Burn in hell america

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

Very easy to say, but what exactly would you do to solve the issues in Iraq.

I didn't create the "issues" in Iraq, the US and coalition governments did. Also, what do you mean by "very easy to say", no-one's forcing the troops to continually bomb and shoot civilians.

Democratic, safe, rich = less chance of becoming an extremist breeding ground.

Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for extremists before this mess was created by the US and others. Sadam Hussein did a good job keeping them at bay, and it wasn't a democracy then either. (I'm not advocating what he did or saying the place should be run as a dictatorship, just pointing out a fact)

Money is the key, pump enough money into the place and the population will be quiet happy with their lot.

Not everyone thinks like Americans do.
Maybe your Government should realise that before trying to solve the world's problems.

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

Rouge state, world is better off without Sadamm.

Why?

steviec

Since when did the US carpet bomb any towns in Iraq? They kept force to a minimum and worked on their 'hearts and minds' campaign heavily. Everybody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq, the US Senate overwhelmingly favoured action, the UN supported a resolution threatening action they just didn't want to back up the threat, the majority of countries in Europe with the exception of France and Germany supported the war. The way some people talk you'd swear Bush was running a dictatorship and just forced everyone off to go kill Iraqi's.
That's not to say the Iraq war has been a good or successful one, it's just to say that nobody could claim Bush alone caused it all out of his own greed and lied to send his country to war. Bush did make a lot of mistakes, they believed they could win the war with very few casualties(remember the leaflets with 'how to surrender' instructions, remember the attempts to take out Saddam early which they believed would end the war because the majority of the population supported the Americans, remember the Iraqi's celebrating on the street to greet Americans arriving in Baghdad), what has in fact happened has been a disaster, with terrorists arriving in Iraq from all over the world making their best attempts to turn it into a PR nightmare for Bush, indiscriminately killing their fellow muslims aswell as aid workers and any easy targets they can find in the process, and succeeding in making it look like Bush is solely responsible for everything that's gone wrong.

JW123

steviec wrote:

Everybody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq

No they didn't??????????

Where are they????????

Frank Grimes

steviec wrote:

Since when did the US carpet bomb any towns in Iraq?

Have you watched the news for the last year and a half?

They kept force to a minimum and worked on their 'hearts and minds' campaign heavily

By killing and torturing people? Is that what Abu Gharib was about?

Everybody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq

You are joking right?

what has in fact happened has been a disaster, with terrorists arriving in Iraq from all over the world making their best attempts to turn it into a PR nightmare for Bush, indiscriminately killing their fellow muslims aswell as aid workers and any easy targets they can find in the process, and succeeding in making it look like Bush is solely responsible for everything that's gone wrong.

So it's all the terrorists fault? Do you realise who has created the environment for these "terrorists" to operate in?

billy the squid

the majority of countries in Europe with the exception of France and Germany supported the war

Actually the Spannish people were vehemently against the war. The government of spain got involved against the will of their people.

Then they made the mistake of blaming the wrong terrorist group for the madrid bombing. They lied to their own people basically, and lost the election as a result

That's not to say the Iraq war has been a good or successful one, it's just to say that nobody could claim Bush alone caused it all out of his own greed and lied to send his country to war.

Didnt they present out-of-date survailance pictures to the UN in their case to invade iraq

As for your points about where the terrorists are coming from. American companies are buying up Iraqi state owned companies and making the local population unemployed.

The only way they can provide for their families is to join rebel militia.

por

Frank Grimes wrote:

I didn't create the "issues" in Iraq, the US and coalition governments did. Also, what do you mean by "very easy to say", no-one's forcing the troops to continually bomb and shoot civilians.

I am asking you what you would do to solve the issues in Iraq. I think the US should get a provisional govt. elected and then pump money into the place to build up the oil and other infrastructures, and help the Iraqis build a better Iraq.

What do you think should be done; put your cards on the table.

Frank Grimes wrote:

Not everyone thinks like Americans do.
Maybe your Government should realise that before trying to solve the world's problems.

Last time I checked Bertie and Co. were not trying to solve the world's problems.

por

Frank Grimes wrote:

Why?

He was a tyrant, he gassed his own people, he killed hundreds of thousands who did not fall into line. People like him the world can do without ?.

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

What do you think should be done; put your cards on the table.

I've already said. They should stop the excessive force, killing the people their supposidly liberating is never going to stablise a country.

Last time I checked Bertie and Co. were not trying to solve the world's problems.

No, but they're being about as productive as the American governemt is however. Minus the mass slaughter.

por

Frank Grimes wrote:

I've already said. They should stop the excessive force, killing the people their supposidly liberating is never going to stablise a country.

And when you have that done what would you do to stabalise the country ?

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

He was a tyrant, he gassed his own people, he killed hundreds of thousands who did not fall into line. People like him the world can do without ?.

Since when has America been appointed police man of the world?
There's thousands being killed over there at the moment, does not count for anything?

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

And when you have that done what would you do to stabalise the country ?

I don't see what my foreign policy towards Iraq has anything to do with what I've been saying tbh.
The vast numbers of civilians being killed is in no way justified. Asking me what I'd do about Iraq won't change that.

por

Frank Grimes wrote:

I don't see what my foreign policy towards Iraq has anything to do with what I've been saying tbh.
The vast numbers of civilians being killed is in no way justified. Asking me what I'd do about Iraq won't change that.

So what you are really saying is 'I don't like the way things are going in Iraq, and for the purposed of this deabe on boards.ie I cannot supply an alternative on how to deal with the problem either'.

I know you and I cannot change the way things are going , I just asking you your opionon on how to solve it ?.

Is there anyone out there with an opinion on how to solve it ?

Lemming

por wrote:

Very easy to say, but what exactly would you do to solve the issues in Iraq.

Since you're the one supporting a coalition that went in without an exit plan why don't you tell the rest of us first what you would do? Since you're the one advocating occupation of another nation. I think it's only fair that it should be you that makes the first move. Pre-emptive strikes and all that ......

Democratic, safe, rich = less chance of becoming an extremist breeding ground.

Then you obviously haven't a notion as to what democracy entails. It does not equate to safe and rich. It pertains to the freedom of the individual and the right to self-determination. Not that you are automatically given lots of money. Or are safe. The US isn't exactly a safe place today with the massive amount of gun proliferation and vast swathes of the population who either live in poverty or are on the poverty-line and looking into the abyss.

And speaking of extremist breeding grounds ...... KKK, Timothy McVey and his ilk, the Anti-abortion, anti-gay, right-wing christian fundamentalists are what exactly?

Extremism is bred anywhere that there is ignorance and lack of education. That includes the US of A

Money is the key, pump enough money into the place and the population will be quiet happy with their lot.

You are of course assuming that they are of a western mindset. They are not. Part of their grievance with the west is the seeming moral corruption and greed that seems to be fostered. And in any case ..... where does all this money come from. And how much is enough? Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go disappear. Perhaps it might go away, at least for a while.

por

Frank Grimes wrote:

Since when has America been appointed police man of the world?

Since the fall of the USSR. If you can find and alternative police man let us know.

Frank Grimes

por wrote:

So what you are really saying is 'I don't like the way things are going in Iraq, and for the purposed of this deabe on boards.ie I cannot supply an alternative on how to deal with the problem either'.

What I've been saying is I don't like the excessive amount of force the US is using. There is no justification for the numbers of civilians being killed. How can you justify those numbers?
I can provide an alternative to that problem - stop indescriminate bombings and shootings.

bonkey

por wrote:

he killed hundreds of thousands who did not fall into line.

As opposed to the US, who - by some estimates - have killed 100,000 Iraqis in the name of setting them free, and with no end to that slaughter in sight.

Its all well and good to say that the intentions behind the killing matter, but I can guarantee you that to the dead it makes precious little difference, and only slightly more to whatever family they leave behind.

People like him the world can do without ?.

Yup. But at what cost?

The world coulda been without Saddam (for example) if the US just nuked Iraq.

And "some" innocents woulda died then too, but that woulda been ok cause that happens in war....right?

So would you have supported the nuking of Iraq as a means to deal with Saddam? Or do you accept that there is a tradeoff, and ridding the world of a tyrant does not give one a carte blanche to do it how one wills?

If you accept that, then perhaps you can start addressing the criticims levelled at the US / Bush Administration rather than dismissing them with the same empty platitudes we were tired of hearing when we first heard them.

Whether or not Bush was justified in going after Saddam is one question. How he did it is a seperate issue, and you can't simply brush aside the lack of a comprehensive plan to win the peace with an insistence that it somehow doesn't matter.

jc

Hobbes

steviec wrote:

They kept force to a minimum and worked on their 'hearts and minds' campaign heavily.

You do know where the term "Hearts and minds" comes from? It isn't about changing peoples attitude. The actual quote is "Once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" (lydon johnson). It refers to bombing the crap out of the enemy to get them into line.

Everybody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq,

Not true. Everyone believed (in the US senate at least) that Bush said that Saddam had planned to get nuclear weapons, had huge stockpiles of WMD and could deploy these and kill Americans in 10 minutes.

The UN agreed to continue checking for WMD however Bush raced to war based on his lie. That lie was very quickly dropped after the war and it went from "10 minutes to death" to "I am sure we will find something". The document done up by UK had taken its contents from a students project years old and there is even proof that the US administration "souped up" the document before it went to the UN. Add to that colins evidence to the UN was found to be false or seriously incorrect.

Bush rushed to war. Many people have died.

The way some people talk you'd swear Bush was running a dictatorship and just forced everyone off to go kill Iraqi's.

The EU is not the rest of the world. The UN said it should wait, Bush ignored it and went to war.

what has in fact happened has been a disaster, with terrorists arriving in Iraq from all over the world making their best attempts to turn it into a PR nightmare for Bush,

Sorry but that is total BS. Iraqis were happy Saddam was gone but they are annoyed because the USA is basically stealing from Iraq. Don't believe me? Go do a google for "Baghdad Year Zero", read it and research the stuff it mentions. People are dying now because of Bushes "exit plan" actions in Iraq.

Keyzer

This thread is entitled "Burn In Hell America"

Getting back the original point, do people agree with this?
I think its unfair to make this comment, whatever you believe in you have to respect the election results. In the last election he robbed it, he actually shouldn't even be running for re-election, you only need to read Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. I don't think John Kerry was good enough to be president, and the stance in America is that a large number of his votes came from people who opposed Bush not believed in Kerry, surely this isn't grounds on why someone should win an election.

Having said that, please dont get me wrong and turn my post around, I don't like or dislike Bush. But I would prefer someone else in charge with a bit more intelligence, actually a lot more, but thats not to be.

And in regards terrorism and Iraq etc. I think the worst thing, and this is in regards the entire muslim community worldwide, was for those Al Qaeda nutters to blow up the world trade centre. I am not justifying Americas invasion or Iraq by that statement but it was obvious there would be some retaliation from America as a result. Whatever the reasons behind going after Saddam, I feel it was right to get rid of him, but the fallout since has been handled terribly.

Historically, America only gets involved in conflict when its in their own interest -

WWII - Joined allies because of Japanese attack
Korea - Communism
Vietnam - The threat of communism

Whatever the underlying reasons for going into Iraq were, they don't justify the beheading of innocents, killing of coalition soldiers or the killing of Iraqis.

I can understand all the various arguments flying around and thankfully things have cooled down a bit.

Duckjob

Keyzer wrote:

Are you American? If not, then why do you give a s**t?

If:

a) Bush wasn't steaming in other countries killing innocent families in their own homes to get oil
and
b) the Irish economy didn't depend so heavily on America

I wouldn't give a flying fück who was running the show.

por

bonkey wrote:

As opposed to the US, who - by some estimates - have killed 100,000 Iraqis in the name of setting them free, and with no end to that slaughter in sight.

Its all well and good to say that the intentions behind the killing matter, but I can guarantee you that to the dead it makes precious little difference, and only slightly more to whatever family they leave behind.


Yup. But at what cost?

The world coulda been without Saddam (for example) if the US just nuked Iraq.

And "some" innocents woulda died then too, but that woulda been ok cause that happens in war....right?

So would you have supported the nuking of Iraq as a means to deal with Saddam? Or do you accept that there is a tradeoff, and ridding the world of a tyrant does not give one a carte blanche to do it how one wills?

If you accept that, then perhaps you can start addressing the criticims levelled at the US / Bush Administration rather than dismissing them with the same empty platitudes we were tired of hearing when we first heard them.

Whether or not Bush was justified in going after Saddam is one question. How he did it is a seperate issue, and you can't simply brush aside the lack of a comprehensive plan to win the peace with an insistence that it somehow doesn't matter.

jc

Nuking is not an option, we all know that. The US has to get a firm hand on the insurgents in Iraq and get the people on the side of the newly created Iraqi Govt.\Intuitions, only then can the place settle down. I am aware that The US made huge mistakes and it's now up to them to sort it out.

BTW seeing as this thread is about the US election do you think Kerry would do anything differently in Iraq, I suppose we will never know.

bonkey

por wrote:

BTW seeing as this thread is about the US election do you think Kerry would do anything differently in Iraq, I suppose we will never know.

Can you offer one reason why I should bother answering your question when all you're doing to any point raised against your line of reasoning is dismissing it with another platitude?

I've better things to do then waste my typing-time. I'll save it for someone interested in actually discussing the differences between our respective points of view.

jc

JW123

Some country is always going to police the world. It just depends on who has the most strength at that particular time. Give it a few years and it probably won't be America, but the EU, India or China.

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

And I woulda said the same about Austria until they elected someone internationally distasteful...

jc

actually austria was a willing part of the third reich so it has more significance when they elect a neo nazi party

cdebru

GreeBo wrote:

as much of a worry as an Iraqi nutcase having them surely...
As far as he(W) was told by his intelligence agencies, Saddam had these weapons and I think we all know his(Saddams) attitudes to the rest of the world.
Maybe I'm just distrusting, but if someone wont let Weapons Inspectors in when they call and then lets them in a while later (to find nothing) I'd get concerned that maybe they were hiding something from me.

Id rather he invade and find nothing than not invade and discover them as they fly overhead...
:eek:

he didn't have them
and the weapons inspectors were allowed to go wherever they wanted including his palaces
his intelligence agencies told him what he wanted to hear
anyone who didn't toe the line got the sack
if the inspectors had been allowed to continue their work then 100,000 iraqi
civilians would not have been killed
i wonder if you would feel the same if US troops decided to check out your country for wmd

cdebru

GreeBo wrote:

Its a war, innocent people die.
Mind you, the US were not beheading the people they killed and shot in self defence or at military targets (if the Iraqis want to turn their schools and religious buildings onto military buildings thats their business)

The US & UK didnt go to Iraq to kill people, they went there to remove the WMD's because the Weapons Inspectors were prohibited from doing their jobs properly.

im sure thats a comfort to the families of the 100,000 dead iraqis

ok so killing people is ok its beheading them you have a problem with

its not self defence for US troops they are in someone else's country for iraqis it's self defence

the wmd's didn't exist and thats not why they went there
the US was in a hurry to invade before the weapons inspectors could confirm what the US already knew there was no wmd
do you honestly believe the CIA didn't know that there was no WMD give us a break
the people who stopped the weapons inspectors from finishing there jobs were the US & UK

cdebru

por wrote:

And when you have that done what would you do to stabalise the country ?

imo the only way to sort it out at this stage would be for the US and it's allies to withdraw completely from iraq to be replaced by a UN force made up of countries that would be acceptable to sunni shia and kurds

the US and it's allies would have to pay for this force and for the reconstruction of iraq
with them out of the way and a non threatening peacekeeping force on the ground negotiations on a new constitution for iraq could start between all of its people
the reconstuction could really begin with the war over

Redlancer

cdebru wrote:

the US and it's allies would have to pay for this force and for the reconstruction of iraq
with them out of the way and a non threatening peacekeeping force on the ground negotiations on a new constitution for iraq could start between all of its people
the reconstuction could really begin with the war over

In all fairness cdebru reconstruction would not begin again if america moved out.One group would suppress another group just as in saddams time.Peacekeeping force would not be at anything in Iraq like I said earlier in srebrenica when a group of dutch soldiers of were a peacekeeping force in old yugoslavia just stood by as 10,000 people were killed some even buired alive

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

actually austria was a willing part of the third reich so it has more significance when they elect a neo nazi party

Ahh...so not being a threat to anyone isn't enough. You have to be no threat, and have no history of ever having had any power either.....

Sounds a bit paranoid to me.

jc

mr_angry

cdebru wrote:

actually austria was a willing part of the third reich so it has more significance when they elect a neo nazi party

In fairness, Jorg Heider's party received less than 2% of the vote in that election. Because of a shortfall by the other parties in getting a majority in the parliment, he was able to use this position to manipulate the other parties. He demanded he was given the position of Prime Minister.

The Austrian people did not elect Jorg Heider, and he did not have a mandate from the people. Thats why the EU stepped in. I don't think the situation is comparable.