For those that support the war.

chill

Flukey wrote:

....but it is all true....

well....... it made me smile anyway....

In my view, what may or may not have happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to today's situation.It's an Irish disease that we are gardually but steadily shedding, thankfully.

Also as anyone who reads my postings will have noted long ago, I don't agree with the reasons Bush went into Iraq, I don't agree with 99.9999999% of anything going on in Bush's head, I don't agree with much of US's actions in many parts of the world. I also think he and his Military have screwed up the whole operation except for the first phase.
However I do agree that going into Iraq was good, in and of itself, and that it is the right thing, and that winning is important, as is wiping out every last insurgent possible.

chill

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You are of course completely right. It is totally and utterly irrelevant except to those who can only interpret the rights and wrongs of the world though a haze of historical conspiracies, generally centerred on the US and it's mistakes.
Each issue is, in reality, different and separate.

I certainly don't think we can let Iraq decend into a haven for terrorists.

The truth is of course that it was a safe haven for terrorists all through Saddam's brutal rule because he and his regime were a Terrorist regime that terrorised and brutalised and abused the people of Iraq.
Thankfully the people of Iraq will be given a chance to take their destiny in their own hands for the first time in generations.
Whether they will be able to manage it, or whether they decide to spurn the chance will be their own decision. But the Allied armies have sacrificed many valuable lives to give them the chance, so I hope they do.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What would you call the deliberate killing of civilians including women and children?

MeatProduct

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What would you call the deliberate killing of civilians including women and children?

I heard a Fox reporter on Sky news say that there were no civilians left in Falujah. So we can all assume that no innocents will be killed since they are not there according to Fox. I'm certainly releived with that news. It's just as well there will be no civilian injuries since they are one hospital down thanks to the US army and friends.

All this is a benchmark for the state of humanity. It's the microcosm being reflected in the macrocosm. Once people can start to deal with their own issues rather than judging and blaming others I think we will find that the world will sort itself out.

Nick

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

Perhaps. If they then stay there. But they won't - they'll move on to the next hot-spot....because otherwise they'll own only Fallujah. And once they move out of Fallujah.....what stops it following the already-demonstrated

This has been / is the Allied forces main problem - not being able to project enough strength simultaneously throughout Iraq. When the war is analysed many years from now, no doubt Rumsfeld's belief (going against the wisdom of senior military advisors) that only a small number of soldiers would be needed (at least in the beginning phase of the war) will be seen as one of the truly terrible elements of the initial strategy.
With regard to Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle, the problems are not only a lack of manpower, but the fact that international opinion can effect military strategy. From a military standpoint, the Marines should have cleared out Fallujah the first time around, regardless of casualties on either sides and in the face of public opinion. It was madness to leave that threat un-occupied for so long.

sceptre

MeatProduct wrote:

I heard a Fox reporter on Sky news say that there were no civilians left in Falujah.

Should make it interesting if they're using Diebold machines for the elections then.

bonkey

[QUOTE=chillAlso as anyone who reads my postings will have noted long ago, I don't agree with the reasons Bush went into Iraq, I don't agree with 99.9999999% of anything going on in Bush's head, I don't agree with much of US's actions in many parts of the world. I also think he and his Military have screwed up the whole operation except for the first phase.[/QUOTE]

But chill...the only posts of yours which make those points are the ones like this where you state that this is your position. Every post where you actually get involved in discussing a point, its to defend the actions of the US military and the US administration.

To post time and time again telling people that X is only anti-Bushism / media spin / anti-militarism / loony-leftism, when X is anything critical of the war in Iraq, the US army's tactics, the death-toll, the ideology behind the thing, etc. etc. kinda undermines the occasional assertion that 99.999% of what is done there you disagree with and that your posts reflect this.

However I do agree that going into Iraq was good, in and of itself, and that it is the right thing, and that winning is important, as is wiping out every last insurgent possible.

Well, if the US operation - like you - were to believe that last bit and try and achieve it.....they could kiss goodbye to achieving the "winning" bit. But hey....a good pogrom is far more important.

jc

bonkey

chill wrote:

In my view, what may or may not have happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to today's situation.It's an Irish disease that we are gardually but steadily shedding, thankfully.

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past.....

Ring any bells? Clearly not. Didn't think so.

And you know...If its an Irish disease....I'm glad.

I'm glad the Irish didn't say "oh look....the British conquered us a few hundred years ago, but thats in the past so lets just accept our current British rulers".

I'm glad that when some of us look back at times like World War 2, the Holocaust and say "never again" instead of what you seem to be proposing which is "hey...so what if it happened before. Thats utterly irrelevant to today's thinking. We don't need to consider what caused it, or learn anything from it. Its all irrelevant."

I'm glad that when we see someone do the same thing time and time and time again, that we can look at them lining up to do it again and go "hey...you know I think he's going to do that again", rather than discarding past behaviour as irrelevant.

And you know what....you don't even believe it yourself Chill. If you did, then what the hell does it matter if Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of his own people using WMDs over a decade ago??? Its in teh past, right? Utterly irrelevant, right?

Whats that you say? Those bits of history aren't irrelevant? Its just the ones which are inconvenient for your dogma then, perhaps?

The US policy of hte past is highly relevant, because the US isn't acknowledging its own hand in creating the problem. The reason this is relevant is because this is one of the root causes. The US is attacking a symptom of a problem because it refuses to acknowledge that its own historical foreign policy is a key aspect of the problem. It won't admit it beause that might cause people to look at current foreign policy a bit closer. It won't admit it because it might bring about some degree of liability. It won't admit it because once you look past the vast numbers of foreigners and "Joe Q Public" Americans getting killed in the fighting....US policy is about as good as it can be for big business, and thats good for everyone....right?

The past is irrelevant? Whatever next....

jc

bonkey

chill wrote:

The truth is of course that it was a safe haven for terrorists all through Saddam's brutal rule because he and his regime were a Terrorist regime that terrorised and brutalised and abused the people of Iraq.

I was going to point out the glaring flaws in this, until I saw a much better way...

...its yet another "argument" from Chill which begins with the words "the truth is". I'll let you figure out the rest.

jc

Moriarty

I'm overjoyed to be singled out as the part-subject of a thread, but there's one minor technical problem. I don't remember ever claiming to support the war.

Good work on the copy and paste though, keep it up.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know. I was simply pointing out that this event proved nothing about Israel's need for nukes.

Anyway staying away from Israel and back to Iraq....

Indeed...

Many of the forumites are far to willing to believe that every thing the Americans do has an ulterior motive with the express purpose of being anti-Iraqi or whatever.

Agreed.

I think that makes all three of us then

What title? You're all dreaming...

OK...I edited it.

jc

chill

bonkey wrote:

But chill...the only posts of yours which make those points are the ones like this where you state that this is your position. Every post where you actually get involved in discussing a point, its to defend the actions of the US military and the US administration.

Wrong. That is the result of reading posts only for the pojnts you want to see.

I never defend the US admin for anything except the merefact that they are there in the war and that I agree with that. I also defend the military when I believe they are being wrongly criticised.
There are a few nutters in every army and the US army is no different, but the US army and the UK army does not kill civilians intentionally and the commanders do what they are told to, tactically... hence the incompetence of the campaign.

To post time and time again telling people that X is only anti-Bushism / media spin / anti-militarism / loony-leftism, when X is anything critical of the war in Iraq, the US army's tactics, the death-toll, the ideology behind the thing, etc. etc. kinda undermines the occasional assertion that 99.999% of what is done there you disagree with and that your posts reflect this.

Wrong again. I attack people's posts for being anti american or just wrong when they deliberately mix and match issues that suit their point of view. I prefer to separate out individual issues and criticise or justify them on their own merit.

Too many people cannot get past their vitriolic opposition to the justification for the war when they argue about the war itself and related issues. Too many people buy into every stupid report that originates in any godforesaken media outlet that knocks the soldiers or whoever, 'solely' because it serves their original disapproval of the REASONS for the war.
I am sick of people who are so consumed by their opposition to the justification for the war that they deliberately ignore the brutal history of Saddam, they deliberately ignore the slaughter by the terrorists and insurgants and who pounce conveniently on any and every dubious report that civilians were killled, when the truth is that the vast majority of these are caused by the terrorists themselves and their actions and not those of the military. It's not good enough that they excuse this by claiming equal condemnation - that is just a pathetic justification.
People who are so consumed by their ideology and distaste for the US adminstrations over the years that they allow that to dominate their views, resulting in a cynicism and indifference to the suffering of other people's around the world, and who therefore prefer nothing to be done to help those people just because it is the US that takes those actions, have no respect from me

Essey

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!
Daddy is oil important?
Of course not - hear in Ireland our cars run on water - that's why it rains so much.
Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not. If a country is experiencing tyranny - well that's too bad! You see we are the only people who should be free - except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them! and there was the Bosnian situation - the UN stuck its beak in there. I tell you my petal if Saddam was running France - we wouldn't be so critical of the Yanks - remember WWII? If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.
So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid - OOH we cant do that we aren't in Iraq. Now there is a dilemma.
Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can - we embrace terrorism and insurgency here! We love the under dog. Its our culture. Now go to bed - your irritating me!

Hairy Homer

chill wrote:

.
Thankfully the people of Iraq will be given a chance to take their destiny in their own hands for the first time in generations.
QUOTE]

So why weren't they able to do that in 1920 after the British had 'liberated' them from the Ottoman Turks? Why did they rebel against the British-imposed Hashemite kingdom, to such an extent that some pioneering 'Air Control' methods (ie dropping bombs on villages) were deployed against them by a young officer named Harris who would go on to indulge himself on a much bigger canvas in WWII?

Why couldn't they 'take their destiny in their own hands' in the Second World War during which they were once again invaded by Britain?

What's so different about the Brits invading this time?

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

I attack people's posts for being anti american

That means nothing. Nothing at all. You anti-worldist you.

mycroft

Essey wrote:

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!
Daddy is oil important?
Of course not - hear in Ireland our cars run on water - that's why it rains so much.
Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not. If a country is experiencing tyranny - well that's too bad! You see we are the only people who should be free - except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them! and there was the Bosnian situation - the UN stuck its beak in there. I tell you my petal if Saddam was running France - we wouldn't be so critical of the Yanks - remember WWII? If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.
So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid - OOH we cant do that we aren't in Iraq. Now there is a dilemma.
Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can - we embrace terrorism and insurgency here! We love the under dog. Its our culture. Now go to bed - your irritating me!

1, Would that be the chemical weapons that members of the curren administration sold him in the 80s. Yup.

2. We know about the oil stupid most of us have called for the development of renewable and new energy sources.

4. This administration has killed 100,000 people while bringing them freedom. They now want freedom from their liberators who are trying to create a puppet state they can suck dry.

5. You're forgetting the true freers of europe the soviets. They lost more people and suffered more hardship than the rest of the allies combined and bled germany dry. Really anyone who knows anything about WW2 can tell you that. And hell if it wasn't for two votes during the drafting of the decleration of independence america's national language would be german. Don't brow beat us with history we know more than you.

And the last bit is really just too stupid to respond to.

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

Daddy - was Saddam a nice man?
Of course dear - why do you ask?
Well he threw Chemicals on the Kurds and killed tens of thousands of them.
Well dear there were too many of them any way. Gassing people is an effective way to get rid of them - just ask our friends the Germans!

But daddy didn't the US supply Saddam with those weapons to begin with? Did I not see Donald Rumsfield shake his hand!

Why is America really bad?
Well my tidbit - Yanks believe in spreading democracy - Hear in Europe we do not.

So Daddy why did the US implement a puppet government in Iraq along with a constitution that allows corporations to rape Iraqs resources and put many iraqis out of business? Also why did they block anyone who might win an election that didn't fit in with the US agenda from running in this democracy?

except of course for the European Jews but those stupid Yanks stopped us from gassing them - blast them!

Ooh Daddy I didn't realise we were nazi war criminals. Should we not be on the run?

If it wasn't for the Yanks we would all be speaking German now - and that would be bad - there are some German words that are as long as the bible! But don't tell the French I said that - you know how testy they can be.

But daddy didn't the US almost pick German as their national language over English at one point? Also didn't the US sit on its ass for the beginning of WWII? Also Daddy WTF has WWII got to do with Saddam?

Should we always be thanking those people who "saved our asses" in previous wars? If so should we be thanking the French for saving the US asses in the American war of independance?

So Daddy if Bin Laden blows up Dublin - will we be safer?
No dear - we would run away like our good amigos in Madrid

But Daddy didn't Spain vote against their government not because AQ bombed them but because the government tried to blame ETA in an attempt to politically score points from the deaths of its population?

Can Bin Laden do whatever he wants?
Well that's a silly question - of course he can

I guess your right Daddy considering Bush did sod all to try and capture him and even entered into a deal with Pakistan shortly after 9/11 to not have him captured if he was found in Pakistan. Not to mention the CIA also trained OBL to begin with.

Redleslie2

Hobbes wrote:

But daddy didn't the US almost pick German as their national language over English at one point?

Bit of a myth that I think. But daddy might want to explain the German contribution to America by waves of immigrants like the forty-eighters.

bonkey

chill wrote:

I never defend the US admin for anything except the merefact that they are there in the war and that I agree with that.

Well, I'm looking at the original post of this thread, and your response, and you dismiss its entirety with the following comment: "Typical looney left propaganda mixed with personalising the argument. Sad really."

Reading through that original post, I can see that it raises a number of issues other than just that the US admin is in the war.

It looks at the frequently-shifting excuses of the Administration you profess not to defend, and asks some rather awkward questions (albeit with tongue in cheek) about how the US accepts from other nations what it condemned Iraq for according to its "official" reasoning. You dismissed this as propaganda, and yet now claim that the only thing you support is that the US are in the war???

I also defend the military when I believe they are being wrongly criticised.

Yes you do. Most typically by stating that any and all information which leads to the criticism must be wrong, because....you have a high opinion of the army. And I'd have no problem if you made it clear when doing this that it was only ever an opinion....but you often neglect to include that bit.

the US army and the UK army does not kill civilians intentionally

And again, you forget to mention that this is just an opinion, and that you have absolutely no facts or figures to back this up. However, any facts and figures which others produce are discarded by you as immediately suspect just because you disagree, apparently.

and the commanders do what they are told to, tactically... hence the incompetence of the campaign.

So let me get this straight...

The commanders do what they are told. The grunts are (by and large) doing what the commanders tell them to. What is coming from the top is therefore what is leading to the incompetence of the campaign...

OK...I've no problem with that.

But what if the instructions at the top tell the army to do something unprofessional/illegal or something which will inevitably lead to excessive civilian casualties? What if Rummie or someone bsically ordered an Iraqi Mai Lai? What happens then? By your logic...the commanders would do what they're told because they're professional soldiers, but wouldn't do what they're told because professional soldiers don't kill civilians. How do they manage both?

Now...there hasn't been a Mai Lai. What there has been, amongst other things, is an awful lot of questionable activity in prisons, and a rather large amount of evidence suggesting that teh Administration - in their incompetence - were looking seriously at how far they could push the treatment of prisoners whilst avoiding international censure for torture.

Wrong again. I attack people's posts for being anti american or just wrong

Both of which are euphemisms for "of a different opinion to me" really....

I prefer to separate out individual issues and criticise or justify them on their own merit.

Really? I thought your whole defence of the individual issues that the army gets accused of was based on a general belief that the army is too professional to do things wrong. Sounds to me like you're blurring all of the individual issues together there, so that one simple basic belief serves as the answer to any and all criticism...not seperating the individual issues.

Too many people cannot get past their vitriolic opposition to the justification for the war when they argue about the war itself and related issues.

And too many other people casually dismiss any and all criticism of the war as this, anti-anericanism, or just plain misinformation....

Too many people buy into every stupid report that originates in any godforesaken media outlet that knocks the soldiers or whoever,

Yes they do, but Chill....that doesn't mean that all of the criticism is baseless which seems to be your opening stance.

I am sick of people who are so consumed by their opposition to the justification for the war that they deliberately ignore the brutal history of Saddam,

Personally speaking I don't see the life of the average Iraqi today being any better as it was under Saddam. I have relatively little faith in the ability of the US/UK - no matter how pure and honourable their intentions (which I also have doubts about) - to manage to enact a significant lasting improvement.

You have that faith. For the Iraqi's sake, I'd be much happier if you were the one who was right....I just don't believe you will be.

they deliberately ignore the slaughter by the terrorists and insurgants and who pounce conveniently on any and every dubious report that civilians were killled, when the truth is that the vast majority of these are caused by the terrorists themselves d their actions and not those of the military.

And again I will point out that you are passing off opinion as fact. This is not the truth, it is only your belief.

It's not good enough that they excuse this by claiming equal condemnation - that is just a pathetic justification.

In your opinion, perhaps. Personally, I think your one-sided attitude is as abhorrent as those which are diametrically opposed to the other side. I think anyone who can fully demonise or vindicate either side is guilty of over-simplifying the issue.....and I will continue to challenge anyone on either side who does it.

resulting in a cynicism and indifference to the suffering of other people's around the world,

I don't believe the US is in Iraq to ease anyone's suffering. It might come as a populous-pleasing side-benefit, but it is not why they are there.

I also don't believe that bringing war, terrorists, and an incredibly uncertain future to a nation in place of an oppressive regime is particularly a humane move either. Again, you would differ - presumably either because you appear to have faith in the outcome which I lack, or perhaps because you think that
even if it fails the effort was worth making.

I, on the other hand, feel that the incompetence of the Adminstration is risking whatever small chance of success such a move would ever have had, and that playing God with other nations' lives (i.e. try to make it better, but hey...if you made it worse...thats ok, because at least you tried) is simply not a smart or globally-stabilising thing to do. There were other options to war. Hell - there are other options to war being persued with several other countries because they're too tough to go to war with. And you know whats funny.....I believe those other moves will ultimately prove more successful than invasion.

and who therefore prefer nothing to be done to help those people just because it is the US that takes those actions, have no respect from me

And again we see the binary oversimplification....

What about those who say "this is the wrong way to do it"? Not "don't do anything", but "do something else"???

jc

Hobbes

Redleslie2 wrote:

Bit of a myth that I think. But daddy might want to explain the German contribution to America by waves of immigrants like the forty-eighters.

Indeed your correct, just checked snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

Well you learn something new every day.

Moriarty

Hairy Homer wrote:

What's so different about the Brits invading this time?

The lack of colonial ambition, as a start.

popinfresh

The Iraqis see the Americans as being an evil occupying force (they may very well be correct :rolleyes:). And so they choose to fight. The Americans promised to liberate Iraq, not occupy it. What the Americans need to do is pull out!!! and by pull out that could mean moving down to some hell-hole in the south of the country. If a military intervention is needed somewhere in the country, then they should go and sort it out. The current situation is baaaad. Iraq is yet to be liberated. It is being occupied. The Iraqi government may as well be the American government. Iraqis hate the patroling US soldiers, and the patroling US soldiers are being killed. Pull out of the cities. Iraqi people don't feel liberated, that's why they're fighting. Stay away from the cities, unless they are needed there. It makes sense!!!!!, And let the Iraqi people decide the faith of their country.