Democrats dishonest on Iraq

Imperialism stays against the will of the people. That is what Iraq was like under Saddam. That is not the case with neo-conservatives nor the Bush Administration.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Imperialism

Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Thanks for that definition. It doesn't fit was America has done in any way.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization"

Guess that's why you have to deny the neocons are fascist imperialists Joseph.

The neocons and the Bush administration do not represent what America is all about. They represent what greed and corporate corruption is all about.

[ November 17, 2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

If this is true, then why are we the ones who liberate the oppressed from tyrannical dictators who are bent on imperialist ventures? Your anti-American tirade is idiotic and makes no sense whatsoever.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I guess the next question would be, if this is true, is when are we going to storm China? North Korea? Iran?

Aren't we here to "liberate the oppressed from tyrannical dictators"?


Saddam was a bad man, but we had no business doing what we did. *IF* and that a BIG IF, but IF we had a reason for going after him, he should have been numnber 2 on our list. Number 1 should have been Usama Bin Laden.

Jamie
Ever heard of the game - Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? Let's play Where in the World is Usama Bin Laden?

 

1. We had every right to go after him.

2. We did go after UBL and are still there looking for him.

3. America is not an imperialist nation partly because we are a democracy. Democracies don't typically go out looking to conquer the world. That is generally the role of tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Hussein, UBL, etc...

Joseph Botwinick

 

On this topic we will have to agree to disagree.

I am not for for debating a dead horse. We both have differnt opinions of things, so I'll exit with agreeing to disagree.

Jamie

 

Jamie,

I can certainly respect that. We can agree to disagree and still be friends at least on a Christian level. We will stand opposed to each other politically, and I will do everything to defeat your side politically...but that doesn't mean I can't pray for you and you for me.

Joseph Botwinick

 

That's an easy question to answer Joseph, we're not liberating the Iraqi people that's just the propaganda being spewed to herd the American people and those of the coalition countries into going along with the agenda. What is actually going on is the international corporations are privatizing Iraq's resources. Saddam was more of a threat to the energy moguls profits than he was to the American people. Had he uped the production of oil he could have seriously rocked their boat.

What was the first thing Bremmer did when he arrived in Iraq? He illegally (according to international law) changed the Iraqi law to allow what had belonged to the Iraqi state and the people to be controlled by the international corporations and banks.

Control of the government by corporations is fascism. Mussolini called it 'corporatism', George Bush the corporate globalist puppet calls it patriotism.

How was Saddam an imperialist BTW? Saddam asked Bush Sr. what reaction the US would have if he invaded Kuwait, the anwser he got back...go ahead we don't care about Arab Arab conflicts.

 

The Clinton administration did not try to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. I missed where they thought that nuclear attack would be possible within a couple of years or a few months. They believed in sanctions and limited strikes at specific targets as punishment for specific acts by the Iraqis coupled with diplomacy. I read the regime change act - it advocated a regime change from within, not invasion by outside forces.

Frankly, I see a difference between strategic strikes and outright war. I'm surprised at those that don't.

 

'In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade." '

- LINK

 

This is not a direct source, it is a 2005 opinion piece. Oddly, this implies that al Qaeda was working against the Iraqi government which is certainly a different kind of link. I'd like to see what the writ actually says rather than what Victor Davis Hanson says it says.

In 2002, Tenet was working for Bush. Tenet resigned over giving bad intelligence to the Bush admin, so I have to wonder which things he said in the lead up to the invasion can be relied upon.

Conveniently left out is that the FBI drove him home after questioning him. Iraq imprisoned him. That's a solid link.

 

I see, Daisy. If you like the info the source is good. If you don't like the info the source is questionable.

 

I can't figure out how to copy and paste from the pdf file but here it is - look on page 3:

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/indict1.pdf

 

Absolutely the worse thing we could do. To pull out would cost a million innocents their lives. You're slipping leftward do to the masterful job of misinformation by the leftist.

Bro Curtis' idea of permanent occupation is right on.

 

The Clinton administration...ha!

Al Queada was responsible for Khobar towers, the simultaneous Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, AND the first WTC attempt. Except nobody knew that until after 9-11.

Who cares what the Clinton admin did or didnt do...worthless commentary at this point.

S&N:
There is no such thing as an 'EX-Marine'. I believe you wouldnt know imperialism if it bit you on the neck. Had any of your posts about it been remotely true, much of the middle east would be a rather large graveyard by now and oil would be free to all Americans.

Poncho:
You claimed (and so do many of your stripe) that the President is not all that smart, yet you insist on giving him all the credit for expressing the virtues (a term rather loosely used) of greed and corporate corruption.

You cant be stupid and dominate the world. I am going to buy each of you a highlighter so you can mark where you last left off in your talking points that some hate the President group has obviously passed out. This way, you can actually have a conversation and remember what you just said and the rest of us will take you more seriously.

Oh and Jamie, maybe you should stop dragging dead horses into the discussion and perhaps that will curb your propensity to want to beat one.

 

"The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners...

A former top Pentagon official who served during Bush's first term said he believed there was a "growing consensus" on withdrawing about 40,000 troops before next year's congressional election. That would be followed by further substantial pullouts in 2007 if it became clear that Iraqi forces could contain the insurgency...

U.S. officials hope that by the end of 2007, the remaining U.S. force will be small enough to not offend Iraqi sensibilities yet large enough to help Iraq's military with reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and air power...

The shift in the administration's attitude also may reflect concern that the U.S. military can't bear the current strains indefinitely...

"I think the administration will yield to the reality of an Army that is apparently beginning to buckle under the strain of these long-term deployments," Krepinevich said..."

- Story LINK

 

Absolutely the worse thing we could do. To pull out would cost a million innocents their lives. You're slipping leftward do to the masterful job of misinformation by the leftist.

Bro Curtis' idea of permanent occupation is right on. </font>[/QUOTE]Another Neocon has spoken.

We, as Americans, should be diametrically opposed to imperialistic ideas like this.