War on Terror - Iraq - Infuriating Ironies

Sharza-

First of all a small disclaimer, I'm new to the board and honestly havent bothered to search if this post has been created before! Also I do sometimes have trouble with some spelling and expressions, so can the Grammar Police keep a distance!

I'm a pacifist, well no I try to be a pacifist, but lately I just can't contain my opinions, the American government has just been blatently flaunting it's arrogance and hypocrasy any way it can. Here are just some small things I noted during the recent American ?????


Weapons of Mass Destruction: Ok wether they existed or not, I have to say I found it just plain funny that before they actually went into Iraq, America was showing the world its military dominance with the testing of the, get this... 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' in the war against Sadam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction!! Im sorry but thats just a hilarious definition of the word Hypocrite.

Al Qaeda/Osama Witch hunt: This is really just plain criminal. Washington points the finger, shouts "Al Qaeda" and the world conforms. If anyone out there has 'ties' with Al Qaeda or Osama, its Mr. Bush. Yes the Texan is quite fond of the Saudis, infact hes on first name terms with the Bin Laden family. Infact so much so, that the day after the Septemer 11'th tragedy, Bush found it neccesary to give the Bin Ladens the sole privilege of air space. Yup when everyone else in the country was stranded, the Bin Ladens were busy flying around the US collecting all their direct family to go home. And several years before who only the US government funded Osama in his fight with the Soviets. So anyway, if Sadam is a friend of Bin Ladens, then Bush is his lover!

"Sadam got 99% of his peopls vote!": This was a dig at the fact that Sadam had such control over his nation and apperntly killed all opponents in ellections that he won 99% of the vote. This is a fair statement, except of course if your Mr. George Bush, who doesn't need 99% vote to get into power, no he doesn't even need the majority haha! Im unsure wether which one says more about their curroption.

Sadam Captured!: Yup he was captured, and I'm gonna have to admit I do think he's probably done some really nasty stuff and deserves to be imprisoned or whatever. But really, was it neccesary to show him all hairy and dirty on TV? The Americans freaked when the same happened to 3 of theirs in Afganistan. The excuse the American Government gave was that the Iraq conflict, was infact that just a conflict, and therefore prisoners caught in this conflict do not come under the PoW thingy. Basically they can show him on tv, tis all right. Funny thing is, as far as Im aware, the Afganistan conflict was also just a conflict and not a War, yet everyone came down hard on those poor three soldiers being 'paraded' infront of the world' capturers.

These are just small things, I bet there is tons worse stuff going on all the time that none of us will ever know about. But what Really bothers me is that these are so bloody obvious, yet I still have not seen a single reporter or news reader, or infact anyone on TV ask them yet.

Most of the world has put up with Terrorists for decades, and now all of a sudden America thinks its in its full right to turn the whole World upside down. American is seriously threating World Peace, and it really bothers me, that prolly one of the most publicly stupid people in world has the power to end my and millions of others lives with just a simple blink. Im not an anti-America, infact I feel for them, they didnt even wan't the guy and his gang of spite ridden 'conservatives' when they voted, its not their fault the government is corrupt as hell.


Disclaimer: All of the above is not definet fact, but educated assumptions, I understand fully that I may be wrong. If anything I have said is proven to be wrong, I appologies!

gandalf

Welcome to Boards. Don't worry if the grammer police appear then they will be banned, once we understand what your trying to say then its ok.

One inaccuracy thou, I thought the problems were with the Iraqis showing captured US troops and bodies of UK ones.

Gandalf.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Sharza-
Also I do sometimes have trouble with some spelling and expressions, so can the Grammar Police keep a distance!

Welcome. Don't worry about the Grammar Police, beware the Fact Police

Originally posted by Sharza-
I'm a pacifist, well no I try to be a pacifist, but lately I just can't contain my opinions, the American government has just been blatently flaunting it's arrogance and hypocrasy any way it can.

Indeed, but two sides to every story.

Originally posted by Sharza-
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Ok wether they existed or not, I have to say I found it just plain funny that before they actually went into Iraq, America was showing the world its military dominance with the testing of the, get this... 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' in the war against Sadam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction!! Im sorry but thats just a hilarious definition of the word Hypocrite.[/B]

It's called a firepower demonstration - the idea is to intimidate the enemy. Better to intimidate than kill. Secondly, use of a weapon like MOAB (not actually 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' - much bigger weapons have been used) is much better than cluster munitions (2-40% of which fail to detonate, only to detonate later when disturbed, usually by a child - children tend to wander where adults don't). It is also much better than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons which are persistent (they kill random people, new to the site of the attack, long after the fact).

Originally posted by Sharza-
Al Qaeda/Osama Witch hunt: This is really just plain criminal. Washington points the finger, shouts "Al Qaeda" and the world conforms. [/B]

Hardly.

Originally posted by Sharza-
If anyone out there has 'ties' with Al Qaeda or Osama, its Mr. Bush. Yes the Texan is quite fond of the Saudis, infact hes on first name terms with the Bin Laden family.

However Osama has been ostracised by the Saudis.

Originally posted by Sharza-
Infact so much so, that the day after the Septemer 11'th tragedy, Bush found it neccesary to give the Bin Ladens the sole privilege of air space. Yup when everyone else in the country was stranded, the Bin Ladens were busy flying around the US collecting all their direct family to go home.

I understand this accusation has been disproved - the flight was on the same day that other services resumed and therefore nothing special.

Originally posted by Sharza-
And several years before who only the US government funded Osama in his fight with the Soviets. So anyway, if Sadam is a friend of Bin Ladens, then Bush is his lover!

Please, you discredit your already weak and oft repeated accusations.

Originally posted by Sharza-
"Sadam got 99% of his peopls vote!": This was a dig at the fact that Sadam had such control over his nation and apperntly killed all opponents in ellections that he won 99% of the vote. This is a fair statement, except of course if your Mr. George Bush, who doesn't need 99% vote to get into power, no he doesn't even need the majority haha! Im unsure wether which one says more about their curroption.

He is an executive, federal President elected under the college system. He didn't and doesn't need a popular majority. Hey, did Bertie Ahern (or any other Taoiseach) get a popular majority?

Originally posted by Sharza-
But really, was it neccesary to show him all hairy and dirty on TV?.

The manner was wrong, however it is right that they (a) demonstrated he was captured (b) that he was alive.

Originally posted by Sharza-
The Americans freaked when the same happened to 3 of theirs in Afganistan..

Do you have any links to this?

Originally posted by Sharza-
The excuse the American Government gave was that the Iraq conflict, was infact that just a conflict, and therefore prisoners caught in this conflict do not come under the PoW thingy.

They actually call it a war, I don't think there is any legal definition of "conflict". They have also said Saddam will be treated as a POW.

Originally posted by Sharza-
Basically they can show him on tv, tis all right. Funny thing is, as far as Im aware, the Afganistan conflict was also just a conflict and not a War, yet everyone came down hard on those poor three soldiers being 'paraded' infront of the world' capturers.

Ditto. War was declared by action, not words.

Originally posted by Sharza-
These are just small things, I bet there is tons worse stuff going on all the time that none of us will ever know about.

Yes. Can I suggest you get informed, get active and change the world. Contribute your time to say a third world charity. Starvation always kills more than bullets.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
I understand this accusation has been disproved - the flight was on the same day that other services resumed and therefore nothing special.

The flight out of the country was after international flights were allowed but the flights internally were allowed while air traffic was shut down. This link also disputes how "estranged" Osama (or Usama) is.

He is an executive, federal President elected under the college system. He didn't and doesn't need a popular majority.

True but we all know about the thousands of eligible voters who knowingly (possibly) were purged from rolls in Florida (do I need to provide links?)
and that the Supreme Court did essentially appoint Bush Pres even though two Justices were known to have a conflict of interest and did not recuse themselves.

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
The flight out of the country was after international flights were allowed but the flights internally were allowed while air traffic was shut down. This link also disputes how "estranged" Osama (or Usama) is.

Holy Batman! Snopes made a retraction! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Carlitos

i miss the soviet union

i mean them were the days when bush wouldnt dare step into eastern politics with such arrogance and disregard for human rights - bush is making sure coutries disarm purely because it is the nuclear powers bush is unable to attack with his "touching" regime change - go on attack north korea i dare ya - or china - or maybe pakistan - no - bush can only stand up on cnn and bitch about these countries - he should try sorting out domestic problems like school shootings,crime,economy etc instead of trying to make it the united coutries of america - its so frightening to think that bush is in charge of so much power - and he's gonnna be there for a long time to come - because the as his election proved democracy (ironically) is dead in the richest coutry in the world - who needs a majority when dead people can vote for you??


but for now we'll have to put on a friendly face for the coutry that gave us friendly fire;)

Sharza-

Appologies for late reply but I was away.

Originally posted by Victor
It's called a firepower demonstration - the idea is to intimidate the enemy. Better to intimidate than kill. Secondly, use of a weapon like MOAB (not actually 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' - much bigger weapons have been used) is much better than cluster munitions (2-40% of which fail to detonate, only to detonate later when disturbed, usually by a child - children tend to wander where adults don't). It is also much better than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons which are persistent (they kill random people, new to the site of the attack, long after the fact).

This is a very grey area, where the Americans call their way "Shock and Awe" with firepower demonstration to intimidate the enemy, others could easily see it as to cause "terror" hence my view of seeing it simply as Terrorism. Dictionary description below

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons


Of course the major difirence is of course lawfulness, but America's invasion of Iraq is dodgy and could be considered unlawfull as they ignored the UN.

Originally posted by Victor
However Osama has been ostracised by the Saudis.

True but Mr. Bush still had ties with him and his family and Washington has made alligations of Sadam and Osama having ties.

Originally posted by Victor
I understand this accusation has been disproved - the flight was on the same day that other services resumed and therefore nothing special.

Will have to look into that.

Originally posted by Victor
Please, you discredit your already weak and oft repeated accusations.

Please explain, as im under the belief that Osama and his rebel forces did infact recieve arms from the US to counter the Soviets in afganistan years ago.

Originally posted by Victor
He is an executive, federal President elected under the college system. He didn't and doesn't need a popular majority. Hey, did Bertie Ahern (or any other Taoiseach) get a popular majority?

And the college system is infulenced by the voting, where many many Floridians were denied voting privilliages as they were convicted fellons and many errors were made. Also off shore votes were counted even though some of which were postdated late or unpostdated at all. Also Fox News Network announced Bush had won before the vote was finished being counted!

Originally posted by Victor
The manner was wrong, however it is right that they (a) demonstrated he was captured (b) that he was alive. Do you have any links to this?

The manner in which he was shown is all im disputing.

Originally posted by Victor
They actually call it a war, I don't think there is any legal definition of "conflict". They have also said Saddam will be treated as a POW.

I believe they do call it a war, but its not officialy a war. Wars have inplications which include funding of the damaged countries as far as Im aware. And funny that they have said they would give Saddam POW treatment as the minute they captured him they broke the POW rules by parading him on TV!

Originally posted by Victor
Ditto. War was declared by action, not words.

No, as far as I'm aware, again it was not an official 'War'.

Originally posted by Victor
Yes. Can I suggest you get informed, get active and change the world. Contribute your time to say a third world charity. Starvation always kills more than bullets.

This part of your reply I must say is simply idiotic and condecending, from your own logic you yourself should also get "Can I suggest you get informed, get active and change the world. Contribute your time to say a third world charity. Starvation always kills more than bullets" instead of replying to my post. Zzzzz.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Carlitos
i miss the soviet union

So long as you didn't have to live there.

i mean them were the days when bush wouldnt dare step into eastern politics with such arrogance and disregard for human rights - bush is making sure coutries disarm purely because it is the nuclear powers bush is unable to attack with his "touching" regime change

What about Vietnam? Obviosly don't mean Dubya but US administrations in general during the time of the Soviet Union.

sovtek

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So long as you didn't have to live there. ;)What about Vietnam? Obviosly don't mean Dubya but US administrations in general during the time of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union along with China kept America from taking over the whole of Vietnam, instead of just the south. It also somewhat limited their bombing arena for fear of drawing them into the war directly.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by sovtek
The Soviet Union along with China kept America from taking over the whole of Vietnam, instead of just the south. It also somewhat limited their bombing arena for fear of drawing them into the war directly.

Yes, but the point I was responding to was the notion that the US would not meddle in eastern politics when the Soviet Union was around. This is clearly not the case.

Akrasia

It's called a firepower demonstration - the idea is to intimidate the enemy. Better to intimidate than kill. Secondly, use of a weapon like MOAB (not actually 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' - much bigger weapons have been used) is much better than cluster munitions (2-40% of which fail to detonate, only to detonate later when disturbed, usually by a child - children tend to wander where adults don't). It is also much better than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons which are persistent (they kill random people, new to the site of the attack, long after the fact).

The Americans used the MOAB AND cluster bombs. They also used napalm according to witness reports. In afghanistan there are some agencies reporting that 1000 people a week are being killed and maimed by unexploded cluster bombs from the Afghanistan Invasion. There are also many deaths in Iraq from these same weapons and they will continue to happen long into the future. That figure can not be confirmed because No deaths such as this are ever reported. deaths and Illness resulting from exposure to Depleted Uranium are also never reported despite the fact that we know that they are happening.
America never even bothered to count the dead and wounded Iraqi and Afghanistani people. We will never know how many people were killed and continue to die.

We all know that Bush was never elected so that lets over 50% of the American people off the hook, they are not fully responsible for the death rained down by Bush. However there is an election in a few months time ad there is a good chance that Bush will be returned to office. In this case broader anti-americanism can possibly be justified because the people have seen what their president is capable of and yet appoint him to a further 4 years of violence and war.

Irish people are complicit in this war on terror. Bertie, on our behalf, has allowed the transport of over 110000 American troops to and from a theatre of war (invasion) they have sanctioned thousands of flights carrying weapons and explosive muntitions such as patriot missiles "depleted" Uranium shells and cluster bombs.
Those who just sat back and let the government assist in a massacre are complicit. If you're against the war and you never did anything to try to stop it then you are guilty of assisting the war effort. the majority of this population were against the invasion and apart from one stroll through Dublin, most of us never lifted a finger.

If you care, get active, get involved, get off your asses and do something.

Yes, but the point I was responding to was the notion that the US would not meddle in eastern politics when the Soviet Union was around. This is clearly not the case

Russia, after WW2 was a stabilising influence in a way for the world. The US had a competitor. Another nation that took an active interest in the world and its issues. I'm not saying that the Regime in Russia was wonderful, but it did hold the US back from pushing its interests too far. At present there is nothing to stop the US from doing what they want. The UN? Powerless. China? Feared by too many, and not terribly interested in the rest of the World. Current Russia? Completely controlled by the Mob, and couldn't afford the fuel for one division in combat. Essentially theres nobody to wag the finger at teh US, and have the ability/will to restrict US expansionism.

It's called a firepower demonstration - the idea is to intimidate the enemy. Better to intimidate than kill. Secondly, use of a weapon like MOAB (not actually 'worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb' - much bigger weapons have been used) is much better than cluster munitions (2-40% of which fail to detonate, only to detonate later when disturbed, usually by a child - children tend to wander where adults don't). It is also much better than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons which are persistent (they kill random people, new to the site of the attack, long after the fact).

Um, actually Moab's have a tendacy to be just as dangerous for everyone as cluster-bombs. The Moab when dropped creates a sort of suction from the blast, thus damaging people's lungs from a very large radius. Also since the Moab is a flame based attack, people will be scarred for life from the flames emmited from the attack. The Moab is the "Mother of all Bombs". So naturally it has one of the largest blast radius's for a bomb of its type. People on the outskirts of the blast radius will also suffer from its effects. So instead of having mines unexploded, we have people living on machines because they can't breath properly. Amount to the same effect in my book.

We all know that Bush was never elected so that lets over 50% of the American people off the hook, they are not fully responsible for the death rained down by Bush.

I disagree. They allow him to stay in power. Just as we alloe Bertie to stay in power, which makes us responsible for the planes landing in Irish Airports, or how the state of the nation is like. We are all responsible for our nations governments, their decisions, and any actions performed by them, unless we completely take them to account thereafter.

If you care, get active, get involved, get off your asses and do something.

Sounds good. But is that just a slogan?

Akrasia

No. its not just a slogan. On saturday there is a meeting at 2pm in the teachers club where the Grassroots Gathering (anarchist/libertarian group) are inviting people to get involved in planning and carrying out mass civil disobedience on May 1st this year

You can act locally, get together with people near you to act against government policies you disagree with. In your school or college you can join groups act independently or set up groups to raise public awareness and campaign against the government.

Its really easy. Find somewhere to meet, print out a few posters and hold a meeting.

I agree that populations have a duty to regulate their government but just to give the Americans the benefit of the doubt for another 6 months. if they re-elect bush then any criticism that is directed at them will be entirely justified. (that excludes individuals who are actively engaged in the global justice movement)

Akrasia

I also dont think the Soviets were a stabalising influence on America. The cold war was an orwellian permenant war, an understanding between the Soviets and the Americans to allow them to justify their military endeavours to their own population on the basis that they were fighting capitalism or commie scum.

There isn't any evidence to say that america acted with any restraint during the cold war, they were involved in dozens of military interventions over that period and that doesn't include all the proxy dictators who were controlled by the CIA.