Terrorist supporters in UCD

Mr.Nice Guy

Have a read of this tripe from the "recently revived UCD Anti-War Group".

In particular have a read of this disgraceful quote:

The UCD Anti-War Group therefore demands the immediate withdrawal of imperialist forces from Iraq and that US warplanes stop refuelling in Shannon. We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat.

It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

Scraggs

hear hear

Sangre

Iraq-en they're a bit slow, ya?

lostexpectation

and its amazing how you quoted the very bit that undermines that opinion...read it

We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat.

Mr.Nice Guy

lostexpectation wrote:

and its amazing how you you qouted the very bit that undermines that opinion...read it

We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat.

Perhaps you could tell us who the 'democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq' are who are 'fighting for US-UK defeat'?

Open your eyes. They're advocating support for terrorism. People who are blowing themselves up over there.

It's a disgrace. You've bought into their quite dismal effort to spin this as a noble belief to hold.

Red Alert

the US decided of its own accord to go to iraq. it acted outside the terms of the united nations in invading a country for its own and israels benefit.

political persons in the college have the same rights as you have to be heard. they aren't breaking the law, so either listen to them, criticise them and make them prove their facts or else shut up. thank god UCD services haven't gone down the thought police route and allow a wide mix of people/groups to express their opinions in ucd.

Vic Mackey

the americans have no right to be in iraq, all they have done is provide a war-zone/world stage for these fanatical muslim scumbags!

iraq should be allowed govern itself, and the states should get the hell out, did vietnam not teach em!!!?

what the hell are da uk and u.s doin their in the first place! Muslim countries have historically never been democratic, at least not the way the states views democracy, so why are they forcing the iraqi people to accept this!

It was america that armed al-queda in the first place to fight the soviets!

rainbow kirby

They said "democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces", which to me implies the bodies in Iraq working for democracy and secular government. Not the Islamic factions, the ones who seem to be mostly the ones blowing stuff up...

Pythia

My problem is with this phrase:

fighting for US-UK defeat.

Mr.Nice Guy

Red Alert wrote:

the US decided of its own accord to go to iraq. it acted outside the terms of the united nations in invading a country for its own and israels benefit.

The US freed a country that was ruled by a madman and his family. Most Iraqis prior to the invasion welcomed an invasion and in a recent poll, most Iraqis expressed satisfaction in the efforts of the Iraqi government.

Red Alert wrote:

political persons in the college have the same rights as you have to be heard. they aren't breaking the law, so either listen to them, criticise them and make them prove their facts or else shut up.

So they have the right to be heard but people like me who disagree with them have to shut up? I suggest people who spout their pro-terrorist bullsh*t shut up.

Red Alert wrote:

thank god UCD services haven't gone down the thought police route and allow a wide mix of people/groups to express their opinions in ucd.

According to Richard Waghorne, "academics have been threatened with disciplinary action for requesting in private correspondence that the local LGBT extremists don't send them there promotional stuff."

The 'thought police' are very much on the side of the whackjobs in this college.

Vic Mackey wrote:

the americans have no right to be in iraq, all they have done is provide a war-zone/world stage for these fanatical muslim scumbags!

I'm sure the Brits said the same about the German aid given to the 1916 rebels and the French aid given to the United Irishmen in efforts to attain Irish freedom and I wager you regard that as noble, am I right?

You have to love the hypocrisy of some anti-war supporters. Foreign efforts to grant Ireland freedom - OK. Foreign efforts to grant Iraqis freedom - evil.

Typical blarney bullsh*t.

Vic Mackey wrote:

iraq should be allowed govern itself, and the states should get the hell out, did vietnam not teach em!!!?

Iraq WILL be allowed to govern itself because the Americans have removed Iraq's dictator. Why don't you thank them instead of p*ssing all over them like most people?

rainbow kirby wrote:

They said "democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces", which to me implies the bodies in Iraq working for democracy and secular government. Not the Islamic factions, the ones who seem to be mostly the ones blowing stuff up...

Again I ask who are who the 'democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq' who are 'fighting for US-UK defeat'?

Their use of the words 'fighting for US-UK defeat' is what is unacceptable and implies support for terrorism. Shame on them.

Pythia wrote:

My problem is with this phrase...

Indeed. It's a disgraceful phrase. If the people in this college had any balls they would stand up to scumbags who espouse sick support for terrorists.

arbeitsscheuer

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I'd just like to say that I demand the immediate withdrawal of imperialist forces from Iraq and that US warplanes stop refuelling in Shannon. I'd also like to express my solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat.

And no, I'm not being funny.

Fcuking Tony Blair, man.

Fcuking Tony Blair...

Red Alert

MNG I am not saying you have to agree with them, but you cannot/should not expect that they be silenced.

AngelofFire

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Have a read of this tripe from the "recently revived UCD Anti-War Group".

In particular have a read of this disgraceful quote:



It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

OMG have you been staying up late watching bill O'Reilly on fox news:eek:

boneless

'Democracy' as long as it is the faction that Bush/Blair/Rumsfeld/Haliburton/Exon/texaco etc. etc. wants to rule...

I support all anti-imperialist secular and progressive forces striving to free their land from both the illegal invasion and the Islamic fundamentalists who would want a Taliban type society in Iraq.

By the way, the USA and UK prop up the non-democratic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... why don't they bring 'democracy' to these lands and people?

Mr.Nice Guy

AngelofFire wrote:

OMG have you been staying up late watching bill O'Reilly on fox news:eek:

So if you're not anti-war then you're a Bill O'Reilly fan. Yeah that makes sense. :rolleyes:

boneless wrote:

I support all anti-imperialist secular and progressive forces striving to free their land from both the illegal invasion and the Islamic fundamentalists who would want a Taliban type society in Iraq.

Would you mind telling me who these people are? No one has answered me on that. You see I tend to take the line that terrorism is wrong no matter who does it.

Could the people who have no problem with this piece tell me if they support the deaths of US and UK troops who are in Iraq? Thanks.

Jonny Arson

I'm wetting myself laughing at this anti-war movement showing their support for Iraqi forces fighting in a war! Irony of the century!

However of course it's disgraceful the way the US/UK have removed that fabulous leader called Saddam Hussain. We need more invading of neighbouring countries and especially more use of chemical agents on innocent people goddamit!!!!!

arbeitsscheuer

As a new call from the Not in Our Name statement of conscience declares;

"The World Cannot Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime! ... It is our responsibility to stop the Bush regime from carrying out this disastrous course. We believe history will judge us sharply should we fail to act decisively."

In answer to MNG's question... No, I do not cheer or smile whenever a coalition soldier is killed in Iraq. A friend of our family's, who used to live near us in south-east London, is there right now, and I hope he will be safe. The soldiers of the US and UK armies have been betrayed in the same way that the people's of those two countries were betrayed. Make no mistake, the buck stops at the top: Bush and Blair.

Fcuk Bush.

Fcuk Blair.

History will judge us on how we acted and acquitted ourselves during this tumultuous time. My conscience is clear.

Is yours?

Jonny Arson

Conscience? Betrayal?

I support the liberation of Iraq and I believe the world is safer place without the likes of Saddam and his evil regime. I can only hope Bush and Blair take the same stance on other rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

arbeitsscheuer

"Liberation"?

"Safer"?!

Aw kid, where to begin...:(

Jonny Arson

SebtheBum wrote:

"Liberation"?

"Safer"?!

Aw kid, where to begin...:(

Are you saying Iraq was safer in the hands of the evil parasite that is Saddam Hussain?

Okaay......

boneless

MNG, read beyond the usual controlled media sources that it is obvious you obtain all your sources from and you will see there are many groups and parties who oppose the invasion etc.

Zane, don't forget who propped Saddam up for years and who sold him weapons etc.

As soon as he stopped singing off their hymn sheet... well...

Mr.Nice Guy

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Conscience? Betrayal?

I support the liberation of Iraq and I believe the world is safer place without the likes of Saddam and his evil regime. I can only hope Bush and Blair take the same stance on other rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Well said, Zane.

Funny how these anti-war protesters were nowhere to be seen when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. I guess it's not trendy to bash dictators, only the Americans!

I personally have no problem with thsoe who opposed the Iraq war but the Iraq war has ended and there is now a new war being fought against terrorists who won't listen to the Iraqi people's democratic wishes.

To hope for the US and the UK to fail is to hope that the country ends up at the mercy of nutcases and extremists.

I would hope that nobody would want for terrorism to succeed.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

MNG, read beyond the usual controlled media sources that it is obvious you obtain all your sources from and you will see there are many groups and parties who oppose the invasion etc.

boneless, perhaps you neglected to read the media sources which showed the Iraqi people welcoming the invasion of Iraq. Presumably you also chose not to read the BBC opinion poll near the end of 2005 which showed most Iraqis were satisfied with the efforts of the government.

Remove the blinkers. I have no problem with those who opposed the invasion as I stated in my last post. That invasion is now over though.

Answer the question that Seb at least answered. Do you or do you not support the deaths of US and UK troops who are in Iraq?

boneless

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well said, Zane.

Funny how these anti-war protesters were nowhere to be seen when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. I guess it's not trendy to bash dictators, only the Americans!

I personally have no problem with thsoe who opposed the Iraq war but the Iraq war has ended and there is now a new war being fought against terrorists who won't listen to the Iraqi people's democratic wishes.

To hope for the US and the UK to fail is to hope that the country ends up at the mercy of nutcases and extremists.

I would hope that nobody would want for terrorism to succeed.

I have protested against the regime of Saddam in the '80's when it was engaged in the attemted genocide of the Kurdish peoples. I also protested during this time when political opposition was outlawed in Iraq. I protested again at this time against the continued support of the Iraqi regime by... wait for it... The USA, UK, Austrailia... and indeed I protested against the sale of arms to Iraq by the USSR.

So get your background facts right before you throw around baseless accusations. Talk to people... you would be surprised by how they engage in debate.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

I have protested against the regime of Saddam in the '80's when it was engaged in the attemted genocide of the Kurdish peoples. I also protested during this time when political opposition was outlawed in Iraq. I protested again at this time against the continued support of the Iraqi regime by... wait for it... The USA, UK, Austrailia... and indeed I protested against the sale of arms to Iraq by the USSR.

So get your background facts right before you throw around baseless accusations. Talk to people... you would be surprised by how they engage in debate.

Baseless accusations my arse. You know full well that most of these anti-war protesters are young people who have a beef with Bush more than anything. I stand by my views.

If what you have said is true then you are in the minority.

boneless

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Baseless accusations my arse. You know full well that most of these anti-war protesters are young people who have a beef with Bush more than anything. I stand by my views.

If what you have said is true then you are in the minority.

Have you any reason to doubt that it is true?

And don't write off youth... they must go through the process of discovering their path. As a great man once said 'Age or class should not be a barrier to the truth'. I know a lot of these young anti-war protesters and I recognise a deep concern they have with the way the world is being raped of it's resources for the benefit of the few elites.

Is it wrong to feel concern? And Bush deserves the fact that people have a beef with him and his handlers.

The fact that polls show most people are satisfied with the situation in Iraq does not hold water, in my opinion. Polls, and indeed elections, can and have been rigged all through history.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

Have you any reason to doubt that it is true?

And don't write off youth... they must go through the process of discovering their path. As a great man once said 'Age or class should not be a barrier to the truth'. I know a lot of these young anti-war protesters and I recognise a deep concern they have with the way the world is being raped of it's resources for the benefit of the few elites.

Is it wrong to feel concern? And Bush deserves the fact that people have a beef with him and his handlers.

I know young people who were anti-war purely because it was fashionable to have that view.

boneless wrote:

The fact that polls show most people are satisfied with the situation in Iraq does not hold water, in my opinion. Polls, and indeed elections, can and have been rigged all through history.

Leaving aside the farcical notion that groups like the BBC are rigging opinion polls, basically then what you're saying is that your mind is closed. You have made your own mind up on things and you will dismiss any view which seems to contradict your own.

How is that democratic?

PS Could you answer my earlier question? Do you or do you not support the deaths of US and UK troops who are in Iraq?

boneless

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I know young people who were anti-war purely because it was fashionable to have that view.



Leaving aside the farcical notion that groups like the BBC are rigging opinion polls, basically then what you're saying is that your mind is closed. You have made your own mind up on things and you will dismiss any view which seems to contradict your own.

How is that democratic?

PS Could you answer my earlier question? Do you or do you not support the deaths of US and UK troops who are in Iraq?

I read the same media you read but I also read beyond... that is the difference between us. Maybe I am hyper-democratic in that I can see both sides of the question.

I do not support the death or killing of anyone! Do you support the murder and torture of innocent Iraqis by the so called security consultants employed by the big trans-national organisations bleeding Iraq dry? Did you see the footage from the prisons? Did you see the footage of these security consultants driving along the highway and shooting at random targets? Have you read or seen the interviews with US and other troops where they confirmed the murder of civilians?

I would like to invite you to meet me at the wall outside Hilpers so we can engage in a face to face debate on these and other issues. You may be surprised that we share some of the same concerns and I might even be able to introduce you to some people who think that we both have valid concerns and who even hold views on the subject which both of us will disagree with.

Jonny Arson

boneless wrote:

So get your background facts right before you throw around baseless accusations.

boneless wrote:

The fact that polls show most people are satisfied with the situation in Iraq does not hold water, in my opinion. Polls, and indeed elections, can and have been rigged all through history.

It's bit pot. kettle that you are effectively suggesting that these polls and elections on people's satisafaction with regards to Iraq are being rigged in a propagandic fashion when there is evidence or even the slightest hint of any corruption regarding this. The US election of 2004 was run absolutely fairly and the citizens Amercia clearly voiced their support for the Republican government. It seems to me that alot of 'anti-war' people can't accept any support towards Bush or his government.

I find the whole "f*ck Bush", "f*ck Blair'' campaign utterly ridiculous. I'm not having a go at people for protesting against the liberation of Iraq, I'm all for free speech in society but I do find many ''anti-war'' protesters have some gripe with America in general. The whole ''it's all for oil'' argument has no basis whatsover and too many protesters use this unfounded argument as their motive for protesting against America.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Funny how these anti-war protesters were nowhere to be seen when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. I guess it's not trendy to bash dictators, only the Americans!

That's a fair point but I do want to emphasise that these people are in the minority.

One thing that does concern me (I know this doesn't refer to the original topic) is alot of people have forgot about the barbaric murder of well over 2,000 innocent Americans on September 11th 2001. The world has never been the same since that fateful day, America has changed since that day and I'm glad Bush has taken his hard line against rogue nations such as Iraq.

boneless

Iraq had no hand, part or gave any support to the people who planned and executed the outrage on Sept. 11th. That canard has been nailed long ago.

The people who do support Al Quaida are living in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, those bastions of human rights and democracy which the US and UK support...

arbeitsscheuer

The United States of America gets most of it's oil from Venezuela... Chavez is the President... He made repeated statements about 'turning off the gas' unless the US gave them a more favourable deal... In response to this threat, the US backed a coup, which failed because popular support was mobilised quickly enough to persuade the Military to back Chavez (having originally supported the coup plotters). Having failed in this plot, (and a number of subsequent ones) the US turned to Iraq... A target they had identified long, long ago, as the critical starting point for the Project For The New American Century.

Now, as it happens, Chavez has no intention of turning off the gas. His repeated statements are merely to maintain popular support, and in any case he's more worried by the threat posed by Colombia, who keep insisting that he's harbouring FARC terrorists and training them etc etc (sound familiar?)

Granted, I don't believe Oil was the major factor... But it was a factor.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

I read the same media you read but I also read beyond... that is the difference between us. Maybe I am hyper-democratic in that I can see both sides of the question.

Really? Let me remind you of this:

boneless wrote:

The fact that polls show most people are satisfied with the situation in Iraq does not hold water, in my opinion. Polls, and indeed elections, can and have been rigged all through history.

Seems to me like you are not willing to 'read beyond' at all.

boneless wrote:

I do not support the death or killing of anyone!

Really? Let me remind you of this:

boneless wrote:

I support all anti-imperialist secular and progressive forces striving to free their land from both the illegal invasion and the Islamic fundamentalists who would want a Taliban type society in Iraq.

You either support terrorism or you don't.

boneless wrote:

Do you support the murder and torture of innocent Iraqis by the so called security consultants employed by the big trans-national organisations bleeding Iraq dry? Did you see the footage from the prisons? Did you see the footage of these security consultants driving along the highway and shooting at random targets? Have you read or seen the interviews with US and other troops where they confirmed the murder of civilians?

Of course I oppose the minority of US troops who have disgraced themselves through their conduct. Thankfully, America is a nation that takes responsibility for any transgressions and which requires accountability.

boneless wrote:

I would like to invite you to meet me at the wall outside Hilpers so we can engage in a face to face debate on these and other issues. You may be surprised that we share some of the same concerns and I might even be able to introduce you to some people who think that we both have valid concerns and who even hold views on the subject which both of us will disagree with.

I'm sure we would share some of the same concerns but I'm not interested in political matters on campus (I don't seem to be interested in studying politics on campus either regrettably...)

boneless

Do you believe all polls are representitive and are not massaged to give a desired result? As I stated, I do read beyond the main... you should try it.

The forces I support in Iraq are progressive and secular. If you bothered reading up on the situation you would be able to identify them. Do you believe that a terrorist is someone who disagrees with you? Struggle is not by arms alone.

I will treat your blind acceptance that the troops in the illegal occupation of Iraq are all saints, bar a couple, as another example of your ignorance on the entire situation in that region... even the BBC questioned the actions of the occupation forces (see, I do look at the BBC). The US only acted after the fact; and only against the lower ranks. What about the 'security consultants'?

That you state you do not get involved in campus politics begs the question. Why did you post this thread in the first place?

I would like an answer to my question as to whether you have any reason to disbelieve my opposition to Saddam and his regime in the 80's.

panda100

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

boneless, perhaps you neglected to read the media sources which showed the Iraqi people welcoming the invasion of Iraq.

Remove the blinkers. I have no problem with those who opposed the invasion as I stated in my last post. That invasion is now over though.

?

Ah MNG,where does one begin!
The invasion IS over you are correct!So why are UK and US forces not withdrawing from Iraq.Shannon is an airport I use frequently and the numbers of US soldiers in shannon are far from decresing if anything there is more and more going over there each week.If the occupation is over why are so many soldiers still being flown to Iraq?

Secondly,i dont know where you get your opinion polls from but It is pretty clear that he overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq want an end to the occupation.The us and uk forces have killed 10's of thousand in Iraq now and its time the soldiers left normal civilians to rebuild their lives.

I am like you also,i am far from a bush and blair basher.I dont think seb does the anti war movement any justice by saying f*uck bush and f*ck blair-this is an old stereotype.I am against the occupation because the soldiers presence stiffles the growth of a poltical Islam.In Iran at the moment there is many democratic,pro active groups emerging,which want a fairer,modern society and equality for women.
However, rather than fostering these progressive movements within Iranian society, the US has categorised Iran as a rogue state over the last ten years. In fact, the US war on terror has contributed greatly to the radicalising of populations in the Middle East. Young people - who may otherwise be drawn to these sort of modernising movements - are angered by US arrogance towards fellow Muslim populations in Iraq and Palestine, and are more likely to be drawn into anti-American militancy. Doesn't this remind you of some parrallels to our country under English rule?
Our media over here is disgracefu-we are spun lies everyday about political islam.All we hear about is mad extremists and suicide bombers,these are a huge minority.The majority of political Islam is made up of partys and groups very much just wanting a fairer and peaceful society for their children.For example a group that gets no media recognition over here is an egyptian party,slowly growing in support called 'cafir cafir' which means 'enough is enough'.How can these partys grow when the west is so against and ignorant to a political Islam,something which Bushand blair by the occupation of Iran have reinforced to us westeners.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

Do you believe all polls are representitive and are not massaged to give a desired result? As I stated, I do read beyond the main... you should try it.

I believe in trusting the wishes of the people. You seem to believe the Iraqi people polled have the intellect of children. I choose to trust their intelligence. Seeing as polls PRIOR to the invasion welcomed one, I can't see how that would have been orchestrated to give a desired result. It's not exactly a poll asking if you prefer Coke or Pepsi. It's a serious issue. Also, I do read beyond the main. My mind is not closed...unlike some people I can think of...

boneless wrote:

The forces I support in Iraq are progressive and secular. If you bothered reading up on the situation you would be able to identify them.

LOL. Go ahead then and tell me who they are if you think you know about these issues better than myself.

boneless wrote:

I will treat your blind acceptance that the troops in the illegal occupation of Iraq are all saints, bar a couple, as another example of your ignorance on the entire situation in that region

Oh forgive me but I don tar all American troops as nasty. Sorry...

boneless wrote:

... even the BBC questioned the actions of the occupation forces (see, I do look at the BBC).

Wow imagine the leftist BBC doing that! Funny how you accept the BBC's word only when it suits you. For instance, you don't accept their polls!

boneless wrote:

That you state you do not get involved in campus politics begs the question. Why did you post this thread in the first place?

I don't follow you. How does the fact I choose to stay apolitical on campus mean I cannot take an interest in political matters?

boneless wrote:

I would like an answer to my question as to whether you have any reason to disbelieve my opposition to Saddam and his regime in the 80's.

I'll take your word for it.

panda100 wrote:

Ah MNG,where does one begin!
The invasion IS over you are correct!So why are UK and US forces not withdrawing from Iraq.

Because of the terrorists blowing people up maybe? Do you think?

panda100 wrote:

Shannon is an airport I use frequently and the numbers of US soldiers in shannon are far from decresing if anything there is more and more going over there each week.If the occupation is over why are so many soldiers still being flown to Iraq?

It was announced last year that US troops won't be utilising Shannon in future. Shannon is a non-issue in my view.

panda100 wrote:

Secondly,i dont know where you get your opinion polls from but It is pretty clear that he overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq want an end to the occupation.The us and uk forces have killed 10's of thousand in Iraq now and its time the soldiers left normal civilians to rebuild their lives.

You might want to look at this for starters and the recent BBC poll.

panda100 wrote:

In Iran at the moment there is many democratic,pro active groups emerging,which want a fairer,modern society and equality for women.

Um, you are aware that Iran is run by a madman who has called for the destruction of Israel and who is reportedly seeking nuclear weapons?

panda100 wrote:

However, rather than fostering these progressive movements within Iranian society, the US has categorised Iran as a rogue state over the last ten years.

Not just the US. Many countries, including EU countries and Ireland!

I think Iran is a real danger to world security.

Riamfada

:eek:

Fighting Irish

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Have a read of this tripe from the "recently revived UCD Anti-War Group".

In particular have a read of this disgraceful quote:



It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

:rolleyes: the US and UK ****ed up they will never bring peace to Iraq, anyone who got killed over there knew before they went what they were getting into, not that im happy they got killed but if they wanted to sit next to danger thats there problem

Samos

Back to the original post:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

It is difficult to disagree that the message to which you refer is laden with superlatives and emotionally-charged phrases, but it does not follow that its writer does not want democracy in Iraq. He simply objects to the use of war to achieve this, and also includes some misgivings about the rule and intentions of their governments. However the message has succeeded in provoking debate and exposing the inconsistencies in the views of those who partake.

Very few people want the UK and US to fail in bringing democracy to the region: they have failed already... because they used flawed motivations to justify their actions, which in themselves were irredeemable. Democracy does not preclude imposing one's will upon others, nor of the use of force, or of interferring in the interests of others when they have no affect on oneself.

There is no gratification derived from the irony that the USA and the UK governments (and others) preach freedom and democracy, and campaign against WMDs, while they possess more weapons and missiles than anyone else, and fail in being paragons of governmental responsibility. This fact is borne out in Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners are held and (apparently) tortured without prospect of a fair trial. Even citizens of USA and Britain have had their freedom curtailed by the Patriot Act and govermental surveillance so that this "freedom" may be guaranteed!

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these nations' intentions do not solely include the desire to allow political freedom in select countries, but involve an arrogant pride that their way of life is superior, and ought to be imposed on others, even if this requires force. What business does a nation like the USA have in seeking foothold in another? To exploit the resources, labour and markets that this would provide, perhaps? Or to wield increased domination and enrich its citizens along narrow definitons of what is right and valuable?

If this mockery of the idea of "democracy" extrolled by America and its allies were so great, why does it not become successful and popular on its own merits, instead of being imposed by armed or market forces? It is purely because the the leadership and econmic models that we see in America have deep ingrained flaws. These require unbridled consumption of resources, a neglect for the environment, selective regard for the welfare those who fall outside of the jurisdiction of the States, domination of global trade on terms that are beneficial only for its citizens. In short, a nation espousing ideals of liberation and equality, while simultaneously ignoring these when it becomes inconvenient does not warrant acclaim, especially from those who have suffered these double standards.

We have a chance to ameliorate the injustices we see in America, Iraq and our very own doorstep. Branding Bush, Blair, anti-wars protestors or anyone else as raving idiots will not achieve this objective, nor will blindly following them. You must think for yourself about what is right and always question authority.

Mr.Nice Guy

While ignoring the silly post before yours Samos, I would just take issue with what you say here:

Samos wrote:

Very few people want the UK and US to fail in bringing democracy to the region: they have failed already...

I disagree completely. There was a VERY high turnout for the recent Iraqi elections. A turnout that put most Western nations to shame, especially considering the danger that the people faced.

As I've said, it's one thing to take issue with how the Iraq war came about, but let's all hope for Iraq to have a bright future. A dictator has been removed and if the extremists can be defeated, the country will have a chance at democracy and stability.

Phrases like "We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat" are unhelpful.

Samos

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I disagree completely. There was a VERY high turnout for the recent Iraqi elections. A turnout that put most Western nations to shame, especially considering the danger that the people faced.

That is correct. However, I was referring more to the methods used to achieve this, which were completely objectionable and destructive, and defeated the point of democracy, i.e. freedom to choose. Waging war, maiming civilians and disregarding international law are not components of a real democracy, and as long as certain nations engage in these activities their claims to possess superior govenmental systems will face strong objections.

Vic Mackey

A picture I saw in a recent issue of TIME magazine showed a main street in iraq before the invasion (bustling, full of people, cars, shops..........resembling o,connell street on a busy saturday)

and after the invasion (deserted, burned out cars everywhere, boarded up windows, broken glass etc).


So i say............................WELL DONE AMERICA, YOU REALLY HAVE FU#KED IRAQ UP! :mad:

scop

Oh my I mean God bless Ameikaaa, land of the free.

What idiots.

panda100

Vic Mackey wrote:

A picture I saw in a recent issue of TIME magazine showed a main street in iraq before the invasion (bustling, full of people, cars, shops..........resembling o,connell street on a busy saturday)

and after the invasion (deserted, burned out cars everywhere, boarded up windows, broken glass etc).


So i say............................WELL DONE AMERICA, YOU REALLY HAVE FU#KED IRAQ UP! :mad:

I agree with MNG in so far as why are we always blaming America?Us europeans have as much to do with this dirty war as the Americans do.I hate this anti-american and anti bush feeling that has sprung up,its pathetic.Most anti-war protestors in Irealnd are just protesting cos they hate Bush and what he stands for, instead of wanting a peacful and democtatic middle east.

Bringing this back to a UCD matter,it is absolutely disgraceful how the anti war protestors took away the unions protest about modularisation and turned it completly into an anti-shannon protest at Bertie.

Stabshauptmann

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The US freed a country that was ruled by a madman and his family.

The US didnt go to war for that reason. They went to war on the issue of WMDs.
The problem is everyone "knows" what the real motivation was, motivations which keep changing. Now you could argue that why they went to war, or stated they went to war is irrelevant, because in the end they did the right thing.

The US supported Saddam and other dictators around the world for decades.
The US still supports dictators. The US still topples and undermines democratically elected governments in the developing world.

Most Iraqis prior to the invasion welcomed an invasion and in a recent poll, most Iraqis expressed satisfaction in the efforts of the Iraqi government.

One should look at the sources, intentions/interests and methodology of such polls. In a country as large, diverse and chatoic as iraq such surveys are near impossible to carry out.

The coverage of the war in Iraq has been addmittedly biased by those covering it in the US and not a whole lot better here in europe.

So they have the right to be heard but people like me who disagree with them have to shut up? I suggest people who spout their pro-terrorist bullsh*t shut up.

You could be argued to be spouting pro terrorist bull****.
*The US invasion was illegal
*The methods used has a definite and calculated psychological element
*Methods used by troops were illegal and inhumane
*Weapons used such as mines are prohibited by the UN
*Weapons used such as cluster bombs are not prohibited by the UN (due to US veto) but are descibed as inhumane and intended to inflict maximum suffering upon civilians

Since the US took control of Iraq the existing infrastructure has been demolished. Cities went without running water and electricity for months.
Large parts of the county begame under the control of different factions for months after the US had said hostilities had ended.
Over 100,000 civilians have died violent deaths.
There has been no improvement in the level of deaths due to malnutrition or disease - something the UN human rights commission said before the war was
the direct result of sanctions on Iraq.

We could debate the means vs ends debate for centuries and not come to a definitive answer. Personally, I believe no good can come from an evil act, and when I walk backwards from that extreme position I find myself unable to support the end justifies the means arguement, especially when the end so far doesnt seem a huge improvement.

I'm sure the Brits said the same about the German aid given to the 1916 rebels and the French aid given to the United Irishmen in efforts to attain Irish freedom and I wager you regard that as noble, am I right?

You have to love the hypocrisy of some anti-war supporters. Foreign efforts to grant Ireland freedom - OK. Foreign efforts to grant Iraqis freedom - evil.

Typical blarney bullsh*t.

We asked for aid, the Iraqi people didnt ask for the puppetmasters who have been responsible for their suffering to violently come in and replace the puppet, without any improvement in their lot.

Iraq WILL be allowed to govern itself because the Americans have removed Iraq's dictator. Why don't you thank them instead of p*ssing all over them like most people?

They changed the puppet. Oil business men and ex CIA men. Yeah, very representitive governemnt,

If the people in this college had any balls they would stand up to scumbags who espouse sick support for terrorists.

There are no good guys in Iraq. Terrorists fighting terrorists. My only symaphy is for the Iraqi civilian population. The Iraqi people have been pissed on for as long as they can remember by foreign powers. Finding oil was a curse.

ferdi

part of college life is the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/

go to pentagon channel live.

scary ****.

panda100

ferdi wrote:

part of college life is the free exchange of ideas and opinions.



QUOTE]

Something I wholeheatly agree with!But isnt it amazing how most of the lefts in UCD who are involved in the UCD anti war war group dont allow the free exchange of ideas and opinions when its not THEIR ideas and opinions.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The US didnt go to war for that reason. They went to war on the issue of WMDs.
The problem is everyone "knows" what the real motivation was, motivations which keep changing. Now you could argue that why they went to war, or stated they went to war is irrelevant, because in the end they did the right thing.

They found and removed a WMD - his name was Saddam.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

One should look at the sources, intentions/interests and methodology of such polls. In a country as large, diverse and chatoic as iraq such surveys are near impossible to carry out.

Hardly , but you're entitled to your opinion.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The coverage of the war in Iraq has been addmittedly biased by those covering it in the US and not a whole lot better here in europe.

If you mean the glorification of the terrorists, who have been termed 'insurgents', then I agree.

Kaptain Redrye wrote:

You could be argued to be spouting pro terrorist bull****.

Not at all.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

*The US invasion was illegal
*The methods used has a definite and calculated psychological element
*Methods used by troops were illegal and inhumane
*Weapons used such as mines are prohibited by the UN
*Weapons used such as cluster bombs are not prohibited by the UN (due to US veto) but are descibed as inhumane and intended to inflict maximum suffering upon civilians

It's all relative. Was it legal for Saddam to murder his own people just because he ran the country? I say no.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Since the US took control of Iraq the existing infrastructure has been demolished. Cities went without running water and electricity for months.
Large parts of the county begame under the control of different factions for months after the US had said hostilities had ended.
Over 100,000 civilians have died violent deaths.
There has been no improvement in the level of deaths due to malnutrition or disease - something the UN human rights commission said before the war was
the direct result of sanctions on Iraq.

Similar arguments could have been made in Germany in 1945...

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

We could debate the means vs ends debate for centuries and not come to a definitive answer. Personally, I believe no good can come from an evil act, and when I walk backwards from that extreme position I find myself unable to support the end justifies the means arguement, especially when the end so far doesnt seem a huge improvement.

Personally I don't think the intentions of countries like the US, the UK and Australia were evil and I think sometimes there are reasons to fight.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

We asked for aid, the Iraqi people didnt ask for the puppetmasters who have been responsible for their suffering to violently come in and replace the puppet, without any improvement in their lot.

In the case of the United Irishmen, we asked for troops which we got. And at the time of the Easter Rising most Irish people would have looked on the event as 'evil'. Didn't you say no good can come from an evil act? Like I said, it's all relative.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

They changed the puppet. Oil business men and ex CIA men. Yeah, very representitive governemnt,

This old chestnut again. 'It was the oil!', 'It was Bush carrying out his father's wishes!', etc. Zzzzz.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

There are no good guys in Iraq. Terrorists fighting terrorists.

Nonsense.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

My only symaphy is for the Iraqi civilian population.

One wonders if you had as much sympathy for them when Saddam was ruling them.

100% he got in one of his 'democratic' elections. Still that was all legal, wasn't it?

Vic Mackey

I am in no way a lefty, at best im just right of centre. but generally i can be quite right wing.

it is not just pinko leftys who oppose the war.

Basically, the u.s do whatever suits them at whatever time. they armed the taliban against the soviets, then they armed the kurds against the taliban, thaen they invaded afghanistan.

they are running out of oil, and they fear unfriendly middle eastern countries (like iran, iraq) will refuse to sell it to them so they invade iraq.

i ask you mr.nice guy.........where are the wmds that iraq are supposed to have? Do you think the u.s led invasion is lawful (despite the fact that it has gone against the un) ?

(btw i am not anti american.......my flatmate is from virginia and hes the soundest guy you could meet, just like the vast majority of americans....its their government who are pricks)

arbeitsscheuer

Vic Mackey wrote:

(btw i am not anti american.......my flatmate is from virginia and hes the soundest guy you could meet, just like the vast majority of americans....its their government who are pricks)

Hear hear!

Mr.Nice Guy

Vic Mackey wrote:

i ask you mr.nice guy.........where are the wmds that iraq are supposed to have?

I already answered that:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They found and removed a WMD - his name was Saddam.

Vic Mackey wrote:

Do you think the u.s led invasion is lawful (despite the fact that it has gone against the un) ?

Saddam went against the UN's 19 resolutions and the UN did nothing.

I believe 'law' is relative. For example, technically speaking, Ireland was breaking international law when the old Articles 2 and 3, since amended, laid claim to the north of Ireland.

Did we care at the time? No.

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

Bringing this back to a UCD matter,it is absolutely disgraceful how the anti war protestors took away the unions protest about modularisation and turned it completly into an anti-shannon protest at Bertie.

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About.