View Full Forums : Iraq One of Our Villages?


Tudamorf
08-26-2007, 02:58 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/08/26/international/i080326D21.DTL<b>Angry Iraqi Leader Lashes Out at Clinton</b>

(08-26) 10:07 PDT BAGHDAD, (AP) -- Iraq's beleaguered prime minister on Sunday lashed out at Democrats who have called for his ouster, saying Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Carl Levin need to "come to their senses."

Nouri al-Maliki, who is fighting to hold his government together, issued a series of stinging ripostes against a variety of foreign officials who recently have spoken negatively about his leadership. But those directed at Democrats Clinton, of New York, and Levin, of Michigan, were the most strident.

<b>"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses," al-Maliki said at a news conference.</b>

Al-Maliki launched the verbal counteroffensive in the final days before the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are due in Washington to report to Congress on progress in Iraq since the introduction of 30,000 more America troops.

The Shiite prime minister said a negative report by Petraeus would not cause him to change course, although he said he expected that the U.S. general would "be supportive of the government and will disappoint the politicians who are relying on it" to be negative.

Al-Maliki appeared stung by the recent series of critical statements about his government, including one from President Bush, who said he was frustrated that al-Maliki had failed to make progress on political benchmarks. Crocker has said the lack of movement had been "highly disappointing," and both Levin and Clinton have called for al-Maliki's ouster.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday that al-Maliki's government "is still pretty much a disaster" despite some progress made.

"It's a democratically elected government, and I don't think we can dictate to them," McConnell said. Nonetheless, McConnell said, senators from both parties agree the Shiite prime minister has been "a huge disappointment."

Based on the sacrifices of U.S. troops, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., agreed that the U.S. government should demand more.

Al-Maliki also criticized some U.S. military actions.

"Concerning American raids on Shula (a northern Shiite neighborhood) and Sadr City (the Shiite slum enclave in east Baghdad). There were big mistakes committed in these operations. The terrorist himself should be targeted not his family," he said "We will not allow the detaining of innocent people."If that's so, can we please get rid of the most expensive village on the planet? Tear it all down, call it New California, and set up our own colony. Keep some of the inhabitants for slave labor to extract oil for us. Then it will really be our village.

Anka
08-26-2007, 06:31 PM
You presumably agree with him. Iraq really isn't a US village. Give him a break. It's a disaster anyway whether he stays in office or is pushed out.

Tudamorf
08-27-2007, 01:51 AM
Give him a break.We already have. He wouldn't be in power if it weren't for us. He'd still be living in exile, or if he had returned, he would've been tortured at Abu Ghraib.

You'd think he'd be at least a little grateful that we repatriated him, gave him a ruling position, and caused the execution of his nemesis.

Anka
08-27-2007, 07:06 AM
He wouldn't be in power if it weren't for us.

He wouldn't be in power if millions of Iraqi's hadn't voted for him. It is important for the US and Iraq that he is the democratically elected ruler. If he was merely a puppet of an invading army then he'd be no use for anything. Specifically, he'd be no use in creating the situation where US troops could pull out and leave him as President.

You'd think he'd be at least a little grateful that we repatriated him, gave him a ruling position, and caused the execution of his nemesis.

You never know, he might be grateful. Criticising a few of GWB's political opponents could be the returning a favour.

Aidon
09-07-2007, 04:51 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/08/26/international/i080326D21.DTLIf that's so, can we please get rid of the most expensive village on the planet? Tear it all down, call it New California, and set up our own colony. Keep some of the inhabitants for slave labor to extract oil for us. Then it will really be our village.

Sounds good to me.

I've never understood this notion that its bad for a nation to wage war for resources. That's been the primary reason for war since the first man discovered that you could make pointy sticks.

Our problem was not that we waged war for oil in Iraq...but that we came up with the worlds lousiest cassus belli, didn't need the oil bad enough yet to justify war, and then used the new resource opportunity to fatten the accounts of a few, rather than improving the lot of all Americans.

Anka
09-07-2007, 10:04 AM
I've never understood this notion that its bad for a nation to wage war for resources.

It is because people are more important than resources. How much would you sell your mother for?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-07-2007, 10:42 AM
It is because people are more important than resources. How much would you sell your mother for?

My people are more important than their resources.

Theirs aren't.

One of the biggest reasons why we should pull all of our troops home now.

Tudamorf
09-07-2007, 03:28 PM
It is because people are more important than resources.History has proven you wrong time and time again. People (outside of your friends and family) are worthless except for the resources they can gather for you. Much of the time people are beyond worthless, they are a liability, and you have to spend resources just to get rid of them.

Anka
09-07-2007, 07:01 PM
I don't think I need to post anything else. Readers will either agree with you or they won't.

Tudamorf
09-07-2007, 10:04 PM
I don't think I need to post anything else. Readers will either agree with you or they won't.You probably don't even agree with yourself.

The money you waste each day on luxuries could save the lives of dozens of people in a developing country, or maybe even one or two in your own country. But you'd rather spend it on yourself. In other words, your resources are more important to you than random people.

Anka
09-08-2007, 06:52 AM
The money you waste each day on luxuries could save the lives of dozens of people in a developing country, or maybe even one or two in your own country. But you'd rather spend it on yourself. In other words, your resources are more important to you than random people.

Thank you for your lecture on my lifestyle. In future though, you can save yourself the effort.

Tudamorf
09-08-2007, 02:44 PM
Thank you for your lecture on my lifestyle. In future though, you can save yourself the effort.Importantly, you're not denying it.

Anka
09-08-2007, 05:47 PM
OK dumbnut.

Going into foreign countries and killing people to appropriate their resources is quite different from choosing not to donate all your own resources in charitable aid. You know that full well. I shouldn't need to explain it, even to you. If you're going to pick a fight then at least pick an argument with the slightest bit of sense behind it.

Tudamorf
09-08-2007, 06:07 PM
Going into foreign countries and killing people to appropriate their resources is quite different from choosing not to donate all your own resources in charitable aid.Perhaps, but it still doesn't justify your absolute statement that "people are more important than resources." They're not. It depends on who the people are, and what the resources are.

Anka
09-08-2007, 06:23 PM
Perhaps, but it still doesn't justify your absolute statement that "people are more important than resources."

As a general statement it is perfectly true. You might not think a man in Banglasdesh is very important but his wife probably doesn't think your car is very important either.

Tudamorf
09-08-2007, 06:42 PM
As a general statement it is perfectly true.Then why are you living a life of luxury while little African kids are dying because they're too poor?You might not think a man in Banglasdesh is very important but his wife probably doesn't think your car is very important either.Why would he be important to me (unless he works for me)? And I bet his wife would love to have my car, they could probably retire on the money they make from selling it.

Aidon
09-08-2007, 09:26 PM
OK dumbnut.

Going into foreign countries and killing people to appropriate their resources is quite different from choosing not to donate all your own resources in charitable aid. You know that full well. I shouldn't need to explain it, even to you. If you're going to pick a fight then at least pick an argument with the slightest bit of sense behind it.

I must object.

If you're going to insult someone...at least use a proper insult.

dumbnut? what the **** is that?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-09-2007, 10:51 AM
As a general statement it is perfectly true. You might not think a man in Banglasdesh is very important but his wife probably doesn't think your car is very important either.

Who cares what he or his wife thinks about anything?

I don't know them. They are not my friends. They are not my family.

I probably would not like them if I met them. Why are their opinions suppose to be important to me?

Anka
09-09-2007, 01:19 PM
You don't have to like anyone else's opinions. Just let other people have their own opinions of what happens in their own countries. You're all trying to make it sound as you have to become their slaves to let that happen. That patently isn't true.

Tudamorf
09-09-2007, 03:34 PM
You're all trying to make it sound as you have to become their slaves to let that happen. That patently isn't true.Does this mean you're still too embarrassed to admit you believe that resources can be more important than people? I don't see why, we all believe the same thing, even your hypothetical family in Bangladesh.

Anka
09-09-2007, 05:21 PM
Does this mean you're still too embarrassed to admit you believe that resources can be more important than people?

I'm only embarrassed by your determination to unnecassarily argue against a nice simple statement. If you've something to say for yourself instead of sniping then say it. Say when you can justify the murder of peaceful foreign people for their nation's resources.

Tudamorf
09-09-2007, 06:03 PM
I'm only embarrassed by your determination to unnecassarily argue against a nice simple statement.Nice, simple, and false. Unless you want to answer my question and prove me wrong. If you've something to say for yourself instead of sniping then say it.I believe I already have. Resources can, and often are, more important than people. It depends what the resources are and who the people are.

Anka
09-09-2007, 07:39 PM
I believe I already have. Resources can, and often are, more important than people. It depends what the resources are and who the people are.

I'm sure you'd love to decide some people are unimportant and should die for your precious resources. That's the rub, it's always easy to find some other people who should suffer.

We're not talking about a universal law with no exceptions. We're discussing why it is bad (in general) to invade foreign countries for resources. We're not talking about selfless people giving up their lives to provide for others or defend the homeland.

They came to grab land, resources, and, of course, gold, and didn't let anything in their path stop them. The Spanish went up through California and Florida, looking for gold of course, and forcing natives to convert or die; the Russians went through Alaska, enslaving the natives so they could rape the resources; the French did the same from the eastern end; and the English landed on the east coast to see what resources and gold they could find.

The Europeans were greedy, merciless, self-righteous thugs dreaming of more gold bars to add to their vaults back home.

That's your post from the other thread. Perhaps you don't mind greedy, merciless, self-righteous thugs if they're adding gold bars to your vault?

Tudamorf
09-09-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm sure you'd love to decide some people are unimportant and should die for your precious resources.We decide that every day, all the time. For the most part, foreigners are unimportant unless they provide something to us. We even let our own people die because we don't feel like spending money to save them.We're not talking about a universal law with no exceptions.So you do agree that resources can be more important than people. Now we're getting somewhere; we just have flesh out what those "exceptions" are.We're discussing why it is bad (in general) to invade foreign countries for resources. We're not talking about selfless people giving up their lives to provide for others or defend the homeland.Today it's just too complicated and expensive to invade foreign countries for resources. Look at Iraq, even if we took over tomorrow and eliminated all the insurgents, it would probably take us over a decade just to break even. It's cheaper to buy than to take.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-09-2007, 11:36 PM
We're discussing why it is bad (in general) to invade foreign countries for resources.

You have just said that it is, you have not said 'why'.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-10-2007, 05:23 AM
You don't have to like anyone else's opinions.
I usually don't.

I am sure your Bangladeshi family does not like mine.

Mine are better because they are mine. Theirs are not, because they are theirs. I am sure they have the exact same regard. Who wins?(typical CR question) I do, because mine are mine.

Just let other people have their own opinions of what happens in their own countries.
Not if it intrudes on my opinions.

You're all trying to make it sound as you have to become their slaves to let that happen. That patently isn't true.
I am already a slave to welfare moms and deadbeat dads in this country, to the factor of 40% of my labor. I certainly am not going to be a slave to some Bangladeshi family too. They should be fine and happy with the job they got from me, that I lost during the outsourcing thing in the early 2000s.

Aidon
09-11-2007, 01:00 AM
Fy'yr, I hope you at least bought Bioshock.

You'd just love Rapture, its a Randian paradise.

Which is not to say I disagree with your argument in this thread.

Frankly, a civilization and/or culture which wished to survive can, and should, only worry about the rights of other civilizations and/or cultures insofar as it presents no great hardship. Most wars in the history of mankind have been over resources of some sort. Be it tribal war over hunting grounds or the pacific war in WWII over Japan's absolute need to expand its markets and become less dependant on foreign resources. Sometimes the resource is putative souls for a religion, sometimes the resource is global political influence.

In the end, however, if a nation is in desperate need for some resource, be it more land, more food, or more oil, if the leaders of that nation do not war in order to provide that resource for the citizens of the nation are doing the nation a disservice.

Which is not to say that we have anything akin to a desperate need for oil to justify our involvement in Iraq.

Ultimately, in the end, on a macroscopic level, survival of the fittest is the ultimate moral value for species, cultures, or civilizations.

B_Delacroix
09-11-2007, 11:27 AM
I chose... Rapture.

Aidon
09-17-2007, 04:57 PM
Before you attempt to set up a pure capitalistic society, remember: There is always someone with more plasmids!