Japan vs Iraq

lucylespian

Byrnzie wrote:

Fine. I am going to go as far as to say that you are racist, whether you believe you are or not. I will go as far as to say that you are ignorant of Middle Eastern culture and politics. This is perfectly understandable given the constant daily attempted brainwashing we receive by our biased and self serving media.

And the Americans didn't rebuild Japan. The Japanese rebuilt Japan. They didn't just lay down their arms and invite the Americans in as friends and benefactors because of some superior moral fibre.

My analogy with Palestine/Israel was obvious.
We are now looking at Palestinian in-fighting, and as with Iraq, I hear a lot of people now talking about the problems of the Middle east being due to some innate barbarous/uncivilized/unmoral quaility. I find it a tad disgusting really.

**For the benefit of the mods. Just in case there's any confusion**:

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Calm down sunshine, that was such an obvious troll that i'm surprised anybody responded. I'm not a rascist, I have plrnty of friends from all over, and teh one time I visted a monocultural country, I couldn't wait to get back to multi-culture. I can also claim a couple of Iranian friends, which not everyone can, lovely people.

I guess I get a bit tired of everyone here blaming teh US for the ongign violence in Iraq, when teh solution to that belongs to the Iraqi's. Also , as I said, I was inspired by thinking how JApan recovered from teh devastation at the end of WW2. No-one has mentioned that the Emperor was still laive, and basically told peeps to get off their ass and re-build the joint, which is probably the bigegst single factor of all.
You gotta admit, you are a nit one-eyed yourself though, don't you think. All your posts betray a complete lack of objectivity.
Anyhoo, it's been good to see people talking and thinking.

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

I don't know what kind of wedding parties or orphanages you've been to, but I venture to guess that the average attendance at either one of those is well above the 10-15 people that your links cite.

Not to mention, some of the larger numbers were never confirmed by NATO.

I guess that's why you felt like you needed to pump up the big picture with that fantastical percentage representing the supposed "unreported" deaths. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but you might want to ask yourself why you are so eager to take a stance that carries little basis.

These are just a small sample of examples of reported instances of coalition forces killing civilians which I found in about 5 minutes. If you want to believe that these examples I found represent the whole picture then that's your call. You're not kidding anyone but yourself.

Byrnzie

lucylespian wrote:

You gotta admit, you are a nit one-eyed yourself though, don't you think. All your posts betray a complete lack of objectivity.

Maybe. But I won't apologize for having opinions. And I do support everything I say with evidence.
Still, no hard feelings.

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

Both of these countries were flattened by US military action.

Both were offered reconstruction.

oh so the americans come in trash the joint and then say 'ok well help fix the mess. the mess we made. the mess we didnt have to make, but, well you know, we'll fix it anyway for you. how's that?' what a crock of bullshit.
the united states and pals invaded iraq with no provocation.
japan and the united states along with other pacific countries were in the middle of an already established conflict.

japan was attacked because it attacked first.

iraq was attacked because......??

lucylespian

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe. But I won't apologize for having opinions. And I do support everything I say with evidence.
Still, no hard feelings.

I champion your right to your opinion! I was being deliberately provocative, so ,no, no hard feelings !!
I tend to be able to back things with evidence too. Thiis an emotive issue though, less amenable to "evidence".
I have just been to a tribunal where I was screwed out of $3000, so my sympathy for "victim" behaviour is presently less than non-existent.
The main difference being, I will feed myself for a lifetime, having taken the trouble to learn how to fish !!

lucylespian

Byrnzie wrote:

These are just a small sample of examples of reported instances of coalition forces killing civilians which I found in about 5 minutes. If you want to believe that these examples I found represent the whole picture then that's your call. You're not kidding anyone but yourself.

If the Iraqi bombs stop, the US bombs will stop.

Who is gonna go first ??

catefrances

lucylespian wrote:

If the Iraqi bombs stop, the US bombs will stop.

Who is gonna go first ??

the US.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The US has looked at Iraq over the years and continues to see a hot partially undressed party girl with huge tits passed out drunk on an upstairs bed at a house party...

The rest is too dirty and perverted...lol

lucylespian

catefrances wrote:

oh so the americans come in trash the joint and then say 'ok well help fix the mess. the mess we made. the mess we didnt have to make, but, well you know, we'll fix it anyway for you. how's that?' what a crock of bullshit.
the united states and pals invaded iraq with no provocation.
japan and the united states along with other pacific countries were in the middle of an already established conflict.

japan was attacked because it attacked first.

iraq was attacked because......??

See, you are still focussed on "rights" and "wrongs".

It is better to focus in what is "helpful" and what is "unhelpful".

The Iraqis might be "right" to fight back against the US, but it is clearly "not helpful" to them !!

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

oh so the americans come in trash the joint and then say 'ok well help fix the mess. the mess we made. the mess we didnt have to make, but, well you know, we'll fix it anyway for you. how's that?' what a crock of bullshit.
the united states and pals invaded iraq with no provocation.
japan and the united states along with other pacific countries were in the middle of an already established conflict.

japan was attacked because it attacked first.

iraq was attacked because......??

agin, this is all irrelevant. I explained why in a previous post.

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

agin, this is all irrelevant. I explained why in a previous post.

its not irrelevant.

okay then, if someone invaded the united states without provocation and bombed it to the shithouse would the invaders be greeted with open arms and flowers when/if they said they'd help rebuild what they destroyed?
pride is a bitch you know.
and sure, it would be superfantastic if the iraqi 'warlords' could get together and say alright enough. i dont doubt that opportunists are involved. and perhaps a better way could be worked out if the US set a date for withdrawal. if they extended that green zone in baghdad to the rest of the country. if the US admitted it fucked up. if... if... if.....
its not gonna happen. and hopefully next time the US decides to spread its brand of democracy it will look at iraq and say to itself well shit that wasnt a good idea best we keep our ideas to ourselves. perhaps the US should have a friendly little chat with iraq's neighbours and get them to pull their fingers out of their arses and help.

catefrances

lucylespian wrote:

See, you are still focussed on "rights" and "wrongs".

It is better to focus in what is "helpful" and what is "unhelpful".

The Iraqis might be "right" to fight back against the US, but it is clearly "not helpful" to them !!

fancy that. being focussed on the rights and wrongs.

but okay then. what is unhelpful is the presence of foreign troops in iraq. what is unhelpful is those opportunists who came from outside iraq because of the opportunity washington provided with its preemptive little strike.

what would be helpful would be someone to bite the fucking bullet and admit responsibility for this fuck up. give a date for withdrawal and get the neighbours involved.

well of course its never helpful to prolong the presence of an occupying force but as i said before, pride is a bitch. and absolutely the iraqis are well within their rights to fight the invasion. no one can fault them for that. we'd all do the same.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

its not irrelevant.

okay then, if someone invaded the united states without provocation and bombed it to the shithouse would the invaders be greeted with open arms and flowers when/if they said they'd help rebuild what they destroyed?

I agree the reasons for going to war are bullshit and debatable, but you make it sound as if saddam was an angel and didnt deserve to be removed.

catefrances wrote:

ipride is a bitch you know.

it shouldnt be. they should take pride in their country, instead of blowing it up. did US bombs blow up the sacred mosque last week? no, an Iraqi did.

catefrances wrote:

iand sure, it would be superfantastic if the iraqi 'warlords' could get together and say alright enough.

your goddamn right it would

catefrances wrote:

i i dont doubt that opportunists are involved. and perhaps a better way could be worked out if the US set a date for withdrawal. if they extended that green zone in baghdad to the rest of the country. if the US admitted it fucked up. if... if... if.....

ok

catefrances wrote:

iits not gonna happen. and hopefully next time the US decides to spread its brand of democracy it will look at iraq and say to itself well shit that wasnt a good idea best we keep our ideas to ourselves.

right, cuz freedom and deomcracy or so much worse then a dictator (logically speaking of course)

catefrances wrote:

iperhaps the US should have a friendly little chat with iraq's neighbours and get them to pull their fingers out of their arses and help.

well how about that, we agree.

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

I agree the reasons for going to war are bullshit and debatable, but you make it sound as if saddam was an angel and didnt deserve to be removed.

where have i ever mentioned saddam hussein in positive terms?
the man was a tyrant, that can't be debated. the method of his removal could have been so much easy and peaceful. he could have been removed from his 'throne' as it were, if the united states were serious about him being the threat they say he was(and yes to the iraqis he was). if their primary objective was to free the iraq people from his tyrannical reign then it could have been worked out. people disappear all the time. look at milosevic. he's dropped off the face of the earth.

lucylespian

catefrances wrote:

where have i ever mentioned saddam hussein in positive terms?
the man was a tyrant, that can't be debated. the method of his removal could have been so much easy and peaceful. he could have been removed from his 'throne' as it were, if the united states were serious about him being the threat they say he was(and yes to the iraqis he was). if their primary objective was to free the iraq people from his tyrannical reign then it could have been worked out. people disappear all the time. look at milosevic. he's dropped off the face of the earth.

HOw very conveninet,. now you are advocating assasination of a foreign leader as acceptable US foreign policy !

catefrances

lucylespian wrote:

HOw very conveninet,. now you are advocating assasination of a foreign leader as acceptable US foreign policy !

LMAO!!! perish the thought. :rolleyes:


and hello, where did i say assassination?

Byrnzie

lucylespian wrote:

If the Iraqi bombs stop, the US bombs will stop.

Who is gonna go first ??

If my memory serves, the U.S invaded Iraq and bombed the shit out of the place. The Americans are on foreign soil. Why are they there? They were sent there to steal Iraq's natural resources. I don't blame the soldiers. They just do what they're told. And in a few years down the road most of them will be homeless and destitute and no one will give a shit about them. I blame the greedy, lying fucks who sent them there.
If the Iraqi bombs stop? Why should they? If someone invaded your country would you sit back and do nothing, or welcome them with open arms? No. The world doesn't work that way.

Byrnzie

lucylespian wrote:

The main difference being, I will feed myself for a lifetime, having taken the trouble to learn how to fish !!

A girl who can fish. Now that's something I can respect. And I won't even mention the 'lespian' part. I wonder if that 'p' is a spelling mistake.

Byrnzie

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The US has looked at Iraq over the years and continues to see a hot partially undressed party girl with huge tits passed out drunk on an upstairs bed at a house party...

The rest is too dirty and perverted...lol

Lol! And as they got closer and hands began groping, they realized that it wasn't a girl in a party dress at all. It was a hairy, bearded man in a kaftan, gently stroking himself over a picture of Britney Spears.

lucylespian

catefrances wrote:

LMAO!!! perish the thought. :rolleyes:


and hello, where did i say assassination?

YOu said " disappear". What was he gonna do, go fishing ?