Terrorist supporters in UCD

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

I read the same media you read but I also read beyond... that is the difference between us. Maybe I am hyper-democratic in that I can see both sides of the question.

Really? Let me remind you of this:

boneless wrote:

The fact that polls show most people are satisfied with the situation in Iraq does not hold water, in my opinion. Polls, and indeed elections, can and have been rigged all through history.

Seems to me like you are not willing to 'read beyond' at all.

boneless wrote:

I do not support the death or killing of anyone!

Really? Let me remind you of this:

boneless wrote:

I support all anti-imperialist secular and progressive forces striving to free their land from both the illegal invasion and the Islamic fundamentalists who would want a Taliban type society in Iraq.

You either support terrorism or you don't.

boneless wrote:

Do you support the murder and torture of innocent Iraqis by the so called security consultants employed by the big trans-national organisations bleeding Iraq dry? Did you see the footage from the prisons? Did you see the footage of these security consultants driving along the highway and shooting at random targets? Have you read or seen the interviews with US and other troops where they confirmed the murder of civilians?

Of course I oppose the minority of US troops who have disgraced themselves through their conduct. Thankfully, America is a nation that takes responsibility for any transgressions and which requires accountability.

boneless wrote:

I would like to invite you to meet me at the wall outside Hilpers so we can engage in a face to face debate on these and other issues. You may be surprised that we share some of the same concerns and I might even be able to introduce you to some people who think that we both have valid concerns and who even hold views on the subject which both of us will disagree with.

I'm sure we would share some of the same concerns but I'm not interested in political matters on campus (I don't seem to be interested in studying politics on campus either regrettably...)

boneless

Do you believe all polls are representitive and are not massaged to give a desired result? As I stated, I do read beyond the main... you should try it.

The forces I support in Iraq are progressive and secular. If you bothered reading up on the situation you would be able to identify them. Do you believe that a terrorist is someone who disagrees with you? Struggle is not by arms alone.

I will treat your blind acceptance that the troops in the illegal occupation of Iraq are all saints, bar a couple, as another example of your ignorance on the entire situation in that region... even the BBC questioned the actions of the occupation forces (see, I do look at the BBC). The US only acted after the fact; and only against the lower ranks. What about the 'security consultants'?

That you state you do not get involved in campus politics begs the question. Why did you post this thread in the first place?

I would like an answer to my question as to whether you have any reason to disbelieve my opposition to Saddam and his regime in the 80's.

panda100

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

boneless, perhaps you neglected to read the media sources which showed the Iraqi people welcoming the invasion of Iraq.

Remove the blinkers. I have no problem with those who opposed the invasion as I stated in my last post. That invasion is now over though.

?

Ah MNG,where does one begin!
The invasion IS over you are correct!So why are UK and US forces not withdrawing from Iraq.Shannon is an airport I use frequently and the numbers of US soldiers in shannon are far from decresing if anything there is more and more going over there each week.If the occupation is over why are so many soldiers still being flown to Iraq?

Secondly,i dont know where you get your opinion polls from but It is pretty clear that he overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq want an end to the occupation.The us and uk forces have killed 10's of thousand in Iraq now and its time the soldiers left normal civilians to rebuild their lives.

I am like you also,i am far from a bush and blair basher.I dont think seb does the anti war movement any justice by saying f*uck bush and f*ck blair-this is an old stereotype.I am against the occupation because the soldiers presence stiffles the growth of a poltical Islam.In Iran at the moment there is many democratic,pro active groups emerging,which want a fairer,modern society and equality for women.
However, rather than fostering these progressive movements within Iranian society, the US has categorised Iran as a rogue state over the last ten years. In fact, the US war on terror has contributed greatly to the radicalising of populations in the Middle East. Young people - who may otherwise be drawn to these sort of modernising movements - are angered by US arrogance towards fellow Muslim populations in Iraq and Palestine, and are more likely to be drawn into anti-American militancy. Doesn't this remind you of some parrallels to our country under English rule?
Our media over here is disgracefu-we are spun lies everyday about political islam.All we hear about is mad extremists and suicide bombers,these are a huge minority.The majority of political Islam is made up of partys and groups very much just wanting a fairer and peaceful society for their children.For example a group that gets no media recognition over here is an egyptian party,slowly growing in support called 'cafir cafir' which means 'enough is enough'.How can these partys grow when the west is so against and ignorant to a political Islam,something which Bushand blair by the occupation of Iran have reinforced to us westeners.

Mr.Nice Guy

boneless wrote:

Do you believe all polls are representitive and are not massaged to give a desired result? As I stated, I do read beyond the main... you should try it.

I believe in trusting the wishes of the people. You seem to believe the Iraqi people polled have the intellect of children. I choose to trust their intelligence. Seeing as polls PRIOR to the invasion welcomed one, I can't see how that would have been orchestrated to give a desired result. It's not exactly a poll asking if you prefer Coke or Pepsi. It's a serious issue. Also, I do read beyond the main. My mind is not closed...unlike some people I can think of...

boneless wrote:

The forces I support in Iraq are progressive and secular. If you bothered reading up on the situation you would be able to identify them.

LOL. Go ahead then and tell me who they are if you think you know about these issues better than myself.

boneless wrote:

I will treat your blind acceptance that the troops in the illegal occupation of Iraq are all saints, bar a couple, as another example of your ignorance on the entire situation in that region

Oh forgive me but I don tar all American troops as nasty. Sorry...

boneless wrote:

... even the BBC questioned the actions of the occupation forces (see, I do look at the BBC).

Wow imagine the leftist BBC doing that! Funny how you accept the BBC's word only when it suits you. For instance, you don't accept their polls!

boneless wrote:

That you state you do not get involved in campus politics begs the question. Why did you post this thread in the first place?

I don't follow you. How does the fact I choose to stay apolitical on campus mean I cannot take an interest in political matters?

boneless wrote:

I would like an answer to my question as to whether you have any reason to disbelieve my opposition to Saddam and his regime in the 80's.

I'll take your word for it.

panda100 wrote:

Ah MNG,where does one begin!
The invasion IS over you are correct!So why are UK and US forces not withdrawing from Iraq.

Because of the terrorists blowing people up maybe? Do you think?

panda100 wrote:

Shannon is an airport I use frequently and the numbers of US soldiers in shannon are far from decresing if anything there is more and more going over there each week.If the occupation is over why are so many soldiers still being flown to Iraq?

It was announced last year that US troops won't be utilising Shannon in future. Shannon is a non-issue in my view.

panda100 wrote:

Secondly,i dont know where you get your opinion polls from but It is pretty clear that he overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq want an end to the occupation.The us and uk forces have killed 10's of thousand in Iraq now and its time the soldiers left normal civilians to rebuild their lives.

You might want to look at this for starters and the recent BBC poll.

panda100 wrote:

In Iran at the moment there is many democratic,pro active groups emerging,which want a fairer,modern society and equality for women.

Um, you are aware that Iran is run by a madman who has called for the destruction of Israel and who is reportedly seeking nuclear weapons?

panda100 wrote:

However, rather than fostering these progressive movements within Iranian society, the US has categorised Iran as a rogue state over the last ten years.

Not just the US. Many countries, including EU countries and Ireland!

I think Iran is a real danger to world security.

Riamfada

:eek:

Fighting Irish

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Have a read of this tripe from the "recently revived UCD Anti-War Group".

In particular have a read of this disgraceful quote:



It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

:rolleyes: the US and UK ****ed up they will never bring peace to Iraq, anyone who got killed over there knew before they went what they were getting into, not that im happy they got killed but if they wanted to sit next to danger thats there problem

Samos

Back to the original post:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it's quite another to want the US and the UK to fail in their efforts to bring democracy to the country.

I'm disgusted that people who go to my college are against the US and UK who are fighting the scumbags who murdered Irish-born Margaret Hassan and who decapitated Ken Bigley, who the Irish government worked hard to save.

It's a damn disgrace. Shame on these idiots.

It is difficult to disagree that the message to which you refer is laden with superlatives and emotionally-charged phrases, but it does not follow that its writer does not want democracy in Iraq. He simply objects to the use of war to achieve this, and also includes some misgivings about the rule and intentions of their governments. However the message has succeeded in provoking debate and exposing the inconsistencies in the views of those who partake.

Very few people want the UK and US to fail in bringing democracy to the region: they have failed already... because they used flawed motivations to justify their actions, which in themselves were irredeemable. Democracy does not preclude imposing one's will upon others, nor of the use of force, or of interferring in the interests of others when they have no affect on oneself.

There is no gratification derived from the irony that the USA and the UK governments (and others) preach freedom and democracy, and campaign against WMDs, while they possess more weapons and missiles than anyone else, and fail in being paragons of governmental responsibility. This fact is borne out in Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners are held and (apparently) tortured without prospect of a fair trial. Even citizens of USA and Britain have had their freedom curtailed by the Patriot Act and govermental surveillance so that this "freedom" may be guaranteed!

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these nations' intentions do not solely include the desire to allow political freedom in select countries, but involve an arrogant pride that their way of life is superior, and ought to be imposed on others, even if this requires force. What business does a nation like the USA have in seeking foothold in another? To exploit the resources, labour and markets that this would provide, perhaps? Or to wield increased domination and enrich its citizens along narrow definitons of what is right and valuable?

If this mockery of the idea of "democracy" extrolled by America and its allies were so great, why does it not become successful and popular on its own merits, instead of being imposed by armed or market forces? It is purely because the the leadership and econmic models that we see in America have deep ingrained flaws. These require unbridled consumption of resources, a neglect for the environment, selective regard for the welfare those who fall outside of the jurisdiction of the States, domination of global trade on terms that are beneficial only for its citizens. In short, a nation espousing ideals of liberation and equality, while simultaneously ignoring these when it becomes inconvenient does not warrant acclaim, especially from those who have suffered these double standards.

We have a chance to ameliorate the injustices we see in America, Iraq and our very own doorstep. Branding Bush, Blair, anti-wars protestors or anyone else as raving idiots will not achieve this objective, nor will blindly following them. You must think for yourself about what is right and always question authority.

Mr.Nice Guy

While ignoring the silly post before yours Samos, I would just take issue with what you say here:

Samos wrote:

Very few people want the UK and US to fail in bringing democracy to the region: they have failed already...

I disagree completely. There was a VERY high turnout for the recent Iraqi elections. A turnout that put most Western nations to shame, especially considering the danger that the people faced.

As I've said, it's one thing to take issue with how the Iraq war came about, but let's all hope for Iraq to have a bright future. A dictator has been removed and if the extremists can be defeated, the country will have a chance at democracy and stability.

Phrases like "We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat" are unhelpful.

Samos

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I disagree completely. There was a VERY high turnout for the recent Iraqi elections. A turnout that put most Western nations to shame, especially considering the danger that the people faced.

That is correct. However, I was referring more to the methods used to achieve this, which were completely objectionable and destructive, and defeated the point of democracy, i.e. freedom to choose. Waging war, maiming civilians and disregarding international law are not components of a real democracy, and as long as certain nations engage in these activities their claims to possess superior govenmental systems will face strong objections.

Vic Mackey

A picture I saw in a recent issue of TIME magazine showed a main street in iraq before the invasion (bustling, full of people, cars, shops..........resembling o,connell street on a busy saturday)

and after the invasion (deserted, burned out cars everywhere, boarded up windows, broken glass etc).


So i say............................WELL DONE AMERICA, YOU REALLY HAVE FU#KED IRAQ UP! :mad:

scop

Oh my I mean God bless Ameikaaa, land of the free.

What idiots.

panda100

Vic Mackey wrote:

A picture I saw in a recent issue of TIME magazine showed a main street in iraq before the invasion (bustling, full of people, cars, shops..........resembling o,connell street on a busy saturday)

and after the invasion (deserted, burned out cars everywhere, boarded up windows, broken glass etc).


So i say............................WELL DONE AMERICA, YOU REALLY HAVE FU#KED IRAQ UP! :mad:

I agree with MNG in so far as why are we always blaming America?Us europeans have as much to do with this dirty war as the Americans do.I hate this anti-american and anti bush feeling that has sprung up,its pathetic.Most anti-war protestors in Irealnd are just protesting cos they hate Bush and what he stands for, instead of wanting a peacful and democtatic middle east.

Bringing this back to a UCD matter,it is absolutely disgraceful how the anti war protestors took away the unions protest about modularisation and turned it completly into an anti-shannon protest at Bertie.

Stabshauptmann

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The US freed a country that was ruled by a madman and his family.

The US didnt go to war for that reason. They went to war on the issue of WMDs.
The problem is everyone "knows" what the real motivation was, motivations which keep changing. Now you could argue that why they went to war, or stated they went to war is irrelevant, because in the end they did the right thing.

The US supported Saddam and other dictators around the world for decades.
The US still supports dictators. The US still topples and undermines democratically elected governments in the developing world.

Most Iraqis prior to the invasion welcomed an invasion and in a recent poll, most Iraqis expressed satisfaction in the efforts of the Iraqi government.

One should look at the sources, intentions/interests and methodology of such polls. In a country as large, diverse and chatoic as iraq such surveys are near impossible to carry out.

The coverage of the war in Iraq has been addmittedly biased by those covering it in the US and not a whole lot better here in europe.

So they have the right to be heard but people like me who disagree with them have to shut up? I suggest people who spout their pro-terrorist bullsh*t shut up.

You could be argued to be spouting pro terrorist bull****.
*The US invasion was illegal
*The methods used has a definite and calculated psychological element
*Methods used by troops were illegal and inhumane
*Weapons used such as mines are prohibited by the UN
*Weapons used such as cluster bombs are not prohibited by the UN (due to US veto) but are descibed as inhumane and intended to inflict maximum suffering upon civilians

Since the US took control of Iraq the existing infrastructure has been demolished. Cities went without running water and electricity for months.
Large parts of the county begame under the control of different factions for months after the US had said hostilities had ended.
Over 100,000 civilians have died violent deaths.
There has been no improvement in the level of deaths due to malnutrition or disease - something the UN human rights commission said before the war was
the direct result of sanctions on Iraq.

We could debate the means vs ends debate for centuries and not come to a definitive answer. Personally, I believe no good can come from an evil act, and when I walk backwards from that extreme position I find myself unable to support the end justifies the means arguement, especially when the end so far doesnt seem a huge improvement.

I'm sure the Brits said the same about the German aid given to the 1916 rebels and the French aid given to the United Irishmen in efforts to attain Irish freedom and I wager you regard that as noble, am I right?

You have to love the hypocrisy of some anti-war supporters. Foreign efforts to grant Ireland freedom - OK. Foreign efforts to grant Iraqis freedom - evil.

Typical blarney bullsh*t.

We asked for aid, the Iraqi people didnt ask for the puppetmasters who have been responsible for their suffering to violently come in and replace the puppet, without any improvement in their lot.

Iraq WILL be allowed to govern itself because the Americans have removed Iraq's dictator. Why don't you thank them instead of p*ssing all over them like most people?

They changed the puppet. Oil business men and ex CIA men. Yeah, very representitive governemnt,

If the people in this college had any balls they would stand up to scumbags who espouse sick support for terrorists.

There are no good guys in Iraq. Terrorists fighting terrorists. My only symaphy is for the Iraqi civilian population. The Iraqi people have been pissed on for as long as they can remember by foreign powers. Finding oil was a curse.

ferdi

part of college life is the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/

go to pentagon channel live.

scary ****.

panda100

ferdi wrote:

part of college life is the free exchange of ideas and opinions.



QUOTE]

Something I wholeheatly agree with!But isnt it amazing how most of the lefts in UCD who are involved in the UCD anti war war group dont allow the free exchange of ideas and opinions when its not THEIR ideas and opinions.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The US didnt go to war for that reason. They went to war on the issue of WMDs.
The problem is everyone "knows" what the real motivation was, motivations which keep changing. Now you could argue that why they went to war, or stated they went to war is irrelevant, because in the end they did the right thing.

They found and removed a WMD - his name was Saddam.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

One should look at the sources, intentions/interests and methodology of such polls. In a country as large, diverse and chatoic as iraq such surveys are near impossible to carry out.

Hardly , but you're entitled to your opinion.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The coverage of the war in Iraq has been addmittedly biased by those covering it in the US and not a whole lot better here in europe.

If you mean the glorification of the terrorists, who have been termed 'insurgents', then I agree.

Kaptain Redrye wrote:

You could be argued to be spouting pro terrorist bull****.

Not at all.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

*The US invasion was illegal
*The methods used has a definite and calculated psychological element
*Methods used by troops were illegal and inhumane
*Weapons used such as mines are prohibited by the UN
*Weapons used such as cluster bombs are not prohibited by the UN (due to US veto) but are descibed as inhumane and intended to inflict maximum suffering upon civilians

It's all relative. Was it legal for Saddam to murder his own people just because he ran the country? I say no.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Since the US took control of Iraq the existing infrastructure has been demolished. Cities went without running water and electricity for months.
Large parts of the county begame under the control of different factions for months after the US had said hostilities had ended.
Over 100,000 civilians have died violent deaths.
There has been no improvement in the level of deaths due to malnutrition or disease - something the UN human rights commission said before the war was
the direct result of sanctions on Iraq.

Similar arguments could have been made in Germany in 1945...

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

We could debate the means vs ends debate for centuries and not come to a definitive answer. Personally, I believe no good can come from an evil act, and when I walk backwards from that extreme position I find myself unable to support the end justifies the means arguement, especially when the end so far doesnt seem a huge improvement.

Personally I don't think the intentions of countries like the US, the UK and Australia were evil and I think sometimes there are reasons to fight.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

We asked for aid, the Iraqi people didnt ask for the puppetmasters who have been responsible for their suffering to violently come in and replace the puppet, without any improvement in their lot.

In the case of the United Irishmen, we asked for troops which we got. And at the time of the Easter Rising most Irish people would have looked on the event as 'evil'. Didn't you say no good can come from an evil act? Like I said, it's all relative.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

They changed the puppet. Oil business men and ex CIA men. Yeah, very representitive governemnt,

This old chestnut again. 'It was the oil!', 'It was Bush carrying out his father's wishes!', etc. Zzzzz.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

There are no good guys in Iraq. Terrorists fighting terrorists.

Nonsense.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

My only symaphy is for the Iraqi civilian population.

One wonders if you had as much sympathy for them when Saddam was ruling them.

100% he got in one of his 'democratic' elections. Still that was all legal, wasn't it?

Vic Mackey

I am in no way a lefty, at best im just right of centre. but generally i can be quite right wing.

it is not just pinko leftys who oppose the war.

Basically, the u.s do whatever suits them at whatever time. they armed the taliban against the soviets, then they armed the kurds against the taliban, thaen they invaded afghanistan.

they are running out of oil, and they fear unfriendly middle eastern countries (like iran, iraq) will refuse to sell it to them so they invade iraq.

i ask you mr.nice guy.........where are the wmds that iraq are supposed to have? Do you think the u.s led invasion is lawful (despite the fact that it has gone against the un) ?

(btw i am not anti american.......my flatmate is from virginia and hes the soundest guy you could meet, just like the vast majority of americans....its their government who are pricks)

arbeitsscheuer

Vic Mackey wrote:

(btw i am not anti american.......my flatmate is from virginia and hes the soundest guy you could meet, just like the vast majority of americans....its their government who are pricks)

Hear hear!

Mr.Nice Guy

Vic Mackey wrote:

i ask you mr.nice guy.........where are the wmds that iraq are supposed to have?

I already answered that:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They found and removed a WMD - his name was Saddam.

Vic Mackey wrote:

Do you think the u.s led invasion is lawful (despite the fact that it has gone against the un) ?

Saddam went against the UN's 19 resolutions and the UN did nothing.

I believe 'law' is relative. For example, technically speaking, Ireland was breaking international law when the old Articles 2 and 3, since amended, laid claim to the north of Ireland.

Did we care at the time? No.

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

Bringing this back to a UCD matter,it is absolutely disgraceful how the anti war protestors took away the unions protest about modularisation and turned it completly into an anti-shannon protest at Bertie.

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About.

pretty*monster

Vainglory wrote:

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About.

Seconded

Chinafoot

Well.....I'm not going to claim to know all the ins and outs of this occupation cos lets face it, bugger all people know all thats going on. However, personally I believe that its an illegal occupation and that troops should be taken out of Iraq.

You can't fight terrorism with more terrorism.

vannistelrooy10

look at what has happened in the middle east because of those pictures, look at 9/11.that part of the world are lunatics, they are protesting against a stereotype of all muslims being terrorists??? well they are going about the right way of proving it wrong arnt they.as reguards 9/11 if that was ireland we would want blood, all you do gooders who are anti war better get real the usa is a ****ing great country and yes i have been there, if it wasnt for them most of you would be either exterminated or be speaking german.
i say give them a warning and then drop a few nukes on the middle east eg iran, iraq, palestine then well see what that desert rat bin laden does.

Vic Mackey

so mr.nice guy, the law is relative?

seems to me you have the same mindset as the bush administration.........its right, lawful, justified and good whenever the hell we think and say it is!

Yea saddam was a vicious dick, but their are dozens of these people ruling countries around the world! bush is just interested in iraq cos of its oil!

who was the only country ever to have dropped a wmd on people.....................? AMERICA!!!!

and vannistelrooy10..........HEIL MEIN FUHRER!
yea, lets nuke all the men, women and children inda middle east..good decision.

ever thought of joining the u.s republican party?

(this chap just proves my point...most pro war, pro bush people are ignorant trigger happy idiots (i dont include mr.nice guy in this, his arguments are structered...while i dont agree with him, i have respect for his views) )

Mr.Nice Guy

Vic Mackey wrote:

so mr.nice guy, the law is relative?

Yes.

Vic Mackey wrote:

seems to me you have the same mindset as the bush administration.........its right, lawful, justified and good whenever the hell we think and say it is!

Answer me something. Was Ireland breaking international law by its former Articles 2 and 3 which laid claim to the 6 counties in the North?

Vic Mackey wrote:

who was the only country ever to have dropped a wmd on people.....................? AMERICA!!!!

Well I believe that this was justified as it stopped WW2 and saved lives but it's a controversial issue.

Stabshauptmann

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They found and removed a WMD - his name was Saddam.

Jokes aside though, they admited their intelligence was flawed and have officially given up the search after finding othing

Hardly , but you're entitled to your opinion.

We shouldnt look at the intentions and vested interests of those supposedly reporting the news? Sounds like blissful ignorance

If you mean the glorification of the terrorists, who have been termed 'insurgents', then I agree.

Terrorist is a subjective word with varying definitions which people use to suit their own opinions. Its easy to show how the label can be attached to the USA. Insurgents has a clear definition which obviously applies to those fighting in Iraq. You can hold an opinion without loosing sight of objectivity and people will resect you, even if they disagree with you.

Not at all.

lol
Well which part of the list of activities the USA has admitted to carring out could not in theory be the actions of a terrorist organisation. A little bit more than your wrong is needed for a rebuttal

It's all relative. Was it legal for Saddam to murder his own people just because he ran the country? I say no.

Fair play! But doesnt that bring us back to my first point, that that's not the stated reason for going to war?
And its also incredibly short sighted. America put Saddam in power. It was with american weapons he killed those people.
The anti-war movement wasnt about leaving Saddam in power, it was a protest against the means being used to remove him

Similar arguments could have been made in Germany in 1945...

Damn straight, incidry bombs were nothing short of murder and bomber Harris was a war criminal. Same goes for the atom bombs in Japan.
But I think your point wasnt about those particular methods but the results of prolonged fighting in general? WW2 was over 5 years, hostilities ended in Iraq officially after a couple of months.

The methods employed by america forces for many years has been one of distant attacts via missiles and airplanes, one that substitutes accuracy for safety and has substantially increased civilian death. The ratio of enlisted to civilian death during periods of war has gone from 80:20 in 1900 to 20:80 by 2002. (I read this in a religious book of all places but the figures were quoted from the UN human rights commission and the same ratio appeared in another book I read by chompsky so Im fairly satisfied with it).

If the point of the war was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of a despot then it failed because the Iraqi people have only suffered more, however the stated motivation was that of WMDs, and since they werent present, there is no justification for the suffering and casualties inflicted on the Iraqi people

Personally I don't think the intentions of countries like the US, the UK and Australia were evil and I think sometimes there are reasons to fight.

How can you judge intentions you dont know?

In the case of the United Irishmen, we asked for troops which we got. And at the time of the Easter Rising most Irish people would have looked on the event as 'evil'. Didn't you say no good can come from an evil act? Like I said, it's all relative.

You sidestepped my point so I'll put it in bold, in both the cases YOU brought up, which I havent commended or condemned, someone asked for aid. But leaving aside whether assistance was asked for or not, the point is the USA is not helping the Iraqi people, it is removing the dictator it appointed and replaced him with a provisional government of their choosing. So far their has been no improvement to the ordinary Iraqi's lot

This old chestnut again. 'It was the oil!', 'It was Bush carrying out his father's wishes!', etc. Zzzzz.

Since I already said I think it laughable when people use those lines, you're obviously clutching at straws in an attempt to dilute my points. The head of the provisional government was an exCIA man. There were oil related business men in the government. Facts. There was a distinct lack of representation of ordinary Iraqi concerns, my opinion.

Nonsense.

Cant muster more than one word to debate the point? The war in Iraq is not black and white and tbh I cant support either of the two sides intentions or methods. The list of abuse and illegality on both side is as long and well documented. So I put it to you, there are no good guys in Iraq.

One wonders if you had as much sympathy for them when Saddam was ruling them.

Yes, my only acts of activism was long before 9/11 and when it became trendy to be anti american. I was against saddam, east timor, and american neo colonisalism in S. America. But I disillusioned with activism atm.

100% he got in one of his 'democratic' elections. Still that was all legal, wasn't it?

I wasnt talking about Saddam.
MNG, you are a nice guy and I like your posts which I find funny and sometimes uplifting. But if you are well versed modern history and internationaly politics you dont show it. Im not, Im out of sync for a few years but I do suggest you become acquainted with how dictators like the Taliban and Saddam came to power. While your at it, look up South America and how the CIA deals with leftist governments and parties.

I think this could become personal very quickly so I just want to say that the reason I posted here was to show
A)That the term Terrorist is subjective and could be applied easily to either american or insurgent forces
B)That those who call people ignorant or holders of invalid/ill informed views are usually either a kettle or a pot

Mr.Nice Guy

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Jokes aside though, they admited their intelligence was flawed and have officially given up the search after finding othing

Jokes aside the issue was a mess but I think the removal of Saddam was right.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

We shouldnt look at the intentions and vested interests of those supposedly reporting the news? Sounds like blissful ignorance

If you're going to dismiss polls which question the Iraqi people for their views then it's abundantly clear where the blissful ignorance comes from...

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Terrorist is a subjective word with varying definitions which people use to suit their own opinions. Its easy to show how the label can be attached to the USA. Insurgents has a clear definition which obviously applies to those fighting in Iraq. You can hold an opinion without loosing sight of objectivity and people will resect you, even if they disagree with you.

I don't see how the word can be attached to the USA. I think it's clear the use of the term 'Insurgent' is an example of leftist bias.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

lol
Well which part of the list of activities the USA has admitted to carring out could not in theory be the actions of a terrorist organisation. A little bit more than your wrong is needed for a rebuttal

I'll refer you to the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) which defines terrorism as:

Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term 'terrorism' is avoided and something more friendly is substituted. In short, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

I think it's clear from what I highlighted that the US can't be termed a terrorist but the 'Insurgents' can be.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Fair play! But doesnt that bring us back to my first point, that that's not the stated reason for going to war?

My point was that International law is an ass. If you agree with that then fair enough.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Damn straight, incidry bombs were nothing short of murder and bomber Harris was a war criminal. Same goes for the atom bombs in Japan.

This is all subjective.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

But I think your point wasnt about those particular methods but the results of prolonged fighting in general?

My point was that people can look at the suffering caused by war and claim it was unjust. I've always found it intriguing to contemplate how the world would have viewed 1945 had the technology we possess today been around then.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If the point of the war was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of a despot then it failed

It didn't. How can you say that when Saddam is in custody?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

because the Iraqi people have only suffered more

They are suffering due to the terrorists.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

...however the stated motivation was that of WMDs, and since they werent present, there is no justification for the suffering and casualties inflicted on the Iraqi people

The stated motivation is irrelevant. Sometimes the end justifies the means.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

How can you judge intentions you dont know?

I can form a logical conclusion based on the fact that these countries are democracies with people who hold their governemnts accountable.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You sidestepped my point so I'll put it in bold, in both the cases YOU brought up, which I havent commended or condemned, someone asked for aid. But leaving aside whether assistance was asked for or not, the point is the USA is not helping the Iraqi people, it is removing the dictator it appointed and replaced him with a provisional government of their choosing. So far their has been no improvement to the ordinary Iraqi's lot

LOL. What an embarrassing effort to sidestep my point. I'll put it to you in question form then in the hope you'll have the decency to acknowledge my point:

- Was it wrong for the United Irishmen to seek to free Ireland from British rule through foreign troops? If you say no, how can you condemn the Americans and the Briitsh for freeing Iraq?

- Was the 1916 Rising an evil act considering that originally it provoked widespread anger from Irish people and would have been regarded as an evil act? I'll remind you of your earlier comment, "I believe no good can come from an evil act."

Please have the decency to answer these questions. Thanks.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

There was a distinct lack of representation of ordinary Iraqi concerns, my opinion.

LOL. As opposed to when a dictator ruled who gave himself 100% support.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Cant muster more than one word to debate the point? The war in Iraq is not black and white and tbh I cant support either of the two sides intentions or methods. The list of abuse and illegality on both side is as long and well documented. So I put it to you, there are no good guys in Iraq.

Your nonsensical point has been tackled on this post. The Americans aren't terrorists. There ARE good guys in Iraq. They're the guys fighting to give the Iraqi people a future free of violence and terrorism. They're the guys fighting the scum who murdered Margaret Hassan and Ken Bigley and countless other hostages.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Yes, my only acts of activism was long before 9/11 and when it became trendy to be anti american. I was against saddam, east timor, and american neo colonisalism in S. America. But I disillusioned with activism atm.

I'll take your word for it.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I wasnt talking about Saddam.

Well I was.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

MNG, you are a nice guy and I like your posts which I find funny and sometimes uplifting. But if you are well versed modern history and internationaly politics you dont show it.

Stick to the issues and leave the personal stuff out of it. Ad hominem attacks aren't required.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Im not, Im out of sync for a few years but I do suggest you become acquainted with how dictators like the Taliban and Saddam came to power. While your at it, look up South America and how the CIA deals with leftist governments and parties.

This patronising tactic won't get you anywhere. Who are you trying to convince with your claims that you know more about these issues than myself? Me or you?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I think this could become personal very quickly

Jeez, I wonder who will start the personal stuff? :rolleyes:

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

...so I just want to say that the reason I posted here was to show
A)That the term Terrorist is subjective and could be applied easily to either american or insurgent forces
B)That those who call people ignorant or holders of invalid/ill informed views are usually either a kettle or a pot

Fair enough. I posted here to show my utter condemnation towards support for terrorists and attempts to glorifiy said terrorists.

I'm disappointed you ended your post with such patronising remarks towards me but there you go...

Jonny Arson

^ good post Kaptain Redeye even though I wouldn't personally agree with alot you said.

Vainglory wrote:

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About.

I believe she is referring to how this ''anti-war movement'' is out protesting on our campus against non-student issues when there are more important student issues to protest about that bears releation to every single UCD student.

If this ''anti-war'' movement want to protest to Bertie about Iraq/Shannon or whatnot there are many other opportunities outside UCD to protest to him.

vannistelrooy10 wrote:

i say give them a warning and then drop a few nukes on the middle east eg iran, iraq, palestine then well see what that desert rat bin laden does.

They should nuke you.

Vic Mackey wrote:

(this chap just proves my point...most pro war, pro bush people are ignorant trigger happy idiots )

You could equally say the same thing for many anti-war/anti-Bush people such as Mr. Cogavin who as an ''anti-war'' group member believes that

We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat.

i.e. an ''anti-war'' protester who states that he supports war against US and UK.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well I believe that this was justified as it stopped WW2 and saved lives but it's a controversial issue.

Ditto.

anonymous_joe

Supporting terrorists is univerisally condemned., but what's a terrorist...?

'One man's terrorist is another's fre...' etc etc

Sadaam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and he did use WMD's (chemical weapons + Kurds = war crimes) problem is, back then America and the West didn't care. His removal was a good thing, but the method used was based on a lie, and has hardly improved the stability of the Middle East.

VenusInFurs

Wow Mr. Nice Guy. What a curious rant. Despite the 70% unemployment rate and food rations recently cut by 25%, I'm delighted to hear that the Iraqi masses are 'better off'. Pleasantries aside though, as the scribe of that press release quoted, I feel compelled to challenge Mr. Nice Guy's (who isn't really nice) assertions that the Iraqi resistance are 'terrorists'. The following opinions are my own and I stress do not reflect the views of everyone in the UCD Anti-War Group.

My own position on the neo-colonial occupation of Iraq is quite clear. I support the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq. As a Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist, I do welcome whatever military setbacks the variegated popular resistance forces in Iraq are able to inflict on the armed forces of US-UK imperialism. Simply because it would reprsent a tremendous defeat for imperialism, and particularly US imperialism, who Hugo Chavez appropriately describes as the "most perverse, murderous, genocidal, immoral empire that this planet has known in 100 centuries".

Does this wish for a US-UK defeat equate with automatic support with all those resisting the occupiers? Absolutely not. However, I do believe that an imperialist defeat would objectively open up possibilities for the working class, and I would therefore welcome it even if it came at the hands of reactionary anti-imperialists. In the meantime I think it is imperative support all progressive organisations and movements that promote secularism, democracy and socialism. Any 'alliance' with the Islamic resistance must be purely episodic.

My own sympathies lie with the leftist Worker-communist Party of Iraq, who have led open working class struggles around particularly questions of mass unemployment under the occupation. Unfortunately though, they don't seem capable at the moment of building of forging a revolutionary people’s alliance that would effectively challenge imperialists troops and Islamic reactionaries who are gaining a foothold in Iraqi society.

The reality Mr. Nice Guy is that the occupation is feeding the fires of communalist and sectarian fanaticism. Imperialism cannot bring democracy and civilisation to Iraq - quite the opposite. I support the resistance of the Iraqi people in the same way as I support the anti-imperialist struggle of the Palestinian or Venezuelan people.

Invariably soldiers will die on both sides. I met Cindy Sheehan and Rose Gentle when they visited Dublin last year. Both women had lost sons in Iraq. Yet these women did not blame the resistance for their loss. Cindy layed the blame at George Bush's feet and Rose at Tony Blair's. For your benefit Mr. Nice Guy, I suggest you read Rose Gentle's article chastising the imperialist warmongerers. Follow the link: http://www.counterpunch.org/gentle10012004.html

Continue to speak your mind maaaaan!