Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The Gulf
- Add a comment
- Go to Iraq Is An Unholy Mess And All Bush Can Talk About Are Terrorists
Sure I can, Glennb. I just read what you have to say and place most of
it in the "shit" file.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 5, 2007 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
And you "do" Google! Because it is clear that you cannot separate the bull from the shit!
posted by
Glennb
on May 5, 2007 at 9:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
I wish there were some way to continue this conversation. But it is futile, this forum and most media does not require "real" fact that are based on actions and the reaction those actions cause. That are witnessed first hand. Hearsay is not fact based! Iraq was the most stable and progressive nation in the region! Even more so than America's beloved Israel! That is "real" fact my good protagonist!
posted by
Glennb
on May 5, 2007 at 9:46 AM
| link to this | reply
And I would rather you stop assuming that I "google" anything. Unless I'm
mistaken, your part of Georgia is nowhere near the heart of these matters and no closer than mine. And I'm sure you're not privy to first-hand information, either. I get my information from press reports, government agencies, NPOs, international watchdog groups, politicians, studies, diplomatic reports, and historical references. Where oh where do you get your omniscient and sage opinion, Glennb?
And I never said that this war wasn't about oil. I said it was one of many factors. You speak so vehemently on others' lack of understanding the English language. What is your mother tongue? The way you write, I highly doubt that it is English. And if it is, mores the pity. Regardless of your birth language, you can stuff your self-righteous, belittling act and face the fact that you simply howl for the hell of it, casting your baseless opinions like some arrogant, ill-educated ideologue.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 5, 2007 at 9:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
What about invading a sovereign nation to impose a settlement that benefits only big "oil" companies? I wish you would stop "Googling" for information and examine the events that are unfolding before your eyes!
posted by
Glennb
on May 5, 2007 at 6:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Everybody's always laying claim to something or other, Glennb. And
recognized borders don't mean a damned thing. Never have. Look at Europe and the Soviet Union. Constantly changing borders and names of places. And Churchill's words aren't suddenly a part of the debate. They've been part of the debate for years, right alongside Woodrow Wilson's and anybody else who has had anything to do with politics and foreign policy in the region. And what exactly is wrong with "accomodating the locals"? Maybe a little more accommodation would work a helluva lot better than the colonialist and imperialist policies that haven't.
"Take the fighting and controlling bull someplace else", you said. Just what the hell are you talking about? Iraq is nothing but fighting and controlling. Oh, and surviving. Sometimes, Glennb, I believe you simply type things at random, looking for a reaction.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 4, 2007 at 10:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
You have a very limited understanding of the English language! Why is Churchill's words all of a sudden a part of the Iraqi debate and the notion of the "partitioning" of this sovereigh nation. If not "oil", then you tell me why America invaded Iraq? You have nothing to go on but "Googling" for information! Iraq has recognized borders or am I just "ignorant" of that real fact? Why has the debate turned to altering Iraq's borders to accomodate the locals?
Take the fighting and controlling bull someplace else! Nothing was as corrupt as it is today! Saddam invaded Kuwait and the world reacted under Bush I! Why is Bush law any different. And by the way, if Jews can lay claim to land based on ancient protocol why not everybody else?
posted by
Glennb
on May 4, 2007 at 9:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Churchill was an underling in the British diplomatic corps after WWI and
his office was given the job of partitioning off the Ottoman Empire. Churchill's advice went unheeded (and why not, it was far less expensive for the British to control one large area than to set up three or more smaller governments. Expediency won that round, just as it won Desert Storm and this latest futile endeavor. And the area known as Kurdistan has been around for hundreds of years. The people there speak their own language, have a different culture than does the rest of Iraq. (By the way, Kurdistan is usually seen as the mountainous north/northeast of Iraq, but Kurds and Kurdish-speaking peoples cover western Iran, over half of eastern Turkey -- which is why Turkey is so opposed to the idea of an independent Kurdistan, a portion of eastern Syria, and southwestern Azerbaijan.) Stating that Kurdistan suddenly appeared out of nowhere shows your ignorance of the history of the region. And the Kurds just happen to live above an oil-rich area. So does the Shiite controlled southern portion of Iraq. Only the western part of Iraq is virtually oil-less, which is why the Sunnis are so adamant to continue waging an insurgency and fighting the Shiite militias. Coupled with the fact that Sunnis have controlled Iraq for almost one hundred years and feel entitled, this could keep Iraq up in arms for the rest of eternity. Oil isn't the reason everyone wages war, Glennb. It's one of them. Ideals and religion play some part in this mess as well.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 4, 2007 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
Yea! Right,
You still did not answer the "real" questions! What is a Kurd! And how many Nations does the region called Kurdistan cover? The issue is why should their nation suddenly cover the portion of Iraq that sits over the most "oil" reserves? And would Bush Inc. be so fixated on an "autonomous" Iraqi Kurdistan without it. You keep repeating the same talking point non-sense. When did Churchill utter these prophetic words and in what context!
Bush Inc. drew up a doctrine after the first Gulf war to partition Iraq, based on some artificial seperation of the human species. It is a formula that has always worked in the European's favor. It could work again this time, but it is expensive!
You keep referring to leaders of other nation in the negative! Is George Bush any better? Add up the dead bodies under Bush I and Bush II! Yea, Mr. Relative! Right!
posted by
Glennb
on May 4, 2007 at 5:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Churchill saw Iraq's questionable and tempestuous future from the eyes
of a young man wiser than his superiors, Glennb. And Iraq has never been united, unless you count those brief periods when absolute despots ruled. I play no favorites in that hellish struggle. But the Kurds should have their independence, regardless of Turkey's objections. Hell, they've damn near been independent now for over a decade. Why shouldn't they be recognized as a sovereign nation? They should be autonomous. They're also the only region in Iraq that's relatively violence free. They have their own standing army. And even if they do gain independence, they'll still have to fight over Kirkuk.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 3, 2007 at 9:31 PM
| link to this | reply
WavyDavy,
What makes you think it will be free? That is the American ignorance that Bush has relied! You go in and spend trillions of dollars to destroy a country because it is sitting on oil that "Big Oil" does not control! Big Oil gets control and gives it away to pay back the trillions of tax dollars that somebody, someday will have to account for? Americans driving for free, just pull up and fill up. That my friend is "fantasyland"!
posted by
Glennb
on May 3, 2007 at 6:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
Who said Winston Churchill knew what he was talking about? In what context did Churchill view Iraq's future? It really angers me when the European solution is supposed to be Bible! Iraq was united and as a sovereign Nation! Do you know anything about the region called Kurdistan? Why does American interest in Kurds only extend to the ones living on top of Iraq's oil? I think you know the answer. It does not matter about the oil you will still pay for it!
What ever happened to that tax on Oil Company Profits! Try and get that through Congress in this era of corruption.
posted by
Glennb
on May 3, 2007 at 6:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Hell, I'm all for it, WavyDavy. Since we're over there and Bush has no
intention of pulling our troops out, we might as well use as much of that oil as we can get. Besides, wasn't it supposed to help pay for the war? Yeah, that's worked out real well.
It wouldn't surprise me, WavyDavy, if those oil wells in Iraq weren't pumping triple their pre-war volume, making a lot of Bush's buddies plenty of money while they feed the American public misinformation. They wouldn't do that, would they?
posted by
saul_relative
on May 2, 2007 at 8:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Iraq will never be unified, Glennb, and the United States didn't cause the
divisions. Those divisions have been there forever. Then the British decided to partition the Middle East in the early 20th century. Even Winston Churchill told his superiors at the time that Iraq should be at least three separate political entities or there would always be trouble there. The Kurds have been trying to gain independence forever, but through diplomatic channels also since the beginning of the 20th century (most notably through Woodrow Wilson). The United States merely opened old wounds without having any idea how to heal them.
But I agree that people will always choose freedom over oppression -- if they can. Now, they can. Under Hussein it was a bit more difficult. But Iraq will never be a united and complete nation. It never has been. It might one day become several nations.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Saul_Relative,
I agree that the United States should get out of Iraq but since we have lost so many lives and spent so much money, don't you think that we should have some of their oil? After all, we could use it here. Gasoline prices are over $3.00 per gallon for unleaded regular and probably will be $4.00 or over by Independence Day.
posted by
WavyDavy
on May 2, 2007 at 6:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
Everyone keeps referring to the President as "out of touch"! Why? It seems he is the only one in America who knows there is no turn-around point for his "war crimes"! America created the divisions and violence in Iraq! Of course it was not part of the original plan, it happened because free people will always resist tyrannical imperialism. He knows the day America and the puppets they installed leave, Iraq becomes a "unified and complete" Nation.
We have a crisis in America that threatens the credibility of our Government.
posted by
Glennb
on May 2, 2007 at 5:48 AM
| link to this | reply