Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I'm Going Going, Back Back, to Iraq

Posted 1 year ago on June 18, 2014, 5:57 p.m. EST by turbocharger (1756)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3173) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

The ability to stop bombing people will magically appear if nobody can be found who will lend our government the money for dubious military adventures.The government is already carrying very large debts from Operation Iraq Liberation,and the operation in Afghanistan,whatever that is called.Having such large debts would tend to cause future lenders to-run away? Perhaps?

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5287) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

How's that Democrat war in Iraq going?

That war Democrats started in Libya is an absolute disaster.

I'm sure the Syrian people love having our jets over them.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are still getting a nice does of Freedom.

Sudan, Yemen and Somolia surely enjoy those drones.

What a fuckin mess.

Democrats and Republicans, one in the same.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/24/iraq-j24.html

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

The war in Iraq grinds on because the U.S. and Iraq missed opportunities for stability. At first the 43rd, then later 44th President blundered. Iraqis also blundered by getting rid of the U.S. too quickly. It is not just "Democrat war in Iraq." It is at least multipartisan.

International intervention in Libya's civil war was U.N.'s delegating to N.A.T.O. to prevent an imminent massacre in Benghazi. It was not started by the Democrats alone.

The U.S. did not put down massive military bases long-term in Iraq and Libya as was done in Japan and Germany after WWII. Half-assed "quickies" turned into festering herpes, that no civilians like.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

I honestly don't think there were opportunities for stability. I think the entire thing was a mismanaged fairy tale scenario. And perhaps constant chaos was the goal.

Most likely with Libya was a massive uprising instigated by a few. What do you think would happen here if a band of people started organizing a militia and were making their way to DC? Do you think Obama would be fine with, or would he be threatening military action?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

Constant chaos was not, is not, and probably will not be the goal of the U.S. in Libya and Iraq. The isolationist tendency of the U.S. got the better of the common sense about achieving stability. The U.S. populace believes in liberty and justice for all, so yes, we tend to sympathize perennially with all peoples' uprisings for freedom but uprisings are usually destabilizing. We also know that the Old World sucked and probably still does - why else would our ancestors pull up their roots to come to the Real Atlantis? It was a new beginning, a wiping out of all of the pootins of the Old World!

The problem with Libya and Iraq was that they have many tribal and religious sectarian divides unlike the far more homogeneous post-WWII Japan and Germany. It takes time for Libya and Iraq to get the hang of adaptive governing for peaceful co-existence. The U.S. went through the Articles of Confederation, near-death experience with the disrespected Supreme Court, the War of 1812 to assert its independence yet again, etc. It helped that Napolean was keeping Europe mired in wars so interference from the Old World was minimal. It was the same with the U.S. fighting the Cold War so post-war Japan and Germany could grow in relative peace into prosperity.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

"The problem with Libya and Iraq was that they have many tribal and religious sectarian divides unlike the far more homogeneous post-WWII Japan and Germany."

Thats kinda why I think the entire plan from the get go was a mess. The area was much more at peace before we started plundering it in WWI and II and then dicing the entire place up. Just let people be and they figure it out.

How about this; What opportunities does constant chaos in the area present?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

The thinking at the time of the intervention in Libya was that Libyans deserve to have their own country the way they want it so that no refugee wave will invade Europe. Well, so much for that...

The U.S. had no appetite to bleed in the tribal and sectarian conflicts in Libya and Iraq so it withdrew, which it had done numerous times before, often not in defeats but in victories. If the U.S. had wanted a real empire, it could have kept France, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Constant chaos in the greater Middle East presents opportunities for the military-industrial-complex, in the U.S., in Russia, in China, etc. The U.S. was restrained in supplying heavy arms to the area such as anti-aircraft defense but that was what it takes to topple Assad in Syria. Hence, we get the massive humanitarian disaster. Russia is itching to supply Iran with heavy arms once the sanctions have been lifted. That did a lot of good shooting down flight MH17 over Ukraine.

When will the world wake up? Reagan did eventually after the Soviet downing of flight KAL007 from New York. All of its victims' sacrifice might have saved us from a nuclear war by showing up the brittle weakness of the Soviet Union. They did not die in vain.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3247) 1 month ago

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

Okay, replace China by France. China could be exercising restraints in arms proliferation or their arms were not considered as good as others. Perhaps Russia was right in going to France instead of China for Mistral-class deliveries.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3247) 1 month ago

china export seems low for its economy size

perhaps because they don't arm their own people ?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

China's People's Liberation Army is the world's largest army in term of personnel. Surely, they are armed and they ARE people. China's arms export seeming low is probably due to a different reason.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3247) 1 month ago

the US distributes weapons into the region

trigger violence

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

The motives are of primary importance and the weapons are only secondary. As Jesus had warned of the filth from humans' hearts, we must cleanse humans' minds to reduce violence. We have very limited access to the minds directly so we must try controlling their environments. Those minds which are well-fed, appreciated, loved, respected, and content tend to forsake violence. We can do that, can't we?

My mother told me that I was an easy baby to care for. Who would not be if they took a warm bath, had clean diaper, filled up with milk, and lay in the soft bed? Let us apply the baby model for peace.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3247) 1 month ago

a lizard can trigger a gun

"a running man can kill 1000 in a night with a knife" Klingon on fantasy quote

an automatic weapon can kill more faster

[-] 1 points by grapes (3739) 1 month ago

There are different ways of solving a problem - eliminating the causes tends to be superior to just treating the symptoms.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2274) 1 year ago

I surmize the psyhco assholes running our country can't just settle for a good game of paint ball.

I still remember that scene of them looking into the tele-screen getting horney by viewing in real time the SEAL team murdering that old man 'bin Laden.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5287) 1 year ago