SMBC Comics Forum

mountainmage wrote:They thought that Iraq had WMD's, and people felt that (they believed Iraq was connected to 9/11 at the time, and by they I mean our wrongly informed intelligence agencies) there was nothing stopping them from using 'em on us.

Well then that works wonderfully for my argument. People were concerned that they were going to get the fuck bombed out of them. Time passes on, it costs them too much and they still haven't been bombed; now money is the problem.

I don't know if people were worried about being bombed, but I do think they felt a preemptive strike was called for.

That's generally why people make preemptive strikes, MM. It's not "we better bomb them before they throw a family picnic."

Like I said, we were attacked on 9/11. We needed someone to attack. Right after the attack Bush got the highest approval ratings ever at 90%'s, but was down to 75 after about a year. The war brought him up to the 80%'s, and he gradually fell, with terror warnings causing brief spikes that seemed to also follow the timetables of key pieces of legislation.

Just making ourselves secure was not enough. We needed results. An easily collapsed regime would prevent an upraor in our owncountry. George Bush, as an individual, was able to secure his two terms as president. The means might not be as important to him.
Also, it was obvious that there were no WMD, that Saddam did not have involvement in El CADA (spelt wrong so i dont get on lists), and that the war would take long. Making this obvious was not something America wanted to hear.

Meh. I didn't believe in the war then, and I don't believe in it now. It's hard rationalizing the logic behind the war when I never supported it to begin with.

AHMETxRock wrote:El CADA (spelt wrong so i dont get on lists).

I don't know, this looks like paranoia. What list would you get put on?

Well then for once quit trying to support it.

AHMETxRock wrote:Like I said, we were attacked on 9/11. We needed someone to attack. Right after the attack Bush got the highest approval ratings ever at 90%'s, but was down to 75 after about a year. The war brought him up to the 80%'s, and he gradually fell, with terror warnings causing brief spikes that seemed to also follow the timetables of key pieces of legislation.

Then we wanted false hope. Everyone wants something.

mountainmage wrote:Meh. I didn't believe in the war then, and I don't believe in it now. It's hard rationalizing the logic behind the war when I never supported it to begin with.

Never said you believed in the war. All I'm saying is that the average person has their own problems and can't let themselves be bothered by people dying on the other side of the world.

Nah, people are easy to fool, but the media was not allowed to report negatively. The dude who said the war would take years and shitloads of money was forced to resign. He keeps being mentioned as that 'dude who knew all along'.

The lies helped people in power avoid accountability. It allowed people to get away with things they would not have. It allowed people in power to expand their power and influence.

I don't really believe that, because everyone thought it was a bad idea over here long before Americans caught on. That's self-concern for you; people in a different country in no danger whatsoever saw through it all long beforehand, whereas Americans were concerned in spite of the fact that many people were coming forward with negative opinions on the war. You don't believe everything you hear on the news unless you want to.

Yeah, I'm speaking from our perspective. Just increasing our security and investigating properly would have been all we had to do for a long time. I know everyone else knew it was a bad idea. This was all just an example of how groups of people can be mislead to form ideas under the wrong pretenses, ultimately losing hold of the ideals they were striving to preserve.

*Conspiracy rant time*

The war in Iraq was started at least in part because of a desire for oil. The US has started/sponsored many similar wars/coups in the past (1954 Iran; 1972 Chile; 1890's Cuba, Guatemala, etc are just a few examples). In each case the coups did not benefit (if they did only indirectly) the nation of the US, but they provided great benefit to multi-national (often ostentaneosly US-based) corporations, who were given exclusive contracts in the conquered country. This happens because the US government has been more or less (to varying degrees) in the pocket of corporations for 150 years. Many of the foreign and domestic policy decisions made over this time have been chiefly in the interest of these corporations. The transcontinental railroads were built by the wealthy powerful railroad magnates, who were given essentially free land and exclusive rights (including the right to charge whatever freightage fees they wanted). 60 years of lassaiz faire government added to this. The Spanish-American war was prompted by the United Fruit company, who were trying to eliminate competitors as well as local governments that resisted United Fruit's expansion.

It is multinational corporations that are benefiting most from the war in Iraq. Lockheed Martin and Haliburton, as well as US oil companies, have been given massive no-bid government contracts (where the companies are automatically given contracts without first bidding with other countries for the job) for reconstruction, weapons manufacture, and oil exploitation, and are profiting immensely. Is it a coincidence that VP Dick Cheney was formerly Haliburton executive before his term? The US has even hired private companies to do their fighting, such as Blackwater International. This benefits neither the US nor the state of Iraq. No-bid contracts, by eliminating competition, allow companies to charge whatever they like, costing the US money and increasing debt. The reconstruction effort in Iraq has not been very successful; electricity and water is still irregular and in unsure supply, and the unemployment rate is high (because the corporations use contract workers from India in their projects rather than local workers). And Blackwater forces massacred at least 20 civilians several years ago. The US is now a trillion dollars in debt, with even more enemies due to the war, and thus reduced security.

MAny of the people that built the railroads, ya know, actually payed for them, went dirt poor. The rich dudes were the ones who bought them.
But aside from that, pretty much yeah. A politician can't get their name out without shit loads of money from companies that will only fund those who push their agenda.

AHMETxRock wrote:MAny of the people that built the railroads, ya know, actually payed for them, went dirt poor. The rich dudes were the ones who bought them.
But aside from that, pretty much yeah. A politician can't get their name out without shit loads of money from companies that will only fund those who push their agenda.

Uh, all the guys who built the Central Pacific railroad (which was a major section of the Transcontinental railroad) were and became fabulously wealthy*. Minor Keith, founder of United Fruit, began his business by building railroads in Costa Rica, and became fabulously wealthy.

They've got shit named after them, too.

Most of the guys who first built them went bankrupt. Anyways, I guess for the time table it's irrelevant that such a gap in time took place. It's trivia, see?

Euclidthegreek wrote:Minor Keith, founder of United Fruit, began his business by building railroads in Costa Rica, and became fabulously wealthy.

Yeah, but at the cost of being the founder of a company called United Fruit.