America the Gutless

[Mr. Carpenter]

''There was no point getting involved in DRC. They offer nothing to the world''.

Out of interest, what does Iraq have ''to offer the world'' such that they needed regime change and DRC not?

Stability in the region. Saddam was a known sh!t-stirrer, and had been for decades. Instability in the Congo is not a threat to the region, any more than any other fourth-world sh!thole on that entire continent is a threat to stability in the region, mainly because there hasn't been any stability on that entire continent, EVER, and especially since the native Africans took control of the governemnts from the Europeans, and that's not "racist", it's a FACT! Look at what happened to Rhodesia after the British left and "Brother Bob" Mugabe took over! It rapidly returned to it's natural state, a FOURTH WORLD SH!THOLE!

We've been sending Special Forces teams into Congo for more than a decade in an effort to help the legitimate government fight the inter-tribal BS, and there have been some successes, but overcoming millions of years of mindless murder can't happen overnight, which makes one wonder if they'll EVER evolve much past Simian intelligence without lots of Western assistance.

Oh, and one other thing, your attacks on BigRob are completely out of line. The vast majority of Mods here are Kool-Aide swilling "bleeding heart liberals" (like YOU), and BigRob is there for BALANCE.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Stability in the region. Saddam was a known sh!t-stirrer, and had been for decades.

Awww, c'mon.....you can't give him ALL-of-the-credit!!!

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Awww, c'mon.....you can't give him ALL-of-the-credit!!!

Do you ever use legitimate sources? I mean, it's patently obvious to everyone that you're not bright enough to get your small mind wrapped around such complex issues, but you could at least TRY every once in a while, and use legitimate sources so that you don't consistantly sound like such a tin-foil hatted barking moonbat conspiracy freak.

 

[BigRob]

Out of interest, what does Iraq have ''to offer the world'' such that they needed regime change and DRC not?

I did not think Iraq needed a regime change...

If we had intel that the DNC was pursuing WMD's then they would become a much more important flash point.

I have noticed that you have been appointed a moderator.

It does not say much for this board that it appoints someone who can right off the deaths of 4M people so glibly as being unworthy of help because ''They offer nothing to the world''.

We cannot invade everywhere. We have to make choices based on where our interests are. I did not say 4M dead is a good thing, but what are we supposed to do about it? Are we supposed to invade every country that kills some of its citizens? Are we supposed to invade China next?

And in actual fact the US did get involved in Congo as they do in many African countries.

The difference being that in this case the US was contributing to the problem as they helped the despotic right wing governor to power overthrowing thr previous communist regime.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_georgian_071105_un_probes_congo_slau.htm

In the context of the Cold War.

I have to say that your comment about DRC is just disgraceful and it shows how cheap Americans think foreign lives are.

Those who were slaughtered were innocent people trying to eek a life out in desperate conditions.

The UN is down there, are they unable to handle any problem? Again, no one is saying 4M dead people is good, but I certainly am not advocating an invasion because of it. To follow your strategy we will have to invade almost all of Africa, most of the Middle East, large parts of Asia, not to mention South America as well.

If you qualify as a moderator then it is no surprise that so many of the views posted on this board are so unpleasant.

I know it is shocking that people disagree with you, but such is life.

 

[Plainspeaker]

If the US is going to invade countries that are not attacking it on the grounds of regime change then a reasonable person would expect them to start with the worst cases and there are many cases meriting regime change before Iraq.

The fact is that the US attacked Iraq on the pretext of WMD. If this was really the reason for the attack they shouild have withdrawn when it became clear there were no WMD (to many in the world this was before the war started).

But they didn't and everyone should be shocked by the mid-stream change of reason to regime change because it indicates that the US wanted to attack Iraq whether they had WMD or not (this would explain the appaling intel which was dished up to order).

And the regime change claim is lame because of the reasons stated above.

So you are left wondering why the US really attacked Iraq and it is impossible to see any realistic reason that holds water other than for oil.

What else does Iraq have that puts it at thr front of the 'need for regime change' list?

 

[Chip]

It appears that the foundational post is a rant against anyone who would disagree with America's historic questionable use of force.

But my guess is that if America wasn't so well armed that it would be less likely to be so "courageous".

For example, the sole reason we invaded Iraq was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights so that Saddam Hussein wouldn't divert our share of Iraqi crude to China once the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners expired ... a diversion he "promised" in the fall of 2002 he would do upon being presented our discovery that summer of his secret plans to do so, plans that included a three-way agreement between Iraq, China and Russia, brokered by the French.

Had we done nothing, the loss of Iraq's light-sweet crude, which amounted at the time to nearly 20% of the foreign crude refined in California alone, for which there was at the time no other available source in the world, would have spun us into a multi-trillion dollar depression and taken our industrial allies with us.

So we decided to invade Iraq, knowing in advance that we would employ tactics that would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nearly half of whom were children with a median age of eight years-old, to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights and keep the flow of Iraqi crude coming to us and our industrial allies.

How much courage did that take?

If our armed forces were significantly less likely to succeed, would we still have had the "courage" to concoct false red herring excuses, invade, and slaughter children for oil?

Regardless, would it not have been more courageous to simply let Iraq do whatever it wanted with the natural resources that belonged to it?

Would it not have been more courageous of us to simply spend our efforts in solving our own energy problems, or battening down the hatches and withstanding the loss of oil, without hurting innocent others?

Was it not gutless of us to employ our military as murderous henchmen in a heist of Iraq's oil distribution rights?

I can't help but wonder why some find it so necessary to excuse the atrocities of their beloved country by bashing those who point to the truth of it.

To some, I suppose, denial is simply a river in Egypt.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

If the US is going to invade countries that are not attacking it on the grounds of regime change then a reasonable person would expect them to start with the worst cases and there are many cases meriting regime change before Iraq.

That's a complet strawman! Obviously you've neglected to recall that the UN authorized the initial assault against Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Following his defeat, Saddam as part of his terms of surrender was to comply with ALL UN mandates, which he failed to do for over 12 YEARS. Following 9-11, and the FACT that he was substantially supporting, funding, and allowing terrorists to train in Iraq, in complete defiance of UN mandates, that was all the authority we required to remove him from office, by force if necessary. Saddam was given every opportunity to leave, he failed to do so, and he paid for his arrogance with his life, and the lives of his sons.

The fact remains that your entire premise is nothing but revisionist historianism and flat out lies.

 

[Plainspeaker]

A similar story couild be told about Afghanistan where the Taleban only came to power because the US armed their forerunner, the Mujahaddin, when Russia invaded.

Now the country is being attacked under the pretext of giving support to Al Qaeda which is a Saudi run organisation.

What justification is there even wthin this flakey story for piping their gas to the US?

This is a perfect example how communism and gain motivate US armed intervention.

There is nothing noble or gallant about these actions which result in the mass deaths of innocent people.

But I suppose Big Bob thinks it is OK because 'they bring nothing to the world'.

Well Big Bob, you only live in the US because of an accident of birth.

It does not confer any more right to life on you than is conferred on anyone living anywhere in the world.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

It appears that the foundational post is a rant against anyone who would disagree with America's historic questionable use of force.

But my guess is that if America wasn't so well armed that it would be less likely to be so "courageous".

<snip>

I can't help but wonder why some find it so necessary to excuse the atrocities of their beloved country by bashing those who point to the truth of it.

Mainly because your "truth" is based on an utterly fallacious understanding of history. So not only are you gutless, you're intellectually dishonest to boot.

To some, I suppose, denial is simply a river in Egypt

And to others, like yourself, the denial of historical truth is a way of life.

 

[Plainspeaker]

Mr Carpenter, that is such a weak response to Chip's well made argument that it leaves the reader only able to conclude that you don't have a sound rejoinder.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Mr Carpenter, that is such a weak response to Chip's well made argument that it leaves the reader only able to conclude that you don't have a sound rejoinder.

Plainspeaker, neither one of you has the first clue WTF you're talking about, you have both routinely 'invented' your 'truths', and done nothing but repeat the well discredited talking points of the American Yellowbellied Libtard. It wouldn't matter to you if we were able to prove that Saddam was literally sitting on top of a dozen 5 Megaton thermonuclear weapons, and 100 tons of VX, you's STILL try to come up with some lamebrained chickensh!t excuse why going into Iraq was a 'bad thing'.

You're both nothing but gutless blunders, as well as completly intellectually bankrupt, and doing anything other than mocking you for your mindless prattle is a complete waste of time.

 

[Plainspeaker]

Oh I see.

You should have said earlier

 

[Andy]

The US started the war against Iraq claimining it was because they had WMD.

That argument was proved to be unsustainable and then what should have happened is that the US withdrew and stopped attacking Irtaq because their reason for doing so was debunked.

How can you say this, when WMD were found, and Saddam had used them in the past? This is like saying Timothy McVeigh didn't have a bomb, because when he was pulled over on the highway, he didn't have any bombs on him.

But instead they kept going and changed the reason to regime change.

But the US does not regime change lots of other countries where the leaders are a lot worse than Saddam Hussein.

So although they are in greater need of regime change the US does not effect it.

Kept going? What would you suggest? After defeating the Iraqi army, and freeing the people from an oppressive tyrannical dictator...

"Oh sorry! We didn't find any WMDs. Here's Saddam back. Here's your Ba'ath Part back. Back to rape rooms and secret police, and mass slaughters. All you Iraqi people, back to oppressive tyrannical dictatorship! Sorry about all the confusion! Good luck!" And pull out?

You think that is going to build confidence and support internationally to doom the entire population to being back under a dictator that undoubtedly knows how they celebrated his removal?

So what exactly is your plan? Just pull out and tell the people of Iraq, 'sucks to be you' and if Iran, Al Qaeda, or Syria get's it's hands on centrifuges and Uranium, oh well suck to be us? What exactly are you suggesting? Just lay it out for us. If you are Command-n-Chief, and you march into Iraq, and wipe out the current government, but then can't find WMDs, what's your plan? Do tell. Quick to complain about others, time to tell us what you'd do.

Why?

You tell me.

Clue - oil.

Please cite how much oil we have taken from Iraq? Where is this free oil from Iraq that you claim we went there for? Why didn't prices fall if we have billions of barrels of oil from Iraq? Explain how and where all the oil went! Come on, someone show me how this works. Explain to me how we don't have to buy oil now because it's all free from Iraq. Show me the reports of the captured Iraqi oil wells we now own! Where are our free oil wells? Make your case!

 

[Andy]

A similar story couild be told about Afghanistan where the Taleban only came to power because the US armed their forerunner, the Mujahaddin, when Russia invaded.

Everyone knows the history of how we supported the efforts of Bin Laden to rid the country of Soviets. It was the correct choice at the time.

Now the country is being attacked under the pretext of giving support to Al Qaeda which is a Saudi run organisation.

Really? You can document that the Saudi government currently runs Al Qaeda? Please show this evidence, and I will change my views of both.

This is a perfect example how communism and gain motivate US armed intervention.

There is nothing noble or gallant about these actions which result in the mass deaths of innocent people.

But I suppose Big Bob thinks it is OK because 'they bring nothing to the world'.

Well Big Bob, you only live in the US because of an accident of birth.

It does not confer any more right to life on you than is conferred on anyone living anywhere in the world.

I didn't see a clear point or argument being said. So whatever...

 

[Plainspeaker]

Even Bush accepts that there are no WMD in Iraq.

I admire your loyalty to the cause though however misguided it is.