I know it was hard to tell, but we actually did fight the Iraq army initially. What you're seeing now isn't what the war started out being. We fought Saddam and his army, and made mincemeat out of them. What we did had no relation to terrorism and your characterization is completely wrong.
I think your original post is correct, however. Support for this war has certainly wained as it continues to carry on with no real successes, and no exist strategy. Everyone loves a winner. If we were clearing winning this thing, you'd see a lot more support. Support was quite high when we were fighting the Iraqi army and kicking their ass.
Your last statement provides validity to aoife's original post...that support is going in the shitter because America is "losing" which I must agree is pathetic at best.....considering as you said support would be high if America was still pounding somebody....it would be nice to see support decreasing because of the cause not the current situation....still an unprovoked attack against an innocent nation though IMHO......and that is deal breaker for me....I would almost dare to call it cowardly......
other country's affairs are none of their business
I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.
Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?
Your last statement provides validity to aoife's original post...that support is going in the shitter because America is "losing" which I must agree is pathetic at best.....considering as you said support would be high if America was still pounding somebody....it would be nice to see support decreasing because of the cause not the current situation....still an unprovoked attack against an innocent nation though IMHO......and that is deal breaker for me....I would almost dare to call it cowardly......
Of course. Did you not read the whole of my 2nd paragraph? Your post seems to infer that I contradicted myself.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?
Answer: There is no relation.....
That Saddam's regime is barbaric could be used as a justification if the West didn't replace Sharia regime with Sharia regime. Sadly, that is not the case.
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.
The al-qaeda is linked with afghanistan not Iraq, Im just sick of this persona that america takes on like its this beacon of democracy and frredom and that every country looks to them for help and guidance. Its complete bullshit nobody wants ye'r help or looks up to ye, we areall fine managing our own country's and if there is a problem nobody wants ye sticking yer nose in like ye own the whole planet. Its completely arrogant
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?
Answer: There is no relation.....
Then or now? If you are talking past tense, you are correct (although your post should have said "was no relation"). If you are talking about the present, you are incorrect.
Al Qaeda wasn't a valid reason to attack originally, no question about that.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That Saddam's regime is barbaric could be used as a justification if the West didn't replace Sharia regime with Sharia regime. Sadly, that is not the case.
Which means it was an unprovoked attack therefore cowardly......and to oust Saddam was a media ploy everyone and their dog should now know the invasion was political pure and simple....
The al-qaeda is linked with afghanistan not Iraq, Im just sick of this persona that america takes on like its this beacon of democracy and frredom and that every country looks to them for help and guidance. Its complete bullshit nobody wants ye'r help or looks up to ye, we areall fine managing our own country's and if there is a problem nobody wants ye sticking yer nose in like ye own the whole planet. Its completely arrogant
And it's arrogant to invade Kuwait, it's arrogant to blow up trains, it's arrogant to fly planes into buildings. Oh sorry I forgot, that wasn't America so that's alright then. Just out of interest was it arrogant to stick our noses into Germany's business when they invaded Poland? Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
But they were ill equiped to defend themselves and so had no real chance of winning, it is terrorism because their response was only a reaction to the unprovoked attacks of the americans. Just say Iraq had bombed america, the americans would obviously react by attacking them but the initial attack would still be called a terrorist attack. Its one rule for ye and another for everyone else isnt it. Oh god forbid anyone should attack the americans because that would be terrorism but they can bomb the shit out of small defencless countries all around the world and thats liberating them. fucking hypocrites
I guess as long as you use terrorism to mean whatever you want it to mean you get to be right. Using it in the conventional way, you'd be wrong to label it that.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Then or now? If you are talking past tense, you are correct (although your post should have said "was no relation"). If you are talking about the present, you are incorrect.
Al Qaeda wasn't a valid reason to attack originally, no question about that.
Yeah therefore there should have been no invasion and your comments suggest the problem was caused by America then.....because now it is a problem and who is to blame for that....and it sure the fuck isn't Iran or Syria...its incompotent foreign policy built on shelfish interests/gains....
And it's arrogant to invade Kuwait, it's arrogant to blow up trains, it's arrogant to fly planes into buildings. Oh sorry I forgot, that wasn't America so that's alright then. Just out of interest was it arrogant to stick our noses into Germany's business when they invaded Poland? Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?
Yes true but every country fucks up...this is the current edition of it and that is what the debate is around....I could also include using nuclear weapons not once but twice is pretty damn arrogant as well....
I am just happy my country choose not to join this false war and our leaders followed the advice of the voting public.....
Yeah therefore there should have been no invasion and your comments suggest the problem was caused by America then.....because now it is a problem and who is to blame for that....and it sure the fuck isn't Iran or Syria...its incompotent foreign policy built on shelfish interests/gains....
I agree. We created a mess in Iraq through ill conceived policies, gung-ho evangelism, and lack of a state department with balls to stand up to our sec. of defense.
I think you're confusing me with someone supporting the Iraq war. You'll find no post of mine ever defending it. I can disagree with various characterizations of our actions without defending the war itself. Just wanted to clear that up. I am not now, nor have I ever been a proponent of our action in Iraq. I approved of our action in Afghanistan, but we screwed that up, too when the focus changed to Iraq.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I agree. We created a mess in Iraq through ill conceived policies, gung-ho evangelism, and lack of a state department with balls to stand up to our sec. of defense.
I think you're confusing me with someone supporting the Iraq war. You'll find no post of mine ever defending it. I can disagree with various characterizations of our actions without defending the war itself. Just wanted to clear that up. I am not now, nor have I ever been a proponent of our action in Iraq. I approved of our action in Afghanistan, but we screwed that up, too when the focus changed to Iraq.
No man I have read your posts and agree with you most of the time...just trying to show that yeah Al Qaeda is a threat in Iraq now BUT they were not one before and where somehow linked to Iraq...therefore IMHO America is too blame....and not its people I do not like generalizing the mistakes of ones government with the people...very wrong thing to do...the war can be blamed on those who will never fight it....and we know who they are.....
And it's arrogant to invade Kuwait, it's arrogant to blow up trains, it's arrogant to fly planes into buildings. Oh sorry I forgot, that wasn't America so that's alright then. Just out of interest was it arrogant to stick our noses into Germany's business when they invaded Poland? Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?
Yes all those things are arrogant except for the the last two because if germany hadnt invaded another country and stuck its nose in there then there would be no need to intervene. We call that a just war. Your point about the man stabbing the woman is just ridiculus , firstly you cant apply individual morals where whole states are concerned and secondly are you sincerely comparing the american invasion of Iraq to somebody stopping a woman being stabbed?. To intervene here is a good thing and it saves a life. America cost thousands of people their lives by invading Iraq and helped no one. Noboby wanted their help, a woman being stabbed would certainly want help. Do you actually think for a moment that there are any pure motives behind any war started by your country. do you actually think it wanted to free the Iraqis. If so arguing with you is futile because you are too far gone
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
I guess as long as you use terrorism to mean whatever you want it to mean you get to be right. Using it in the conventional way, you'd be wrong to label it that.
Fine so , you define terrorism for me
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
Yes all those things are arrogant except for the the last two because if germany hadnt invaded another country and stuck its nose in there then there would be no need to intervene. We call that a just war. Your point about the man stabbing the woman is just ridiculus , firstly you cant apply individual morals where whole states are concerned and secondly are you sincerely comparing the american invasion of Iraq to somebody stopping a woman being stabbed?. To intervene here is a good thing and it saves a life. America cost thousands of people their lives by invading Iraq and helped no one. Noboby wanted their help, a woman being stabbed would certainly want help. Do you actually think for a moment that there are any pure motives behind any war started by your country. do you actually think it wanted to free the Iraqis. If so arguing with you is futile because you are too far gone
Yeah the whole comparing individual siutations with a countries political movements is like comparing apples to oranges there simply is no connection....
Look, I know there are many different ways to define terrorism. It has historically been used to describe clandestine or rouge groups who target civilians to intimidate or change the government or society. Lately people are using it to mean any group who uses any violent means to bring about change. The broad definitions simply weaken the usefulness of the word which used to have specific connotations.
I know the American Heritage Dictionary has a pretty broad definition. The one more closely or accurately reflecting its historic use seems to be from this:
While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism[5], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I know there are a lot of liberal intelligent people who were against it from the get go but nowadays it seems there are a lot of people against it. This might seem like a good thing but i really dont think it is because they just dont like that its costing so much money and lives, they still dont see that it was an initial mistake. They still havent learned that other country's affairs are none of their business and that the rest of the world doesnt want their "help"(a.k.a. bomb the shit out of other countries). I mean unless people learn that exporting values for example democracy doesnt work then we are all condemned to watch history repeat itself over and over again.
I'm glad you brought this up. This is a point that so many Americans aren't getting. It doesn't matter if we're "successful" in Iraq or not, because the war was wrong to begin with.
I don't want to give excuses for Americans on this issue, but please understand that our media/public relations/propaganda industry is very very strong. I'm not sure if you've watched American tv much, but most non-Americans who've watched it say that they can definitely see what I'm talking about.
Everyone, even Americans, can see that it's a terrible situation over there, but Americans have it constantly beat into their heads that we can't just leave because that will cause even more problems (which of course is rediculous)...so they're always arguing about "how to be successful in Iraq". It's sad, but hopefully people from other countries can understand this to some degree, and see that Americans aren't just extremely dumb.
pick a news source. PBS, CBS, ABC, FOX NEWS, LA TIMES, NY TIMES, WASH POST, WALL STREET JOURNAL-
all of these have taken polls consistently about public opinion on the war. The war has been consistently negative in peoples opinions since December of 2004, so right after the elections.
It hasnt changed much since then, people have only gotten more pessimistic.
The polls show that:
The majority of americans think the war is unwinnable
That setting up democracy in iraq is impossible
That they would rather the troops come home, than have them stay in iraq
that they believe the war wasnt worth it (it being the cost in lives and money)
So I completel disagree. This war has cost a great deal, and people arent stupid. They know whats going on.
As long as the war continues, even if we "win" people will still be against the war. Its a wrong war. It shouldnt have been fought, and people polled know this and report this.
I mean come on, if people were only against the war because it was going badly, then people really wouldnt have much to complain about in this war. This is a war where we as citizens arent for the first time in modern warfare,we are not being asked to sacrifice ourselves in a draft, and are not being asked to pay more in taxes. This is a war that is thousands of miles away, and most of our friends, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles arent serving, and wont serve.
Its the war itself that people object to, and until you grasp that you might as well be from another planet
RADIO EDIT...
Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?
...
Yes... it is arrogant when you react to the mugging by running down the street and shooting some other guy 5 blocks away because you don't like him.
...
And for the record... I have ALWAYS been against this war. It has ALWAYS been my main beef with this administration. And their little antics to try to divert my attention away from Iraq and onto Gay Marrriages, Steroids In Baseball and the worthlessness of Navy Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts didn't work on me. It is IRAQ... always has been.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Yes... it is arrogant when you react to the mugging by running down the street and shooting some other guy 5 blocks away because you don't like him.
...
Amen!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
it's time that those who supported this mess stand up and admit they were wrong....not just wrong in strategy but wrong from the word go.....intelligence was flawed/strategy was flawed/everything flawed even the damn concept of going into Iraq was flawed.
Firstly, it wasn't a mistake at all. The word mistake means:
1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
There was no error in action as those who perpetrated the war knew exacly what they were doing.
There was also no judgment caused by insuficient knowledge, as those who perpetrated the war knew full well that Iraq possessed no WMD's. They said as much in 2002. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm
The intelligence communities of both the U.S and U.K knew that Iraq possessed no WMD's. Everyone with just one iota of intelligence knew that Iraq posed no threat to the West. This is why millions of people took to the streets prior to the invasion to protest the inevitable war. Anyone with just one iota of intelligence knew that the powers that be had already made up thier minds to invade Iraq and that international law would be flouted. There was no flaw in the intelligence. The intelligence was doctored and sexed up to support a decision that had already been made. The Politicians who decided to invade and occupy Iraq were not wrong in their own minds. Tony Blair has been saying for the past 4 years that he believes that he was right.
Do you think Hitler would have been forgiven if he had turned around and said "I made a mistake"? Again, no mistake was made. You do not encourage, support and promote a war by mistake. Blair and Bush should be following Sadaam Hussain to the Gallows for committing the biggest crime the world has seen so far in the 21st Century. If the Nuremburg laws were applied equally today to those in power then justice would be done. Unfortunately in this day and age justice is only meted out to those on the losing end.
I know there are a lot of liberal intelligent people who were against it from the get go but nowadays it seems there are a lot of people against it. This might seem like a good thing but i really dont think it is because they just dont like that its costing so much money and lives, they still dont see that it was an initial mistake. They still havent learned that other country's affairs are none of their business and that the rest of the world doesnt want their "help"(a.k.a. bomb the shit out of other countries). I mean unless people learn that exporting values for example democracy doesnt work then we are all condemned to watch history repeat itself over and over again.
First, I was against the Iraq war right from the very beginning because it made absolutely no sense to me. Also I never voted for Bush.
The reasons we were told why we were invading Iraq, the threat of mushroom clouds and because Iraq may have played a part in 9/11 are just a bunch of bullshit. However many Americans believed Bush and that's why they supported him and supported the Iraq war. 9/11 put a fear in Americans like nothing else before. We became very angry and wanted revenge. Our thinking became very blurry because we wanted something done about it but didn't know how to react to it because it was a first in our history. Al Qaeda is a group of people and not a country, which complicated matters. Al Qaeda had been attacking us for some time with the bombings of the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole but never on our mainland and with the impact of 9/11. In response to the US embassies bombings Clinton sent some missiles to some of al Qaeda's training camps and a pharmacy but really didn't do much about it. He left the Bush Administration with the option of how to respond to the USS Cole bombing but Bush decided not to do anything about it. Then there was 9/11 and Americans became upset with the fact that both Clinton and Bush hadn't done anything to stop al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan and it finally looked like something was being done to stop them. Then Bush changed direction to Iraq and gave his axis of evil speech with mushrooms clouds and our new 'we going to get them before they get us' attitude. Many Americans felt he was finally doing something about it but of course he wasn't. Now those who supported Bush and believed him are finally realizing that the war was based on a bunch of lies and misinformation as there are no mushrooms clouds and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They finally see that.
It’s almost 5 years later and now that Saddam is gone even more Americans will want out of Iraq. Most of us know that there's no way we could ever settle a civil war amongst the Iraqi people that has been going on for thousands of years...just like the Palestinians and Jews.
The bottom line is Bush and his entire administration should be impeached and removed from office for taking us to war on a bunch of lies which caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and god knows how many Iraqis.
Of course there are the conspiracy theories about Bush and 9/11 but that's another issue, lol.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Ya but its been completely fucked up for the civilians since it began and i think its an insult to them to only express concern now that its affecting ye, especially since ye went in their under the guise of liberating them. Also if you follow that logic then a successful war would be justified regardless of how many innocent Iraques died. Another thing that annoys me is this bands emphasis on the troops as if they were the most deserved of sympathy. These are people who most of them willingly went into a foreign country in which they had no business and killed innocent men, women and children and illegally tortured prisoners. Not all of them i know are evil or are guilty of the above , many of them may have been mislead or forced to go also but the sizable majority believed in what they were doing and they are murderers. Sympathy should be directed at the civilian popoulation who suffered under the american terrorism
You brand American soldiers "murderers"? You're a fucking ignorant dickhead! Our soldiers removed one of the worst dictators of the 20th century - a psychopath that murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands ONLY to keep himself in power. He stole from everybody he could to build dozens of lavish palaces. His sons Uday and Qusay were thugs of the first order who were known to have their own "rape rooms" where they had their way with countless innocent women. The atrocities are almost endless...
American soldiers fought and died to topple this most corrupt regime and brought justice to a man who is responsible for countless atrocites and basically subjigating a people for decades. We did this in order to make the world a safer place, PERIOD! If we were there to steal oil, we would have fucking done so, but we have not. If we were there to steal oil, we could have just battled our way to the infastructure, secured it, gaurd it and pump it all back to America. Have we done this? Fuck NO!!!!
Our soldiers put their life on the line everyday trying to help the people of Iraq. We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER heard international outcry about that... only when America gets involved...
All of the Iraqis you speak about who were killed, were not all killed at the hands of Americans. The vast majority have been killed by a combination of Islamic extremists from foreign countries, Sunni and Shia death squads and regular murderous criminals.
Our soldiers removed one of the worst dictators of the 20th century - a psychopath that murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands ONLY to keep himself in power. He stole from everybody he could to build dozens of lavish palaces. His sons Uday and Qusay were thugs of the first order who were known to have their own "rape rooms" where they had their way with countless innocent women. The atrocities are almost endless...
So then why did the U.S support him when he carried out these atrocities, and sell him weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq to give Western companies control of oil: report
The Iraqi government plans to introduce a law that will give control of the country's huge oil reserves to Western oil companies, a British newspaper says.
The government is drafting a law based on "production-sharing agreements (PSAs)," which will give major companies rights on Iraq's oil for up to 30 years, the Independent on Sunday reported.
It said it had been given a copy of the draft law from last July, and the draft has not been changed significantly since then.
Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.
Platform, a London-based pressure group that seeks to minimize the impact of oil companies, says on its website that Iraq endorsed production-sharing agreements last fall, just as Russia sought to undo a similar deal it signed in the period of turmoil after the Communist regime collapsed.
Russia has realized it signed a bad deal to develop a gas project, which allocated the risk to the government and the profit to the private sector, Platform said, citing published Russian reports.
"Russia realized the mistakes it made by signing PSA contracts only when it was too late. It remains to be seen whether Iraq follows the same course," the group said in October.
Attack on Iraq motivated by oil?
Platform's Greg Muttitt said the U.S. government, international oil companies and the International Monetary Fund had been asked to comment on the draft Iraqi legislation, but many members of the Iraqi parliament have not seen it.
The Independent said Iraq may adopt PSA contracts because it is in a weak bargaining position.
The legislation, if passed as in the draft the Independent was given, would stoke claims that the U.S.-led attack on Iraq was motivated by oil.
The U.S. has denied that. For example, in 2003, then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called the idea "utter nonsense."
Speaking to the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera, he said: "We don't take our forces, and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does."
The Independent said signing PSA deals would be a first for a major oil-exporting country. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two leading exporters, both control their oil industries tightly through state-owned companies.
Comments
Your last statement provides validity to aoife's original post...that support is going in the shitter because America is "losing" which I must agree is pathetic at best.....considering as you said support would be high if America was still pounding somebody....it would be nice to see support decreasing because of the cause not the current situation....still an unprovoked attack against an innocent nation though IMHO......and that is deal breaker for me....I would almost dare to call it cowardly......
I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.
Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?
Answer: There is no relation.....
Of course. Did you not read the whole of my 2nd paragraph? Your post seems to infer that I contradicted myself.
That Saddam's regime is barbaric could be used as a justification if the West didn't replace Sharia regime with Sharia regime. Sadly, that is not the case.
Then or now? If you are talking past tense, you are correct (although your post should have said "was no relation"). If you are talking about the present, you are incorrect.
Al Qaeda wasn't a valid reason to attack originally, no question about that.
Which means it was an unprovoked attack therefore cowardly......and to oust Saddam was a media ploy everyone and their dog should now know the invasion was political pure and simple....
And it's arrogant to invade Kuwait, it's arrogant to blow up trains, it's arrogant to fly planes into buildings. Oh sorry I forgot, that wasn't America so that's alright then. Just out of interest was it arrogant to stick our noses into Germany's business when they invaded Poland? Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?
I guess as long as you use terrorism to mean whatever you want it to mean you get to be right. Using it in the conventional way, you'd be wrong to label it that.
Yeah therefore there should have been no invasion and your comments suggest the problem was caused by America then.....because now it is a problem and who is to blame for that....and it sure the fuck isn't Iran or Syria...its incompotent foreign policy built on shelfish interests/gains....
Yes true but every country fucks up...this is the current edition of it and that is what the debate is around....I could also include using nuclear weapons not once but twice is pretty damn arrogant as well....
I am just happy my country choose not to join this false war and our leaders followed the advice of the voting public.....
I agree. We created a mess in Iraq through ill conceived policies, gung-ho evangelism, and lack of a state department with balls to stand up to our sec. of defense.
I think you're confusing me with someone supporting the Iraq war. You'll find no post of mine ever defending it. I can disagree with various characterizations of our actions without defending the war itself. Just wanted to clear that up. I am not now, nor have I ever been a proponent of our action in Iraq. I approved of our action in Afghanistan, but we screwed that up, too when the focus changed to Iraq.
No man I have read your posts and agree with you most of the time...just trying to show that yeah Al Qaeda is a threat in Iraq now BUT they were not one before and where somehow linked to Iraq...therefore IMHO America is too blame....and not its people I do not like generalizing the mistakes of ones government with the people...very wrong thing to do...the war can be blamed on those who will never fight it....and we know who they are.....
Yeah the whole comparing individual siutations with a countries political movements is like comparing apples to oranges there simply is no connection....
You're right it is a shite nation. Holy Shite.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Look, I know there are many different ways to define terrorism. It has historically been used to describe clandestine or rouge groups who target civilians to intimidate or change the government or society. Lately people are using it to mean any group who uses any violent means to bring about change. The broad definitions simply weaken the usefulness of the word which used to have specific connotations.
I know the American Heritage Dictionary has a pretty broad definition. The one more closely or accurately reflecting its historic use seems to be from this:
While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism[5], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).
I'm glad you brought this up. This is a point that so many Americans aren't getting. It doesn't matter if we're "successful" in Iraq or not, because the war was wrong to begin with.
I don't want to give excuses for Americans on this issue, but please understand that our media/public relations/propaganda industry is very very strong. I'm not sure if you've watched American tv much, but most non-Americans who've watched it say that they can definitely see what I'm talking about.
Everyone, even Americans, can see that it's a terrible situation over there, but Americans have it constantly beat into their heads that we can't just leave because that will cause even more problems (which of course is rediculous)...so they're always arguing about "how to be successful in Iraq". It's sad, but hopefully people from other countries can understand this to some degree, and see that Americans aren't just extremely dumb.
i have, however, spoken to many people that have flip flopped because of how its gone. I can at least respect them for smartening up.
what i can;t respect are the holdouts who still think this was a good idea.
all of these have taken polls consistently about public opinion on the war. The war has been consistently negative in peoples opinions since December of 2004, so right after the elections.
It hasnt changed much since then, people have only gotten more pessimistic.
The polls show that:
The majority of americans think the war is unwinnable
That setting up democracy in iraq is impossible
That they would rather the troops come home, than have them stay in iraq
that they believe the war wasnt worth it (it being the cost in lives and money)
So I completel disagree. This war has cost a great deal, and people arent stupid. They know whats going on.
As long as the war continues, even if we "win" people will still be against the war. Its a wrong war. It shouldnt have been fought, and people polled know this and report this.
I mean come on, if people were only against the war because it was going badly, then people really wouldnt have much to complain about in this war. This is a war where we as citizens arent for the first time in modern warfare,we are not being asked to sacrifice ourselves in a draft, and are not being asked to pay more in taxes. This is a war that is thousands of miles away, and most of our friends, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles arent serving, and wont serve.
Its the war itself that people object to, and until you grasp that you might as well be from another planet
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
Yes... it is arrogant when you react to the mugging by running down the street and shooting some other guy 5 blocks away because you don't like him.
...
And for the record... I have ALWAYS been against this war. It has ALWAYS been my main beef with this administration. And their little antics to try to divert my attention away from Iraq and onto Gay Marrriages, Steroids In Baseball and the worthlessness of Navy Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts didn't work on me. It is IRAQ... always has been.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Firstly, it wasn't a mistake at all. The word mistake means:
1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
There was no error in action as those who perpetrated the war knew exacly what they were doing.
There was also no judgment caused by insuficient knowledge, as those who perpetrated the war knew full well that Iraq possessed no WMD's. They said as much in 2002. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm
The intelligence communities of both the U.S and U.K knew that Iraq possessed no WMD's. Everyone with just one iota of intelligence knew that Iraq posed no threat to the West. This is why millions of people took to the streets prior to the invasion to protest the inevitable war. Anyone with just one iota of intelligence knew that the powers that be had already made up thier minds to invade Iraq and that international law would be flouted. There was no flaw in the intelligence. The intelligence was doctored and sexed up to support a decision that had already been made. The Politicians who decided to invade and occupy Iraq were not wrong in their own minds. Tony Blair has been saying for the past 4 years that he believes that he was right.
Do you think Hitler would have been forgiven if he had turned around and said "I made a mistake"? Again, no mistake was made. You do not encourage, support and promote a war by mistake. Blair and Bush should be following Sadaam Hussain to the Gallows for committing the biggest crime the world has seen so far in the 21st Century. If the Nuremburg laws were applied equally today to those in power then justice would be done. Unfortunately in this day and age justice is only meted out to those on the losing end.
First, I was against the Iraq war right from the very beginning because it made absolutely no sense to me. Also I never voted for Bush.
The reasons we were told why we were invading Iraq, the threat of mushroom clouds and because Iraq may have played a part in 9/11 are just a bunch of bullshit. However many Americans believed Bush and that's why they supported him and supported the Iraq war. 9/11 put a fear in Americans like nothing else before. We became very angry and wanted revenge. Our thinking became very blurry because we wanted something done about it but didn't know how to react to it because it was a first in our history. Al Qaeda is a group of people and not a country, which complicated matters. Al Qaeda had been attacking us for some time with the bombings of the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole but never on our mainland and with the impact of 9/11. In response to the US embassies bombings Clinton sent some missiles to some of al Qaeda's training camps and a pharmacy but really didn't do much about it. He left the Bush Administration with the option of how to respond to the USS Cole bombing but Bush decided not to do anything about it. Then there was 9/11 and Americans became upset with the fact that both Clinton and Bush hadn't done anything to stop al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan and it finally looked like something was being done to stop them. Then Bush changed direction to Iraq and gave his axis of evil speech with mushrooms clouds and our new 'we going to get them before they get us' attitude. Many Americans felt he was finally doing something about it but of course he wasn't. Now those who supported Bush and believed him are finally realizing that the war was based on a bunch of lies and misinformation as there are no mushrooms clouds and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They finally see that.
It’s almost 5 years later and now that Saddam is gone even more Americans will want out of Iraq. Most of us know that there's no way we could ever settle a civil war amongst the Iraqi people that has been going on for thousands of years...just like the Palestinians and Jews.
The bottom line is Bush and his entire administration should be impeached and removed from office for taking us to war on a bunch of lies which caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and god knows how many Iraqis.
Of course there are the conspiracy theories about Bush and 9/11 but that's another issue, lol.
You brand American soldiers "murderers"? You're a fucking ignorant dickhead! Our soldiers removed one of the worst dictators of the 20th century - a psychopath that murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands ONLY to keep himself in power. He stole from everybody he could to build dozens of lavish palaces. His sons Uday and Qusay were thugs of the first order who were known to have their own "rape rooms" where they had their way with countless innocent women. The atrocities are almost endless...
American soldiers fought and died to topple this most corrupt regime and brought justice to a man who is responsible for countless atrocites and basically subjigating a people for decades. We did this in order to make the world a safer place, PERIOD! If we were there to steal oil, we would have fucking done so, but we have not. If we were there to steal oil, we could have just battled our way to the infastructure, secured it, gaurd it and pump it all back to America. Have we done this? Fuck NO!!!!
Our soldiers put their life on the line everyday trying to help the people of Iraq. We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER heard international outcry about that... only when America gets involved...
All of the Iraqis you speak about who were killed, were not all killed at the hands of Americans. The vast majority have been killed by a combination of Islamic extremists from foreign countries, Sunni and Shia death squads and regular murderous criminals.
Fuck you and your attitude towards America!
So then why did the U.S support him when he carried out these atrocities, and sell him weapons of mass destruction?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
Iraq to give Western companies control of oil: report
The Iraqi government plans to introduce a law that will give control of the country's huge oil reserves to Western oil companies, a British newspaper says.
The government is drafting a law based on "production-sharing agreements (PSAs)," which will give major companies rights on Iraq's oil for up to 30 years, the Independent on Sunday reported.
It said it had been given a copy of the draft law from last July, and the draft has not been changed significantly since then.
Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.
Platform, a London-based pressure group that seeks to minimize the impact of oil companies, says on its website that Iraq endorsed production-sharing agreements last fall, just as Russia sought to undo a similar deal it signed in the period of turmoil after the Communist regime collapsed.
Russia has realized it signed a bad deal to develop a gas project, which allocated the risk to the government and the profit to the private sector, Platform said, citing published Russian reports.
"Russia realized the mistakes it made by signing PSA contracts only when it was too late. It remains to be seen whether Iraq follows the same course," the group said in October.
Attack on Iraq motivated by oil?
Platform's Greg Muttitt said the U.S. government, international oil companies and the International Monetary Fund had been asked to comment on the draft Iraqi legislation, but many members of the Iraqi parliament have not seen it.
The Independent said Iraq may adopt PSA contracts because it is in a weak bargaining position.
The legislation, if passed as in the draft the Independent was given, would stoke claims that the U.S.-led attack on Iraq was motivated by oil.
The U.S. has denied that. For example, in 2003, then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called the idea "utter nonsense."
Speaking to the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera, he said: "We don't take our forces, and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does."
The Independent said signing PSA deals would be a first for a major oil-exporting country. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two leading exporters, both control their oil industries tightly through state-owned companies.