'Compassionate Colonialism' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12390631/site/newsweek/)

How does compassionate colonialism work? First, you create an Iraqi army that will never be able to stand on its own (the postwar Japan and Germany model)—an army as addicted to U.S. logistical support and know-how as any junkie on heroin. Washington just recently awarded humvees to the Iraqi Army as its "heavy armor." But forget about tanks ("[The Iraqis] shoot at everything and anything," says a frustrated Sgt. Diaz). American helicopters and planes rule the skies here, and that's not going to change for many years. Then, you insist on a friendly government, while letting the Iraqis think it is they who are deciding to be friendly (though this "good will" is driven by the always hovering threat of a withdrawal of support). And finally, you give your companies an inside track on long-term oil contracts—again by noting that their presence in Iraq guarantees U.S. support—without actually expropriating the oil.



Has America become a democratic Empire?

Colonialism ?

You must be thinking of England maybe or France or Spain...

So sorry

Naw --the liberal media hasnt brain washed you at all.

The US has had its hands in many developing countries over the past half century. You can call it a kind of neo-colonialism (and many do) wherein this country is in civil turmoil and America sends aid and forces to one side (the side most friendly towards us) in order to influence the country to a more westernized and 'free-trade' state. our main goal is to keep trade open and as gracious towards us as possible. The usual result of this is that the country either continues in a state of civil war during US occupancy, or the US funded side wins over the other and a national government takes office, the US 'leave' (some forces always remain) and a period of persecution against the opposing group of the population begins. US intervention with other countries' affairs has always exacerbated the problem, even if it has cleared some things up. It is mostly due to the fact that America is intervening not for the good of that country, but because those in power see it in their personal best interest to do so.

Colonialism ?

You must be thinking of England maybe or France or Spain...

So sorry

Naw --the liberal media hasnt brain washed you at all.

What are you talking about? The U.S. has troops in more countries than the British or Spanish Empire ever had. Not to mention we have more cultural, economic, military, and political power than they ever had.

The U.S. is the most dominate Empire to date. We shit over Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. If a country doesn't allow us to buy them out, we simply invade em. There doesn't need to be the word "U.S" in place of a country's name on a map to show that we control it.

Multi-national corporations changed the way the game is played. Rather than requiring brute force to conquer a country, all that's needed now is economical manipulation.

- N

Colonialism ? Well this situation in Iraq,
- Do you agree that we invaded Iraq under false pretences (that the Government wanted to go to war and so made up some reasons/cherry picked Intel and then went to war). That’s rather colonial like behavior – you know, white mans burden and all. Makeup some BS and then go to war.
- Would you agree that our oil companies are making long term contacts to exploit the oil resources in Iraq?
- Doesn’t it seem odd that Saddam is being tried for killing many less Iraqis than the US forces have killed already?
- Isn’t it hypocritical to call Saddam a tyrannical dictator when he garnished more support from the Iraqis than Bush does from Americans (I think Saddam was at a solid 40%).
- What is the difference in the Kurdish wanting a separate country and the South wanting one during our civil war? What’s the difference in Saddam’s actions and then President Lincoln’s?

- And worse of all, we went to war in Iraq because we said Saddam was planning to use chemical weapons but OUR OWN MILLITARY was caught using chemical weapons to kill in Iraqis (admitted to by the Pentagon).

!?!??

Come on – pull your head out of the sand.

Well this situation in Iraq,
- Do you agree that we invaded Iraq under false pretences (that the Government wanted to go to war and so made up some reasons/cherry picked Intel and then went to war). That’s rather colonial like behavior – you know, white mans burden and all. Makeup some BS and then go to war.
- Would you agree that our oil companies are making long term contacts to exploit the oil resources in Iraq?
- Doesn’t it seem odd that Saddam is being tried for killing many less Iraqis than the US forces have killed already?
- Isn’t it hypocritical to call Saddam a tyrannical dictator when he garnished more support from the Iraqis than Bush does from Americans (I think Saddam was at a solid 40%).
- What is the difference in the Kurdish wanting a separate country and the South wanting one during our civil war? What’s the difference in Saddam’s actions and then President Lincoln’s?

- And worse of all, we went to war in Iraq because we said Saddam was planning to use chemical weapons but OUR OWN MILLITARY was caught using chemical weapons to kill in Iraqis (admitted to by the Pentagon).

!?!??

Come on – pull your head out of the sand.

I feel sorry for you.
I dont think you know what colonialism means.

You keep thinking it cause of the oil if it makes you feel better.

I feel sorry for you.
Why? Becasue I take a different point of view?
Or do I

Lets start here:

Do you agree that we invaded Iraq under false pretences?

I think that the US Present, G W Bush Jr., had wanted to go to war with Iraq before the events on 9/11 occurred. Do you agree?

I think that the USA would NOT have gone to war against Iraq had not the events on 9/11 occurred. I just do not believe the President could have garnished the mandate from the Public to support an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Do you agree?

I believe that the events of 9/11 were warranted an attack on Afghanistan (a ligament target) but did not warrant an attack on Iraq (an illegitimate target). Do you agree?

I think that to garnish support for an attack on Iraq, the President used Intel that would suggest that Iraq was in someway connected to 9/11 (which we know that Iraq was in NO WAY connected to 9/11). I have had discussions with my Americans friends and they sometimes confuse Saddam with Bin Laden. Why do you suppose that happens? I can only suppose that this happens because they are confused by the misinformation coming from our leaders who want to connect Iraq to 9/11.

Do you agree that many Americans thought and think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

I don't think 'colonialism' is the right word nor 'neo-colonialism', I think Imperialsm is the correct word for what you are describing and I am in agreement. The US also uses other agents to fulfill its goal ie World Bank, IMF, the UN and to some degree even NGO's.

I wouldn't say the US is a 'democratic empire' simpy because they usually interfere with the democratic process, Chavez in Venezuela is a good example not to mention displacing Allende for the murderous very undemocratic Pinochet. The US uses the word 'democracy' 'freedom' and 'liberty' to manipulate their own population by placing value judgements on the words themselves but I seriously doubt Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld could give a rats ass about democracy or individual freedoms nevermind the welfare of other countries they wish to control.

Do you agree that we invaded Iraq under false pretences?

No , the CIA and British intell was wrong.There is a big difference you refuse to acknowledge.It wouldnt even matter to you if facts came to light that Sadam moved his WMDs to Syria before the invasion.

I think that the US Present, G W Bush Jr., had wanted to go to war with Iraq before the events on 9/11 occurred. Do you agree?

You think ? You kow the man personally ?
No I dont presume to know what G.W. "thinks "

I think that the USA would NOT have gone to war against Iraq had not the events on 9/11 occurred. I just do not believe the President could have garnished the mandate from the Public to support an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Do you agree?

No , again.Sadam paid off terrorists, was in fact a terrorsit himself. And most Americans knew that. People with common sense anyway.

I believe that the events of 9/11 were warranted an attack on Afghanistan (a ligament target) but did not warrant an attack on Iraq (an illegitimate target). Do you agree?

I agree. And we didnt attack Iraq right away.

I think that to garnish support for an attack on Iraq, the President used Intel that would suggest that Iraq was in someway connected to 9/11 (which we know that Iraq was in NO WAY connected to 9/11). I have had discussions with my Americans friends and they sometimes confuse Saddam with Bin Laden. Why do you suppose that happens? I can only suppose that this happens because they are confused by the misinformation coming from our leaders who want to connect Iraq to 9/11.

No way in hell... !! This is absurd liberal propaganda. This is why I feel sorry for you. You are the sheep fed from liberal media. Its actually laughable.

Do you agree that many Americans thought and think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

Nope, I was never told that in any way shape or form. This is your propaganda again. Liberal democratic underground propaganda

Period.



.................

No , again.Sadam paid off terrorists, was in fact a terrorsit himself. And most Americans knew that. People with common sense anyway.

Strange then that Saddam was at one point america's best buddy. Did your common sense lapse?

No , again.Sadam paid off terrorists,I hate the word "terrorists".
Who were paid off and what does this have to do with 9/11 and America?
[B]was in fact a terrorsit himself. How so?
And most Americans knew that.Most Americans couldn't name 20 of the 50 States, find America on the globe nor know (or knew) jack shit about Saddam.
People with common sense anyway.??

Michael

No , again.Sadam paid off terrorists, was in fact a terrorsit himself. And most Americans knew that. People with common sense anyway.

Strange then that Saddam was at one point america's best buddy. Did your common sense lapse?

Um in the 80's ? uhhhh like times change :bugeye:

The enemy of my enemy blah blah blah.. yes dude I know.

I hate the word "terrorists".
Who were paid off and what does this have to do with 9/11 and America?


LMAO who is tying 9-11 to sadam ????? You buttbump!! fucking amazing you are.

Most Americans couldn't name 20 of the 50 States, find America on the globe nor know (or knew) jack shit about Saddam.
??

Uhuh, Speak for your friends.



......................

Um in the 80's ? uhhhh like times change :bugeye:

The enemy of my enemy blah blah blah.. yes dude I know.

So what happened to your common sense in the 80s? Did you temporarily misplace it?

Are you saying that Bush did NOT want to attack Iraq before 9/11?

Are you saying that Bush/Cheney did NOT try to connect Saddam to 9/11?

These same Neocons wanted to attack Iraq since Clinton's days. Go read the Project for a New American Century stuff.

As far as I am aware, Bush and Cheney did not link Saddam with 9/11. People seemed to have taken what they said wrong. Part of the reason was misquoting by the press who always are quick to interpret the views of the president in their own ways instead of let his words speak for themselves.

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/)

Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."


THAT isn't misleading?
Michael

Do you agree that many Americans thought and think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Nope, I was never told that in any way shape or form. This is your propaganda again. Liberal democratic underground propaganda

Period.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Washinton Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5)
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Harrise (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508)
41 percent (of Amercians) believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

Even December 2005
The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113579153636833083-Xd1XL6NfsXVhzTL0_JKthJ9Wiic_20061229.html?mod=rss_ free)
About 22% of U.S.adults (still) believe Mr. Hussein helped plan 9/11, the poll shows, and 26% believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. Another 24% believe several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, according to the online poll of 1,961 adults.