For those that support the war.

Flukey

Some of you may have seen this before, but it is still as relevant and accurate as ever.

HOW THE WORLD WORKS

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?

A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.



Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

True, but what is going on now is not finishing it, it is making it worse.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

Work with the people, not against them and enlist the help of others to oversee a properly planned transition, like the UN, EU and all the other people the US ignored when going ahead with this war.

sliabh

So how exactly do you plan to work with the jihadis in Falluja to convince them that they should stop their current armed force compaing and go for the democratic route. When these are the people what are happy to target large numbers of Iraqis to further their aims as it is?

Flukey

Well bombing won't work, as we have seen. I am not saying it is easy, but you have to talk to these people and find ways of including them. All over the world there have been ways found of talking to groups involved in violence, when at some point it had been said that it could never be done. They are part of the problem, so they have to be part of the solution and that is not going to be arrived at by attacking them. If they are going to bring democracy and freedom then they need to start using that now and that means communicating with them. It is called diplomacy. Not easy, but it has been done before and it can be done again. They have to change tack, as what they are doing now is clearly not working.

chill

Flukey wrote:

Some of you may have seen this before, but it is still as relevant and accurate as ever.

Typical looney left propaganda mixed with personalising the argument. Sad really.

Flukey

I note you dismissed it Chill, but did not address any of it. It may be put together in a humourous way, but it is all true and there is an awful lot more of those kind of things too. For example there are other examples of where they have overthrown diplomatic governments and put in dictators, Chile probably being the best, or worst to put it more accurately. If you prefer to put it different way: in Chile and other countries, contrary to what they say should be done, they removed freedom and democracy. There are other regimes that they have supported that have done similar or worse crimes than the ones they levelled at Saddam. Many of Saddam's they had no problems with at the time they happened having full knowledge of them. If the reasons for invading Iraq were a template for reasons to invade a country, Iraq certainly would not have been top of the list. If the reasons for invading Iraq were the right thing to do, then they, by their own standards, have done the wrong thing in many places.

Flukey

They are creating anarchy not democracy. The answers given by people when asked why this war happens, don't stand up to scrutiny and even members of the American cabinet and reports on the misadventure have said as much. Unlike us, those that have given the reasons have been unable to refute any of the scrutiny given on your answers. In other words, they are not answers, so we are still waiting for justifications for the actions.

It isn't tackling terrorism. Saddam could have been gotten rid of by a small group or even one man, so there was no need for anything even remotely close to an invasion. There are non-democratic countries, with corrupt regimes that have been left in place and even installed and supported inplace of democratic ones. This is despite the fact that every justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan can still be found in these other countries. Iraq was accused of invading two countries and having weapons of mass destruction. One of those countries was invaded with the full blessing and support, including military and financial, of America. The other invasion would have totally been ignored but for the primary export of that country. Meanwhile there is a country in the Middle-East that does have weapons of mass destruction and has invaded more than 2 neighbouring countries. This country has rarely got even as much as a verbal admonishment from America. It has in fact received huge amounts of support, military, financial and other from America.

This same country has defied a litany of UN resolutions, again with the support of the US and would have defied more, but for the fact the US vetoed them to stop them going through in the first place. Iraq defied a small amount and this caused outrage from the USA. Afghanistan and Iraq had their regimes toppled in order to put in a democratic one in their place. These same two regimes had been fully supported for years by the US who even helped put them in place. Many countries have had their democratic regimes replaced by dictators by America and they continue to support many non-democratic regimes, including some in the Middle East. So if Iraq was to be invaded for the reasons we have been given, it could well have been, but it would be well down the queue as other countries in the region have the same reasons, to a far greater extent, to be invaded.

As I keep on saying, the reasons given for the Iraqi invasion, do not stand up to scrutiny, as the above proves. Supporters of the war may have given reasons but they never disputed any of the above so although they give reasons, they cannot defend them when they are scrutinised. Over 3 years on from when we started hearing about this war (though they had it planned long before 9/11, which they then used as another reason, with a bit of sleight of hand at the 2002 State of the Union speech), I am still waiting for that to happen. I've encountered a lot of supporters of the war in that period, but when the above and other facts are put to them they dismiss it or call us anti-American or liberals, Saddam supporters, pro-terrorism, none of which are true, but never address the points. So even those that support it most ardently can never defend it.

sceptre

Flukey wrote:

Some of you may have seen this before, but it is still as relevant and accurate as ever.

I'd prefer if you put in a citation for other people's work (obviously you've not claimed it as your own or even hinted at that but please note the licensing terms under the copyright notice on what appears to be the original author's page - it took me a full five seconds to find). It's polite as well as being part of the rules.

I'm not a fan (back in ordinary user mode btw) of specific addresses to people in thread titles to be honest (as opposed to "to those who...") - I always assume I'm not invited to participate if I'm not mentioned and feel aggrieved at being expected to defend my opinion on the whim of another if I am

A Dub in Glasgo

chill wrote:

Typical looney left propaganda mixed with personalising the argument. Sad really.

So what bits can you refute?

sovtek

sliabh wrote:

So how exactly do you plan to work with the jihadis in Falluja to convince them that they should stop their current armed force compaing and go for the democratic route. When these are the people what are happy to target large numbers of Iraqis to further their aims as it is?

I distinctly remember there not being any targetting of Iraqi's before March 2003. I also remember hearing of Iraqi's setting up their own local governments between the disolution of Saddam's regime and the taking of Baghdad. They were then all dismantled, one governor being mysteriously killed afterward.
I also remember that the US military is directly responsible for tens of thousands more deaths than any "jihadi" insurgent.
Even "radical" Moqta Al Sadr was collecting garbage in Najaf under assault from the US military.
This new Falluja garbage is more than likely just routing out support for any "anti-US" candidate (which is hard considering they are going to be hand picked anyway).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

It wasn't a haven for terrorists before the invasion, Daveirl. As we keep saying, the invasion and the continued actions are what is causing the escalation in terrorism. There was nothing like this, even in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, when you would have expected the biggest resistance. Things have got worse, not improved. As many are pointing out, the terrorists are coming in from outside, slowly making it a haven for terrorists.

Boggle

I'm just taking this quote but I'm actually responding to a lot of the basic thrust of your arguement. OK so yes I think we can all admit that the US historically has had a poor foreign policy in relation ot Saddam, but I don't see how that prohibits them from changing. Had John Kerry been elected last week would you be holding the historical failings of the US against him with regard to current US foreign policy? I often fail to see how US failings from 30 years ago have anything to do with modern US policy.

Ok then how about the failings from recent years? They had no genuine reason to start a war with the Iraqi's... none. That appears to me to be the point of this thread.
Bush came into office with the stated ambition of ousting Sadam and he did it on the first (hint of an) excuse which to me is a continuation of the failings mentioned and not the fresh start you describe.

I also think they are losing the run of themselves at this stage - was reading the indo this morning and it described some American soldiers in fallujah. The level of contempt they appeared to have for human life was shocking and may be symptomatic of why the resistance appears to grow and grow.... (have a read!) It is their country after all - who are any foreigners to tell them what to do? And as for obeying a puppet govt set up by your invaders ... anyone else see perhaps why it isn't the open and shut case the american were hoping for???..

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

p.pete

It's a bit of a mess but pulling out would definitely be the wrong thing to do. It's nice to argue that the wrong thing was done in the first place but the only thing that should be concentrated on now are what are the right things to be doing from this moment forward.

Until there is a stable government (I don't think a democracy will work but I'd be exasperbated if you asked me what will) in place and the people / police / army are in a position to stand on their own two feet and protect themselves from terrorist groups taking over their towns and cities a military presence must remain.

In an ideal world the people would say "we don't want these lunatics living amongst us" and sort it out for themselves but unfortunately I don't think they're in a position to do that at the moment.

Flukey

How often do we have to go through this Daveirl? Now that they are there, it is not a case of them pulling out and I have never said that. I've said that they should not be there, but not now that they are it is a case of them changing their tactics and not bombing people. Their current actions are only escalating the problem and will continue to do so. Of course they can't go home in the morning, but they could make positive interventions while they are there instead of adding to the problem.

A few weeks after Saddam was toppled GWB famously stood on an aircraft carrier and declared the war to be over. It is still going on and getting worse. We are not getting closer to their stated aim of bringing democracy. They may have set a date for elections, and tried to hail it as a wonderful step forward, but the way things are going people are going to be taking their lives in their hands trying to get to the polling stations and much of that will be trying to duck allied attacks, not just insurgents.

the_syco

Flukey wrote:

Work with the people, not against them

/me looks at the Iraqi Army working with the US, and also at the countless Iraqi police killed by the Iraqi terrorists, and the Iraqi's who were trying to join the Iraqi police, who were also killed by the Iraqi terrorists.

Just how could the American's not kill the terrorists?

Flukey wrote:

Well bombing won't work, as we have seen. I am not saying it is easy, but you have to talk to these people and find ways of including them. All over the world there have been ways found of talking to groups involved in violence, when at some point it had been said that it could never be done. They are part of the problem, so they have to be part of the solution and that is not going to be arrived at by attacking them. If they are going to bring democracy and freedom then they need to start using that now and that means communicating with them. It is called diplomacy. Not easy, but it has been done before and it can be done again. They have to change tack, as what they are doing now is clearly not working.

Even as the tanks start to shoot, the Iraqi president continues to try to talk to those inside Falluja, to try to get them to surrender. The Iraqi president wants to talk to the community leaders there, so that they can work together. The Iraqi president has tried to talk with them, but this has failed. The only other option, would be to let the terrorist continue to kill Iraqi's who try to join their security forces; either the Iraqi police, or the Iraqi army.

Flukey wrote:

Work with the people, not against them

Again, I'll quote this. When the war started, the US rang, emailed and texted the generals in the Iraqi Army, to give up, instead of using Shock and Awe. If they used shock and awe, instead of talking, they could have wiped out the head (Saddam, generals, etc) within the first few days, instead of taking months to do it.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I guess people fighting foreign invaders are terrorists now, because Iraqi's able to freely reign in their own country is what I thought this invasion was supposedly all about...or mumble mumble WMD or mumble mumble Al-Qaeda mumble mumble the omni present Zarqarwi...mumble mumble trail off.....

Flukey

They have to keep on talking to them and stop bombing them at the same time. They should call on the other parties, such as the UN and EU to come in and help and let them step back a bit. The Iraq president is looked upon as being a puppet. The terrorists are going to keep attacking the army and police when they know it is being created by an external force. That is there rationale for doing so. It is being made harder by the continual attacks, hardening the rebels resolve and making them less likely to want to do business with those that are attacking them.

With some external and neutral assistance, an internal solution has to be found. A civil war situation has been created and it is likely to continue for some time to come, all stemming back to how the thing was begun by the invasion. They have gone about this completely wrong and we are in a mess of their own making. It is going to take a long time to sort it out, no matter what approach is taken - and a wrong one is being taken - but that process has to begin as soon as possible. The US can never solve this on their own. They can be part of it, but other parties need to be allowed to get involved. They have made that harder as now any outside agency, even the humanitarian ones are looked upon as outsiders allied to the forces attacking them. We've seen humanitarian agencies having people who were working to help the Iraqis, being abducted as a result. Those sort of bridges need to be rebuilt, as difficult as that has been made.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well lets see.....

-Moussedag (spelling) is democratically elected by the Iranians in '53 and then immediately overthrown in a CIA backed coupe and the oppressive Shah installed (another one of "our son of a bitch"s)

-Shah rules for 25 years by a heavy hand (debatably worse than Saddam)

-Rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and eventual overthrow of Shah and taking of US hostages

-America encourages another son of a bitch to attack Iran (Saddam if you didn't notice)

See where this is going? See any correlations here?
Now Allawi gets "elected" next year and rules brutally (which is what he seems to be doing now) and is emboldened by America's support that he thinks that maybe he should....I don't know...maybe invade Syria (with tacit approval from America)...or maybe...hmmmm Iran.
Are we starting to see the self perpetuation here?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

For one thing I haven't heard about Japan trying to invade China recently or engineering coupe in the last 60 years.
Today's Allawi is tomorrow's Saddam Hussein is all I'm saying and that very much depends on what's happened in the past.
If the government of one country keeps acting consistantly then you can't say, with any real conviction, "they've changed".

Never said that, read the post. I said that if Iraq is allowed to decend in to a chaotic lawless society it's only fair to assume that terrorists will use it as a base of operations.

It is already descended into chaos and lawlessness, alot of it on the American side.
Now if Iraqi were already starting to form law and order (even amongst the "radicals") before America took over and in absense of Saddam...how can you assume that it will be any different without the Americans there?

BTW I don't think blowing up suicide bombs deliberately killing civilians is freedom fighting. Blowing up the yanks might be, but killing women and children certainly isn't.

So any "collateral damage" is terrorism as long as it isn't the US doing it?

How so? In a week's time, some degree of law and order will be in place in Fallujah, just like what followed the retake of Sammara. I don't see how you automatically assume that the current military action will escalate the problem. It will make Fallujah a much harder place for the insurgents to operate out of.

Well we have an example from just a few months ago to go by as well as the known consequences of killing alot of innocent civilians. It's just going to cement Iraqi opinion that America is there to rule, heavy handedly at that.
A probability backed up by the growing resistance to occupation since the invasion.
I don't see how raining hell down in Falluja has done anything anywhere it's been tried in Iraq...'cept (according to you)in Sammara...and even IF it did passify Samarra attacks have increased all over Iraq.

claidheamh

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Seriously, Israel requires nuclear weapons? Similar to how Israelis require food and water, or how Israelis require land upon which to expand?
...requires nuclear weapons(shakes head)...

You know the way you say Israel invaded two of its' neighbours, it's very convienent that you leave out the fact that those two countries were preparing to invade Israel.

Inexcusably, the Eastern Mediterranean has been a hot bed of chaos between the Arabs and the Jewish (read invasions, bombings...) since at least the mid 1800's, with the increases in Jewish immigration and the latter fall of the Ottoman Empire. It is also a prime example of how military force does nothing to secure and promote peace in the Middle East.

Israeli/Arab Conflict

Cynically, I think if neither side can play fair, neither should be allowed occupancy. Convert the area into one giant religious park without permanent residents, where people can make pilgrimage, then leave.

Well not really, I didn't support the war but as I said earlier we might as well fix the mess we made. I think going into Fallujah, long term will have been the right decision. I certainly don't think we can let Iraq decend into a haven for terrorists.

So, continued:

Bombing of Iraqi civilian buildings,

Failing to prosecute even the most heinous violators of the Geneva Convention under the Geneva Convention,

Openly espousing to be, "Christians ridding Iraq of Satan, the Devil, [insert favorite Christian iconographical reference here],"

By constitutional order, allowing US companies to own and operate business in Iraq, without paying taxes,

is a valid "fix" to the situation which will aid in Iraq not evolving into a terrorist haven? I disagree, and am not satisfied with the quid pro quo.

We(US) made a mess that will require international, non-militaristic (coalition of the UN) support...no...supervision, to be successful and fair to/for the Iraqi people.
Furthermore, the US has already shown its propensity for greed to control equity capital in Iraq; Therefore, it cannot be an influential party to this restructuring.

mycroft

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Em cause it worked in Samarra?

Yet, in the style of the guerrilla army they have become, the insurgents paused and then returned to fight. On Saturday 39 people died and 49 were injured in Samarra in a string of suicide bombings and attacks on police posts. In Falluja too, many of the insurgents are likely to have fled the city in recent weeks to regroup and return to their guerrilla operations once the assault is completed.

and my favourite

One unnamed senior American officer also admitted that the hospital had become a "centre of propaganda," reflecting the military's frustration at the high death tolls doctors frequently announce after American bombing raids.

both taken from here

sovtek

mycroft wrote:

Em cause it worked in Samarra?



and my favourite

One unnamed senior American officer also admitted that the hospital had become a "centre of propaganda," reflecting the military's frustration at the high death tolls doctors frequently announce after American bombing raids.

both taken from here

Yea that was priceless...blaming the "terrorists" for having a PR guy in Falluja to give the Associated Press pictures of dead civilians...because you know how brand savvy those radical islamic terrorists are. :rolleyes:

I can see them now...holed up in a Falluja mosque...doctoring pics in Photoshop on his G4....

segadreamcast

'Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.'

That isn't really a question now, is it.

mycroft

sovtek wrote:

I can see them now...holed up in a Falluja mosque...doctoring pics in Photoshop on his G4....

Yeah Musab Al Zarqawi hunched over the laptop "We're using the same set of plugins Powell used for his UN briefing"

There is no war just some very busy graphic designers.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But...but....but Israel hasn't even officially admitted having nuclear weapons, no? Not only that, it most certainly hasn't used them, or directly threatened to use them (as to do so would first require admitting it had them).

How can you proove that you need something when you don't admit that you have it, have never used it, nor even threatened its use????

Oh - and before you counter the "never threatened its use" with Israel's various statements at the time that it would retaliate against any attack during Gulf 1......bear in mind that Israel was attacked by Scuds.

So I'm at a loss as to how they proved any need of the sort that you're claiming.

Well not really, I didn't support the war but as I said earlier we might as well fix the mess we made.

I couldn't agree more. However, too many people (of which I'm not necessarily including you) seem to be unable to distinguish "staying and fixing the mess" from "agreeing that whatever the Americans want to do is the right way to fix the mess".

I think going into Fallujah, long term will have been the right decision.

Perhaps. If they then stay there. But they won't - they'll move on to the next hot-spot....because otherwise they'll own only Fallujah. And once they move out of Fallujah.....what stops it following the already-demonstrated

I certainly don't think we can let Iraq decend into a haven for terrorists.

Too late. Since the war started, thats exactly what has happened. What we shouldn't do is accept that it remains as such....but clearly the plan that got us to where we are today is flawed. Even the US Administration have admitted that htey are not where they were because they faced "unforseen" difficulties. What is needed, however, is that Mr "I make up my mind, and stick to it" Bush recognises that the path he walked on was a bit fscked, and that he needs to find a better one heading in the same direction....even if it means admitting that he's comitting that most cardinal of sins and changing his stance.

jc

chill

Flukey wrote:

....but it is all true....

well....... it made me smile anyway....

In my view, what may or may not have happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to today's situation.It's an Irish disease that we are gardually but steadily shedding, thankfully.

Also as anyone who reads my postings will have noted long ago, I don't agree with the reasons Bush went into Iraq, I don't agree with 99.9999999% of anything going on in Bush's head, I don't agree with much of US's actions in many parts of the world. I also think he and his Military have screwed up the whole operation except for the first phase.
However I do agree that going into Iraq was good, in and of itself, and that it is the right thing, and that winning is important, as is wiping out every last insurgent possible.

chill

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You are of course completely right. It is totally and utterly irrelevant except to those who can only interpret the rights and wrongs of the world though a haze of historical conspiracies, generally centerred on the US and it's mistakes.
Each issue is, in reality, different and separate.

I certainly don't think we can let Iraq decend into a haven for terrorists.

The truth is of course that it was a safe haven for terrorists all through Saddam's brutal rule because he and his regime were a Terrorist regime that terrorised and brutalised and abused the people of Iraq.
Thankfully the people of Iraq will be given a chance to take their destiny in their own hands for the first time in generations.
Whether they will be able to manage it, or whether they decide to spurn the chance will be their own decision. But the Allied armies have sacrificed many valuable lives to give them the chance, so I hope they do.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What would you call the deliberate killing of civilians including women and children?

MeatProduct

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What would you call the deliberate killing of civilians including women and children?

I heard a Fox reporter on Sky news say that there were no civilians left in Falujah. So we can all assume that no innocents will be killed since they are not there according to Fox. I'm certainly releived with that news. It's just as well there will be no civilian injuries since they are one hospital down thanks to the US army and friends.

All this is a benchmark for the state of humanity. It's the microcosm being reflected in the macrocosm. Once people can start to deal with their own issues rather than judging and blaming others I think we will find that the world will sort itself out.

Nick

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

Perhaps. If they then stay there. But they won't - they'll move on to the next hot-spot....because otherwise they'll own only Fallujah. And once they move out of Fallujah.....what stops it following the already-demonstrated

This has been / is the Allied forces main problem - not being able to project enough strength simultaneously throughout Iraq. When the war is analysed many years from now, no doubt Rumsfeld's belief (going against the wisdom of senior military advisors) that only a small number of soldiers would be needed (at least in the beginning phase of the war) will be seen as one of the truly terrible elements of the initial strategy.
With regard to Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle, the problems are not only a lack of manpower, but the fact that international opinion can effect military strategy. From a military standpoint, the Marines should have cleared out Fallujah the first time around, regardless of casualties on either sides and in the face of public opinion. It was madness to leave that threat un-occupied for so long.

sceptre

MeatProduct wrote:

I heard a Fox reporter on Sky news say that there were no civilians left in Falujah.

Should make it interesting if they're using Diebold machines for the elections then.

bonkey

[QUOTE=chillAlso as anyone who reads my postings will have noted long ago, I don't agree with the reasons Bush went into Iraq, I don't agree with 99.9999999% of anything going on in Bush's head, I don't agree with much of US's actions in many parts of the world. I also think he and his Military have screwed up the whole operation except for the first phase.[/QUOTE]

But chill...the only posts of yours which make those points are the ones like this where you state that this is your position. Every post where you actually get involved in discussing a point, its to defend the actions of the US military and the US administration.

To post time and time again telling people that X is only anti-Bushism / media spin / anti-militarism / loony-leftism, when X is anything critical of the war in Iraq, the US army's tactics, the death-toll, the ideology behind the thing, etc. etc. kinda undermines the occasional assertion that 99.999% of what is done there you disagree with and that your posts reflect this.

However I do agree that going into Iraq was good, in and of itself, and that it is the right thing, and that winning is important, as is wiping out every last insurgent possible.

Well, if the US operation - like you - were to believe that last bit and try and achieve it.....they could kiss goodbye to achieving the "winning" bit. But hey....a good pogrom is far more important.

jc

bonkey

chill wrote:

In my view, what may or may not have happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to today's situation.It's an Irish disease that we are gardually but steadily shedding, thankfully.

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past.....

Ring any bells? Clearly not. Didn't think so.

And you know...If its an Irish disease....I'm glad.

I'm glad the Irish didn't say "oh look....the British conquered us a few hundred years ago, but thats in the past so lets just accept our current British rulers".

I'm glad that when some of us look back at times like World War 2, the Holocaust and say "never again" instead of what you seem to be proposing which is "hey...so what if it happened before. Thats utterly irrelevant to today's thinking. We don't need to consider what caused it, or learn anything from it. Its all irrelevant."

I'm glad that when we see someone do the same thing time and time and time again, that we can look at them lining up to do it again and go "hey...you know I think he's going to do that again", rather than discarding past behaviour as irrelevant.

And you know what....you don't even believe it yourself Chill. If you did, then what the hell does it matter if Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of his own people using WMDs over a decade ago??? Its in teh past, right? Utterly irrelevant, right?

Whats that you say? Those bits of history aren't irrelevant? Its just the ones which are inconvenient for your dogma then, perhaps?

The US policy of hte past is highly relevant, because the US isn't acknowledging its own hand in creating the problem. The reason this is relevant is because this is one of the root causes. The US is attacking a symptom of a problem because it refuses to acknowledge that its own historical foreign policy is a key aspect of the problem. It won't admit it beause that might cause people to look at current foreign policy a bit closer. It won't admit it because it might bring about some degree of liability. It won't admit it because once you look past the vast numbers of foreigners and "Joe Q Public" Americans getting killed in the fighting....US policy is about as good as it can be for big business, and thats good for everyone....right?

The past is irrelevant? Whatever next....

jc

bonkey

chill wrote:

The truth is of course that it was a safe haven for terrorists all through Saddam's brutal rule because he and his regime were a Terrorist regime that terrorised and brutalised and abused the people of Iraq.

I was going to point out the glaring flaws in this, until I saw a much better way...

...its yet another "argument" from Chill which begins with the words "the truth is". I'll let you figure out the rest.

jc

Moriarty

I'm overjoyed to be singled out as the part-subject of a thread, but there's one minor technical problem. I don't remember ever claiming to support the war.

Good work on the copy and paste though, keep it up.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know. I was simply pointing out that this event proved nothing about Israel's need for nukes.

Anyway staying away from Israel and back to Iraq....

Indeed...

Many of the forumites are far to willing to believe that every thing the Americans do has an ulterior motive with the express purpose of being anti-Iraqi or whatever.

Agreed.

I think that makes all three of us then

What title? You're all dreaming...

OK...I edited it.

jc

chill

bonkey wrote:

But chill...the only posts of yours which make those points are the ones like this where you state that this is your position. Every post where you actually get involved in discussing a point, its to defend the actions of the US military and the US administration.

Wrong. That is the result of reading posts only for the pojnts you want to see.

I never defend the US admin for anything except the merefact that they are there in the war and that I agree with that. I also defend the military when I believe they are being wrongly criticised.
There are a few nutters in every army and the US army is no different, but the US army and the UK army does not kill civilians intentionally and the commanders do what they are told to, tactically... hence the incompetence of the campaign.

To post time and time again telling people that X is only anti-Bushism / media spin / anti-militarism / loony-leftism, when X is anything critical of the war in Iraq, the US army's tactics, the death-toll, the ideology behind the thing, etc. etc. kinda undermines the occasional assertion that 99.999% of what is done there you disagree with and that your posts reflect this.

Wrong again. I attack people's posts for being anti american or just wrong when they deliberately mix and match issues that suit their point of view. I prefer to separate out individual issues and criticise or justify them on their own merit.

Too many people cannot get past their vitriolic opposition to the justification for the war when they argue about the war itself and related issues. Too many people buy into every stupid report that originates in any godforesaken media outlet that knocks the soldiers or whoever, 'solely' because it serves their original disapproval of the REASONS for the war.
I am sick of people who are so consumed by their opposition to the justification for the war that they deliberately ignore the brutal history of Saddam, they deliberately ignore the slaughter by the terrorists and insurgants and who pounce conveniently on any and every dubious report that civilians were killled, when the truth is that the vast majority of these are caused by the terrorists themselves and their actions and not those of the military. It's not good enough that they excuse this by claiming equal condemnation - that is just a pathetic justification.
People who are so consumed by their ideology and distaste for the US adminstrations over the years that they allow that to dominate their views, resulting in a cynicism and indifference to the suffering of other people's around the world, and who therefore prefer nothing to be done to help those people just because it is the US that takes those actions, have no respect from me

Essey

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!
Daddy is oil important?
Of course not - hear in Ireland our cars run on water - that's why it rains so much.
Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not. If a country is experiencing tyranny - well that's too bad! You see we are the only people who should be free - except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them! and there was the Bosnian situation - the UN stuck its beak in there. I tell you my petal if Saddam was running France - we wouldn't be so critical of the Yanks - remember WWII? If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.
So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid - OOH we cant do that we aren't in Iraq. Now there is a dilemma.
Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can - we embrace terrorism and insurgency here! We love the under dog. Its our culture. Now go to bed - your irritating me!

Hairy Homer

chill wrote:

.
Thankfully the people of Iraq will be given a chance to take their destiny in their own hands for the first time in generations.
QUOTE]

So why weren't they able to do that in 1920 after the British had 'liberated' them from the Ottoman Turks? Why did they rebel against the British-imposed Hashemite kingdom, to such an extent that some pioneering 'Air Control' methods (ie dropping bombs on villages) were deployed against them by a young officer named Harris who would go on to indulge himself on a much bigger canvas in WWII?

Why couldn't they 'take their destiny in their own hands' in the Second World War during which they were once again invaded by Britain?

What's so different about the Brits invading this time?

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

I attack people's posts for being anti american

That means nothing. Nothing at all. You anti-worldist you.

mycroft

Essey wrote:

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!
Daddy is oil important?
Of course not - hear in Ireland our cars run on water - that's why it rains so much.
Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not. If a country is experiencing tyranny - well that's too bad! You see we are the only people who should be free - except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them! and there was the Bosnian situation - the UN stuck its beak in there. I tell you my petal if Saddam was running France - we wouldn't be so critical of the Yanks - remember WWII? If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.
So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid - OOH we cant do that we aren't in Iraq. Now there is a dilemma.
Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can - we embrace terrorism and insurgency here! We love the under dog. Its our culture. Now go to bed - your irritating me!

1, Would that be the chemical weapons that members of the curren administration sold him in the 80s. Yup.

2. We know about the oil stupid most of us have called for the development of renewable and new energy sources.

4. This administration has killed 100,000 people while bringing them freedom. They now want freedom from their liberators who are trying to create a puppet state they can suck dry.

5. You're forgetting the true freers of europe the soviets. They lost more people and suffered more hardship than the rest of the allies combined and bled germany dry. Really anyone who knows anything about WW2 can tell you that. And hell if it wasn't for two votes during the drafting of the decleration of independence america's national language would be german. Don't brow beat us with history we know more than you.

And the last bit is really just too stupid to respond to.

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!

But daddy didn't the US supply Saddam with those weapons to begin with? Did I not see Donald Rumsfield shake his hand!

Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not.

So Daddy why did the US implement a puppet government in Iraq along with a constitution that allows corporations to rape Iraqs resources and put many iraqis out of business? Also why did they block anyone who might win an election that didn't fit in with the US agenda from running in this democracy?

except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them!

Ooh Daddy I didn't realise we were nazi war criminals. Should we not be on the run?

If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.

But daddy didn't the US almost pick German as their national language over English at one point? Also didn't the US sit on its ass for the beginning of WWII? Also Daddy WTF has WWII got to do with Saddam?

Should we always be thanking those people who "saved our asses" in previous wars? If so should we be thanking the French for saving the US asses in the American war of independance?

So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid

But Daddy didn't Spain vote against their government not because AQ bombed them but because the government tried to blame ETA in an attempt to politically score points from the deaths of its population?

Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can

I guess your right Daddy considering Bush did sod all to try and capture him and even entered into a deal with Pakistan shortly after 9/11 to not have him captured if he was found in Pakistan. Not to mention the CIA also trained OBL to begin with.

Redleslie2

Hobbes wrote:

But daddy didn't the US almost pick German as their national language over English at one point?

Bit of a myth that I think. But daddy might want to explain the German contribution to America by waves of immigrants like the forty-eighters.

bonkey

chill wrote:

I never defend the US admin for anything except the merefact that they are there in the war and that I agree with that.

Well, I'm looking at the original post of this thread, and your response, and you dismiss its entirety with the following comment: "Typical looney left propaganda mixed with personalising the argument. Sad really."

Reading through that original post, I can see that it raises a number of issues other than just that the US admin is in the war.

It looks at the frequently-shifting excuses of the Administration you profess not to defend, and asks some rather awkward questions (albeit with tongue in cheek) about how the US accepts from other nations what it condemned Iraq for according to its "official" reasoning. You dismissed this as propaganda, and yet now claim that the only thing you support is that the US are in the war???

I also defend the military when I believe they are being wrongly criticised.

Yes you do. Most typically by stating that any and all information which leads to the criticism must be wrong, because....you have a high opinion of the army. And I'd have no problem if you made it clear when doing this that it was only ever an opinion....but you often neglect to include that bit.

the US army and the UK army does not kill civilians intentionally

And again, you forget to mention that this is just an opinion, and that you have absolutely no facts or figures to back this up. However, any facts and figures which others produce are discarded by you as immediately suspect just because you disagree, apparently.

and the commanders do what they are told to, tactically... hence the incompetence of the campaign.

So let me get this straight...

The commanders do what they are told. The grunts are (by and large) doing what the commanders tell them to. What is coming from the top is therefore what is leading to the incompetence of the campaign...

OK...I've no problem with that.

But what if the instructions at the top tell the army to do something unprofessional/illegal or something which will inevitably lead to excessive civilian casualties? What if Rummie or someone bsically ordered an Iraqi Mai Lai? What happens then? By your logic...the commanders would do what they're told because they're professional soldiers, but wouldn't do what they're told because professional soldiers don't kill civilians. How do they manage both?

Now...there hasn't been a Mai Lai. What there has been, amongst other things, is an awful lot of questionable activity in prisons, and a rather large amount of evidence suggesting that teh Administration - in their incompetence - were looking seriously at how far they could push the treatment of prisoners whilst avoiding international censure for torture.

Wrong again. I attack people's posts for being anti american or just wrong

Both of which are euphemisms for "of a different opinion to me" really....

I prefer to separate out individual issues and criticise or justify them on their own merit.

Really? I thought your whole defence of the individual issues that the army gets accused of was based on a general belief that the army is too professional to do things wrong. Sounds to me like you're blurring all of the individual issues together there, so that one simple basic belief serves as the answer to any and all criticism...not seperating the individual issues.

Too many people cannot get past their vitriolic opposition to the justification for the war when they argue about the war itself and related issues.

And too many other people casually dismiss any and all criticism of the war as this, anti-anericanism, or just plain misinformation....

Too many people buy into every stupid report that originates in any godforesaken media outlet that knocks the soldiers or whoever,

Yes they do, but Chill....that doesn't mean that all of the criticism is baseless which seems to be your opening stance.

I am sick of people who are so consumed by their opposition to the justification for the war that they deliberately ignore the brutal history of Saddam,

Personally speaking I don't see the life of the average Iraqi today being any better as it was under Saddam. I have relatively little faith in the ability of the US/UK - no matter how pure and honourable their intentions (which I also have doubts about) - to manage to enact a significant lasting improvement.

You have that faith. For the Iraqi's sake, I'd be much happier if you were the one who was right....I just don't believe you will be.

they deliberately ignore the slaughter by the terrorists and insurgants and who pounce conveniently on any and every dubious report that civilians were killled, when the truth is that the vast majority of these are caused by the terrorists themselves d their actions and not those of the military.

And again I will point out that you are passing off opinion as fact. This is not the truth, it is only your belief.

It's not good enough that they excuse this by claiming equal condemnation - that is just a pathetic justification.

In your opinion, perhaps. Personally, I think your one-sided attitude is as abhorrent as those which are diametrically opposed to the other side. I think anyone who can fully demonise or vindicate either side is guilty of over-simplifying the issue.....and I will continue to challenge anyone on either side who does it.

resulting in a cynicism and indifference to the suffering of other people's around the world,

I don't believe the US is in Iraq to ease anyone's suffering. It might come as a populous-pleasing side-benefit, but it is not why they are there.

I also don't believe that bringing war, terrorists, and an incredibly uncertain future to a nation in place of an oppressive regime is particularly a humane move either. Again, you would differ - presumably either because you appear to have faith in the outcome which I lack, or perhaps because you think that
even if it fails the effort was worth making.

I, on the other hand, feel that the incompetence of the Adminstration is risking whatever small chance of success such a move would ever have had, and that playing God with other nations' lives (i.e. try to make it better, but hey...if you made it worse...thats ok, because at least you tried) is simply not a smart or globally-stabilising thing to do. There were other options to war. Hell - there are other options to war being persued with several other countries because they're too tough to go to war with. And you know whats funny.....I believe those other moves will ultimately prove more successful than invasion.

and who therefore prefer nothing to be done to help those people just because it is the US that takes those actions, have no respect from me

And again we see the binary oversimplification....

What about those who say "this is the wrong way to do it"? Not "don't do anything", but "do something else"???

jc