These would more correctly be termed the indirect products of the invasion and occupation.
Entire Middle East Not Worth the Bones of a Single US Marine
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
These would more correctly be termed the indirect products of the invasion and occupation.
Why is that, GeoffP?
The products/results do not follow from the unrealistic goals of a mistake. It was entirely predictable, and was indeed predicted by many, that Iraqis would bitterly resist an American societal makeover.
I agree - the products followed directly from the unrealistic and ridiculous behaviour of Iraqi and foreign terrorists. No one is making people plant IEDs, save perhaps their superiors.
So then is Bush a fool or a monster? Either he was very stupid or deliberately evil. You can't have it both ways, you know. Frankly, the Americans' capacity for Middle Eastern intelligence has been lacking in some areas; namely, societal ones.
"So then is Bush a fool or a monster? Either he was very stupid or deliberately evil. You can't have it both ways, you know. "
False dilemma: It's stupid to be evil, and further there's no evidence that GW Bush is a mastermind of anything.
"Frankly, the Americans' capacity for Middle Eastern intelligence has been lacking in some areas; namely, societal ones."
Agreed.
False dilemma: It's stupid to be evil, and further there's no evidence that GW Bush is a mastermind of anything.
"Frankly, the Americans' capacity for Middle Eastern intelligence has been lacking in some areas; namely, societal ones."
Agreed.
Yes you can, he is evil and stupid.
Clearly it isn't stupid to be evil! I'm evil, but not stupid. I'm sure you could find some people to disagree with the latter, but those are the actually stupid ones.
Anyway, your proposition was that the outcome of the invasion was known and therefore eeeeevil. Now you claim that Bush is not a mastermind, which implies stupidity. So was the product (misery etc) that you claim is "direct" then incidental or the objective of the invasion? Whether or not one agrees with the invasion, your position strikes me as - shall we say - hyperbolous.
Possibly; but hype is saying that the misery was the direct product of the invasion, which I disagree with.
"So was the product (misery etc) that you claim is "direct" then incidental or the objective of the invasion? "
The product and the objectives were irreconcilable, because the objectives were unrealistic. The objectives were summarized by the Project for the New American Century, and were likely more specifically laid out in Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group before the invasion. The actual result of that specific unrealistic policy has been the unprecedented hell that Iraq is now going through, and the blowback Americans will face in the future.
The product and the objectives were irreconcilable, because the objectives were unrealistic. The objectives were summarized by the Project for the New American Century, and were likely more specifically laid out in Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group before the invasion. The actual result of that specific unrealistic policy has been the unprecedented hell that Iraq is now going through, and the blowback Americans will face in the future.
By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism. Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer.
"By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.
"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.
"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? "
Obviously. They were not anticipating such chaos.
"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.
"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.
"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? "
Obviously. They were not anticipating such chaos.
"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.
The chaos was unexpected, hell the war didn't exactly go their to plan did it? Wasn't it supposed to cost $300Million? With Iraqi oil paying for most of the post war reconstruction?
The Neocon dream of a pro US (and Pro Israel) flourishing democracy was simply a fantasy. As for Cheny he's made his millions, thats not exactly a secret.
The Neocon dream of a pro US (and Pro Israel) flourishing democracy was simply a fantasy. As for Cheny he's made his millions, thats not exactly a secret.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
I pray that Americans have learned that their administration has really screwed up their country and completely devastated the Middle East. I really hope that at last Americans, particular those who supported Bush, learn that we people of the Middle East desire only peace and their administration has destroyed the infrastructure and massacred the people of four sovereign Muslim nations Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Somalia. And yet, they ask, why are people in the Middle East angry? it should be obvious by now. It's US foreign policy in the Middle East which is making more enemies and losing much needed friends.
As long as some people can make a fortune from the suffering and death of certain others wars will be nothing more than genocide without any useful purpose for peace-loving people. Wars are genocide disguised as failed diplomacy.
Most Americans flatly refuse to go to war and want no part of it. Those impostors occupying the leadership positions in America resort to domestic mass murder to get the genocide/war rolling. By the use of terror these impostors incite the masses into a bloody rage that makes them want to lash out blindly at anything their overloard/masters tell them to strike with deadly force.
Chaos is all mankind has ever known because of these genocides they call wars. When the wars/genocides are ended for good the chaotic societies these impostors thrive in will go away.
Well said.
Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation? Exactly how. I'm very curious to hear this one.
And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation? You realize, of course, that the terrorist ruckus in Iraq right now has resulted in less stability and the withdrawal of American troops, which means less protection for the oil production sites, which amusingly enough are already threatened with terrorism? Is this all part of the master plan?
But you said that the chaos was the direct result of the occupation (and not the indirect result of the occupation, but the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality. That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks. Otherwise, its the direct result of the terrorism, and the indirect result of the invasion.
Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves.
You can flip that particular coin: how does continuation of American presence help or expedite the situation?
Dear Geoff,
Hows it oign and thank you for your response?
i did not say that at all, anyway the British rule that area before 1948 and called it the british mandate for Palestine or something similar
You are right Geoff, not one country does all bad acts and not one country can do all good.
Yes the poor Jewish immigrants have escaped the slaughter and racism against them from Christian Europe.
Same shit different day i suppose Geoff, but nontheless we will keep our chins up.
GeoffP:“By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.
”Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? "
You are being disgustingly flippant about the horrors that Iraqis are enduring, and I suspect that it is because you are exhibiting a conditioned dehumanization of the victims. There is literally a horrific inhumanity taking place in Iraq right now, and the American leaders who concocted this failed occupation are directly responsible for initiating this downward spiral into depravity.
"And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation?"
As I have been patiently, clearly, and repetitively explaining to you, the leading direct unintended consequence of the experiment has been the breakdown of Iraqi society. Iraq continues to be wracked by the agony of a societal seizure, that was directly induced by an intervention that has been an incompatible systemic insult. When accountable people carry out an experiment, and the experiment goes catastrophically wrong, accountable people halt the experiment. Irresponsible and insincere people, desperately avoiding inquiries inevitably leading to questions of accountability, often make ridiculous statements of denial, and dance childishly around the subject.
"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.
"And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation?"
No again. Unintended consequences remain the aspect of this disaster that you refuse to acknowledge. Events have clearly shown that unintended consequences are exactly what has become of the Iraq experiment. You have given no reasonable basis for your denial of this reality. I am sensitive to the fact that this denial is essential to your stubborn spin: You are expressing personal investment in the neoconservative project in Iraq. That's fine, but I won't leave you to make facile obfuscations of the basic facts.
"You realize, of course, that the terrorist ruckus in Iraq right now has resulted in less stability and the withdrawal of American troops, which means less protection for the oil production sites, which amusingly enough are already threatened with terrorism? Is this all part of the master plan?"
Because that's such a muddled statement, I'll first offer my estimation of what you are trying to say there: That American troops have been a stabilizing force in Iraq, and beneficial to American energy interests.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, then you are just repeating your counterpoint again and again without any rational support. Your repetitious insistence that foreign intervention in Iraq, instigated deceptively by the Bush Wite House, is not the leading political irritant in Iraq is a baseless and ridiculous argument. The failure in Iraq is in fact a grave threat to American interests, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq?"
(Round and round we go) Obviously. Again, the architects of this war were not anticipating such chaos. They admitted as much in their early pronouncements of their expectations during the mobilization and invasion. I don't think I need to round up the quotes for you, because they are well established in the public record and conscience now. I doubt that you have managed personally to fully repress these memories.
"But you said that the chaos was the direct result of the occupation (and not the indirect result of the occupation"
Snap out of it, Geoff. Even if this issue is disturbing for you, you've got to face reality if you want to be taken seriously here.
"...the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality."
Blah, blah, blah. Also untrue: The fatality rate among Iraqis, relative to US fatalities, is much higher, and the deaths are by no means confined to "terrorists".
"That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks."
Horse pucky. There is direct correlation between American troops in Iraq and the violence there.
"Otherwise, its the direct result of the terrorism, and the indirect result of the invasion."
That's just more labored twisting of the facts, repeated so that you can again trot out your trusty buzzword "terrorism", now a tired zionist and American right-wing-extremist way of summarily dismissing all opposition, and all innocent victims- a codeword dismissing all victims as undeserving of any quarter or compassion. You are employing tactics of dehumanization that would do a Goebbels proud.
"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.
"Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves."
Oh, bullshit. You can't dumb this down to some inane plot line like a fantasy adventure of 2-dimensional heroes, villains, and foes. This isn't a game of Cowboys and Indians. Try confronting the issues, Geoff. The silly game of denial you're playing is just lame.
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.
”Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? "
You are being disgustingly flippant about the horrors that Iraqis are enduring, and I suspect that it is because you are exhibiting a conditioned dehumanization of the victims. There is literally a horrific inhumanity taking place in Iraq right now, and the American leaders who concocted this failed occupation are directly responsible for initiating this downward spiral into depravity.
"And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation?"
As I have been patiently, clearly, and repetitively explaining to you, the leading direct unintended consequence of the experiment has been the breakdown of Iraqi society. Iraq continues to be wracked by the agony of a societal seizure, that was directly induced by an intervention that has been an incompatible systemic insult. When accountable people carry out an experiment, and the experiment goes catastrophically wrong, accountable people halt the experiment. Irresponsible and insincere people, desperately avoiding inquiries inevitably leading to questions of accountability, often make ridiculous statements of denial, and dance childishly around the subject.
"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.
"And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation?"
No again. Unintended consequences remain the aspect of this disaster that you refuse to acknowledge. Events have clearly shown that unintended consequences are exactly what has become of the Iraq experiment. You have given no reasonable basis for your denial of this reality. I am sensitive to the fact that this denial is essential to your stubborn spin: You are expressing personal investment in the neoconservative project in Iraq. That's fine, but I won't leave you to make facile obfuscations of the basic facts.
"You realize, of course, that the terrorist ruckus in Iraq right now has resulted in less stability and the withdrawal of American troops, which means less protection for the oil production sites, which amusingly enough are already threatened with terrorism? Is this all part of the master plan?"
Because that's such a muddled statement, I'll first offer my estimation of what you are trying to say there: That American troops have been a stabilizing force in Iraq, and beneficial to American energy interests.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, then you are just repeating your counterpoint again and again without any rational support. Your repetitious insistence that foreign intervention in Iraq, instigated deceptively by the Bush Wite House, is not the leading political irritant in Iraq is a baseless and ridiculous argument. The failure in Iraq is in fact a grave threat to American interests, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq?"
(Round and round we go) Obviously. Again, the architects of this war were not anticipating such chaos. They admitted as much in their early pronouncements of their expectations during the mobilization and invasion. I don't think I need to round up the quotes for you, because they are well established in the public record and conscience now. I doubt that you have managed personally to fully repress these memories.
"But you said that the chaos was the direct result of the occupation (and not the indirect result of the occupation"
Snap out of it, Geoff. Even if this issue is disturbing for you, you've got to face reality if you want to be taken seriously here.
"...the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality."
Blah, blah, blah. Also untrue: The fatality rate among Iraqis, relative to US fatalities, is much higher, and the deaths are by no means confined to "terrorists".
"That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks."
Horse pucky. There is direct correlation between American troops in Iraq and the violence there.
"Otherwise, its the direct result of the terrorism, and the indirect result of the invasion."
That's just more labored twisting of the facts, repeated so that you can again trot out your trusty buzzword "terrorism", now a tired zionist and American right-wing-extremist way of summarily dismissing all opposition, and all innocent victims- a codeword dismissing all victims as undeserving of any quarter or compassion. You are employing tactics of dehumanization that would do a Goebbels proud.
"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.
"Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves."
Oh, bullshit. You can't dumb this down to some inane plot line like a fantasy adventure of 2-dimensional heroes, villains, and foes. This isn't a game of Cowboys and Indians. Try confronting the issues, Geoff. The silly game of denial you're playing is just lame.