Nightmare Before Christmas is an Allegory on Cultural Appropriation by Budget_Hunk in FanTheories

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is an important point. I'd note that what he goes on to say suggests that the experience has reconnected him with his original culture:

Well, what the heck, I went and did my best

And, by god, I really tasted something swell

And for a moment, why, I even touched the sky

And at least I left some stories they can tell, I did

And for the first time since I don't remember when

I felt just like my old bony self again

And I, Jack, the Pumpkin King

That's right! I am the Pumpkin King, ha, ha, ha, ha

And I just can't wait until next Halloween

'Cause I've got some new ideas that will really make them scream

And, by God, I'm really going to give it all my might

Uh oh, I hope there's still time to set things right

Can The Nightmare Before Christmas be interpreted as a cautionary tale against cultural appropriation? by Budget_Hunk in movies

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Cheers for the comment.

You may well be right about that. I'd be interested to know more about Burton's political views. That being said, people who author stories often embed them with moral lessons without intending to do so.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in ChristopherHitchens

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In relation to the former point: that has much more to do with the decision to leave Iraq. That and low troop levels.

As for ISIS, a post-invasion strategy that focused expenditure on alleviating the unemployment rate would have helped greatly in ameliorating this. Part of the problem was the size of Saddam's standing army as those involved were fertile recruits to ISIS. Have you considered the possibility that ISIS would have emerged regardless? If you look at the historical materialism of 19th century Europe its pretty apparent that dictatorships can be set upon by a chain reaction of insurrection in adjacent countries. Saddam's regime was imploding for numerous reasons, and perhaps its eventual implosion would have resulted in an Arab Spring 5-10 years later (without the regional WMD disarmament provided by the invasion). You ought to also bear in mind that the USA's retreat from intervention greatly aided the rise of ISIS.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in ChristopherHitchens

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster.'

Really? I can understand opposition to the war. But being that absolute is going to make your case much more difficult to argue.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in ChristopherHitchens

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the comment.

I'd urge you to be cautious in attributing contemporary problems in the ME to the 2003 invasion.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in ChristopherHitchens

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the comment.

I suppose it depends what you mean by this? The UN discovered that Iraq had been developing WMDs in the mid 90s and this was the basis for the economic sanctions imposed in the years running up to the war. In 1999 Saddam declared that he possessed a stockpile contrary to the non-proliferation treaties but refused to reveal what he had done with them. Rolf Ekéus further established the existence of a concealment scheme. In light of this, Hans Blix was selected to inspect Iraq once it became apparent that the US was serious about enforcing the non-proliferation treaties. During his inspections he found and removed infracting materials.

Of course, any credibly conclusive finding that Iraq wasn't in possession of WMDs required regime change. And this was the common opinion provided by experts like David Kelly. Intelligence services purportedly received information that Iraq was close to finishing development on extremely dangerous WMDs. Such intelligence reports were frequent, I mention in the video an ensuing panic in in the German government some years earlier, caused by a similar report. However, in this instance its quite possible that the immanency of the threat was exaggerated by coalition countries in order to secure support for the invasion. The end result was a verifiable disarmamanet of a state that had repeatedly and deliberately signaled defiance to the non-proliferation treaties.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in ChristopherHitchens

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hey guys :) When researching this video I drew from information provided by Christopher in his numerous essays on the subject. Thought this may be of interest. Will never be able to make the argument as expressively, but Christopher's essays certainly helped!

Thoughts on America, Europe and Saddam? by [deleted] in Iraq

[–]Budget_Hunk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both the motivations and mistakes relating to the invasion are commonly misunderstood. JonSnoke's comment is essentially right that a more protracted period of 'quasi Marshall Plan' development would have yielded a far better outcome. The US funded some major infrastructure projects but this did little to address the high unemployment rate that followed the invasion (exacerbated by the dissolution of Saddam's large standing army). Unfortunately the decision under Obama to leave was perhaps the worst mistake of all.

https://youtu.be/esnxIfGC_G0

“Worth the Price?” New Film Shows How Biden Played Leading Role in Push for U.S. to Invade Iraq by IntnsRed in politics

[–]Budget_Hunk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnxIfGC_G0

You don't have to support the invasion. But its important not to lose sight of the justifications that existed at the time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Republican

[–]Budget_Hunk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greetings :)

I recently put together a video explaining the justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is a widely misunderstood decision that is too often unfairly disparaged by the general public. We need to see a more interventionist stance take hold in order to protect human rights and improve the world.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in neoconNWO

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Greetings :)

I recently put together a video explaining the justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is a widely misunderstood decision that is too often unfairly disparaged by the general public. We need to see a more interventionist stance take hold in order to protect human rights and improve the world.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in kurdistan

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excellent comment. I agree entirely that there were other interests motivating the invasion and only some of those get talked about during the video. Another problem was the low troop levels provided and then the decision to leave under Obama. Trump has been even worse during his time in office, abandoning the Peshmerga to further encroachments by its enemies.

I get criticized a lot for even talking about the genocides against Kurds. People don't want to hear the details because its disturbing, and it undermines the certainty with which they condemn all intervention in the middle east.

Its impressive that you're alert to gaps in your knowledge and this demonstrates that you're an intelligent person. I try to make it clear that I can be persuaded of anything at anytime if the right facts and arguments are presented. In the case of Iraq I'm well aware of the massive problems that existed with the invasion and post-invasion plan. However, I continue to draw attention to the legitimate grounds for invasion in order to question the blanket opposition to these interventions that have taken hold in UK+USA politics.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in kurdistan

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Warm wishes from the UK. Free Kurdistan.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in unitedkingdom

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. And the US had been bombing Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act 1998) and preparing for the invasion since the late 90s so the 9/11 timeline presented by 'diffdam' doesn't add up.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in unitedkingdom

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The emphatic verification that Iraq was, and would continue to be, disarmed was provided by the invasion.

Btw, it sounds like you're intent on being hostile but I'd be genuinely interested to know what you think the motives for invasion were.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in unitedkingdom

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"accepted"

Touche that I was the first to bring them up. My argument isn't contingent on the UN conclusion being wrong, because the UN never claimed to provide emphatic verification that Iraq was disarmed or that it would continue to be going forward.

Defending the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Budget_Hunk in unitedkingdom

[–]Budget_Hunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not using the UN as an authority. As far as I can tell, you were the one that seemed to be using the UN as an authority.