Pharmaceutical Mafia (4 Viewers)

[Fred]

Any sane person will trade monarchy for democracy. But you are deluded if you think that Iraq is a turning into a democratic country now. The country is in complete chaos and frankly is much worse off, do not listen to whatever crap your media feeds you.

The UN did not endorse US invasion of Iraq btw. US invasion and occupation of Iraq is just a form of state terrorism and you are completely deluded or maybe even biased to think that the invasion was due to the US goal of spreading democracy(which is the dumbest most ridiculous excuse ever made, only deluded people such as yourself fall for them).

Spread of democracy my ass.

Oh and fuck the UN too, they're a bunch of pussies as far as i'm concerned.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Osman]

Your posts about Iraq are the very definition of laughable IrishZebra.

 

[IrishZebra]

Any sane person will trade monarchy for democracy. But you are deluded if you think that Iraq is a turning into a democratic country now. The country is in complete chaos and frankly is much worse off, do not listen to whatever crap your media feeds you.

The UN did not endorse US invasion of Iraq btw. US invasion and occupation of Iraq is just a form of state terrorism and you are completely deluded or maybe even biased to think that the invasion was due to the US goal of spreading democracy(which is the dumbest most ridiculous excuse ever made, only deluded people such as yourself fall for them).

Spread of democracy my ass.

Oh and fuck the UN too, they're a bunch of pussies as far as i'm concerned.

I have to thank you first of all, because I writing an Essay on Iraq at the momeny at you're helping me focus my thoughts, so cheers for that

I'm not using Media sources, I'm using academic sources first and formost. The stability of Autocracy may be seen as some, like yourself as better than the tumultuos headache that comes with democracy. Ireland had a bloody civil straight after it become a soveirgn democratic state, many many people died and some said it was much worse off than under British rule but I disagree.Freedom is the utlimate prize, the suffering of Civil Wars to become Free and Democratic is necessery for most countries.

The United States have a right to use military force as a guardian of global stabilty if you want to go down to road of the security council and the U.N. but theres no point in that.

The Neo-Conservative principles contain democracy promotion and straegic interests in tandem, I'm being far from Naive I'm very much informed on the subject in hand.

Of course the UN are pussies, that's what they were designed to be.

One more thing, I would illegally invade 10 countries to take down dictatorships gladly. There's no shame in Attacking Iraq, it's HOW they did it BEFORE and AFTER that is the problem. they made no plans for postwar issues thank to Donald Rumsfeld, i'd be happ to email you evidence about that.

 

[IrishZebra]

Your posts about Iraq are the very definition of laughable IrishZebra.

How so?

 

[Osman]

Just wanted to clarify that as briefly as possible, really ludicrous stuff. Wont waste my time too much, but this a very good example of what I am referring to.

The United States have a right to use military force as a guardian of global stabilty

As shortsighted as one can be. Global instability they cause with military force (and which they bother with for resource grabbing), and the messes they "fix" being theirs to begin with, a little thing called back door colonialism of the Cold war, handpicking regims, picking some ambitious madman to put to power to by their lapdog, and causing mass instability world over based on nothing but greedy self-interest. And if their puppets go against them and become too independent, like Saddam did (he threatend their Oil interests big time), only then did he became an "evil" tyrant who they have to free the Iraqi people from (like he wasnt so when they were supporting him for 3 decades after putting him in power, and Rumsfeld himself handing him the chemical weapons they said used as excuse to invade).


I mean, really, come on. You study this subject, you seriously have to be more analytical. Spreading democracy?

 

[IrishZebra]

That was a referrence to the U.N. security counsel when I was asked what 'right' anyone has to invade a country, I don't endorse the resource grapping deciet that is the United States of America.

 

[Fred]

I have to thank you first of all, because I writing an Essay on Iraq at the momeny at you're helping me focus my thoughts, so cheers for that

I'm not using Media sources, I'm using academic sources first and formost. The stability of Autocracy may be seen as some, like yourself as better than the tumultuos headache that comes with democracy. Ireland had a bloody civil straight after it become a soveirgn democratic state, many many people died and some said it was much worse off than under British rule but I disagree.Freedom is the utlimate prize, the suffering of Civil Wars to become Free and Democratic is necessery for most countries.

The United States have a right to use military force as a guardian of global stabilty if you want to go down to road of the security council and the U.N. but theres no point in that.

The Neo-Conservative principles contain democracy promotion and straegic interests in tandem, I'm being far from Naive I'm very much informed on the subject in hand.

Of course the UN are pussies, that's what they were designed to be.

One more thing, I would illegally invade 10 countries to take down dictatorships gladly. There's no shame in Attacking Iraq, it's HOW they did it BEFORE and AFTER that is the problem. they made no plans for postwar issues thank to Donald Rumsfeld, i'd be happ to email you evidence about that.

You see, this is where you are misunderstanding me, i do not think the stability of autocracy is better than the hassle of fighting for democracy, how did you even infer that?

I was saying that the motive behind US invasion of Iraq is corporate interest and imperialism, nothing else. This spread of democracy is utter and pure bullshit, that is definitely not what the US are doing in Iraq.

What the US is doing in Iraq is state terrorism and nothing else.

 

[IrishZebra]

You see, this is where you are misunderstanding me, i do not think the stability of autocracy is better than the hassle of fighting for democracy, how did you even infer that?

I was saying that the motive behind US invasion of Iraq is corporate interest and imperialism, nothing else. This spread of democracy is utter and pure bullshit, that is definitely not what the US are doing in Iraq.

What the US is doing in Iraq is state terrorism and nothing else.

Ah shit, look at my post above

 

[Fred]

Lets be perfectly clear on something though. All i'm saying about the US right now is not in any way a defense of the blood thirsty, cold and tyrannical dictator that is Saddam.

 

[Fred]

That was a referrence to the U.N. security counsel when I was asked what 'right' anyone has to invade a country, I don't endorse the resource grapping deciet that is the United States of America.

Yes i understand that. But the US is not going to Iraq to free the Iraqi's or to spread democracy, that is just the way they mask their blatant corporate interests and imperialism.

 

[Bjerknes]

Even Paul Wolfowitz and Alen Greenspan said the Iraq war was all about oil. Anybody with a brain can figure this stuff out -- it's not brain surgery. Although I'm sure many folks could use it.

I would like to distance myself from these clowns who are destroying other countries -- and my own -- through their sheer hubris and lack of regard for human life.

This is not America.

 

[Osman]

You pretty much sound like you do when you excuse their blatant colonialist greed by saying they are spreading democracy. Thats the most naive thing possible. For example, do you know the single most reason why Egypt doesnt have democracy? US, simple as that, Mubarak the dictator, US friend, thats all it takes. And there are 100s and 100s of examples of such since the WW2.

And going into a war that has the consequence of ousting Saddam is good on that alone, but looking up simple near history, such BS to say they spread democracy there, when they essentially killed unimagineable amount of ciivlians, because it was too enticing last piece of the Oil market in that region they didnt controll. Which was the reason they even gave Saddam the power 40 years ago, because he was a puppet madman who would give them free access to the oil resource (and who they could use as a buffert on Iran, basically used Iraq as modern Vasall so to speak), which butchering tyranny they didnt mind whatsoever aslong as he was a good lapdog (it changed rather instantly, in late 80s, from good lapdog who attacks Iran for you and gives you oil, to getting his own ambition and suddenly becoming in World media an evil tyrannt who threatens the world...). So much for spreading democracy.

 

[IrishZebra]

You pretty much sound like you do when you excuse their blatant colonialist greed by saying they are spreading democracy.
.

Yes i understand that. But the US is not going to Iraq to free the Iraqi's or to spread democracy, that is just the way they mask their blatant corporate interests and imperialism.

Anybody with a brain can figure this stuff out -- it's not brain surgery. Although I'm sure many folks could use it.

My post was about the right not the motivation, I'm aware that that was greed I'm not bloody disputng it:


Iraq SHOULD have been invaded anyway, Hussein was a dictator and an evil person, it was right to invade just not under the premise of WMDs. The spread of democracy is a very noble goal, the problem is the USA is leading the way.

That's what I said right there:

• Iraq Should have been invaded
• Not for Oil but for Democratization
• Democracy promotion is a noble goal but the US is too far us it's own arse to spearhead anything ideological.

I never made any excuse for the poswar behaivour of pre-war concealed motivations. For fuck sake.

 

[Osman]

Well then you should completely said the last sentence in other way. Because you saying spread of democracy is a nobile way and that US is leading it, pretty much sounds like you said thats what they are doing and are about. Didnt sound like exactly that you mean thats what they should be doing.

 

[IrishZebra]

Well then you should completely said the last sentence in other way. Because you saying spread of democracy is a nobile way and that US is leading it, pretty much sounds like you said thats what they are doing and are about. Didnt sound like exactly that you mean thats what they should be doing.

The spread of democracy is a very noble goal, the problem is the USA is leading the way

The US doing it is a problem.

 

[Fred]

You would have made yourself clearer had you said that the problem was that the US was not doing that(democratization)

 

[IrishZebra]

You would have made yourself clearer had you said that the problem was that the US was not doing that(democratization)

I assumed that you lads could comprehend grammar.It's hilarious that people attack me here because they don't read my posts propperly.


I don't mean that portion in bold as a snide remark by the way.

 

[giovanotti]

I have to thank you first of all, because I writing an Essay on Iraq at the momeny at you're helping me focus my thoughts, so cheers for that

I'm not using Media sources, I'm using academic sources first and formost. The stability of Autocracy may be seen as some, like yourself as better than the tumultuos headache that comes with democracy. Ireland had a bloody civil straight after it become a soveirgn democratic state, many many people died and some said it was much worse off than under British rule but I disagree.Freedom is the utlimate prize, the suffering of Civil Wars to become Free and Democratic is necessery for most countries.

The United States have a right to use military force as a guardian of global stabilty if you want to go down to road of the security council and the U.N. but theres no point in that.

The Neo-Conservative principles contain democracy promotion and straegic interests in tandem, I'm being far from Naive I'm very much informed on the subject in hand.

Of course the UN are pussies, that's what they were designed to be.

One more thing, I would illegally invade 10 countries to take down dictatorships gladly. There's no shame in Attacking Iraq, it's HOW they did it BEFORE and AFTER that is the problem. they made no plans for postwar issues thank to Donald Rumsfeld, i'd be happ to email you evidence about that.

Nobody authorized the attacks on Yugoslavia,it was totally against the law the USA even avoided security council voting.
So don't tell us about the right.There is only one right and that's the power of stronger.
You need to understand that the games are much bigger then you can imagine ,that is all about the greedy which is one of the basics of the human nature.

 

[giovanotti]

You see, this is where you are misunderstanding me, i do not think the stability of autocracy is better than the hassle of fighting for democracy, how did you even infer that?

I was saying that the motive behind US invasion of Iraq is corporate interest and imperialism, nothing else. This spread of democracy is utter and pure bullshit, that is definitely not what the US are doing in Iraq.

What the US is doing in Iraq is state terrorism and nothing else.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

Nobody authorized the attacks on Yugoslavia,it was totally against the law the USA even avoided security council voting.
So don't tell us about the right.There is only one right and that's the power of stronger.
You need to understand that the games are much bigger then you can imagine ,that is all about the greedy which is one of the basics of the human nature.

who authorized the attacks on kosovo?