Murder Street

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Yeah, we get it. The Yanks screwed up Iraq. What else is new?

Iraqis screwed up Iraq. Iraq was a mess before we got there. Iraq is a mess now. The US and the Coalition allies are the only ones trying to fix it.

And I think we need to come to the realization that we cannot reverse thousands of years of brainwashing. Iraq is beyond repair. We either put in a new dictator and let him do what he needs to keep the natives under control, or we nuke the place and start over.[/quote]

Michael Vick wants to trade out his sentence for humanitarian work…maybe we should put him in charge?

Who would vote to make Michael Vick vice roy of Iraq?

42

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
We either put in a new dictator and let him do what he needs to keep the natives under control, or we nuke the place and start over.[/quote]

With what authority, my good man? The law of big sticks? Finders-keepers?

Your arrogance is inexcusable.

43

[quote]lixy wrote:
Yeah, we get it. The Yanks screwed up Iraq. What else is new?[/quote]

Actually it was the British who were responsible for Basra. Interestingly what they have done is exactly what you have been whining for all along. They turned the city over to the Iraqi’s and got out.

This is exactly what is going to happen if America retreats from Iraq. Things will go bad and all the America haters who are talking trash now will have a new reason to talk trash about America.

So thanks for your post you have shown why we have to see this through.

44

[quote]Gael wrote:

However, there was not a single car bombing in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now they are a daily occurrence.
[/quote]

This is due to an invasion of foreign fighters who want to see the US fail. Had the contractors been able to set up an infrastructure, a competent Iraqi army and police force created, (all things under constant attack by the daily car bombings, kdinappings, executions, beheadings ect), the US would have left long ago.

Blame the foreign “freedom fighters” for the indiscrimate deaths and killings.

45

[quote]lixy wrote:
How many Tibetans are thanking their lucky stars for China?

[/quote]

Which dictator did the Chinese take down in Tibet? They annexed the entire sovereign country. If you can not see the difference between the Chinese and the US, there’s no hope for you.

Be glad it was the US who invaded Iraq and not the Red Chinese.

Or Russians for that matter. They don’t get any attention for their annihilation of Chechnya. I guess the Iranian allies can slaughter who they like as long as they are supplying the Shia World Revolution with a nuclear arsenal.

Sad.

46

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
We either put in a new dictator and let him do what he needs to keep the natives under control, or we nuke the place and start over.

With what authority, my good man? The law of big sticks? Finders-keepers?

Your arrogance is inexcusable.[/quote]

Because they are an irritant to the entire civilized world.

What really needs to occur is that the world stops using their oil. Then they would go back to having only sticks and stones to throw at others who do not agree with their oppressive religion.

47

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
We either put in a new dictator and let him do what he needs to keep the natives under control, or we nuke the place and start over.

With what authority, my good man? The law of big sticks? Finders-keepers?

Your arrogance is inexcusable.[/quote]

Seemed to work for Mohammed.

48

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Because they are an irritant to the entire civilized world.

What really needs to occur is that the world stops using their oil. Then they would go back to having only sticks and stones to throw at others who do not agree with their oppressive religion. [/quote]

For the sake of a clean debate, I’ll overlook the “civilized world” label.

Your argument would have substance if the place was neighboring your country in any way. I mean, the shithole that it is currently is certainly not affecting the average Londonian or Floridan, but it sure is troublesome for the countries neighbors. Terrorist groups are thriving and chaos reigns.

So, how is it an “irritant” to you exactly? I mean, surely selling oil in euros was more problematic than what is happening today from any American’s perspective.

49

Ask people in Iran and Kuwait what they think.

Aren’t they part of the “civilized world?” or is the Middle East uncivilized in your opinion?

50

[quote]Gael wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
It’s a bit strange to topple the government of a sovereign country and replace order with effective anarchy and blame the resultant chaos on the inhabitants. Somehow this is like saying “This isn’t our fault. No one could have predicted that lawlessness brings out the worst in people. If they were better people, they would function just fine under lawlessness.”

…

I don’t understand how a mind like yours works. When people murder innocents you blame others instead of the murderers. Unreal.

If a guard is asleep at his prison post, and a prisoner escapes and kills someone his boss (and most people) would yell at the guard, reprimand him, perhaps fire him. It seems you are the kind of guy who would pat him on the back and say “Don’t worry about it. It’s not your fault. It’s the prisoners fault for being a bad person and trying to escape.”

In the breakdown of civil order, you see people turn into looters, rapists, murderers. This is predictable. If you caused this lawlessness, this rise in crime is your fault. It is a truism to say that the murderers are the ones at fault for the murder. Duh. So what? It is your colossal fuckup that gave these people the opportunity to murder, just as it was the guard asleep at his post who should be fired for his inability to do his job.

It is beyond sad that this needs to be explained to you. To point out that the rise in crime is caused by criminals is so self evidently true and empty that one can only conclude that your motive is to remove blame from yourself.

In the prison analogy, if you grossly mismanage security and all the prisoners escape – and I told you that you fucked everything up – would your response be “We didn’t fuck it up. The prisoners fucked it up.”

That’s really the emptiness of your argument. This is a politics forum – where people argue and discuss public policy. When people discuss things crime rates – they discuss the factors that caused them. Obviously, a murder is caused by the murderer – but this does not excuse all matters of public policy that give rise to this.

How can you not understand that?[/quote]

Great post. Obviously the jihadists, Baathists, Sadrites, etc. are the ones killing the majority of Iraqi civilians. We’ve killed more than a few, but almost always by accident. Doesn’t change the fact that we broke the country (well, Saddam + sanctions + invasion broke the country). Is Iraq a mess, due maybe to the original sin of the country’s creation in 1919? Probably. Are we complicit for naive, foolish neo-con driven American idealism that has led to tens of thousands of deaths? Yup. Do we need to stay around to fix the mistake? There’s the question.

52

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

Your argument would have substance if the place was neighboring your country in any way.

This idea of yours that geographical proximity is the only criterion in deciding a country’s sphere of interest and concern is absurd and childishly simplistic.[/quote]

So it was ok that Hitler was committing genocide in Poland, because, afterall, Germany borders Poland.

Talk about twisted logic.

edit - (such logic would excuse any crimes committed by Saddam against Iran, regardless of which countries was giving him arms. So how can the assbackwards “blame the US for everything” game apply here?)

53

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Because they are an irritant to the entire civilized world.

What really needs to occur is that the world stops using their oil. Then they would go back to having only sticks and stones to throw at others who do not agree with their oppressive religion.

For the sake of a clean debate, I’ll overlook the “civilized world” label.

Your argument would have substance if the place was neighboring your country in any way. I mean, the shithole that it is currently is certainly not affecting the average Londonian or Floridan, but it sure is troublesome for the countries neighbors. Terrorist groups are thriving and chaos reigns.

So, how is it an “irritant” to you exactly? I mean, surely selling oil in euros was more problematic than what is happening today from any American’s perspective.[/quote]

Irritant is the wrong word. It should be outrage. The fact that many are going around the world trying kill those who do not believe the way they do is outrageous and reprehensible.

54

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Irritant is the wrong word. It should be outrage. The fact that many are going around the world trying kill those who do not believe the way they do is outrageous and reprehensible. [/quote]

Indeed. You could feel the outrage when the US military killed (directly and indirectly) shitloads of Iraqis.

55

At least we do not cheer when Iraqis are killed by suicide bombs.

56

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Irritant is the wrong word. It should be outrage. The fact that many are going around the world trying kill those who do not believe the way they do is outrageous and reprehensible.

Indeed. You could feel the outrage when the US military killed (directly and indirectly) shitloads of Iraqis.[/quote]

Yes, outraged that the Iraqis are trying to bomb and kill each other and the US troops who are there to try and keep the peace.

But that is the flaw, these Muslim countries have been fighting among themselves and Israel for hundreds of years. It’s what they do and all they know. So the US and others were very naive to think they could change hundreds of years of inbreed brainwashing.

Personally, I do not think keeping these idiots from killing themselves is worth the cost anymore. I say we leave and get the oil we need from civilized countries. And if the rest of the world followed our lead the Iraqis would have no money or resources to bother anyone.

57

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I say we leave and get the oil we need from civilized countries. [/quote]

I’ll raise my glass of milk to that!

Iraqis weren’t bothering anyone. It is the US that is bothering countries the world over, by invading countries and overthrowing democratically elected governments. Saddam attacking Iran had, not only the full support of Washington, but cheers and incentives as well.

58

[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Iraqis weren’t bothering anyone.
[/quote]

I think the Kuwait and Iran might think differently. Especially if they are willing to admit the world did not start in 2003.

Saddam was democratically elected? Did Jimmy Carter certify the election process too?

[quote]
Saddam attacking Iran had, not only the full support of Washington, but cheers and incentives as well.[/quote]

Of course we supported him but not nearly as much as his major weapons suppliers did. Why wouldn’t we? Iran invaded sovereign US territory and held our people hostage for more than a year. They continually call for death to America. Why wouldn’t we support their enemy?

59

Can Muslims be responsible for their own actions without having to blame someone else?

Or does the Koran forbid it?

60

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Can Muslims be responsible for their own actions without having to blame someone else?

Or does the Koran forbid it?[/quote]

No. Our unbelief is the reason for their actions, you see.