ISIS or rather the IS is at it again [NSA]

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > ISIS or rather the IS is at it again [NSA]

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

if you think criticism of american imperialism is "right-of-center" i'm not sure what to tell you

I shouldnt mix everyone up. Some people seemed very critical of the democrats as if they shared equal responsibility for going to war. I think that is factually false and was interested in getting into the thought process that gets people to think that way.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 14, 2024 09:27

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

oh. youre trolling

That is the reality though. In a perfect world everything would be powered by sunshine and flowers but its isnt.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:41

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Jst0rm posted:

I shouldnt mix everyone up. Some people seemed very critical of the democrats as if they shared equal responsibility for going to war. I think that is factually false and was interested in getting into the thought process that gets people to think that way.

I'm sure you could find some blameless individuals but in TYOOL 2014 if you think there is a difference between the parties you are a literal retard

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:42

AdvancesMONKEY: Mar 30, 2010; by Lowtax

remember the 2003 anti-war protests. I bet they wish they where wrong!

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:42

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

VikingSkull posted:

I'm sure you could find some blameless individuals but in TYOOL 2014 if you think there is a difference between the parties you are a literal retard

Im not talking about 2014 though. Im talking about 2003.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:44

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Jst0rm posted:

I shouldnt mix everyone up. Some people seemed very critical of the democrats as if they shared equal responsibility for going to war. I think that is factually false and was interested in getting into the thought process that gets people to think that way.

Dems held the Senate in 2003 and Dem votes caused the war.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:45

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

the point isnt who shares responsibility for that second iraq war, its who shares responsibility for the imperial system. obama has been pretty militaristic, awful on civil liberties, and this current conflict is escalating fast

that democrats opposed republicans for carrying out the same foreign policy which democrats have embraced while they are in power - this harkens back to a reference an earlier poster made about blair and the labour party. the neoliberal reality being that whatever social issues are fought over, the basic imperial plan enjoys a great deal of continuity between establishment parties and it will ultimately destroy us

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:46

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

THS posted:

the point isnt who shares responsibility for that second iraq war, its who shares responsibility for the imperial system. obama has been pretty militaristic, awful on civil liberties, and this current conflict is escalating fast

that democrats opposed republicans for carrying out the same foreign policy which democrats have embraced while they are in power - this harkens back to a reference an earlier poster made about blair and the labour party. the neoliberal reality being that whatever social issues are fought over, the basic imperial plan enjoys a great deal of continuity between establishment parties and it will ultimately destroy us

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:46

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Jst0rm posted:

That is the reality though. In a perfect world everything would be powered by sunshine and flowers but its isnt.

you have the same logic as dick cheney and im not exaggerating. that is why we went into iraq. if you admit that the united states uses its military power to enforce its economic interests, then i actually applaud your honesty and wisdom. because if you are truly interested in continued american world dominance then these wars are logical in a way

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:47

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Miltank posted:

Dems held the Senate in 2003 and Dem votes caused the war.

United States Senate
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23

Again the majority of the dems voted no. I just think its odd that there appears to be some revisionist history going on in regards to this stuff when the facts are so available.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:49

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

the majority of Dems in the senate voted yes

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:50

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Jst0rm posted:

United States Senate
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23

Again the majority of the dems voted no. I just think its odd that there appears to be some revisionist history going on in regards to this stuff when the facts are so available.

no its odd that you ignore anything outside the context of a single administration, or anything outside a broader understanding of american foreign policy and the actions of successive administrations over decades you retard

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:50

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Miltank posted:

the majority of Dems voted yes

oh yeah also this lmao

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:51

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Christ, Cold War II happened under Obama's watch

what's the difference between him and Reagan, really? love banks, propped up and invaded tinpot dictators simultaneously, poked the bear, bailed out Chrysler, lovely inside game but a hell of a jumper

it's all there really

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:51

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

i literally cannot understand the american government as a single entity with its own imperial interests outside of some really stupid short-sighted two party concept, two parties controlled by largely the same aligned interests

its not a polar system, friend

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:52

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

But he makes us feel good!

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:53

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

no its odd that you ignore anything outside the context of a single administration, or anything outside a broader understanding of american foreign policy and the actions of successive administrations over decades you retard

Im just asking question. I dont ignore that stuff but I didnt want to meander down a decade of failed policy. I only wanted to get to the bottom of why people though the dems are equally at fault for the war in iraq.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:54

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:54

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Jst0rm posted:

Im just asking question. I dont ignore that stuff but I didnt want to meander down a decade of failed policy. I only wanted to get to the bottom of why people though the dems are equally at fault for the war in iraq.

for the same reason that republicans tear obama up over benghazi where if it had happened under bush they wouldnt have said poo poo

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:54

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

i dont want to meander down decades of foreign policy because that would shed some light on getting to the bottom of why the democrats are equally at fault for the war in iraq

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:55

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Miltank posted:

the majority of Dems in the senate voted yes

yes sorry. I guess I meant that when looking at the votes its clear to see which party had reservations about going in the first place. To me this doesnt give them "equal blame" as the administration that stretched truths and jumped to connect dots to get us in there.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:55

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Jst0rm posted:

Im just asking question. I dont ignore that stuff but I didnt want to meander down a decade of failed policy. I only wanted to get to the bottom of why people though the dems are equally at fault for the war in iraq.

because their policies in the administration prior to Bush directly led to a weakened Iraq that was easy pickings for chickenhawk neocons

or did you forget that we bombed Iraq for literally the entire duration of the Clinton presidency

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:56

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

the democrats are equally at fault for the war in iraq

I guess we just arent going to agree on this point. It will take historians in 300 years to find the real truth. I think we all have lived it too close to really come to any conclusions on it.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:57

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

i cant believe im about to do this:

fog tripper posted:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:58

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

if Gore had been elected* he certainly wouldn't have fallen prey to the same Pentagon wonks post 9/11 nosiree

*the election was stolen :qq:

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:58

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Jst0rm posted:

yes sorry. I guess I meant that when looking at the votes its clear to see which party had reservations about going in the first place. To me this doesnt give them "equal blame" as the administration that stretched truths and jumped to connect dots to get us in there.

what do you think equal, or less blame, or slightly less blame, or majority-but-not-a-huge-majority, really means in the final ethical calculus of the last couple decades of war in the middle east? are points awarded out in the end?

# ? Oct 10, 2014 02:59

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

what do you think equal, or less blame, or slightly less blame, or majority-but-not-a-huge-majority, really means in the final ethical calculus of the last couple decades of war in the middle east? are points awarded out in the end?

No but I see people make remarks like "lol the dems always blame bush and they are equal" and it never seems correct to me. I understand that you are taking into account the time before 9/11. I personally feel that it was not the correct move to make and I think the majority of that blame falls to bush and his administration.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:02

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Jst0rm posted:

I guess we just arent going to agree on this point. It will take historians in 300 years to find the real truth. I think we all have lived it too close to really come to any conclusions on it.

historians 300 years into the future will agree that there was almost no difference between the two parties and that the 2003 Iraq War was a totally unsurprising product of the military industrial complex and oil interests.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:03

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Miltank posted:

historians 300 years into the future will agree that there was almost no difference between the two parties and that the 2003 Iraq War was a totally unsurprising product of the military industrial complex and influential oil interests.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:04

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

now i can get gay married tho

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:04

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

THS posted:

now i can get gay married tho

tru

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:05

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

kobani stuff courtesy of brown moses - only cause he has the best source of pictures and maps. these are kurds in turkey protesting, and dying, demonstrating against the turkish government not doing poo poo to help kobani

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:06

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

and smoke the weeds

but wait until republicans lower the tax on the weeds what say you then leftists

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:07

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

also Kurds continue to own

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:07

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

VikingSkull posted:

and smoke the weeds

but wait until republicans lower the tax on the weeds what say you then leftists

I grow my own?

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:08

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

I grow my own Kurds

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:09

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

THS posted:

now i can get gay married tho

every time a lib tells me that gay rights is the modern day civil rights movement I smile politely and say "maybe so" but in my head I'm thinking about how hosed we all are.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:10

Jst0rm: Sep 16, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Miltank posted:

every time a lib tells me that gay rights is the modern day civil rights movement I smile politely and say "maybe so" but in my head I'm thinking about how hosed we all are.

Thats the downfall of man? lol.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:11

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Jst0rm posted:

Thats the downfall of man? lol.

no its just the fact that this small but important victory is made in the face of rampant imperial militarism and catastrophic climate change

its important to a lot of people, its important to me because, well

im gay

but put in perspective its such a tiny victory that its hard to enjoy it

watching the republicans roll over on gay marriage draws a smile from my cynical face tho

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 14, 2024 09:27

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

social issues also don't matter because regardless of which party platform they favor, as soon as the majority of the country supports it it's law

so in the social aspect America is a very real democracy

in the economic and foreign policy aspects America is a very real imperialistic police state

# ? Oct 10, 2014 03:16

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > ISIS or rather the IS is at it again [NSA]

«‹›93 »