control over his people, threatened his neighbors, and continuously flouted international treaties and norms.

Live with that if you can.

I can live without us conquering and dividing the middle east. They are redrawing the maps. It's neo-colonialism under the cloak of humanitarian interventions and bringing democracy to the region

The hypocrisy of it is the west is guilty overthrowing democracy all over the world when it suits their needs.

The ends justify the means according to the west. Which means we will train and arm terrorists to achieve our goals. We will impose sanctions and embargoes on country. Those that hurt the most vulnerable in those countries. It is an indirect form of genocide. There are drone attacks that kill innocent people everyday.

This is about expanding our control on the march to global hegemony. The easiest way to do this, divide and conquer. Arm factions to fight against each other. It makes it easier for the west to control the resources in the region.

[Farmageddon]

What strikes me most of all, especially over the last several dozen comments, is that the opponents of international intervention have nothing but personal insults. SexyBack and I have methodically broken down the case of why such action is justifiable and we have been met with nothing but, "well, you're a chicken-hawk", "you're a coward", etc.

Not a shred of analysis of the actual situation; just personal insults, invective, innuendo, and petulant slander.

This is sad. I know posters like scorpion are capable of detailed examination of complicated issues yet they continually resort to puerile antics.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Christopher Hitchens is bigot. If he the same things about jews, that he does about muslims, his career would have been destroyed and you would have never heard about him again.

I would suggest you read, "Blaming The Victims" by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, which as an educated guess - you never have, a book about the apartheid state of Israel.

Christopher Hitchens is Jewish. FYI.

He has written and contributed to this subject a long time before you were even born.

http://www.amazon.com/Blaming-Victims-Sp...1859843409

Quote:

Now it's the under control of the west who put him in power in the first place. Hussein would have never come to power without US guns and money. On top of that people are dying everyday in iraq. For the people in Iraq, the situation has worsened not improved.

The West did not put Saddam Hussein in power. He gained power from nepotism; his cousin, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, was the Prime Minister of Iraq and made the mistake of promoting his cousin to head of the security forces; which he later used to consolidate his power and overthrow al-Bakr in a bloodless coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hassan_al-Bakr

Quote:

Don't fool yourself. This isn't about democracy. This was about getting control of the poppy fields and getting the flow of drugs going again. It was also about setting up forward operating bases.

?

Quote:

The US also made and trained Al-Qaeda .

A quote from the actual leader of Al-Qaeda would seem to contradict your sentiment, and I quote, from the book, "Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet" by Zawahiri: "“the collapse of the Soviet Union … goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan … the US had no mentionable role,” but “collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."

[delicioustacos]

(08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

There is an assumption that it is only those of us who supported the democratic revolution in Iraq who have the explaining to do. This assumption must be countered from the very beginning.

If you actually examine the record of the so-called anti-war movement and imagine what would have happened had their council been listened to over the last several decades, we would have a world in which the following would be the case...

4. Saddam Hussein and his crime family would still be privately holding ownership over a terrorized people in a country that has been best described by Kana Makiya as a "concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it".

Good points all. But remember: we left the mass grave under Iraq far fuller than we found it.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Good points all. But remember: we left the mass grave under Iraq far fuller than we found it.

Totally fair.

That is why I pointed out that I have been an advocate for an intervention LONG before we actually decided to do anything.

Big fan of your blog, by the way.

It is an honor to have you comment on one of my posts.