I could, but isn't it easier to dismiss opposing points with barely ontopic 1-liners like "oil", or "I love the description 'liberal media'"? Why, then you barely have to argue at all!
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 20 2005, 11:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 20 2005, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+May 20 2005, 09:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper @ May 20 2005, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why would it be better to burn it? what makes more sense, letting him burn it or securing and controlling it from the get go? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (to avoid going too far off topic) Well, that depends on what they want it for. If, as has been suggested by the most common conspiracy theorists, we wanted to take their oil for ourselves, then yes it makes more sense to capture the oil fields than to burn them. If, as suggested by Grendel, we are there primarily to prevent them from selling oil to anyone at all, why not let it burn? It's easier than relying on terrorist attacks on the oil infrastructure (which I'm sure Grendel believes were all actually carried out by US Special Forces in disguise).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->also read the Project for the New American Century
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note that Bush is not on the member list for PNAC. Also note that PNACs stated reasons for disliking Saddam are all about military dominance, not oil prices.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the rising price of oil bodes well for everyone who has any invested interests in the oil market, mainly all of our friends at the white house.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The rising price of oil also bodes ill for anyone seeking reelection. Bush has already won the election, but he didn't know that would happen when he invaded Iraq. Raising the price of oil is a good way to turn voters against you, and getting reelected is the number 1 priority of nearly all Presidents (especially those motivated primarily by greed, which you obviously think is true of Bush even though I don't).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that Bush is satan, but the "coincidences" are a little too much for me to stomach at this point, and frankly you should be scared as an american citizen that radicals like this can spin and lie and get away with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats the line between a "conspiratorial coincidence" and an "I told you so"? And are you referring to Bush as that radical? In no way is he a radical, nor does he lie. (Every politician spins, so don't even bring that up).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hitler was elected by popular vote as well, and little by little, chip by chip things started erroding. corporations played a substantial role in the rise of nazi germany and they would do it again if they could make a profit on the deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now Bush is Hitler? Do you have any evidence for that, or is the fact that they were both Democratically elected enough for you? I would point out that after being elected, Hitler declared himself absolute ruler---while Bush is about to peacefully leave office at the end of his second term. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you even read the website? Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, **** Cheney.... do these names ring any bells? Bush doesn't have to have his name listed, these guys shape his (Bush) policy, not Bush himself.
Then in the same page on wikipedia it mention the realtionship to the Bradley Foundation (h0h0 Bradley Fighting Vehicles!) who also made a sunstantial profit (thus their stocks shot through the roof) during the last 2 Iraq wars.
What do you mean oil and elections.... everyone was to terrified out of their minds to make gas prices an issue during the election.
"The secret terror color of the day is <b>orange</b>, you should be mildly afraid, there may be a bomb somewhere, there may not be, but be afraid either way" lol it would be funny if it wasn't so scary/sad.
And you should watch Fox News when you complain about "liberal media" (republican jingoism at its finest).
Well tell me this, why would the major issue of the election be Bush's Gaurd service (which there was none) and Kerrys Medals (at least he was in vietnam, WTH?). And tell me why the machine that is the republican smear campaign try and degrade Kerry's medals, whilest their own guy hid behind daddy and his pals at the CIA?
Because people are sheep and if you repeat it over and over enough idiots will think like you do.
And yes I am going to provide proof that Hitler is in the same bloodline as Hitler..... yeah you missed the point. The point was basically that it can happen, and it did happen before, not that Bush is gonna start slaughtering J00s. And Hitler didn't get on some podium and proclaim to the hills that he was "absolute ruler" he did it gradualy by limiting power of his opposition, claiming they were against the people of the country, or by outright killing opponents. Which is exactly like the filibuster issue right now, you limit power on your political enemies and control all 3 branches of government and do what you want, and that guy is BUSH and his pals. SCARY
Before I go into your specific details, mania---do you have a point to all of this? What are you trying to prove? At least Grendel told us upfront what he was trying to convince us of. (see original topic on influence of business on politics)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 21 2005, 08:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 21 2005, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I could, but isn't it easier to dismiss opposing points with barely ontopic 1-liners like "oil", or "I love the description 'liberal media'"? Why, then you barely have to argue at all! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you.
<!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+May 21 2005, 08:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper @ May 21 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> my point is that if walks like a duck and talks like a duck..... then it's probably a duck
now please, commence details <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is not a point. That is an analogy. Which "duck" are you suggesting we see in this situation?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need---I am not claiming that every media outlet is left-leaning (obviously untrue). I am merely claiming that there is a block of left-leaning media, which I refer to as the "liberal media", which seemed to be maniacrippers primary source of information on the judicial nominee confrontation. Certainly there are other blocks which have different leanings.
Now I suspect that you and I would disagree on exactly which outlets fall into this "liberal media" block, but you can't deny it exists, and serves as an information outlet to an awful lot of people.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 21 2005, 11:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 21 2005, 11:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+May 21 2005, 08:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper @ May 21 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> my point is that if walks like a duck and talks like a duck..... then it's probably a duck
now please, commence details <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is not a point. That is an analogy. Which "duck" are you suggesting we see in this situation?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need---I am not claiming that every media outlet is left-leaning (obviously untrue). I am merely claiming that there is a block of left-leaning media, which I refer to as the "liberal media", which seemed to be maniacrippers primary source of information on the judicial nominee confrontation. Certainly there are other blocks which have different leanings.
Now I suspect that you and I would disagree on exactly which outlets fall into this "liberal media" block, but you can't deny it exists, and serves as an information outlet to an awful lot of people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> what more information is there on judicial nomonies? arent the republicans trying to change the way the constitution is allowed to be ammended? what more is there? how does it get any more biased either way? unless of course you watch FOX KNEWS with 2 seconds of fact and then 20 minutes of snide remarks and general ******`baggery.... (if you dont watch Fox disregaurd bretheren <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.
and Bush's new energy plan also includes digging for oil in alaska (which has been strongly opposed for pretty much the entire time alaska has been part of the united states). but h0 h0 look at gas prices! i bet digging in alaska looks more and more tempting so we could get some "relief" in gas prices <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+May 22 2005, 12:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper @ May 22 2005, 12:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> arent the republicans trying to change the way the constitution is allowed to be ammended? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that it's worrying, but all there is is circumstancial evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+May 22 2005, 12:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper @ May 22 2005, 12:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what more information is there on judicial nomonies? arent the republicans trying to change the way the constitution is allowed to be ammended? what more is there? how does it get any more biased either way? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See, thats the thing---no, they're not doing that at all. No changes to the constitution have even been <i>suggested</i> on this issue. So its not so much bias as plain misinformation--you haven't even been informed of what the issue actually is. (And I don't watch Fox News, so I wouldn't know what they've said about the issue).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.
and Bush's new energy plan also includes digging for oil in alaska (which has been strongly opposed for pretty much the entire time alaska has been part of the united states). but h0 h0 look at gas prices! i bet digging in alaska looks more and more tempting so we could get some "relief" in gas prices <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ok...so your theory is that Bush tricked us into going to war, and then some businesses made money, except it may have been illegal.
Now, do you believe that Bush took us to war solely because it would help him channel money into those businesses? Or do you think that was just something he did on the side, while going to war for other reasons?
Next, what illegal activities are you accusing them of?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true. Bush had a list of half a dozen or so perfectly logical reasons to go to war. It just so happens one of them received 90% of the air time in the news. And it just so happens that the same one turned out to be based on inaccurate intelligence info (which is not the same thing as lying). Now, you can disagree on whether those reasons were sufficient or not, but thats completely different from claiming that the war was based on deceit.
If Bush didn't really care about any of those reasons, and just wanted to send money to his business pals using the war, <i>that</i> would be deceit---but thats far from being proven.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 21 2005, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 21 2005, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I could, but isn't it easier to dismiss opposing points with barely ontopic 1-liners like "oil", or "I love the description 'liberal media'"? Why, then you barely have to argue at all! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Here's a thought for you...
If the media was quite so liberal, why would they be bad-mouthing themselves for being liberal? Ignore the politics for a moment and try and assess the logic of the situation.
On the other hand if the mainstream press was actually conservative, then there would be strong criticism of any liberal media elements. Guess which of the two examples makes any sense from an objective perspective?
I'm not madly keen on you labeling me a liberal either. It rather illustrates how little of my posts you actually read. I'm into freedom with responsibilities. I don't share your belief that people who don't know me, don't live in the same world as me and who would profit from my misfortune, would act on my behalf at a loss to themselves.
It's a well known fact that if a country goes to war, and has private corporations fulfill war contracts, then those private corporations will prosper. Companies grow exceedingly fast when there is a <b>constant</b>, massive demand of a particular commodity. In this case, armoured vehicles. Is it war profiteering? No, because the US government and the people of the US lose more money than they gain by going to war. Our War Budget exceeds 300 billion; taxes yield us a Congressional budget of 1.7 trillion. Do the math. Around 20% of the entire Federal budget is spent entirely for war. Defense contractors do profit, but that's only to be expected. But you can't have the military expenditures outpace every other aim of the Federal government.
What does Bush stand to gain from this? He's already rich. He's already powerful. And if a Republican administration takes over next term, they're screwed in terms of fiscal measures alone, the people simply won't stand for fiscal imprudence. Your fears of a Hitler rising is dismissed because the US, in over 200 years of its existence, <b>has never failed to hold timely, structured elections and peacefully transfer power from one party to another.</b> Demagogues and fearmongers can hold substantial power, but never for too long, because they play on mob mentality, and mobs are notoriously fickle.
I'm a moderate in most cases, but in this case, there are a few important parts:
Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.
While Bush put enormous spin (and acted on incredibly bad intelligence, as did Powell) on the justification, you can't back out of the war now, and we're not intentionally screwing the Iraqis over. We want to get out as much as they want us out.
There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.
While there have been some fudging around with budgets and allocations in Iraq, we are spending money to help rebuild Iraq, which offers no forseeable short term returns (something which politicians focus almost exclusively on).
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+May 24 2005, 09:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ May 24 2005, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 21 2005, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 21 2005, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I could, but isn't it easier to dismiss opposing points with barely ontopic 1-liners like "oil", or "I love the description 'liberal media'"? Why, then you barely have to argue at all! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here's a thought for you...
If the media was quite so liberal, why would they be bad-mouthing themselves for being liberal? Ignore the politics for a moment and try and assess the logic of the situation.
On the other hand if the mainstream press was actually conservative, then there would be strong criticism of any liberal media elements. Guess which of the two examples makes any sense from an objective perspective? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when is the media bad-mouthing themselves? <i>I</i> was badmouthing them, but that's something different. From what I've seen of the mainstream press, there is intense criticism of conservative elements, and very little criticism of liberal elements. That suggests that they are more liberal then conservative.
However, you do live in a different country than I do--so it is possible that the media where you live operates quite differently than the media here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not madly keen on you labeling me a liberal either. It rather illustrates how little of my posts you actually read. I'm into freedom with responsibilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't label you as anything. I didn't make a point out of any beliefs I suspected you had, only the ones you clearly showcased in this debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't share your belief that people who don't know me, don't live in the same world as me and who would profit from my misfortune, would act on my behalf at a loss to themselves.
I appreciate that might sound naive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many people wouldn't, to be sure--but there are those who do, on a regular basis. Have you never heard of altruism? Or do you assume that anyone, given the chance, would be happy to steal from everyone around them if they thought they could get away with it? You obviously have a very low opinion of humanity.
Communist Russia had the worst problem with stealing, much more than the big and bad evil center of the world, know as the USA, where huge freedom sucking capitalists live.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 24 2005, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 24 2005, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since when is the media bad-mouthing themselves? <i>I</i> was badmouthing them, but that's something different. From what I've seen of the mainstream press, there is intense criticism of conservative elements, and very little criticism of liberal elements. That suggests that they are more liberal then conservative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're kidding, right? I wish the mainstream press condemned conservatism (as well as liberalism, for that matter), but they don't. They're willing to repeat the talking points of the two parties, while completely ignoring other views. Quite frankly, the Republicans do a better job of getting their talking points out in the press because they've been working at it for longer.
<!--QuoteBegin-NGE+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communist Russia had the worst problem with stealing, much more than the big and bad evil center of the world, know as the USA, where huge freedom sucking capitalists live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that's mostly corruption, rather than stealing, which was a product of Russia's totalitarianism, not its communism.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there are. His base wanted to go to war. His advisors wanted to go to war. His friends wanted to go to war. It's politically advantageous to go to war. It's advantageous for his friends if the US goes to war. Now, whether that influenced his decision or not, that's another question. But, he did have personally self-serving motivations to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 25 2005, 02:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 25 2005, 02:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 24 2005, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 24 2005, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since when is the media bad-mouthing themselves? <i>I</i> was badmouthing them, but that's something different. From what I've seen of the mainstream press, there is intense criticism of conservative elements, and very little criticism of liberal elements. That suggests that they are more liberal then conservative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're kidding, right? I wish the mainstream press condemned conservatism (as well as liberalism, for that matter), but they don't. They're willing to repeat the talking points of the two parties, while completely ignoring other views. Quite frankly, the Republicans do a better job of getting their talking points out in the press because they've been working at it for longer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I'm not kidding, and I wholeheartedly disagree with you---however, I doubt there is much of a way for either of us to <i>prove</i> our opinions on media bias, and it really wasn't an important point to begin with (its completely unrelated to the main discussion), so lets move on to the next topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps a better question is, would <i>not</i> invading Iraq do that? At least after reconstruction, there is a significant chance of having a US-friendly government in Iraq, while there was no chance before hand.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there are. His base wanted to go to war. His advisors wanted to go to war. His friends wanted to go to war. It's politically advantageous to go to war. It's advantageous for his friends if the US goes to war. Now, whether that influenced his decision or not, that's another question. But, he did have personally self-serving motivations to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His base wanted to go to war largely because Bush convinced them it was a good idea--if he hadn't started the push to war, the voters would have been perfectly happy to stop with Afghanistan. And how can you say it was politically advantageous to go to war? While there were millions of supporters, there were also millions of very vocal dissenters, and it's been the most divisive American policy move in recent history. The politically safe path would have been to simply not mention Iraq.
His advisors did want war, certainly--but they sold Bush on the idea using logic, not by saying, "Bush, old buddy old pal, it would really make me happy if you'd sent about a hundred thousand soldiers to go fight in the desert." Having strategic advisors who advise you that it is strategically important to attack Iraq is far different from having personally self-serving motivations to attack Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 25 2005, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 25 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps a better question is, would <i>not</i> invading Iraq do that? At least after reconstruction, there is a significant chance of having a US-friendly government in Iraq, while there was no chance before hand. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, of course Iraq wouldn't suddenly become pro-West if we hadn't invaded (although it might have become so over time; after all, we were friends with Sadam during the 80s).
Is establishing a pro-West Iraq a good thing? Yes. Would invading Iraq give a better chance of establishing a pro-West Iraq than not invading? Yes. Is that chance large enough, are the side effects small enough (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims calling us crusaders and using the invasion to drive up recruiting numbers), and is the cost low enough to justify such an action? Probably not. Were there better things that we could have done with our troops, time, and money? Most certainly (for every single justification for the war in Iraq, going after North Korea is a better option; North Korea is more oppressive, it has a much more advanced WMD program, it has a cozier relationship with terrorists who would buy those WMDs, it wouldn't provoke hatred among radical Muslims; there are major downsides, so I wouldn't want to do it, but I still think that it's a better thing to do than go after Iraq).
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 25 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 25 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is establishing a pro-West Iraq a good thing? Yes. Would invading Iraq give a better chance of establishing a pro-West Iraq than not invading? Yes. Is that chance large enough, are the side effects small enough (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims calling us crusaders and using the invasion to drive up recruiting numbers), and is the cost low enough to justify such an action? Probably not. Were there better things that we could have done with our troops, time, and money? Most certainly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All valid points--though they don't do anything to support your previous objection. But I would agree with you that establishing a pro-west leadership in Iraq, by itself, would be insufficient reasoning to invade it, both from a political and a moral standpoint. However, it wasn't the only reason--it was one reason among many, and each extra reason puts the totality that much closer to being sufficient to justify invasion. If you want to claim that all the reasons together were still insufficient, go ahead--but you can't single out individual reasons as being not good enough alone, because they're <i>not</i> alone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(for every single justification for the war in Iraq, going after North Korea is a better option; North Korea is more oppressive, it has a much more advanced WMD program, it has a cozier relationship with terrorists who would buy those WMDs, it wouldn't provoke hatred among radical Muslims; there are major downsides, so I wouldn't want to do it, but I still think that it's a better thing to do than go after Iraq).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forget the single best reason for invading Iraq rather than North Korea---Iraq can't fight back. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously, look at statistics. For all the casualties caused by the insurgency, the war itself was almost completely bloodless on our side. We lost something like 150 guys in the invasion, right? And half of those were either friendly fire or environmental hazards like sandstorms downing helicopters.
Meanwhile, North Koreas army is about as big as our own (maybe bigger, I forget the exact numbers). While we suspected Iraq of trying to <i>develop</i> nuclear weapons, North Korea actually <i>has</i> nuclear weapons. While Iraq had some fairly inefficient missiles that could reach Israel, North Korea has missiles than can reach California. Why would we ever want to invade North Korea?
North Korea is a thorny issue. The best course of action would probably continue multilateral talks while hoping that the old dictator dies and moderate elements within his regime take over. Korean unification would mean a lot to the starving peasants in North Korea. And not all of his regime is a bunch of loonies.
Provoking North Korea would lead to artillery with nuclear warheads being targeted towards Seoul or a launch to Tokyo. Kim Jong Il is a mentally unstable dictator. Though the Chinese have an unquestionably large influence in the DPRK, it's unclear as to how much they have. Can they tell Kim Jong Il what to do? Probably not. Dictators usually have nothing to lose (they don't consider the populace to be valuable, just bargaining chips) except their own power.
And, the clam, you have to remember that Saddam was an ally out of convenience, not choice. Iran was a much bigger concern to us (the Ayatollah Khomeini really **** off a lot on Capitol Hill) and Iraq was a strong power right next door. We chose to overlook the hundreds of thousands of people that Hussein gassed because he was a convenient ally that could be subversive to Iran (Iran lost a huge amount of people/military in the Iran-Iraq war). However, he invaded oil-rich Kuwait with intent on annexation, and the US saw that as unacceptable (relations were deteriorating, and Kuwait was a strategic objective to US legislators) so we pushed him out and broke diplomatic relations.
US foreign policy has usually been massive blunders that bite us back in the **** in a few decades. But Iraq has a legitimate shot at being a good, genuine, profitable ally to the US. So does Afghanistan. Stay the course, don't undermine the reconstruction effort, and have patience.
Strange how the conversation gravitated from something in general to something very specific. Tangents upon tangents, I suppose.
Comments
(to avoid going too far off topic)
Well, that depends on what they want it for. If, as has been suggested by the most common conspiracy theorists, we wanted to take their oil for ourselves, then yes it makes more sense to capture the oil fields than to burn them. If, as suggested by Grendel, we are there primarily to prevent them from selling oil to anyone at all, why not let it burn? It's easier than relying on terrorist attacks on the oil infrastructure (which I'm sure Grendel believes were all actually carried out by US Special Forces in disguise).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->also read the Project for the New American Century
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that Bush is not on the member list for PNAC. Also note that PNACs stated reasons for disliking Saddam are all about military dominance, not oil prices.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the rising price of oil bodes well for everyone who has any invested interests in the oil market, mainly all of our friends at the white house.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rising price of oil also bodes ill for anyone seeking reelection. Bush has already won the election, but he didn't know that would happen when he invaded Iraq. Raising the price of oil is a good way to turn voters against you, and getting reelected is the number 1 priority of nearly all Presidents (especially those motivated primarily by greed, which you obviously think is true of Bush even though I don't).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that Bush is satan, but the "coincidences" are a little too much for me to stomach at this point, and frankly you should be scared as an american citizen that radicals like this can spin and lie and get away with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats the line between a "conspiratorial coincidence" and an "I told you so"? And are you referring to Bush as that radical? In no way is he a radical, nor does he lie. (Every politician spins, so don't even bring that up).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hitler was elected by popular vote as well, and little by little, chip by chip things started erroding. corporations played a substantial role in the rise of nazi germany and they would do it again if they could make a profit on the deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now Bush is Hitler? Do you have any evidence for that, or is the fact that they were both Democratically elected enough for you? I would point out that after being elected, Hitler declared himself absolute ruler---while Bush is about to peacefully leave office at the end of his second term. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you even read the website? Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, **** Cheney.... do these names ring any bells? Bush doesn't have to have his name listed, these guys shape his (Bush) policy, not Bush himself.
Then in the same page on wikipedia it mention the realtionship to the Bradley Foundation (h0h0 Bradley Fighting Vehicles!) who also made a sunstantial profit (thus their stocks shot through the roof) during the last 2 Iraq wars.
What do you mean oil and elections.... everyone was to terrified out of their minds to make gas prices an issue during the election.
"The secret terror color of the day is <b>orange</b>, you should be mildly afraid, there may be a bomb somewhere, there may not be, but be afraid either way"
lol it would be funny if it wasn't so scary/sad.
And you should watch Fox News when you complain about "liberal media" (republican jingoism at its finest).
Well tell me this, why would the major issue of the election be Bush's Gaurd service (which there was none) and Kerrys Medals (at least he was in vietnam, WTH?). And tell me why the machine that is the republican smear campaign try and degrade Kerry's medals, whilest their own guy hid behind daddy and his pals at the CIA?
Because people are sheep and if you repeat it over and over enough idiots will think like you do.
And yes I am going to provide proof that Hitler is in the same bloodline as Hitler..... yeah you missed the point. The point was basically that it can happen, and it did happen before, not that Bush is gonna start slaughtering J00s.
And Hitler didn't get on some podium and proclaim to the hills that he was "absolute ruler" he did it gradualy by limiting power of his opposition, claiming they were against the people of the country, or by outright killing opponents. Which is exactly like the filibuster issue right now, you limit power on your political enemies and control all 3 branches of government and do what you want, and that guy is BUSH and his pals. SCARY
now please, commence details
If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you.
now please, commence details <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not a point. That is an analogy. Which "duck" are you suggesting we see in this situation?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need---I am not claiming that every media outlet is left-leaning (obviously untrue). I am merely claiming that there is a block of left-leaning media, which I refer to as the "liberal media", which seemed to be maniacrippers primary source of information on the judicial nominee confrontation. Certainly there are other blocks which have different leanings.
Now I suspect that you and I would disagree on exactly which outlets fall into this "liberal media" block, but you can't deny it exists, and serves as an information outlet to an awful lot of people.
now please, commence details <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not a point. That is an analogy. Which "duck" are you suggesting we see in this situation?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to start a thread about media bias, I'd love to discuss it with you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need---I am not claiming that every media outlet is left-leaning (obviously untrue). I am merely claiming that there is a block of left-leaning media, which I refer to as the "liberal media", which seemed to be maniacrippers primary source of information on the judicial nominee confrontation. Certainly there are other blocks which have different leanings.
Now I suspect that you and I would disagree on exactly which outlets fall into this "liberal media" block, but you can't deny it exists, and serves as an information outlet to an awful lot of people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
what more information is there on judicial nomonies? arent the republicans trying to change the way the constitution is allowed to be ammended? what more is there? how does it get any more biased either way? unless of course you watch FOX KNEWS with 2 seconds of fact and then 20 minutes of snide remarks and general ******`baggery.... (if you dont watch Fox disregaurd bretheren <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.
and Bush's new energy plan also includes digging for oil in alaska (which has been strongly opposed for pretty much the entire time alaska has been part of the united states). but h0 h0 look at gas prices! i bet digging in alaska looks more and more tempting so we could get some "relief" in gas prices <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
CHEVRON/HALIBURTON '04
No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that it's worrying, but all there is is circumstancial evidence.
See, thats the thing---no, they're not doing that at all. No changes to the constitution have even been <i>suggested</i> on this issue. So its not so much bias as plain misinformation--you haven't even been informed of what the issue actually is. (And I don't watch Fox News, so I wouldn't know what they've said about the issue).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the "duck" in this case is Bush and his pals and their DIRECT LINK to businesses profiting, maybe even illegally from a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths.
and Bush's new energy plan also includes digging for oil in alaska (which has been strongly opposed for pretty much the entire time alaska has been part of the united states). but h0 h0 look at gas prices! i bet digging in alaska looks more and more tempting so we could get some "relief" in gas prices <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
CHEVRON/HALIBURTON '04<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok...so your theory is that Bush tricked us into going to war, and then some businesses made money, except it may have been illegal.
Now, do you believe that Bush took us to war solely because it would help him channel money into those businesses? Or do you think that was just something he did on the side, while going to war for other reasons?
Next, what illegal activities are you accusing them of?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a war that as we now know, was built on deceit and wordsmiths<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Bush had a list of half a dozen or so perfectly logical reasons to go to war. It just so happens one of them received 90% of the air time in the news. And it just so happens that the same one turned out to be based on inaccurate intelligence info (which is not the same thing as lying). Now, you can disagree on whether those reasons were sufficient or not, but thats completely different from claiming that the war was based on deceit.
If Bush didn't really care about any of those reasons, and just wanted to send money to his business pals using the war, <i>that</i> would be deceit---but thats far from being proven.
Here's a thought for you...
If the media was quite so liberal, why would they be bad-mouthing themselves for being liberal? Ignore the politics for a moment and try and assess the logic of the situation.
On the other hand if the mainstream press was actually conservative, then there would be strong criticism of any liberal media elements. Guess which of the two examples makes any sense from an objective perspective?
I'm not madly keen on you labeling me a liberal either. It rather illustrates how little of my posts you actually read. I'm into freedom with responsibilities. I don't share your belief that people who don't know me, don't live in the same world as me and who would profit from my misfortune, would act on my behalf at a loss to themselves.
I appreciate that might sound naive.
What does Bush stand to gain from this? He's already rich. He's already powerful. And if a Republican administration takes over next term, they're screwed in terms of fiscal measures alone, the people simply won't stand for fiscal imprudence. Your fears of a Hitler rising is dismissed because the US, in over 200 years of its existence, <b>has never failed to hold timely, structured elections and peacefully transfer power from one party to another.</b> Demagogues and fearmongers can hold substantial power, but never for too long, because they play on mob mentality, and mobs are notoriously fickle.
I'm a moderate in most cases, but in this case, there are a few important parts:
Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.
While Bush put enormous spin (and acted on incredibly bad intelligence, as did Powell) on the justification, you can't back out of the war now, and we're not intentionally screwing the Iraqis over. We want to get out as much as they want us out.
There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.
While there have been some fudging around with budgets and allocations in Iraq, we are spending money to help rebuild Iraq, which offers no forseeable short term returns (something which politicians focus almost exclusively on).
Here's a thought for you...
If the media was quite so liberal, why would they be bad-mouthing themselves for being liberal? Ignore the politics for a moment and try and assess the logic of the situation.
On the other hand if the mainstream press was actually conservative, then there would be strong criticism of any liberal media elements. Guess which of the two examples makes any sense from an objective perspective? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when is the media bad-mouthing themselves? <i>I</i> was badmouthing them, but that's something different. From what I've seen of the mainstream press, there is intense criticism of conservative elements, and very little criticism of liberal elements. That suggests that they are more liberal then conservative.
However, you do live in a different country than I do--so it is possible that the media where you live operates quite differently than the media here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not madly keen on you labeling me a liberal either. It rather illustrates how little of my posts you actually read. I'm into freedom with responsibilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't label you as anything. I didn't make a point out of any beliefs I suspected you had, only the ones you clearly showcased in this debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't share your belief that people who don't know me, don't live in the same world as me and who would profit from my misfortune, would act on my behalf at a loss to themselves.
I appreciate that might sound naive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many people wouldn't, to be sure--but there are those who do, on a regular basis. Have you never heard of altruism? Or do you assume that anyone, given the chance, would be happy to steal from everyone around them if they thought they could get away with it? You obviously have a very low opinion of humanity.
You're kidding, right? I wish the mainstream press condemned conservatism (as well as liberalism, for that matter), but they don't. They're willing to repeat the talking points of the two parties, while completely ignoring other views. Quite frankly, the Republicans do a better job of getting their talking points out in the press because they've been working at it for longer.
<!--QuoteBegin-NGE+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communist Russia had the worst problem with stealing, much more than the big and bad evil center of the world, know as the USA, where huge freedom sucking capitalists live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's mostly corruption, rather than stealing, which was a product of Russia's totalitarianism, not its communism.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there are. His base wanted to go to war. His advisors wanted to go to war. His friends wanted to go to war. It's politically advantageous to go to war. It's advantageous for his friends if the US goes to war. Now, whether that influenced his decision or not, that's another question. But, he did have personally self-serving motivations to go to war.
You're kidding, right? I wish the mainstream press condemned conservatism (as well as liberalism, for that matter), but they don't. They're willing to repeat the talking points of the two parties, while completely ignoring other views. Quite frankly, the Republicans do a better job of getting their talking points out in the press because they've been working at it for longer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm not kidding, and I wholeheartedly disagree with you---however, I doubt there is much of a way for either of us to <i>prove</i> our opinions on media bias, and it really wasn't an important point to begin with (its completely unrelated to the main discussion), so lets move on to the next topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Establishing a pro-West Iraqi regime is in the best interest of the post-industrial nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps a better question is, would <i>not</i> invading Iraq do that? At least after reconstruction, there is a significant chance of having a US-friendly government in Iraq, while there was no chance before hand.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are no personally self-serving motivations for Bush to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there are. His base wanted to go to war. His advisors wanted to go to war. His friends wanted to go to war. It's politically advantageous to go to war. It's advantageous for his friends if the US goes to war. Now, whether that influenced his decision or not, that's another question. But, he did have personally self-serving motivations to go to war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His base wanted to go to war largely because Bush convinced them it was a good idea--if he hadn't started the push to war, the voters would have been perfectly happy to stop with Afghanistan. And how can you say it was politically advantageous to go to war? While there were millions of supporters, there were also millions of very vocal dissenters, and it's been the most divisive American policy move in recent history. The politically safe path would have been to simply not mention Iraq.
His advisors did want war, certainly--but they sold Bush on the idea using logic, not by saying, "Bush, old buddy old pal, it would really make me happy if you'd sent about a hundred thousand soldiers to go fight in the desert." Having strategic advisors who advise you that it is strategically important to attack Iraq is far different from having personally self-serving motivations to attack Iraq.
Yes, but would invading Iraq actually do that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps a better question is, would <i>not</i> invading Iraq do that? At least after reconstruction, there is a significant chance of having a US-friendly government in Iraq, while there was no chance before hand. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, of course Iraq wouldn't suddenly become pro-West if we hadn't invaded (although it might have become so over time; after all, we were friends with Sadam during the 80s).
Is establishing a pro-West Iraq a good thing? Yes.
Would invading Iraq give a better chance of establishing a pro-West Iraq than not invading? Yes.
Is that chance large enough, are the side effects small enough (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims calling us crusaders and using the invasion to drive up recruiting numbers), and is the cost low enough to justify such an action? Probably not.
Were there better things that we could have done with our troops, time, and money? Most certainly (for every single justification for the war in Iraq, going after North Korea is a better option; North Korea is more oppressive, it has a much more advanced WMD program, it has a cozier relationship with terrorists who would buy those WMDs, it wouldn't provoke hatred among radical Muslims; there are major downsides, so I wouldn't want to do it, but I still think that it's a better thing to do than go after Iraq).
Would invading Iraq give a better chance of establishing a pro-West Iraq than not invading? Yes.
Is that chance large enough, are the side effects small enough (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims calling us crusaders and using the invasion to drive up recruiting numbers), and is the cost low enough to justify such an action? Probably not.
Were there better things that we could have done with our troops, time, and money? Most certainly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All valid points--though they don't do anything to support your previous objection. But I would agree with you that establishing a pro-west leadership in Iraq, by itself, would be insufficient reasoning to invade it, both from a political and a moral standpoint. However, it wasn't the only reason--it was one reason among many, and each extra reason puts the totality that much closer to being sufficient to justify invasion. If you want to claim that all the reasons together were still insufficient, go ahead--but you can't single out individual reasons as being not good enough alone, because they're <i>not</i> alone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(for every single justification for the war in Iraq, going after North Korea is a better option; North Korea is more oppressive, it has a much more advanced WMD program, it has a cozier relationship with terrorists who would buy those WMDs, it wouldn't provoke hatred among radical Muslims; there are major downsides, so I wouldn't want to do it, but I still think that it's a better thing to do than go after Iraq).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forget the single best reason for invading Iraq rather than North Korea---Iraq can't fight back. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously, look at statistics. For all the casualties caused by the insurgency, the war itself was almost completely bloodless on our side. We lost something like 150 guys in the invasion, right? And half of those were either friendly fire or environmental hazards like sandstorms downing helicopters.
Meanwhile, North Koreas army is about as big as our own (maybe bigger, I forget the exact numbers). While we suspected Iraq of trying to <i>develop</i> nuclear weapons, North Korea actually <i>has</i> nuclear weapons. While Iraq had some fairly inefficient missiles that could reach Israel, North Korea has missiles than can reach California. Why would we ever want to invade North Korea?
Provoking North Korea would lead to artillery with nuclear warheads being targeted towards Seoul or a launch to Tokyo. Kim Jong Il is a mentally unstable dictator. Though the Chinese have an unquestionably large influence in the DPRK, it's unclear as to how much they have. Can they tell Kim Jong Il what to do? Probably not. Dictators usually have nothing to lose (they don't consider the populace to be valuable, just bargaining chips) except their own power.
And, the clam, you have to remember that Saddam was an ally out of convenience, not choice. Iran was a much bigger concern to us (the Ayatollah Khomeini really **** off a lot on Capitol Hill) and Iraq was a strong power right next door. We chose to overlook the hundreds of thousands of people that Hussein gassed because he was a convenient ally that could be subversive to Iran (Iran lost a huge amount of people/military in the Iran-Iraq war). However, he invaded oil-rich Kuwait with intent on annexation, and the US saw that as unacceptable (relations were deteriorating, and Kuwait was a strategic objective to US legislators) so we pushed him out and broke diplomatic relations.
US foreign policy has usually been massive blunders that bite us back in the **** in a few decades. But Iraq has a legitimate shot at being a good, genuine, profitable ally to the US. So does Afghanistan. Stay the course, don't undermine the reconstruction effort, and have patience.
Strange how the conversation gravitated from something in general to something very specific. Tangents upon tangents, I suppose.