Burn in hell america

claidheamh

por wrote:

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

"of becomming", is the operative phrase. So basically what you've stated is the US bombed, and continue to bomb a country-as a result of governmental fortune-telling.

por wrote:

Money is the key, pump enough money into the place and the population will be quiet happy with their lot...It's an oil rich country, build up the oil infrastructure and I reckon the locals will be quite happy with the returns.

Could Saudi Arabia be a hypothetical example for your above referenced "reckoning?" They're a Western (US) friendly government; Furthermore, I'm pretty sure I've heard they have a bit of money squirreled away.

Therefore, using your "reckoning", it would be inconceivable to find any extremist breeding grounds on Saudi Arabian soil...But wait. I think Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and I've heard rumours he is a bit of a miscreant-(not to mention more than a few of the 9/11 barnstormers called Saudi Arabia home) .

Uh-Oh! I seem to have issue with your "reckoning."

Would one of the statements below more accurately explain your aforementioned quote using your reckoning skill?:

a. Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist.

b. Saudi Arabia isn't wealthy and US friendly.

c. Your logic is fatally flawed.
(I think "c")
Your use of the term "reckoning," would imply you used logic to calculate the probability of an event; However, you have used what is more aptly called, "dead reckoning," or guesswork.

por wrote:

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

A quick outline could include some of the following(add/subtract from the list-whatever suits your fancy):

Be honest about the facts, buck-up, grow some nuts, and admit there is a problem.

Go to the UN, and state that US action was based on misinformation, and submit to a UN inquiry

(ie., war crimes @ prison sites, who to hold ultimately responsible for knowingly disseminating/using false intelligence to spark the so-called, "War").

Ask for immediate UN assistance for a peaceful US withdrawl.

Have a summit between the UN and the current factions controlling Iraq.

Obtain a cease-fire agreement.

Displace US troops with a multi-national UN peace keeping force.

Through a multi-national determination procedure, create a rebuilding team

(if this means Halliburton doesn't get a piece of the pie, so be it).

Have the UN and Iraqi people determine what kind of government to install.

Have UN determine people for the new government.

Through UN monitoring, gradually give the land back to the Iraqi people.

-It's just some kooky little hallucination I had during an LSD binge.

You may agree/disagree. I think it beats bombing the piss out of people(BTW: I have a WMP file of bombing footage and would put it here if I could-if you want it I'll email it to you).

Hopefully then, the international community wouldn't hope that ALL US citizens Burn in Hell, as there are many many of us that are ashamed and would rather not be there.

cdebru

Redlancer wrote:

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

as i said the force would have to be acceptable to everyone
so far there has not been any real fighting between the groups in Iraq

kofi anan could send an envoy to meet the various groups to work out who would be acceptable preferably muslims i would imagine
and set up a forum where they could work out a way to live together and how they will govern themselves

i cant see the current prime minister who is a self confessed former CIA agent being acceptable to most Iraqis

cdebru

claidheamh wrote:

"of becomming", is the operative phrase. So basically what you've stated is the US bombed, and continue to bomb a country-as a result of governmental fortune-telling.



Could Saudi Arabia be a hypothetical example for your above referenced "reckoning?" They're a Western (US) friendly government; Furthermore, I'm pretty sure I've heard they have a bit of money squirreled away.

Therefore, using your "reckoning", it would be inconceivable to find any extremist breeding grounds on Saudi Arabian soil...But wait. I think Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and I've heard rumours he is a bit of a miscreant-(not to mention more than a few of the 9/11 barnstormers called Saudi Arabia home) .

Uh-Oh! I seem to have issue with your "reckoning."

Would one of the statements below more accurately explain your aforementioned quote using your reckoning skill?:

a. Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist.

b. Saudi Arabia isn't wealthy and US friendly.

c. Your logic is fatally flawed.
(I think "c")
Your use of the term "reckoning," would imply you used logic to calculate the probability of an event; However, you have used what is more aptly called, "dead reckoning," or guesswork.



A quick outline could include some of the following(add/subtract from the list-whatever suits your fancy):

Be honest about the facts, buck-up, grow some nuts, and admit there is a problem.

Go to the UN, and state that US action was based on misinformation, and submit to a UN inquiry

(ie., war crimes @ prison sites, who to hold ultimately responsible for knowingly disseminating/using false intelligence to spark the so-called, "War").

Ask for immediate UN assistance for a peaceful US withdrawl.

Have a summit between the UN and the current factions controlling Iraq.

Obtain a cease-fire agreement.

Displace US troops with a multi-national UN peace keeping force.

Through a multi-national determination procedure, create a rebuilding team

(if this means Halliburton doesn't get a piece of the pie, so be it).

Have the UN and Iraqi people determine what kind of government to install.

Have UN determine people for the new government.

Through UN monitoring, gradually give the land back to the Iraqi people.

-It's just some kooky little hallucination I had during an LSD binge.

You may agree/disagree. I think it beats bombing the piss out of people(BTW: I have a WMP file of bombing footage and would put it here if I could-if you want it I'll email it to you).

Hopefully then, the international community wouldn't hope that ALL US citizens Burn in Hell, as there are many many of us that are ashamed and would rather not be there.

also i believe bin laden was a millionaire/billionaire so money didn't keep him quiet

can i also agree with everything you said

personally i dont want america to burn in hell

its obvious the USA is very divided unfortunately at the moment there are not enough who think like you
also unfortunately maybe it will take the killing of a lot more young american soldiers before the rest start to realise exactly what is going on
hopefully it wont take the 50,000 it took before they woke up to Vietnam

cdebru

mr_angry wrote:

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.

In fairness your wrong
and you could hardly be more wrong
haider's party the freedom party won 27% of the vote and 52 seats made them the joint second largest party in austria

haider never held any cabinet post in the Austrian government in fact he resigned as party leader within a few weeks

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa020600a.htm

can i suggest you dont just make up the facts to suit your arguement

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

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

no what i said
i was merely explaining why people were upset about neo nazi's in government in a country that was part of the third reich

just because you dont think that is threatening does not mean it is not threatening to their neighbours or indeed to jews who died at the hands of the last nazi government in austria

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

no what i said
i was merely explaining why people were upset about neo nazi's in government in a country that was part of the third reich

Oh come on...maybe we should fear the Italians too, cause there used to be this Roman Empire once upone a time....

Now, I know you're going to say that this is different, because it was so long ago, but the reality is that neither Italy nor Austria pose modern-day threats to anyone based on the election of a single individual.

I accept a line exists somewhere, but I'd far rather see it drawn based on actual threat, as opposed to imagined, paranoid ones derived from an inability to realise that the world of today is not the world of yesterday.

just because you dont think that is threatening does not mean it is not threatening to their neighbours or indeed to jews who died at the hands of the last nazi government in austria

I am one of their neighbours.

Also, anyone who is incapable of distinguishing between the modern-day Austria and the German nation led by an Austrian-born half a century ago needs help, not encouragement or validation.

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Also, anyone who is incapable of distinguishing between the modern-day Austria and the German nation led by an Austrian-born half a century ago needs help, not encouragement or validation.

jc

ok I didn't bring up austria you did
you raised austria when i said people wouldn't care who Ireland elects as we threaten no one
now the reason why there was uproar over the freedom party being elected in austria wether you like it or not is that the party is a neo nazi party
it was in a country that had a nazi past not 2000 years ago but within living memory
thats the facts

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

ok I didn't bring up austria you did
you raised austria when i said people wouldn't care who Ireland elects as we threaten no one

Yes, I know all this. I have been reading what I write....

now the reason why there was uproar over the freedom party being elected in austria wether you like it or not is that the party is a neo nazi party
it was in a country that had a nazi past not 2000 years ago but within living memory
thats the facts

The fact is also that Austria is a threat to no-one, to which your only response seems to be that its a different situation to Ireland not being a threat because although it (Austria) is not a threat, people are irrationally afraid of it.

Now, see, I hear that as a justification for why interfering in Austria's democratic process and all I can think is that if we can justify interfering in another nation's democracy out of fear, its kinda hard to criticise the US for interfering in anything in another nation out of fear.

Because thats what the official explanation for Iraq boils down to - the information mightn't have been wrong, but the government were afraid Iraq would do something bad and so acted. If that was wrong, so was acting against Austria out of unproven fear.

And at the end of the day, it still all backs up what I initially said....which is that the reason Ireland doesn't matter a fiddlers isn't because we don't actrually threaten anyone....its because no-one is afraid of us, rationally or not. There's a significant difference between being threatening, and someone being afraid of you.

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Yes, I know all this. I have been reading what I write....



The fact is also that Austria is a threat to no-one, to which your only response seems to be that its a different situation to Ireland not being a threat because although it (Austria) is not a threat, people are irrationally afraid of it.

Now, see, I hear that as a justification for why interfering in Austria's democratic process and all I can think is that if we can justify interfering in another nation's democracy out of fear, its kinda hard to criticise the US for interfering in anything in another nation out of fear.

Because thats what the official explanation for Iraq boils down to - the information mightn't have been wrong, but the government were afraid Iraq would do something bad and so acted. If that was wrong, so was acting against Austria out of unproven fear.

And at the end of the day, it still all backs up what I initially said....which is that the reason Ireland doesn't matter a fiddlers isn't because we don't actrually threaten anyone....its because no-one is afraid of us, rationally or not. There's a significant difference between being threatening, and someone being afraid of you.

jc

well read it again

i pointed out no one would give a fiddlers about what Ireland did because we threaten no one
you said
And I woulda said the same about Austria until they elected someone internationally distasteful...
to which I pointed out Austrias nazi past as the reason people gave a **** about what Austria did

now no one attacked austria they just made it clear that they were not happy and refused to meet ministers who were in the freedom party
hardly on the same scale as invading Iraq

unproven fear or not what people objected to was haiders praise for hitler
the anti immigration platform
the rascist policies of the freedom party

now your whole arguement is the difference between being afraid and being a threat that is semantics you started an arguement about nothing
obviously no one feels threatened by someone they are not afraid of
rationally or irrationally

and it goes back to where did you initially say this

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Por
So what if there are civilians being killed in Iraq, that is the price of freedom, millions of European civilians died in WWII and I don't see anyone complaining about the outcome of that war.

Of course I realise that not all 1 billion Muslims are fanatical but I also realise that there are a number hell bent on trying to destroy the western world and that these have to be rooted out and liquidated.

While I utterly despise AQ and Osama, I think that much of the 22% of the US electorate who claim to be Christian fundamentalists (according to exit-polls in the US) have a similar outlook in terms of wanting to kill Muslims in the name of culture-wars. They may not commit suicide bombings, but when someone close to you is killed, you care little whether it was a missile from an F16 or a suicide bomber.

Look at the striking difference between how the British have handled the situation in their part of post-invasion Iraq. Are they killing hundreds every time Iraqis demonstrate against the Coalition-presence? No. But the US killed many in the early days in Fallujah, arguable sparking off the chaos in that part of Iraq. The US needs to learn from the British how to handle this sort of situation. They have more experience of it, e.g. Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland. The rules-of-engagement under which the US soldiers operate in Iraq are clearly part of the problem rather than the solution to the violence destabilising Iraq. They are much too triggerhappy. I have heard that they are copying Israeli tactics. That is precisely NOT the way to address Iraq!

May I add that an independent report claims that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have now died in Iraq since the war began, with killings by US troops accounting by far for the vast majority of these. Notice how British soldiers are not mounting airstrikes on Basra or the surrounding area! Bombing a street filled with civilians because you suspect a terrorist is lurking among them is a war-crime as far as I am concerned, since you are effectively targetting innocent civilians in that situation no matter what rhetorical gloss you want to put on it.

I do not accept your comparison with the Allied actions in World War II. Remember that Hitler claimed that his invasion of Poland was also pre-emptive. Hitler started the war in Europe against a country that posed it no threat. Bush also began the Iraq war in this manner. So perhaps if a comparison is to be made with respect to the Iraq conflict, then maybe the US actions bear similarity to the invasion of Poland, leaving aside the concentrations-camps, Abu Ghraib notwithstanding. The Nuremburg trials after WW2 established that unprovoked war was one of the worst crimes of all.

ColoradoGal

Here's turning the other cheek from the original poster's comments!

I just wanted to say hello to all you lovely folks in Ireland and thank you for following our election and for those who were hoping that Bush would be replaced with Kerry.

I am very, very depressed about this - as are 55 Millions Americans, as I'm sure you know. I've never seen such passion in an election as I did in tring to fire Bush and to to put a more progressive person like Kerry. If you only could have seen all the energy and passion on the Left side!! People who worked day and night for free for getting Kerry elected. I spent countless hours myself on this effort, that didn't compare to thousands of those who gave much more.

Although I think that Kerry's campaign folks made some tactical mistakes, that our mainstream media is sad, and that Bush & Co. ran a slimy campaign on fear, I feel that the blame and "The Buck stops" with those Americans who voted for George Bush, period.

I do feel alienated from half of my country. No, I'm not one of those "elite liberals" which is what they like to call us. I don't look down upon small town people who go to church regularly (some Big City liberals here and in Europe do). But I used to believe in the American People as a whole, even through that silly Clinton impeachment, the American People stood by him and overwhelmingly opposed that action. But now, I just don't understand them! Maybe 9/11 really did change us. Damn that Osama!! I don't know what I'll say to the first person who blurts our that they voted for Bush, I'm sure it won't be pretty. (and no I'm not going to engage in that discussion on this site as I suspect I'd get banned from what I might say :-)

Beloved people of Ireland: Please, please don't forget the beautiful millions of Americans who want a more progressive, more peaceful America and world. The Schrub still does not speak for the American people!! No, I'm not planning on moving to Canada. This is my country that I love passionately. I still have faith that we can triumph over the veil of fear.

American progressives will be in shock, and depression for a while. Many here have likened it to having a death in the family. But that passion that was overspilling on our side is not dead. We've been through worse in this country and we will keep fighting for a better day.

Peace and Love to you all.
Lauren
a.k.a. ColoradoGal

PcP

ColoradoGal wrote:

American progressives will be in shock, and depression for a while. Many here have likened it to having a death in the family.

100,000 dead Iraqis, that's a lot of families. There's a huge amount of innocent blood on American hands imo and I'm finding it incredibly hard to understand the mentality of a lot of people over there.
Thanks for the post though, food for thought.

shltter

arcadegame2004 wrote:

While I utterly despise AQ and Osama, I think that much of the 22% of the US electorate who claim to be Christian fundamentalists (according to exit-polls in the US) have a similar outlook in terms of wanting to kill Muslims in the name of culture-wars. They may not commit suicide bombings, but when someone close to you is killed, you care little whether it was a missile from an F16 or a suicide bomber.

Look at the striking difference between how the British have handled the situation in their part of post-invasion Iraq. Are they killing hundreds every time Iraqis demonstrate against the Coalition-presence? No. But the US killed many in the early days in Fallujah, arguable sparking off the chaos in that part of Iraq. The US needs to learn from the British how to handle this sort of situation. They have more experience of it, e.g. Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland. The rules-of-engagement under which the US soldiers operate in Iraq are clearly part of the problem rather than the solution to the violence destabilising Iraq. They are much too triggerhappy. I have heard that they are copying Israeli tactics. That is precisely NOT the way to address Iraq!

May I add that an independent report claims that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have now died in Iraq since the war began, with killings by US troops accounting by far for the vast majority of these. Notice how British soldiers are not mounting airstrikes on Basra or the surrounding area! Bombing a street filled with civilians because you suspect a terrorist is lurking among them is a war-crime as far as I am concerned, since you are effectively targetting innocent civilians in that situation no matter what rhetorical gloss you want to put on it.

I do not accept your comparison with the Allied actions in World War II. Remember that Hitler claimed that his invasion of Poland was also pre-emptive. Hitler started the war in Europe against a country that posed it no threat. Bush also began the Iraq war in this manner. So perhaps if a comparison is to be made with respect to the Iraq conflict, then maybe the US actions bear similarity to the invasion of Poland, leaving aside the concentrations-camps, Abu Ghraib notwithstanding. The Nuremburg trials after WW2 established that unprovoked war was one of the worst crimes of all.

well i agree with most of what you said
except i wouldn't heap any praise on the british they have been in and around basra so a lot of the shias are happy to be rid of saddam of course the brits are used to invading and occuppying foreign countries hardly anything they deserve a slap on the back for
lets see how they do now they are up in the sunni triangle
irrespective of anything else they still started an illegal war

A Dub in Glasgo

And the Black Watch have got such a distinguished record in Ireland that there is even have a song about them

Sand

Well, on the bright side there wont be any taxes on US multi nationals for employing Irish people which Kerry was planning. Other than that I dont know what youre all so upset about if youre not american or affected by domestic american policies. US foreign policy doesnt change much from administration to administration.

The *great* news is that Bush won the popular and the electoral vote so we wont have to listen to the cries of cheat, thief etc etc from the conspiracy corner. Or if we do have to, at least theyll get far less oxygen this time.

Hobbes

There are a large number of Ballot issues currently coming to the surface. Mostly to do with the electronic ballot system.

As for winning the popular vote, Kerrys vote was the highest on record for a contender. That means more people voted against Bush then any other president before him.

Sand

There are a large number of Ballot issues currently coming to the surface. Mostly to do with the electronic ballot system.

Yeah, Ive no doubt there are issues appearing. There wouldnt be a conspiracy theory without them.

As for winning the popular vote, Kerrys vote was the highest on record for a contender. That means more people voted against Bush then any other president before him.

And conversely for Bush to win by 3.5 million votes it means more voted *for* him than any other contender or incumbent in history. Even Clintons numbers werent this good.

bonkey

When people talk about more people voting for or against a candidate....are they talking about clear percentages of hte population, or simply actual numbers.

The simple numbers are nothing but meaningless hype for either side, as they completely ignore population-growth. Its like arguing that the cost of something today can be compared to something from N years ago without considering inflation in the interim...

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

They are talking about real numbers. the more important bit is the percentage of the vote and by any stretch of the imagination 51% - 49% is very close and points to a very divided country.

omnicorp

the Candidates REALLY aren't that different, do you really think that John Kerry will fix the enviroment, stop the war and organise peace?

sceptre

Probably not now that he's no longer a candidate:rolleyes: but take a week's holiday as per previous warning to you for dragging up old threads for spurious reasons. It'd be a month as per the warning but it's missing one ingredient.