Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Killian Kalthorne]

But you're a freaking hyper-individualist. You'd let your neighbour's house burn even if you knew that if you didn't your own might go next, just to prove the point that he should've put in better fireproofing.

 

For the most part, yes. Everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions and take responsibility for the consequences for their actions. Take this economic bailout with the mortgage crisis and the Big Three automakers in the US. Those who ran those businesses into the dirt and those who took loans they could not afford to pay deserve to face the consequences of their actions. Why should I, a person who has been mostly responsible with his money, who goes to work and pays his bills, should have his tax money wasted on these people? Where the frak is my bailout?

 

Iraq was no threat. Iraq was under control and held in check by the UN. We should not have invaded and every life loss is a waste. All the invasion of Iraq did for the US was double our national debt, weakened our economy, and pissed off a lot of other countries. Oh yeah, 3000+ American lives were worth that.

[Volourn]

"Take this economic bailout with the mortgage crisis and the Big Three automakers in the US. Those who ran those businesses into the dirt and those who took loans they could not afford to pay deserve to face the consequences of their actions. "

 

I actually agree with this. The automakers are supposed to be private companies. The gov't shouldn't be babysitting them. Their failures are their own.

 

However, Iraqis that were being smackdowned by Saddam were being tormented through no fault of their own; but because of Saddam's own greed for power, and control.

 

 

"Iraq was no threat. Iraq was under control and held in check by the UN. We should not have invaded and every life loss is a waste. All the invasion of Iraq did for the US was double our national debt, weakened our economy, and pissed off a lot of other countries. Oh yeah, 3000+ American lives were worth that."

 

L0L Again, you complain about these detahs like you actually care. But, I guess to you it's okay if Iraqis die as long as it is an Iraqi doing the killing. That's silly.

 

As for 'pissing off' other countries; big deal. It's not like those other countries can do anything real against the US, anyways. If the US didn't invade than it would just be Saddam murdering Iraqis instead of AQ. *shrug* At least there's ana ctual chance the country will improve without Saddam. There was no hope of substantial positive changes for the better as long as Hussein controlled Iraq.

[Killian Kalthorne]

There was no hope of substantial positive changes for the better as long as Hussein controlled Iraq.

 

That was the Iraqis problem, not ours.

[Trenitay]

Are you trying to say that we should never help anyone? Just because its not us, they deserve nothing? We are completely independent from the rest of the world. We dont need them, let them burn and die, as long as America survives. We dont get anything from their existence.

Edited December 29, 2008 by awsomeness

[Gorgon]

Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary.

[Volourn]

"Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary."

 

O RLY?

 

Kuwait, Japan, most if not all of Europe, and South Korea are just some examples.

[Tigranes]

South Korea are just some examples.

 

A perfect example of where they do a lot of good, but they also do a lot of damaging crap, because they don't really care about the country they help carving their own way out in the world, or the country's long-term strategic goals, act with overbearing arrogance and coercion, and so forth. It's still a given that they did a very good thing by coming in and helping, but it's a classic case of how they come in and help and do good things, but then do enough to get reviled by the beneficiaries.

[Volourn]

Except SK seems to get along well with the US. Sure, they don't agree with the US on everything but it's not like SK is anti US.

[taks]

Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary.

yeah, don't we all think the europeans would be better off saying "heil hitler" every day. damn if only the US hadn't stepped in it would be soooo much better.

 

taks

[taks]

because they don't really care about the country they help carving their own way out in the world

see, that's just nonsense. this is what pisses off all of us in the US when nonsense claims like this are made. what proof do you have, or anybody for that matter, that we don't care? huh? if you want respect out of the few of us in here that defend the US, you're going to have to give a little in return.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

Let us cut to the chase already, shall we? Is imperialism good or not? Because that it is what it is, no matter how benevolent or how well-intended. Comparing Hitler's dream of lebensraum in the east, the communist revolution, the segregated konfucian ideals of the orient, to the time of 'peace' when the totalitarian worldwide caliphate rules us all, i rather chose the rugged individualism of the west.

 

The US has made some serious blunders, sure, like The american natives, Guantemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam and lately Iraq. But the system of this empire allows flexibility, and more important the possibility of its citizens to change to their leadership and ultimately the empire's policy.

 

Iraq was the result of shortsidedness, greed, idealism and the pathetic misplaced sense of rightoussness that one nation of people suffered more than anyone else in this world, destined for help from our democratic supermen.

 

But you guys voted for change, did you not?

[Volourn]

"Is imperialism good or not? Because that it is what it is,"

 

LOL To call the US an imperialist nation or an empire in its true form is silly. The US doesn't even come close to true empires like Rome or Britain of Old.

 

 

"Iraq was the result of shortsidedness, greed, idealism and the pathetic misplaced sense of rightoussness that one nation of people suffered more than anyone else in this world, destined for help from our democratic supermen."

 

Huh? I don't think anyone claimed Iraq suffered more than anybody else in the world.

 

The real shortsightedness was the the UN/US/rest of the world NOT removing Saddam during the original Gulf War. That was the time to do it.

[Tigranes]

Except SK seems to get along well with the US. Sure, they don't agree with the US on everything but it's not like SK is anti US.

 

Not really. For the last ~15 years it's been a constant struggle between two perspectives; (a) we don't need no stinkin' US, screw their overbearing ways; (b) nevertheless they are a big economy and a big power and quite willing to be on generally amicable terms, so we need to keep on their good books. Now, the actual foreign policy that comes out of SK has been much more to (b) than (a), generally, because (i) our diplomats are usually quite spineless for some reason; (ii) well, taking aside national pride, (b) is usually the more pragmatic option, really, especially for the economy.

 

see, that's just nonsense. this is what pisses off all of us in the US when nonsense claims like this are made. what proof do you have, or anybody for that matter, that we don't care? huh? if you want respect out of the few of us in here that defend the US, you're going to have to give a little in return.

 

Basic clarification: 'US' = foreign policy, not every US citizen, obviously. If your statements are coming from there, let me know. Otherwise:

 

As seen above with SK, foreign policy of a nation is not always a reflection of what the statistical majority of Americans think. I hold no delusions about evil Americans in their nuclear families plotting to keep those damn Asians under the bootheel. But uh, no, I hardly think my observation is 'nonsense'. If you want reams of scholarly proof and a dates and so forth I can't provide that, and yeah, if you want to say I don't really have a say because of that, that's fair enough. But just to clarify further:

 

The observation that the US is self-centred, overbearing and extremely selfish and quid-pro-quid in its help is... well, I think it's very much on target, especially with SK. But that doesn't make them bad guys, or even anything near what the USSR was doing to Communist states and its neighbours during the Cold War. It's more in the sense that the US knows it's got most of the bargaining chips and the other side doesn't, and it's best for the US if the countries it helps develops in such a way that it will continue to be dependent on, or friendly to, the US. That's... that's common sense, unless you're claiming that the US government helps the countries it does primarily out of the goodness of its heart. But that's gone on for well nigh 40-50 years now, and numerous countries have developed the perception that getting help from the US always has strings attached, and those strings are likely to leave a sour taste in the mouth. In other words US is only acting sensibly and practically, but it's doing so with the rhetoric of helping 'freedom' and it's doing it from such a position of power that makes some people see it as.... unsavoury. I'm certainly not suggesting that they should just stop, because that's both unrealistic and nonsensical.

 

For the average US citizen, well, it kind of sucks, too; they help all these countries, and they're only looking out for their interests. It'd be stupid to just pour billions down other countries' treasuries for literally nothing in return. Again, they're nowhere as 'bastardy' as some others. But the fact remains that there is such a perception amongst the helped countries, and that perception is based on truth (if sometimes exaggerated in varying degrees).

 

Again, I haven't put in a lot of time into politics so I can't provide a heap of empirical data. I'm just expressing my perspective based on what I see and read and hear. Feel free to correct and challenge it, but while my view may be partial, or incomplete, or biased, or incorrect, it's not baseless and it's not 'nonsense'.

 

LOL To call the US an imperialist nation or an empire in its true form is silly.

 

Yep, it's very different (and nowhere as evullll). In fact, even to call it a hegemon is kind of shaky, because it doesn't really hold the complete range of influences a theoretical hegemon would.

[Volourn]

"The observation that the US is self-centred, overbearing and extremely selfish and quid-pro-quid in its help is.."

 

Sounds like every country in the world. The only difference very few have the power or influence to do what they want.

[Meshugger]

"Is imperialism good or not? Because that it is what it is,"

 

LOL To call the US an imperialist nation or an empire in its true form is silly. The US doesn't even come close to true empires like Rome or Britain of Old.

 

Yeah, and people still argue what the 'true' form of metal is, and what a 'true' RPG is. Rhodesian imperialism died by the WWII, and to claim that any form imperialism has simply dissappeared is equally folly. I'll end this one with that i disagree.

 

"Iraq was the result of shortsidedness, greed, idealism and the pathetic misplaced sense of rightoussness that one nation of people suffered more than anyone else in this world, destined for help from our democratic supermen."

 

Huh? I don't think anyone claimed Iraq suffered more than anybody else in the world.

 

It is an observation of the rhetoric of the Bush administration.

 

The real shortsightedness was the the UN/US/rest of the world NOT removing Saddam during the original Gulf War. That was the time to do it.

 

Right. There was also the right time to stop the slaughter in Rwanda, the rising of the 'dictator' of Iran, end the genocide in darfur, liberate North Korea, end the civil war and suffering in the democratic republic of Kongo, liberate the oppression of tibetanians against the chinese, liberate West-Sahara from Marocco, ending the civil war in Algeria, supporting independence for an independent Kashmir, ending the Israeli-middle east conflict once and for all, overthrow Kadaffi and liberate Lybia, supporting a state for the oppressed Kurds and so on and so on.

 

But hey, Saddam was that horrible threat, the evil mastermind in the far east, who was overthrown within three weeks and with US casulties way too little for the press to even bother to report. Or maybe, just maybe did the guy go against US interests to such a degree that a tactic of pre-emptive strike was mandated. And they are still there, are they not?

 

What do you call that? Strategic reallocation of leadership in the eastern sector? Pre-emptive peacekeeping? Normalization of hostile elements?

Edited December 29, 2008 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

I think part of the problem is a disagreement about how we want the world to look. We can't objectively discuss the merits of anyone's policies independent of context.

 

I'll probably be found too be hypocritical, but for starters I'd like to see a universal respect for the key human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness _across a broad timescale_. That is I can accept things getting worse before they get better. But in the end that's what I'm after for all folks, white, brown, Christian, atheist, Muslim etc.

[Meshugger]

I think part of the problem is a disagreement about how we want the world to look. We can't objectively discuss the merits of anyone's policies independent of context.

 

I'll probably be found too be hypocritical, but for starters I'd like to see a universal respect for the key human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness _across a broad timescale_. That is I can accept things getting worse before they get better. But in the end that's what I'm after for all folks, white, brown, Christian, atheist, Muslim etc.

 

I do not see where you are going with this, i do not think that anyone on this forum would disagree that the rights of life, liberty and pursuit for happiness are something that shouldn't be interpreted as universal, nor something that could be interpreted differently according to customs, culture or religion.

[Gorgon]

Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary.

yeah, don't we all think the europeans would be better off saying "heil hitler" every day. damn if only the US hadn't stepped in it would be soooo much better.

 

taks

That's one. I wouldn't say that qualifies as many, and besides everyone was in on that one. If you hadn't gotten off your asses you would have been speaking German yourselves.

 

I'll raise you Argentina, Vietnam.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Morgoth]

You think Hitler could have hold together his Third Reich that much longer? Even if he was military successful, sooner or later he and his Nazi goons would have crumbled due to internal resistance. People became aware of the true face of the Nazis by the end of the war, so his "Deutscher Lebensraum" dream would have remained only that, a dream, and reason and order would eventually have come back*

 

*includes massive loss of civilian and resitance lifes.

 

Edit: The point is, believing that the entire world would speak German now in case of an Allied failure is just ridiculous.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Morgoth

[Wrath of Dagon]

South Korea are just some examples.

 

A perfect example of where they do a lot of good, but they also do a lot of damaging crap, because they don't really care about the country they help carving their own way out in the world, or the country's long-term strategic goals, act with overbearing arrogance and coercion, and so forth. It's still a given that they did a very good thing by coming in and helping, but it's a classic case of how they come in and help and do good things, but then do enough to get reviled by the beneficiaries.

Then quit running bellyaching to us every time you have a problem. You'd be in North Korea right now if it wasn't for US.

[Gorgon]

Who, knows, it's just a saying. Maybe Barbarossa alone would have broken the Reich.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You think Hitler could have hold together his Third Reich that much longer? Even if he was military successful, sooner or later he and his Nazi goons would have crumbled due to internal resistance. People became aware of the true face of the Nazis by the end of the war, so his "Deutscher Lebensraum" dream would have remained only that, a dream, and reason and order would eventually have come back*

 

*includes massive loss of civilian and resitance lifes.

 

Edit: The point is, believing that the entire world would speak German now in case of an Allied failure is just ridiculous.

Yes, just like the Soviet Union crumbled on its own. But I guess you people wouldn't mind 70+ years of nazi rule.

[Killian Kalthorne]

"Yeah that all sounds good, in reality it's hard to remember that many times where American intervention left people better off than they were before. Plenty of examples to the contrary."

 

O RLY?

 

Kuwait, Japan, most if not all of Europe, and South Korea are just some examples.

 

Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, and many Central and South American countries are good examples of US interference that has turned very poorly if not made the lives of the people living there far worse than before.

[Morgoth]

You think Hitler could have hold together his Third Reich that much longer? Even if he was military successful, sooner or later he and his Nazi goons would have crumbled due to internal resistance. People became aware of the true face of the Nazis by the end of the war, so his "Deutscher Lebensraum" dream would have remained only that, a dream, and reason and order would eventually have come back*

 

*includes massive loss of civilian and resitance lifes.

 

Edit: The point is, believing that the entire world would speak German now in case of an Allied failure is just ridiculous.

Yes, just like the Soviet Union crumbled on its own. But I guess you people wouldn't mind 70+ years of nazi rule.

That's the difference between the Commies and the Nazis. The Soviets had an entire nation standing behind them, so it only could crumble through an outside force. Even today, Russians are mourning Stalins dead as one of the greates Russian figures. Nazi Germany otoh....people became aware of the atrocities, the NSDAP became more and more unpopular by the end of the war. You can't continue with your regime that long when you don't have your own people backing it up.

[Wrath of Dagon]

[That's the difference between the Commies and the Nazis. The Soviets had an entire nation standing behind them, so it only could crumble through an outside force. Even today, Russians are mourning Stalins dead as one of the greates Russian figures. Nazi Germany otoh....people became aware of the atrocities, the NSDAP became more and more unpopular by the end of the war. You can't continue with your regime that long when you don't have your own people backing it up.

That's entirely not the case. The Soviet government was never popular with the people, and only stayed in power through brutal repression and terror under Stalin and later mostly through apathy and institutionalized fear. And the communists didn't have anything to learn about atrocities from the nazis. And at least Germany had a functional economy, which the Soviet Union never did, which was the biggest factor in its eventual collapse.