Senatus Populusque Americanus

[SurlyPIG]

Egedeis, snuff out your joint and live in the real world. A politically volatile country unprotected is asking for trouble. I don't know what kind of hallucination you live in, but in the REAL world, war-torn and poverty-stricken countries aren't built up to their maximum potential in days. Give me a freaking break.

What the hell do you expect the US to do, pack up the day the statues fall and leave the Iraqis to fight amongst themselves, send foreign aid and relief supplies only never to pursue equal trade?

Take Dr. Phil's advice. Get real.

And 'historian' from Edric's site was right about one thing; Rome wasn't built in a day. You expect there to be a fully independant, working democracy in Iraq after TWO MONTHS? Bwahahahaha...

I won'der what you'd be whining about if it was France buying Iraq's oil and Russian corporations working reconstruction. A possible conflict of interest isn't a conflict of interest unless it actually IS one.

[Edric O]

Hmmmm, I wonder... Ace, are you deliberately trying to get away from our real argument about Iraq, or do you simply fail to understand it?

We don't object to the speed at which reconstruction is proceeding. As you said, this is as fast as anyone could make it.

What we do object to is the direction of this reconstruction. Iraq isn't being rebuilt to be a sovereign country, it isn't being rebuilt for the good of the Iraqi people! It is being rebuilt to be an American client state, a colony, a slave to American corporations and American global capitalism!

...and the funny thing is that Rome did EXACTLY the same thing to the countries it conquered. The Romans often allowed them to remain independent in theory, just like Iraq will be independent in theory. Ruled by a puppet leader, on the payroll of the Empire (Roman or American, respectively).

[SurlyPIG]

Oh, sure, blame me for the thread going off topic when all I'm doing is responding to Egedeis' initial posts. Excellent propaganda technique. Try to make your enemy look bad at every possible opportunity. ;)

Exactly how are you, a Romanian living in Romania, able to determine the overall direction of reconstruction in a country thousands of clicks away, especially after two months? (which is a very liberal time total, considering the war isn't really even over)

As to the USA-Rome, both you and the author of the site you posted souverely and selectively twist and contort both Roman history and American history and recent action; so much so that I don't even have the time to name all the half-truths, misinformations and lies.

[Egeides]

ACE, I'd really like to see which links between Rome and USA is false to your eyes, let alone the futuristic part that's just a joke.

First, would you agree with the Carthage/USSR parallel?

[Dude_Doc]

What we do object to is the direction of this reconstruction. Iraq isn't being rebuilt to be a sovereign country, it isn't being rebuilt for the good of the Iraqi people! It is being rebuilt to be an American client state, a colony, a slave to American corporations and American global capitalism!

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Ahem, the fact is already in front of you.

And I'm sure that alot of people see it in Edric's point of view, America is trying to act like a modified Roman empire.

They flood countries with propanganda about Freedom and Liberty tons of times, doesn't the American politics get a little sick by using the same word over and over?

"We will destroy Evil, join us, or be DESTROYED... er, I ment, it is your choice."

Now, tell me this, why does the Russians HATE the Americans, no, not because they are jealous on American wealth.

They HATE their goverment.

America has double crossed and broken agreements with Russia many times, and frankly, I don't care how rich America is either, I'd rather join the Russians or Communism.

Atleast I'll fight for a cause.

And by the way, since I'm not a great fan of American Goverment, I'm on Edric's side and I'm sure that he and I are not the only ones that thinks this way about America.

[Edric O]

You want to know why the world hates America, Ace? Because the American administration takes every opportunity to boast about how much better they are than everyone else, how they don't have to answer to anyone and how the rest of the world should fall on their knees and worship the allmighty "Land of Freedom", whose federal police brutally murdered civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. as late as the 1960's, whose secret services supported bloody Fascist dictators like Pinochet as late as the 1980's, and who holds the honour of being the only country in the world which dropped TWO ATOMIC BOMBS on helpless civilians.

---------------------------

Funny how Ace tries to discredit my argument by saying that I couldn't possibly know what's going on in Iraq *because I'm so far away*, while ignoring the fact that the exact same thing applies to HIM. (or to be more exact, it doesn't apply to either of us - thanks to this wonderful new invention called sattelite communication)

And as for my proof, Dude_Doc, all you have to do is watch the news: What were American soldiers doing while priceless treasures were looted from the Baghdad History Museum? SECURING THE OIL FIELDS. Why weren't there enough troops to protect hospitals from looters and thieves? Because they were PROTECTING THE OIL MINISTRY. Who rules Iraq at this very moment? Where are the vast majority of Iraq's oil exports starting to go to? Which country's corporations are profiting from the suffering of the Iraqi people? The United $tates of America.

As I have said, everything that the Coalition has done in the aftermath of this war points towards one goal: Turning Iraq into a client state, ruled by a puppet government.

Ace, please answer Egeides on the topic of the Rome-USA parallel. Stop hiding behind sweeping generalizations and bring up actual facts.

Ave, Bush! Morituri te salutant!

[Dude_Doc]

whose federal police brutally murdered civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr

Actually, Luther King was shot by a black woman. And if they killed Luther King, then why is there a memorial day for him? Wouldn't they cover that up too?

and who holds the honour of being the only country in the world which dropped TWO ATOMIC BOMBS on helpless civilians.

It was war. They didn't exactly drop bombs on civilians just because they liked it. Besides, blame the administration that was, not the whole country. You still don't blame Germany for the Holocaust, do you?

Why weren't there enough troops to protect hospitals from looters and thieves?

Maybe they tought that the Iraqi people would be smart enough to NOT loot museums and hospitals? Why isn't there any/enough police or guards when a person gets murdered, or a bank robbed? Because the administration thinks that people are smart enough to NOT do those kind of things. Guess they were wrong.

Turning Iraq into a client state, ruled by a puppet government.

Is Germany ruled by a puppet government?

[SurlyPIG]

You want to know why the world hates America, Ace? Because the American administration takes every opportunity to boast about how much better they are than everyone else, how they don't have to answer to anyone and how the rest of the world should fall on their knees and worship the allmighty "Land of Freedom", whose federal police brutally murdered civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. as late as the 1960's, whose secret services supported bloody Fascist dictators like Pinochet as late as the 1980's, and who holds the honour of being the only country in the world which dropped TWO ATOMIC BOMBS on helpless civilians.

OMG this is freaking pathetic (but I guess it's good that you're finally admitting your hatred for Americans). Ok, in order of appearance; no, no, no, MLK was murdered by a white supremacist and carrer criminal names James Ray whose fingerprints were all over the murder weapon and so he CONFESSED to avoid the death penalty, Pinochet's support was motivated by trying to stop the spread of Stalin's USSR and ended 20 years ago, and if not for those two nukes (extreme, I agree) you might be speaking German and I might be speaking Japanese.

Funny how Ace tries to discredit my argument by saying that I couldn't possibly know what's going on in Iraq *because I'm so far away*, while ignoring the fact that the exact same thing applies to HIM. (or to be more exact, it doesn't apply to either of us - thanks to this wonderful new invention called sattelite communication)

Actually I didn't try to make any ludicrous speculations about Iraq that go beyond my limits. Satellite communication is only accessible to profit-driven mass media, and I thought you didn't trust big corporations? The media shows you whatever the hell will make you watch, and hides everything else. Unless you have uncanny psychic abilities, there's no way you could determine the direction of reconstruction in Iraq after, what, two weeks? Please. There's an empty can on my desk I've had a longer relationship with.

And as for my proof, Dude_Doc, all you have to do is watch the news: What were American soldiers doing while priceless treasures were looted from the Baghdad History Museum? SECURING THE OIL FIELDS. Why weren't there enough troops to protect hospitals from looters and thieves? Because they were PROTECTING THE OIL MINISTRY. Who rules Iraq at this very moment? Where are the vast majority of Iraq's oil exports starting to go to? Which country's corporations are profiting from the suffering of the Iraqi people? The United $tates of America.

Actually they were securing the country from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and the security of oil fields is necessary - you of all people should know that. Remember what happened to the Gulf after Saddam went scorched Earth and burned all the wells? It would have been better named the Black Gulf. If you'd rather have toxic pollutants suffocating people within a large radius and intoxicating the surrounding environment than have people stealing old art, that's your problem.

Ace, please answer Egeides on the topic of the Rome-USA parallel. Stop hiding behind sweeping generalizations and bring up actual facts.

You're one to talk about sweeping generalizations. It would literally take me hours, because every half-truth, skew, and outright lie I'd point out, you would contradict and I'd have to post proof which I frankly don't have the time to do, it's almost summer and I have a life to live!

[Edric O]

Perhaps you need glasses, Ace, so that you can tell the difference between AmeriCA and AmeriCANS.

So, just to make things clear:

DEATH TO THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

There. Big enough for you? Now I'll leave you to ponder on that for a while. Unfortunetaly, I have no more time right now, so I'll reply to the rest (and to Dude_Doc) when I'll have that time. Of course, this topic really isn't about Iraq, but oh well...

[Gobalopper]

You do know that the American people elect the government don't you?

So instead it should be:

DEATH TO THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH!

[Egeides]

I'd say "death to the lobby system" and "corporate media system" instead... Only then could people hope to elect with INFORMATION.

My source is one of our teachers that went in USA + opendemocracy.net (which I have no tool to check further :():

Official voices dominate: 63% of all sources were current or former government employees. US officials alone accounted for more than half (52%) of all sources.

Pro-war chorus: Nearly two thirds of all sources ? 64% ? were pro-war.

Anti-war voices missing: At a time when 27% of the US public opposed the war, only 10% of all sources, and just 3% of US sources, were anti-war. That means the percentage of Americans opposing the war was nearly 10 times higher in the real world than on the news.

Soundbites vs. interviews: When anti-war guests did make the news, they were mostly relegated to man-on-the-street soundbites. Not a single show did a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war.

International perspectives scarce: Only 6% of sources came from countries other than the US, Britain or Iraq. Citizens of France, Germany and Russia ? the countries most vocally opposed to the war ? constituted just 1% of all guests.

[zamboe]

Pinochet's support was motivated by trying to stop the spread of Stalin's USSR and ended 20 years ago,

You urgently need to go over history in this matter.

[zamboe]

And as for my proof, Dude_Doc, all you have to do is watch the news: What were American soldiers doing while priceless treasures were looted from the Baghdad History Museum? SECURING THE OIL FIELDS. Why weren't there enough troops to protect hospitals from looters and thieves? Because they were PROTECTING THE OIL MINISTRY. Who rules Iraq at this very moment? Where are the vast majority of Iraq's oil exports starting to go to? Which country's corporations are profiting from the suffering of the Iraqi people? The United $tates of America.

Actually they were securing the country from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and the security of oil fields is necessary - you of all people should know that. Remember what happened to the Gulf after Saddam went scorched Earth and burned all the wells? It would have been better named the Black Gulf. If you'd rather have toxic pollutants suffocating people within a large radius and intoxicating the surrounding environment than have people stealing old art, that's your problem.

Ace obviously, avoided the part of Oil ministry. Let's try to understand that logic, oil ministry is far more important than many hospitals, unique museums, and of course the polution an oil ministry can produce is waaaaay more dangerous than a looted hospital - I was being sarcastig, since what other choice can we possible have in front of such a position - . Oil ministry, come on !

[SurlyPIG]

What is the only gem in Iraq's economic future? And how many hospitals are there? And who could anticipate hostpitals, of all places, being looted?

[Edric O]

It's not the people who put the government in power, Gob. Corporations do. They fund the campaigns of their loyal puppets, and the corporations with the most manipulative and expensive campaigns get to see their puppets in the White House.

Dude_Doc:

Actually, Luther King was shot by a black woman. And if they killed Luther King, then why is there a memorial day for him? Wouldn't they cover that up too?

LOL, you and Ace really should get your act together! It seems you can't even agree on who actually shot MLK. For the record, though, Ace is right. However, he *forgot* to mention the continuous FBI harrasment that MLK was subjected to, or the fact that his rooms were often bugged by the FBI, etc.

And as for the memorial day & co. - yes, they later felt sorry for killing him and decided it had been a mistake. As if that could bring him back...

It was war. They didn't exactly drop bombs on civilians just because they liked it. Besides, blame the administration that was, not the whole country. You still don't blame Germany for the Holocaust, do you?

I don't blame Germany for the Holocaust, but I WILL bring up the Holocaust if a German tries to shove some crap in my face about how good and righteous Germany is, and how they would never murder innocent people, etc. etc. (which is typical Bush propaganda)

Oh, and they DID drop bombs on civilians precisely because they liked it. Japan had already offered to surrender, but the allies wouldn't take anything short of unconditional surrender.

Maybe they tought that the Iraqi people would be smart enough to NOT loot museums and hospitals? Why isn't there any/enough police or guards when a person gets murdered, or a bank robbed? Because the administration thinks that people are smart enough to NOT do those kind of things. Guess they were wrong.

...but, obviously, they didn't think the Iraqi people were smart enough to preserve their oil-extracting infrastructure, did they? ::)

Is Germany ruled by a puppet government?

There are wars, and there are wars...

Comparing WW2 with the Iraq War is beyond absurd. There were different enemies, different allies, different things at stake, different reasons for going to war (the USA didn't even enter WW2 until it was well under way, while they were the ones who STARTED the Iraq war), and the two wars are more than 50 years apart.

[Dude_Doc]

It's not the people who put the government in power, Gob. Corporations do. They fund the campaigns of their loyal puppets, and the corporations with the most manipulative and expensive campaigns get to see their puppets in the White House.

And you called me paranoid?

I don't blame Germany for the Holocaust, but I WILL bring up the Holocaust if a German tries to shove some crap in my face about how good and righteous Germany is, and how they would never murder innocent people, etc. etc. (which is typical Bush propaganda)

Like you said, there is a great difference in then and now...

Japan had already offered to surrender, but the allies wouldn't take anything short of unconditional surrender.

So you say that all Swedish History books got this part wrong? Japan maybe thought of surrendering, but they NEVER offered the allies it. So I don't think the allies knew that Japan was going to surrender. Get it?

And as for the memorial day & co. - yes, they later felt sorry for killing him and decided it had been a mistake. As if that could bring him back...

Yeah, I felt sorry for killing Olof Palme and felt that I had to build him a statue... right...

[Edric O]

Ace:

Pinochet's support was motivated by trying to stop the spread of Stalin's USSR and ended 20 years ago, and if not for those two nukes (extreme, I agree) you might be speaking German and I might be speaking Japanese.

ROFLMAO! This should go in the "historical insights from 6th graders" topic! If this is the kind of nonsense that you read from your *highly prestigious* history sites, Ace, then I'll stick to my own sources, thank you very much.

Now, just for your information:

1. Stalin died in 1953. That's some 20 years before Pinochet even came to power.

2. Nazi Germany was utterly defeated and crushed in May 1945. The bombs on Japan were dropped in AUGUST. By that time, Hitler's Reich was long dead. So how would I be "speaking German by now" without those bombs, exactly?

3. Not only had Germany been defeated, but Japan itself was crippled and on the verge of defeat. They couldn't even shoot down the single plane who dropped the first atomic bomb, for God's sake! Japan had already offered to surrender, but the allies refused, because they wanted total and unconditional surrender.

Actually I didn't try to make any ludicrous speculations about Iraq that go beyond my limits. Satellite communication is only accessible to profit-driven mass media, and I thought you didn't trust big corporations? The media shows you whatever the hell will make you watch, and hides everything else. Unless you have uncanny psychic abilities, there's no way you could determine the direction of reconstruction in Iraq after, what, two weeks? Please. There's an empty can on my desk I've had a longer relationship with.

Oh, I don't trust big corporations to give me any sort of unbiased news, that's for sure. But I do trust them to give accurate accounts of what their own puppets (the US government) have said to the public. And they openly admitted to their real plans for Iraq (behind a veil of propaganda, of course, but a very thin one).

Oh, and by the way, you DID make ludicrous speculations about Iraq that go beyond your limits: You're trying to make me believe that, in fact, Bush only invaded Iraq and spent billions of dollars out of the kindness of his heart, to liberate the poor Iraqi people whom he loved so much! ...that goes beyond pathetic, Ace. Not even a school kid can believe something THAT ridiculous!

Actually they were securing the country from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and the security of oil fields is necessary - you of all people should know that. Remember what happened to the Gulf after Saddam went scorched Earth and burned all the wells? It would have been better named the Black Gulf. If you'd rather have toxic pollutants suffocating people within a large radius and intoxicating the surrounding environment than have people stealing old art, that's your problem.

Yeeeees, they did it all for the Iraqi people! There was NO self-interest involved whatsoever! Oh, those kind, lovable US troops! ::)

And after trying to make me believe that Bush and the US Army are the most altruistic people on Earth, who would even sacrifice their own lives to free their fellow human beings, Ace tells me that Communism cannot work precisely because people would NEVER do what he claims Bush has just done. ::)

You're one to talk about sweeping generalizations. It would literally take me hours, because every half-truth, skew, and outright lie I'd point out, you would contradict and I'd have to post proof which I frankly don't have the time to do, it's almost summer and I have a life to live!

Oh, I see... in other words, you make aggressive claims and accusations and then refuse to back them up.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You have better things to do than spend hours and hours arguing with me on an internet forum. I agree, especially since I'm in a similar situation myself. So I won't insist on this issue - as long as you stop making baseless claims yourself.

---------

Edit: There's one more thing... I've decided that this is to be my last post before taking my CPE written papers, so don't expect to see me around at all for a few days...

[Phage]

I didn't vote for Bush myself. Hell I don't even like Bush. But if there is one thing this world needs its someone to take a stand against Muslim and ME fundamentalism and fanaticism. If you gave these guys a doomsday bomb and convinced them that Allah wanted them to wipe out humanity they'd press the button. No reservations.

So ultimately I think Bush may be a bad president, but at least he's willing to take a stand. At least he's willing to oppose these fanatics and help the cause of modernism and internationalism, even if that's not his aim.

I mean we now live in a world of weapons that can spell doomsday. To thus allow religious or totalitarian fanatics to attain power and dictate policy is just insane.

Bush may not be an FDR so to speak, but at least he's opposing the modern day equivalent of Nazis.(Though even the Nazis wouldn't wish to wipe out humanity just cause of religion.)

This is more then a lot of Democrats can say. And that's sad, seeing as I consider myself more of a liberal.

It seems modern day liberalism is about being anti-american and extremist/idealist.

[Phage]

Oh yes, and I'm sorry to say this...but as incredible as this sounds: the USA is not responsible for every problem inside the third world. I know, the statement is amazing but true.

Also I don't think you should be cordial with and try to negotiate with an enemy that calls you "Satan" and does the equivalent of sticking a bayonet up your ass. Just my opinion though.

[Dude_Doc]

They couldn't even shoot down the single plane who dropped the first atomic bomb, for God's sake! Japan had already offered to surrender, but the allies refused, because they wanted total and unconditional surrender.

As I said, Japan did not offer the allies any surrender. Japan has to blame itself because they attacked first.

[Phage]

I'm partly Japanese, so I hope nobody calls me racist for this. But the allies had good reason to A-Bomb Japan.

Yes the Japanese did offer to surrender, the conditions were to keep the fascist/imperialist system untouched though. Hardly a victory and I'm very glad that the allies did not accept this. We could still have a fascist Japan but for that.

Also the Soviets were finally getting ready to "help" aid the allies in conquering Japan. Which would have been real rich, having Stalin execute millions of Japanese. In fact some Japanese high ranking officials were thinking of inviting the Soviets to work as a negotiating/mediating force.

The Emperor, due to the allies disagreeing with the terms was getting ready to arm civilians.

Amphibious landings were impractical. For those to suceed you need about 3 to 1 numbers. The allies at the time could best expect 1 to 1.

Also note that Democracies do not do well in a prolonged conflict. That is a major weakness of democracies and the Japanese knew this. They would have decided to hold out until the war became unpopular.

Now imagine yourself as president, faced with these odds. Faced with a proud people that had never before lost a major conflict with a foreign army. Yes, Japan had not lost to foreigner until ww2. And you could either end the war quickly, avoiding soviet interventions, loss of american lives and prolonging the war with a new secret weapon, or prolong it with a perhaps disastorous amphibious assault or extensive bombing campaign what would you do?

I'd even as a Japanese American pick the former. In the end it would be better for both sides. I also understand a government's primary loyalty is to it's troops, not the enemie's civilians.

In the end though Japan did suffer less the Germany anyways. 2 a-bombs vs a country bombed to the stone age via conventional weapons.

Tens of thousand lost vs. millions lost.

Perhaps now at days the move would be disasterous(these are different times) but back then it was warranted.

And America DID do something that was unprecedented: Help rebuild the country it had just conquered. Helped protect them and show them a better way of life. And it worked: Japan now at days is ahead of most European nations. Tell me of another country that did anything like this.

[Egeides]

And, shit happens, Japan was a US base to anti-communism. Communist had a political lead at that time in Japan, and Japan served as a very important anti-communism base. Each time a country GIVES somewhere else, I'm suspicious. Politics, politics... Only ideas is generally not enough: money and strategic advantage is commonly on the same side.

About "not every thrid-world problem is because of USA", I agree. But certain administrations (all since Kennedy?...) helped the governments on their side. I recall Reagan saying about a dictator "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." (or was it Carter?...) When bad elements get to power in a country, they bring all their kind up with them since it's the best way to get more power and stay in power (services exchanges...).

[Birdfolly]

Here are some interesting quotes that go mostly unheard about the subject:

Hiroshima quotes

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Phage, the only reason why the Americans do these 'good' things is just pure propaganda and they are trying to show off their power.

And if memory serves me well, America has done more bad things than good things.

But these good things always relates to bad things, well, not always.

It's odd how America actually asked for money when they gave the British supplies.

In a friggin world war, where victory is VERY important.

And if America needed that money, then I'm gonna really laugh and burn my History books of the Huns and Mongols and Japanese Kimono's.

America cared so much about Europe, they've chosen to stay neutral until Japan (Part of the Axis) attacked Pearl Harbor.

This sounds more like a act of revenge, than caring about the freedom of the world.

Oh, and still if the sovjets conquered Europe, I doubt it that they can keep control of the land.

Communism of Stalin doesn't tend to last long in countries that has been already influenced by Democracy.

As for the French, the French actually helped America to achieve their current status, why?

Because if they didn't helped them, America would be now:

The United states of England.

Damn, that sounds so nice.

And like the others said, Japan was just a puppet for the Americans, and they said that Japan wanted to get rid of the Vietnamese or something like that, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Japan basicly doesn't care about foreign countries and they don't even want to join a war against the Korean or Vietnamese people.

Actually, the British, French and Sovjets were the ONES that did all the work in WW2, Hitler wanted to wage war in the air of the British, which is a very stupid thing to do.

Hitler wanted to challenge the harsh and dangerous terrain of the Russians.

And the Americans got the NERVES to call THEMSELVES victory over the Germans, while they just bombarded them and brought down the coup de grace on them, while the Germans suffered alot of casualties by the front in Russia and England.

Damn, they are my hero's. ::)

Still odd how the Americans had problems with beating all the remaining forces of the Germans and even today, they brag about themselves in movies of Americans slaughtering Germans.*coughcough*

Private Ryan version: *All the Americans runs and say charge, running through the rain of bullets, which doesn't seem to hit them and the soldiers kill all the Germans with ease.*

Realistic version: *All the Americans runs and say charge, but suddenly a pair of Tiger tanks blasts them and Stuka's flies over them, bombarding the snot out of them, soldiers in trenches shooting the piss out of them and Machine guns coming out from the bushes kills their support infantry that carries Machine guns, the Americans only manage to kill a few Germans but the Germans slaughtered the Americans and cheers* ;D

That's why I prefer old war movies, they still have more realism in it, instead of the good guys always winning over everything.