America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[sandinista]

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

Guys like me, whatever. Again, because YOU say so, guys like you bore the hell out of me. The reference to war spending was to put relief spending in some kind of context, that's all, if you can't get that, I really don't care. Your comments are "radical" in the same way mine are, like I said before... and the above IS off topic.

[Ian]

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

Guys like me, whatever. Again, because YOU say so, guys like you bore the hell out of me. The reference to war spending was to put relief spending in some kind of context, that's all, if you can't get that, I really don't care. Your comments are "radical" in the same way mine are, like I said before... and the above IS off topic.

Man, your mental defense mechanisms really get a workout around here, don't they?

[sandinista]

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

Guys like me, whatever. Again, because YOU say so, guys like you bore the hell out of me. The reference to war spending was to put relief spending in some kind of context, that's all, if you can't get that, I really don't care. Your comments are "radical" in the same way mine are, like I said before... and the above IS off topic.

Man, your mental defense mechanisms really get a workout around here, don't they?

Just joining in on your workout. Looked like fun. YOU talking to ME about mental defenses

[Ian]

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

Guys like me, whatever. Again, because YOU say so, guys like you bore the hell out of me. The reference to war spending was to put relief spending in some kind of context, that's all, if you can't get that, I really don't care. Your comments are "radical" in the same way mine are, like I said before... and the above IS off topic.

Man, your mental defense mechanisms really get a workout around here, don't they?

Just joining in on your workout. Looked like fun. YOU talking to ME about mental defenses

*Same comment as my last one*

Plus one more - do you honestly feel at home here?

[sandinista]

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

Guys like me, whatever. Again, because YOU say so, guys like you bore the hell out of me. The reference to war spending was to put relief spending in some kind of context, that's all, if you can't get that, I really don't care. Your comments are "radical" in the same way mine are, like I said before... and the above IS off topic.

Man, your mental defense mechanisms really get a workout around here, don't they?

Just joining in on your workout. Looked like fun. YOU talking to ME about mental defenses

*Same comment as my last one*

Plus one more - do you honestly feel at home here?

same comment as last one, fucking laugher.

...and, yes of course I feel "at home" as much as one can in a fucking forum?? Only a handful of posters I can't be bothered with. Only one I'm done with, plus you and toontown crack me the fuck up.

[Ian]

Is this really the best you can do? I call you a grumpy one-subject radical (as does pretty much everyone else you debate with here), and you come back with "I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I?" Friggin' Pee Wee Herman dude.

[Coito ergo sum]

In what way has this not been a victory?

Last I checked, the Iraqi government was having trouble selecting a prime minister, and terrorism there was increasing.

The political situation in Iraq is still very unstable, and there's still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

The Iraq War has been a phenomenal success, whether or not instability remains. And, things are improving.

[Ian]

In what way has this not been a victory?

Last I checked, the Iraqi government was having trouble selecting a prime minister, and terrorism there was increasing.

The political situation in Iraq is still very unstable, and there's still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

The Iraq War has been a phenomenal success, whether or not instability remains. And, things are improving.

^ Yeah, though the ends don't justify the means.

[Warren Dew]

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

There isn't a stable government there yet. I would agree the Iraq War has been quite successful so far, but it's not over until the postwar situation stabilizes. There needs to be some follow through.

[Warren Dew]

Well, my understanding of "investment" is money that they have spent, and want back, usually with interest.

That would be a "loan". "Investment" has a broader meaning - a government can invest in better streets, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have to charge tolls.

And what has Iraq got that's worth anything, apart from oil?

Check out the second paragraph of the post you're responding to:

The payoff for the U.S. has nothing to do with money; it's having another major state in the middle east that isn't a deadly enemy of the U.S. And yes, for some of us, giving the Iraqis a less repressive government than Lyndon Johnson helped install in 1963 is part of the payoff, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

and the installation of dictators is also well-known... Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Pol Pot, and so on.

The US did not install Pol Pot - he was a communist. We opposed Pol Pot. We did not install Saddam - at all. And, I'll give you Pinochet. My point was that people try to paint the US as an all powerful puller-of-all-strings in the world - we install the dictators we want, we kick the ones out we don't want. It's all our fault, because the US can do anything, so if only we'd behave ourselves, then peace would be at hand. I'm not suggesting the US is blameless and lily-white. I'm suggesting that the picture of the US as some all seeing eye is incorrect - I wish it were the case, because it would mean that we in the US are completely safe from foreign attack. But, unfortunately, it's not the case, and the reality is that we live in a dangerous world, and we are at grave risk.

The bombing of Cambodia facilitated their ascension,

Language is important here. "Installed" vs. arguably "facilitated their ascension" through actions not intended for the purpose of installing anybody - huge difference. Unless you want to claim that the anti-war movement "installed" Pol Pot and was responsible for the killing fields, since they "facilitated his ascension" and the murder of millions.

and when push came to shove with the Vietnamese trying to stake a claim, the US went with letting Pol Pot stay...

Here's that implicit assumption again...the US is somehow all powerful and we "let him stay." Did the US also "let Ho Chi Minh stay?" You think this was just the US pulling strings and deciding who stays and who goes? We bailed on Vietnam and that caused a lot of shit to happen in the region. That doesn't mean we "installed" Pol Pot.

His regime also received a fair few million in support throughout the 80s.

That doesn't have anything to do with "installing" him. Further, Vietnam invaded Cambodia. We supported the anti-invasion forces. The right move was......let Hanoi just take whatever it wants? Kill another million?

I know the US isn't the all-seeing evil eye... But the fact that it's routinely shown itself to be incredibly hypocritical

That's fine. The US has been hypocritical. Like every other country, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark.... Being hypocritical does not make the extreme claims of dictator-installation, and weird allegations about the US essentially being responsible for everything everywhere true.

.

and making its choices based on its own interests,

All countries act in their own interests. News flash. Film at 11.

rather than the lofty democratic notions being bandied about,

as
The US has almost always considered facilitating democracy as in its own interests, although pragmatism has set in at various times and the US has acted contrary to that interest at times.

is worth pointing out whenever headlines about the US successfully ridding the world of evil tyrannies before moseying into the sunset.

The US is generally on the side of right, isn't it? The US has freed a good number of folks, hasn't it? The US must have something good going on at home, don't you think, given that we immigrate the population of Norway to the US in 4 years. 1 million people a year become US citizens. 1 million more become permanent residents. People come to the US in such numbers that we're having a hard time sustaining. If we were an evil despotic nation, would that be the case? Which country is providing the most aid to Pakistan? Which country provided the most aid for the tsunami victims a few years back? Who gives the most aid for AIDS relief, and always has done so? Who has worked harder at mid-east peace? Who gives more aid and support to Israel? Who gave the most aid to the eastern Europeans in their fight for liberty? Who keeps North Korea from taking over south Korea in a massive million man invasion?

I mean - say what you want about the bad things the US has done..... \the US has nevertheless done a lot of good, and helped a lot of people, and has been counted upon many times to get shit done. Hussein Annexed Kuwait - who enforced international law and got him out? Who bore the lion's share of the work in getting the Serbs reigned in and stopping the genocide there? Who fought for Kosovo more than anyone else?

[sandinista]

Is this really the best you can do? I call you a grumpy one-subject radical (as does pretty much everyone else you debate with here), and you come back with "I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I?" Friggin' Pee Wee Herman dude.

Pretty much everyone my fucking ass. Like I said, a handful. Big deal. You're comments are worth nothing more than "friggin peeweeherman dude" no need to waste my time with you're petty "Oh your a radical and I'm so moderate so therefore I am right bullshit" whatever.

[Coito ergo sum]

In what way has this not been a victory?

Last I checked, the Iraqi government was having trouble selecting a prime minister, and terrorism there was increasing.

The political situation in Iraq is still very unstable, and there's still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

The Iraq War has been a phenomenal success, whether or not instability remains. And, things are improving.

^ Yeah, though the ends don't justify the means.

My position on the Iraq war is roughly consistent with Hitchens' view. I've been over and over it on thread after thread, year after year. Suffice to say, taking out Hussein was, ultimately, the right thing to do, and once he was out, the problems faced afterwards were almost inevitable.

[Ian]

In what way has this not been a victory?

Last I checked, the Iraqi government was having trouble selecting a prime minister, and terrorism there was increasing.

The political situation in Iraq is still very unstable, and there's still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

Once again, in what way has this not been a victory?

The Iraq War has been a phenomenal success, whether or not instability remains. And, things are improving.

^ Yeah, though the ends don't justify the means.

My position on the Iraq war is roughly consistent with Hitchens' view. I've been over and over it on thread after thread, year after year. Suffice to say, taking out Hussein was, ultimately, the right thing to do, and once he was out, the problems faced afterwards were almost inevitable.

So then... who's next? :twisted:

[mistermack]

Well, my understanding of "investment" is money that they have spent, and want back, usually with interest.

That would be a "loan". "Investment" has a broader meaning - a government can invest in better streets, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have to charge tolls.

You must know that's completely untrue. You are just winding me up.
You spend money on your own streets, maybe that's investment. You spend it on Iraq's streets. How is that an investment for the US taxpayer.?
Anyway, it was never spent, except on cruise missiles etc.

And what has Iraq got that's worth anything, apart from oil?

Check out the second paragraph of the post you're responding to:

The payoff for the U.S. has nothing to do with money; it's having another major state in the middle east that isn't a deadly enemy of the U.S. And yes, for some of us, giving the Iraqis a less repressive government than Lyndon Johnson helped install in 1963 is part of the payoff.

Now you are taking the piss. Do you have any idea at all of how much $1,000,000,000,000 is?
And that's all they get for it? And don't want a penny back?
.