IslandLifer #fundie

IslandLifer #fundie moonbattery.com

[On the subject of U.S. troops leaving Iraq by the end of the year.]

Getting kicked out of Iraq is what it is. The proper way to exit would have been taking oil equal to the amount of $ spent trying to civilize the impossible. Our soldiers’ blood spilt for a useless cause so now we take what’s owed and the heathens can go on eating each other. Shouldn’t you be playing drums somewhere and sharing a tent with a dreadlocked dope dealer? Wash your armpits.

74 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Getting kicked out of Iraq is what it is."

Kicked out?

"The proper way to exit would have been taking oil equal to the amount of $ spent trying to civilize the impossible."

Or, alternatively, Bush could have "stayed the course," as he was wont to parrot, and not taken a detour several thousand miles away from where the actual bad guys were and invaded a country that was, for the most part, minding their own fucking business.

"Our soldiers’ blood spilt for a useless cause so now we take what’s owed and the heathens can go on eating each other."

That's the problem. You want to "take what's owed" from the wrong fucking people. The Iraqis don't owe you a damned thing. Bush, his cronies and all of their shady business partners who profited from the whole sham owe you quite a lot though. Good luck collecting.

"Shouldn’t you be playing drums somewhere and sharing a tent with a dreadlocked dope dealer? Wash your armpits."

Shouldn't you be over in Iraq following your godman's orders to spread the Word of God? Bring your Wholly Babble so you can show them all of the places that their Qur'an is wrong.

old comment by Bad Wolf

The USA invaded a country that was legally run by someone we chose not to like - that year - previously we supported him. We invaded in reality to protect the flow of oil - a commodity we have come to depend on, but which we have no "right" to, other than we are able to purchase it from the people who DO own the land on top of it. Our politicians justify invasion by saying the oil is a 'vital national resource'. Be glad the US is strong, and that somebody hasn't decided that Kansas wheat isn't a 'vital national resource' to their country, or they might - with the same justification - invade Topeka, slaughter the National Guard - and thousands of civilians - and take it.

The way to decide if an action is morally correct is to place yourself in the other's shoes - it's even Christian...

old comment by SpukiKitty

Incidentally, to all the war hawks in the world, throughout history...if another country has a resource you want, wouldn't be easier to just ASK?!

The Mongols could've just ASKED China for it's resources & made some sort of agreement.

White Settlers could've ASKED the Indigenous Americans to share the resources, after all the Indigamerican tribes graciously & selflessly saved the Pilgrims bacon circa 1620 (according to the official story at least).

When times are hard, it makes sense to work together & cooperate.

BUT NOOOOOOOO....Patriarchal thinking says "WANT! WAR! TAKE! *ARRRGLE*!

War's about only one thing, Greed & Huge Egos! It's stupid! Warfare is only just as self-defense & when negotiation, diplomacy, sanctions & such have failed (you can't negotiate with Hitler, for example).

Sure, Saddam & Sons were complete monsters but our war with them was totally unnecessary. Now you have a nation in shambles with sectarian violence & a replacement govt. that's rusty at best & corrupt at worst. If glad they booted us out. Good for us & them. They need to do things on their own. Let's hope they recover & not turn into "Saddam Part 2".

The Person Who Dies With The Most Toys...Is Still Dead!

You can't take your stuff to the grave & beyond.

old comment by Zeus Almighty

Interestingly enough, I saw this ad on Craigslist:*

Wanted
Dictator for life in exotic Middle Eastern country with a long history

Successful candidate will help overthrow a diverse, democratically elected government put in place by the United States and such allies as Honduras, Poland and Moldova (who contributed 24 troops). After revolution this candidate will rule as a ruthless dictator for life or until he pisses us off, acquiesce to U.S. wishes, oppose Iran -- up to and including serving as a base for a U.S. invasion of that country -- clamp down on Muslim clerics and Islam in general, and perform other tasks as necessary.

Compensation
All the money you and your cronies can scam from the second-largest oil deposits on the planet

Perks
Torturing, maiming and killing any and all opposition. Excellent tanning opportunities. Unlimited raping and pillaging. Having all the electricity for air conditioning in your country where the common people are lucky to get a few hours a day.

Qualified applicants should send resume and list of confirmed killings of innocent men, women and children (preferably with video evidence) to:
Case Officer Leonard Z. Smith
C/O CIA Headquarters
P.O. Box 666
Washington, D.C. 78145

* No, really, I was looking for a part-time house cleaner, not a transexual, midget power top who speaks Hungarian.

old comment by Giveitaday

Getting kicked out of Iraq is what it is

Hey, it was the far right's beloved Dubya who negotiated and signed the SOFA that "allows" Iraq to kick us out at the end of 2011.

The proper way to exit would have been taking oil equal to the amount of $ spent trying to civilize the impossible.

Yeah. Those damn Iraqi's should pay us for doing something they never asked us to do. Is that what we do now? Invade countries and rob them of their natural resources as payment for an invasion they never asked ffor and likely resent? Are we to be the shining city on a hill, or the bully on the playground?

Our soldiers’ blood spilt for a useless cause so now we take what’s owed and the heathens can go on eating each other.

What's owed? The people who incurred this "debt" are the ones who knowingly fabricated a cause for war and spent US blood and treasure chasing ghosts, and I hardly think that was the people of Iraq.

Shouldn’t you be playing drums somewhere and sharing a tent with a dreadlocked dope dealer? Wash your armpits.

Because everybody who disagrees with you must be an unwashed hippie stoner. Grow the fuck up.

old comment by CohibaMan

@Berny

Oh, bullshit. The US did NOT get its ass handed to it, not in Iraq and not in Vietnam. That's not the problem at all. That Vietnam was a clusterfuck had absolutely nothing to do with American soldiers getting their asses kicked -- it had everything to do with the fact that the rules of engagement set up by the politicians back home didn't allow for victory. The casualties were stacked very heavily against the Viet Cong -- we're talking 1,100,000 Vietnamese military casualties vs around 58,272 American deaths. The problem with deaths in Vietnam wasn't that American soldiers were being massacred -- it was that they were dying for an immoral cause and committing awful atrocities throughout the country.

Likewise, the amount of deaths that the US has had in Iraq is extremely low given that we're talking about an 8 year campaign -- there have only been a few thousand American deaths vs countless lives lost on the part of the Iraqis. The question has never been whether the US could handle the Iraqi Armed Forces or the various insurgency groups. American troops pretty much slaughter anyone that has come up against them in the country. That IS, in fact, the real problem. When you occupy a country against its will you inevitably wind up resorting to authoritarian methods to maintain control -- bullying and killing innocent civilians, etc.

The problems in Iraq and Vietnam had nothing to do with the fighting prowess of the United States Military. They had everything to do with conflicts where American presence was ill-conceived in the first place as well as the methods used by the American military.

I don't say any of this to defend either conflict. They're both stains on American history. It's just that I get tired of the blind America-bashing. If you're going to point out that the US fucked up on something, that's cool -- but at least get your facts straight. The US is leaving Iraq because it is honoring the will of the government there, not because the US has been somehow "forced to do so" by the Iraqi military. If the US insisted on staying the Iraqi government and its military couldn't do a damn thing about it.

old comment by CohibaMan

@solomongrundy

Well funded? The US military is paid for with money the country doesn't have (which is why it needs to loot asnd pillage).

The United States military receives more funding than the military forces of every other country combined. That's not a propaganda point Americans tell themselves to feel good -- it's an indisputable fact. That is the very definition of "the most well-funded military power in the world", as aaa originally said. In fact, part of the reason why many other countries are able to keep their military spending low is that their policies count on a US presence in any engagement in which they might find themselves. Furthermore, the US does in fact HAVE the money -- what it doesn't have are the levels of government income necessary to maintain its spending over the long haul due to high income disparities and a lack of willingness to raise taxes on those who possess of the wealth.

All nations borrow money and all nations engage in deficit spending -- spending money they do not have. Governments can do this because government budgets do not work like household budgets. Governments have assured sources of revenue through their powers of taxation. The problem is that you gauge safe levels of debt by comparing the deficit to the overall GDP and American levels are getting uncomfortably high.

And the United States military does not "loot and pillage." What the US military does is prop up governments that are agreeable to engaging in free trade using the US dollar. The Iraq War was never about "stealing" oil in the vulgar sense -- the idea was to set up a friendly government that would be willing to trade in dollars, allowing Americans to buy up oil cheaply. In the wake of a war, the dollar would be much stronger than Iraqi currency translating into cheaper commodities. The main reason US forces are complying with the Iraqi government's request to leave rather than staying is that the US government sees this as the most cost-effective means to achieve such an end. The Iraqi government absolutely lacks the means to actually force the US to leave.

Creating conditions for economic exploitation, albeit in a sometimes heavy-handed matter. No actual "looting and pillaging."

old comment by

CohibaMan (Forgot to put my name to this post... I take credit for everything I write, especially the stuff that I'm sure others will find disagreeable.)

@Raised by Horses

"Fiat money" is sort of a misnomer, at least as many people seem to understand it... the only thing that's determined by fiat is that the currency has to be used as a medium of trade.

Once that is in place, however, dollars do have value. It's just that the value is relative to the entire market rather than pegged to any particular commodity. The value of a dollar is actually determined by the marketplace -- the total number of dollars in circulation vs. the total value of goods for which those dollars can be exchanged. Supply of dollars can be contracted and expanded but that holds true for any commodity.

Incidentally, that "fiat" part is what America's efforts throughout the world have always really been about. Having total control over a currency used for trade in other countries confers innumerable advantages. Any "theft" of oil in Iraq was always going to be done through the dollar being a stronger currency than the Iraqi dinar and not through actual plundering...

old comment by CohibaMan

@aaa

My response there was to solomongrundy, who did make that claim -- I realize that you said no such thing and apologize if I wasn't entirely clear about whom I was addressing. My mention of you had to do with your comment that the US military is the most well-funded military power in the world, which I agreed with and was defending.

As far as I'm concerned, it's that very fact that has made what the US has done so particularly heinous. That President Obama has decided to respect the wishes of the Iraqi government is a GOOD thing... too many people don't seem to realize that, while nation building itself has been a flop, the US military itself is not getting massacred by any stretch (to the contrary, they are arresting and killing innocent civilians, which is part of the problem!). The Iraqi government itself lacks the means to force the United States to leave. A leader like Bush would have put all sorts of pressure on the country to let Americans stay, much to the detriment of both nations.

My country will be far better off once we've put this whole sordid affair behind us and start spending on things to repair our dire economic disparities here at home. It's stupid to try to fix the world when we can't even get our own house in order, for Christ's sake.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Shouldn’t you be playing drums somewhere and sharing a tent with a dreadlocked dope dealer? Wash your armpits."

(*Switches to Doug Piranha mode*)

So sayeth the keyboard general in his parents' basement, with Faux News on the TV; mouse in one hand, and piece of wet string in the other.

...oh, so sorry IslandLifer, I forgot. You're Tweeting this as you're in the queue outside that US Armed Forces recruitment office, along with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of loyal, patriotic right-wingers, eagerly wanting to get shot to shit by the insurgents/Taliban... er, I mean serve their country & the cause of Freedom & Democracy:

image

...aren't you, IslandLifer?!

IslandLifer #fundie moonbattery.com

74 comments

Confused?