BF2S Forums Time for me to take my lumps.

God Save the Queen wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

Well, if anything, then it's nothing that will destroy the world. Hence, why the world map is still the same.

did kill a lot of kurds and shia though

yes but that was ok

usmarine wrote:

Uzique wrote:

I haven't refuted anything said by Gs, get off his cock please

oh wow...remember what you yelled at me about before?  well look at what you are doing.  shame on you sir.

and yes you did refute.  you said you did not beleive in that theory.  well there you go.  he just told you.  so does that mean you take back all your BS?

I don't believe that it an entire war was caused because some Iraqi scientists were bullshitting Saddam to keep him smiling no, it's absurd. All of a sudden because Gs steps into the conversation the claim must be 100% true and unquestionable? As I said at the end of my last post, who here really knows the reasons for war? Do we have any Generals here? Does Cheney's nephew play BF2? Am I not even entitled to be skeptical of the 'official explanation' for the Iraq mess? I'm hardly being a traitor, I've always maintained that I am happy with the UK and the US as separate countries and as a related alliance. I'm just trying to see if perhaps there are imperialist motives at work here with the muchly criticised wars that have occured over the last few years. I feel as though I've typed this 20 times now, when are you going to grasp this fundamental point?

And please don't give me all this condescending "shame on you sir" nonsense when you're the one being mocking and childish in the first place. "Uzeek won't listen, you're always wrong" blah blah... as if putting words in my mouth and completely twisting all that I've said is the portrait model of maturity and reasonable arguing. You're the worst candidate out of anyone that frequents the D&ST Forum for generally bringing the level of discussion down a few notches, so lets not turn this into a comparison of poster values and standards.

God Save the Queen wrote:

I think I have more than a casual knowledge of middle east history and contemporary events.

I was talking about the reasons for the conflict, as in the political and military motives. I'm glad you have a keen knowledge of Middle-Eastern history and 'contemporary events' (that's a pretty broad area to claim to be an expert on, but nevermind), but I wasn't really saying that. I was just stating that in the bigger picture, nobody on this Forum truly knows beyond a benefit of a doubt what they're talking about when it comes to topics such as the Iraq war. So Fox News told you Saddam was lied to by his aides, the BBC told you Saddam was killing thousands the first day he was President etc... it's such a one dimensional perspective. We think we're (by "we're" I mean the majority of people, again this isn't personally about you GS) informed but I'm pretty sure that on certain topics the general public couldn't be any further away from the real truth if they tried.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 15:47:05)

Uzique wrote:

I think the main discernable difference is that our whole period of 'empire' is more than over, we've given it all back and to a certain extent (in certain areas) we've tried to make up for the oppression and unfairness we created there.

Sorry if I paraphrased, but "we don't do that anymore" is a fair translation of what you said there, don't you think?

Uzique wrote:

the BBC told you Saddam was killing thousands the first day he was President etc... it's such a one dimensional perspective. We think we're (by "we're" I mean the majority of people, again this isn't personally about you GS) informed but I'm pretty sure that on certain topics the general public couldn't be any further away from the real truth if they tried.

I was just stating that if anyone interested in watching it, it give a rather good idea.

There is no argument about it though, that everything the BBC showed was real. There were obviously some directing and acting, but hey...

Last edited by r'Eeee (2008-08-03 15:54:45)

r'Eeee wrote:

Uzique wrote:

the BBC told you Saddam was killing thousands the first day he was President etc... it's such a one dimensional perspective. We think we're (by "we're" I mean the majority of people, again this isn't personally about you GS) informed but I'm pretty sure that on certain topics the general public couldn't be any further away from the real truth if they tried.

I was just stating that if anyone interested in watching it, it give a rather good idea.

There is no argument about it though, that everything the BBC showed was real. There were obviously some directing and acting, but hey...

No doubt, but why are people so impervious and blind to the political (among other influences) bias that all media reports through? When you watch a news report or a political 'documentary' by a corporation such as the BBC, it's better to think as though you're receiving the facts through a stained-glass window, rather than a perfectly clear window onto what occurred. I know the saying goes that the 'winners write history', but I'm really dumbfounded as to how quickly the people living through the contemporary time come to swallow and accept what the winners are spitting out in their own lifetime.

Kind of reminds me of 1984's doublethink .

usmarin wrote:

I've been to Iraq, I don't need links...

Absolutely no disrespect intended but again you're missing my point. Your service is commendable and I'm sure you don't need me to rattle on about that... but the fact and point still remains that just because you have personal experience there, it doesn't make your belief on why we went to Iraq or what we went there for any more valid or certifiable. You did a job; you weren't told every single thing that the top military brass or the politicians or Halliburton board directors were discussing and holding meetings on. So, respectfully and with recognition and appreciation of what you did, I'm still going to have to say that it means nothing to me.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 16:03:04)

Uzique wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I think I have more than a casual knowledge of middle east history and contemporary events.

I was talking about the reasons for the conflict, as in the political and military motives. I'm glad you have a keen knowledge of Middle-Eastern history and 'contemporary events' (that's a pretty broad area to claim to be an expert on, but nevermind), but I wasn't really saying that. I was just stating that in the bigger picture, nobody on this Forum truly knows beyond a benefit of a doubt what they're talking about when it comes to topics such as the Iraq war. So Fox News told you Saddam was lied to by his aides, the BBC told you Saddam was killing thousands the first day he was President etc... it's such a one dimensional perspective. We think we're (by "we're" I mean the majority of people, again this isn't personally about you GS) informed but I'm pretty sure that on certain topics the general public couldn't be any further away from the real truth if they tried.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with your point.  But, as far as the Iraq War goes, I know for a fact that Im privy to things that the general public are not.  Not necessarily top secret, but stuff that just doesnt get reported.


Iraq and WMD's.  First, Id like to say I never believed the stated goal of removing WMD's from Iraq.  That belief was further confirmed when the main objective turned out to be the liberation of the Iraqi people, not the search and seizure of NBC weapons.   But that was my opinion at the time of the invasion and it was shared by many soldiers as well.  High ranking NCO's and officers. 

Regardless of whether the removal of WMD's was the actual objective doesnt really matter.  According to intelligence (albeit poory analyzed.), war with Iraq was justified.  The intel was there.  A beligerent Iraqi government with a history of challenging UN authority didnt help either.  Dont get me wrong, I believe war with Iraq was sought instead of avoided, but if you look at it on paper, it appropriate.

Marine was a part of the invasion.  He'll know more than I would the seriousness of the NBC weapon threat.  I know that if the US government trully wasnt expecting a chemical or biological attack, our soldiers wouldnt have been donning MOPP gear or JLISTS in the middle of desert.  That shit just makes fighting wars a million times harder and gives the enemy a better chance at winning.  Its not smart.   Its common sense.

I know when I was in country how serious they were about finding wmd's.  I spent a majority of my time in taji.  The FOB was the site of the Iraqi Republican guard tank corp and a major airfield as well as a former chemical and biological weapons factory.  There are numerous bunkers and bomb shelters that were flooded with water from the tigris as coalition troops invaded.  A giant underground tunnel system exist.  I remember those areas were off limits to everyone except VIP personell.  I know that if they were going to find anything regarding WMD's, one place it would have been found was in taji.

Oh iPlayer is awesome

Be careful though, there will be a monkey shouting at the start. Prick, I hate him.

Uzique wrote:

Vax wrote:

Sorry if I paraphrased, but "we don't do that anymore" is a fair translation of what you said there, don't you think?

It was a fair translation but that which you paraphrased was merely an introduction to my point about America. We were never debating whether or not the UK was involved in Imperialism... that's just an absurd topic to even consider arguing over. If you want to simplify it down into "we don't do that anymore"- then I don't even see anything wrong with that statement. We are not involved in empire building and mass colonisation anymore, so where's the untruth or the laughable statement? I really think your entire post Vax missed the point and went off on a huge tangent; trying to show using diagrams and knowledge how huge an empire the UK had... yes we all know, nobodies even questioning or talking about that .

Ok, sorry then. I mistook your "merely an introduction" as a statement about the difference between the UK's imperialism and America's.

Oh wait, that is what it was.

Why bring up compare and contrast type statements if you were not doing just that ?
You seem to want it both ways..you say you aren't comparing, then you do, you say you aren't into conspiracies, but you think the US gov't lied about the whole thing

Reason I found it laughable is why I posted what I did...you guys are the experts on empire, yet you wag your finger at american empire building with a really thin excuse you think absolves your past transgressions and puts you somehow in a position to criticise US policy. 

I don't care if you want to criticise, and you are absolutely free to do so, just leave the silly "we're better than that now" stuff out of it

Uzique wrote:

You think they'd rather admit to the real reasons why they invaded Iraq than concede something as minorly 'embarassing' as that? I hate sounding conspiratorial because conspiracies normally just make me laugh, but it bemuses me that people still believe that the Iraq war was just about national security and the danger posed by fake paper-maché models of WMD's out in the desert. It was about empire.

War profiteering was part of the plan, but that's true whenever a war is engaged.  I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.  We profit from war regardless of whether or not we're actually combatants in the war.  There is a huge arms trade that we participate in.  Look at how much we arm Israel.

Invading Iraq was something that benefitted several American corporations, but we're not going to hold onto Iraq as a colony.  Granted, with the way things have changed in terms of corporations and the global economy, we don't need to.  You could argue that we intervene for the sake of business interests and thereby support an indirect version of imperialism, but it's not quite the same thing as say...  the British version of imperialism in the Middle East or Africa.  Times have changed, and so do the mechanics of imperialism.  Our version is actually a lot more profitable for the companies involved.

In effect, we're not really building an empire so much as we are furthering the interests of multinational corporations.  This isn't a single country we're talking about...  this is a corporate consortium.

Europe already has a thoroughly corporate imperialist arrangement with Africa, so it's not like what we are doing is that much different from the rest of the world.  The one thing that is different is that we're stupid enough to drag ourselves into endless war.

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

You think they'd rather admit to the real reasons why they invaded Iraq than concede something as minorly 'embarassing' as that? I hate sounding conspiratorial because conspiracies normally just make me laugh, but it bemuses me that people still believe that the Iraq war was just about national security and the danger posed by fake paper-maché models of WMD's out in the desert. It was about empire.

War profiteering was part of the plan, but that's true whenever a war is engaged.  I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.  We profit from war regardless of whether or not we're actually combatants in the war.  There is a huge arms trade that we participate in.  Look at how much we arm Israel.

Invading Iraq was something that benefitted several American corporations, but we're not going to hold onto Iraq as a colony.  Granted, with the way things have changed in terms of corporations and the global economy, we don't need to.  You could argue that we intervene for the sake of business interests and thereby support an indirect version of imperialism, but it's not quite the same thing as say...  the British version of imperialism in the Middle East or Africa.  Times have changed, and so do the mechanics of imperialism.  Our version is actually a lot more profitable for the companies involved.

In effect, we're not really building an empire so much as we are furthering the interests of multinational corporations.  This isn't a single country we're talking about...  this is a corporate consortium.

Europe already has a thoroughly corporate imperialist arrangement with Africa, so it's not like what we are doing is that much different from the rest of the world.  The one thing that is different is that we're stupid enough to drag ourselves into endless war.

no.. the deal  that you wish to maintain 50 military bases and operate within the borders of the nation without recourse from either the Iraqi government or the laws of the country would  indicate to me proxy imperialism tbh..

While the Uzique vs. Marine/GS brawl is going on I'd like to throw in a question related to Iraq...

What do you think about the Valerie Plame affair?  Do you find it at least a little eyebrow raising that the wife of Ambassador Wilson was outed rght after he wrote the op-ed saying that Bush was exaggerating evidence of WMD?

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-08-03 16:26:47)

God Save the Queen wrote:

do you know what a colony is?

Yes, why do you ask?  I'm not calling Iraq a colony.