Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

We don't do bodycounts

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    MeatProduct wrote: »
    I would not object to an armed resistance against an agressor if that response was to remove the direct cause to the attack and go no further like killing those not responsible. This is the real world and these things happen and most likely always will. It would be nice to have seen a general trend of progress throughout history. There will always be those who will disregard others for the sake of their own ego. Do they need to be killed, probably not, removing them from their position of power would be quite effective. Maybe having them experience the situation they have created would give some perspective to their past actions.

    What would you suggest in that scenario FYI?

    Nick

    I can’t really make head nor tail of your post, but I’ll try and explain a little further.

    The majority of insurgent attacks have been directed against occupation forces. This will only shift further towards Iraqi police and civilians as the US military attempt to recede in terms of public presence. The majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqis fighting for liberation.

    Yes it’s a brutal insurgency, but you can’t pick your resistance, and you can’t ask them to be what you want them to be - especially when it was your government that supported the act that created them. The resistance exists because of the invasion, it is a direct result.


    In a video Op-Ed by documentary filmmakers Molly Bingham and Steve Connors, Iraqis explain the roots of the insurgency.

    http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134


  • Options
    #63
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Actually, it was an enforcement of UN sactions set back in 1991. But that is neither here nor there.

    Don't be ridiculous, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN.


  • Options
    #64
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Why is it blinkered? Because I have not included terms like killers, butchers, war criminals in it?

    That is a unbiased list of what has happened there so far.

    One item in that list:

    "They held free elections"

    Actually Bush didn't at first allow "free elections". He opposed them before Al Sistani said that he would not support the US military and would stop using his influence to halt overwhelming calls for resistance from the Shiites that supported him.
    It's also true that many Iraqi's didn't actually know what they were voting for. Many thought that they were voting to kick out the US military.
    If you google I'm sure you will see many concerning things about the "free election" such as intimidation by US backed militias etc etc


  • Options
    #65
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    I can’t really make head nor tail of your post, but I’ll try and explain a little further.

    The majority of insurgent attacks have been directed against occupation forces. This will only shift further towards Iraqi police and civilians as the US military attempt to recede in terms of public presence. The majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqis fighting for liberation.
    Yes it’s a brutal insurgency, but you can’t pick your resistance, and you can’t ask them to be what you want them to be. The resistance exists because of the invasion, it is a direct result.


    In a video Op-Ed by documentary filmmakers Molly Bingham and Steve Connors, Iraqis explain the roots of the insurgency.

    http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134


    Liberation from whom? Do they want to be liberated from the Americans so that they can elect their own government? Didn't they elect one?


  • Options
    #66
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Liberation from whom? Do they want to be liberated from the Americans so that they can elect their own government? Didn't they elect one?

    Have you followed events in Iraq at all!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    Don't be ridiculous, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN.


    I'm not being ridiculous.


  • Options
    #68
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    Have you followed events in Iraq at all!


    I know things.;)


  • Options
    #69
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    sovtek wrote: »
    One item in that list:

    "They held free elections"

    Actually Bush didn't at first allow "free elections". He opposed them before Al Sistani said that he would not support the US military and would stop using his influence to halt overwhelming calls for resistance from the Shiites that supported him.
    It's also true that many Iraqi's didn't actually know what they were voting for. Many thought that they were voting to kick out the US military.
    If you google I'm sure you will see many concerning things about the "free election" such as intimidation by US backed militias etc etc


    US backed militias? Who? What? Where? When?


  • Options
    #70
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    This was a means of getting rid of a dictator who was a butcher at times. The prolonged stay to support a disgrace for a government is a disgrace.

    He was a minor dictator that was helped to power by the very governments that invaded to get rid of him as well as supported his worst crimes.
    By article 51 of the UN Charter there is only ONE legal reason to start a war...all others are a "war of aggression" and that is determined by the Security Council only.


  • Options
    #71
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway wrote: »
    I know things.;)

    I have to say I am disappointed at mrgalway having not provided any casualty figures or estimates re Iraq. He is is not then in position to dispute the figures put forward by others in this thread ,as at least 2 respected surveys one UK and one US suggest that figure over 600000 .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    US backed militias? Who? What? Where? When?

    If you are genuinely curious then you are as able as I to look it up. I find the following a good start for information to this effect

    www.counterpunch.org

    OH and this is a good start

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/25/050725fa_fact


  • Options
    #73
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    mrgalway wrote: »
    This was a means of getting rid of a dictator who was a butcher at times.

    You're one of the last people on earth to still believe this.


  • Options
    #74
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway is playing devils advocate and is not apparently in possession of facts and unable to justify his stance .Denial for denials sake.


  • Options
    #75
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I have to say I am disappointed at mrgalway having not provided any casualty figures or estimates re Iraq. He is is not then in position to dispute the figures put forward by others in this thread ,as at least 2 respected surveys one UK and one US suggest that figure over 600000 .

    Why are you disapointed? I question such large numbers. You point me to the Lancet wiki article and I point you to the critisim that has some very valid points.

    Again, I ask you if there were over 500 bodies every day, do you not expect someone to expose a genocide of such magnitude.

    The whole basis of the survey was to intervew a few iraqis. And there were some mass produced death certificates. I wonder if they used power point for them. Where is some real proof.


  • Options
    #76
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    mrgalway is playing devils advocate and is not apparently in possession of facts and unable to justify his stance .Denial for denials sake.

    mrgalway is playing devils advocate when he smells s*** [Is this going to give me another demerit?]

    I am all for people being vocaly against the war but I will challenge those that take cheap shots by calling the soldiers butchers or war criminals. And those with the misguided notion of calling terrorists and suicide bombers as freedom fighters.


  • Options
    #77
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    You're one of the last people on earth to still believe this.


    Why, has someone revised history?


  • Options
    #78
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway wrote: »
    mrgalway is playing devils advocate when he smells s*** [Is this going to give me another demerit?]

    I am all for people being vocaly against the war but I will challenge those that take cheap shots by calling the soldiers butchers or war criminals. And those with the misguided notion of calling terrorists and suicide bombers as freedom fighters.

    Yes you perfectly right but you cannot ignore the fact that what people say could be true . Any war will mean atrocities as history shows .This one is no different and you cannot believe that many Iraqis are happy to be occupied ? I abhorr all violence .


  • Options
    #79
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes you perfectly right but you cannot ignore the fact that what people say could be true . Any war will mean atrocities as history shows .This one is no different and you cannot believe that many Iraqis are happy to be occupied ? I abhorr all violence .

    Nobody wants to be occupied. Look at us.

    At the same time, do you think that there are many Americans that want to be there? They all want to be home? Their families and friends at home want them to be home. Calling them war criminals is an insult to them.

    The few idiots that want to be there and the morons [Can I say that about FOX or will this get me another Demerit?] at Fox and the other Chickenhaws are another matter and feel free to insult them all you want.:D

    As for war crimes, the US Military are pretty quick to court martial.


  • Options
    #80
    jonny72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭jonny72


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Let's see. The programme so far.


    The US invaded Iraq
    Defeated them and Removed Saddam
    They devised a hairbrained Jeffersonian Democracy type government for them
    They held free elections
    A Coalition of Shia parties gained power and are running the governent
    The US tried to train an Iraqi Army to take over so that most could go home and some could stay at a local base
    Some Sunnis decided to destabilise the governmetn by blowing up Shia
    The Shia retaliated.
    The US is still there trying to keep the two sides appart and getting killed in the process.
    Some pacifist in Ireland are calling them war criminals.

    Pretty much sums up the pertinent details up to now.

    Where to start with this? its like some carebear storybook of history for foxnews viewers or something.

    I've been watching western news every day for the last 5 years and that is not even remotely close to real events that transpired. I dunno what on earth you've been watching.


  • Options
    #81
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    jonny72 wrote: »
    Where to start with this? its like some carebear storybook of history for foxnews viewers or something.

    I've been watching western news every day for the last 5 years and that is not even remotely close to real events that transpired. I dunno what on earth you've been watching.

    Kindly fill us in then on what is really going on? And how do you know? Have you been there or do you have a special source?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    FYI wrote: »
    I can’t really make head nor tail of your post, but I’ll try and explain a little further.
    I don't see what was hard to understand about my post FYI. You asked a simple question and I answered it. Now when you put it into the much more complicated situation we have in Iraq it is not so nearly as cut and dry so of course you will run into difficulty when trying to compare the two. But you asked me about Russia invading America and that was what I answered.

    So the question, as it applies to Iraq, is "If the US invaded Iraq would you object to an armed Iraqi resistance?" Now if that is your question this is my answer. In this scenario the US is the aggressor and Iraq is in the defensive position and you are asking me should the Iraqis respond with armed force. Well they can do whatever they want FYI and I may or may not agree with it. I won't agree with it if it involves killing people however. Their plight is absurdly difficult. If they kill an American then that is used by the US propaganda war machine to fuel more hatred towards Iraq. It's a destructive cycle that is perpetuated by violence. I do believe that if one side were to stop playing the game it would eventually become obvious to the world who the real bully is.

    Nick


  • Options
    #83
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jonny72 wrote: »
    Where to start with this? its like some carebear storybook of history for foxnews viewers or something.

    I've been watching western news every day for the last 5 years and that is not even remotely close to real events that transpired. I dunno what on earth you've been watching.

    Seems pretty close to me for a beer-and-pretzels overview.

    Which bit do you object to?

    NTM


  • Options
    #84
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Seems pretty close to me for a beer-and-pretzels overview.

    Which bit do you object to?

    NTM

    yea, I think its great when western governments decide how those who live in eastern countries should be governed.


  • Options
    #85
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    yea, I think its great when western governments decide how those who live in eastern countries should be governed.
    I think he was referring to the account by MrGalway of the order of events in Iraq.

    Nick


  • Options
    #86
    Instant Karma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Instant Karma


    yep i know, but this war was not about planting demoracy in Iraq, I mean the US has toppled more legit demoracies than they set up (did they ever set any up?). This was a war about Oil, and thats a fact, anyone who thinks otherwise will most likely be waking up and peeling cornflakes off their faces in the morning.


  • Options
    #87
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    Instant Karma wrote: »
    yep i know, but this war was not about planting demoracy in Iraq, I mean the US has toppled more legit demoracies than they set up (did they ever set any up?). This was a war about Oil, and thats a fact, anyone who thinks otherwise will most likely be waking up and peeling cornflakes off their faces in the morning.
    Aye, 'tis the start of the resource wars. Probably more reasons for the war than we're privy to I'd wager. We can be sure it's not because they felt a softness in their hearts for the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam.

    Nick


  • Options
    #88
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Oil? Who sells that oil? Who gets the revenue?

    Before it started it was less than $30/Bbl and now its over $90/Bbl.

    Yes, the Americans must be rolling in cheap petrol prices. Get real!


  • Options
    #89
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Oil? Who sells that oil? Who gets the revenue?

    Before it started it was less than $30/Bbl and now its over $90/Bbl.

    Yes, the Americans must be rolling in cheap petrol prices. Get real!

    It does not quite work like that.Its control of oil in the long term.The war in Iraq has to be paid for as well as the infrastructure so the price of oil stays up because of demand and huge economies of China and India and instability in the middle east .Any drop in price will only come if and when all the above factors have stabilized then we will see . I do agree though that the US did not invade Iraq for sentiment with regard to the oppressed Iraqi people.


  • Options
    #90
    jonny72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭jonny72


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Kindly fill us in then on what is really going on? And how do you know? Have you been there or do you have a special source?

    I can just as easily give you a rosy synopsis of Stalingrad, the rape of Nanking, Vietnam..

    This is my whole point, the propaganda actually starts to become fact. That is the scary thing.

    I'm not asking for anyone to be called war criminals, I just don't want the dirty facts buried simply because they are anti-West.

    Torture, rape, murder, gross negligence, extreme corruption, profiteering, support of terrorists and militias (certain militias which later become death squads). Disbanding of the army, police, the entire apparatus for a country to function. Foreign fighters from supposedly 'allied' or 'pro-west' countries coming in and attacking everything from the military to soft targets to mosques to markets. Suicide bombers fermenting civil war and chaos. Etc, etc, etc. Unless you want to breeze over all that because its 'not important'?

    I mean McNamara admitted himself after the deliberate firebombing of Japan that if the Japanese had won the war he probably would have stood for warcrimes.

    We can drop clusterbombs on civilians (Israel - Lebanon conflict)

    We can use chemical weapons of our choosing - white phorphorus

    We can torture, rendition, kidnap, murder and rape and largely get away with it

    We can massacre villages, carpet bomb other countries (Vietnam)

    We can kill civilians and children who were sleeping on the roofs of their houses because of the heat and then lie to the media that they were in fact '49 militants'

    The list goes on and on and on

    Same **** different war

    We just call these 'unfortunate acts in war' or 'these things happen in war'..

    We get away with murder and if the people REALLY knew what was happening in Iraq the war would've been over a looong time ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jonny72 wrote: »
    I mean McNamara admitted himself after the deliberate firebombing of Japan that if the Japanese had won the war he probably would have stood for warcrimes.

    Probably a better example was the trial of Doenitz, who was nailed by the Allies for his orders for his U-Boats, even though Admiral Nimitz had submitted a letter in his defense saying that the US Navy had exactly the same policies for submarines in the Pacific.
    We can drop clusterbombs on civilians (Israel - Lebanon conflict)

    Yes, so much more worrisome than 1,000lb bombs...
    We can use chemical weapons of our choosing - white phorphorus

    Not a chemical weapon, regardless of how much people scream and shout about it. Nasty, yes. Chemical, no.
    We get away with murder and if the people REALLY knew what was happening in Iraq the war would've been over a looong time ago.

    The debate would be, at any rate. Yes, we'll let people go ahead and serve ten-year-old sons baked with a fruit stuffed in their mouths to their parents as symbols. I mean, that's a little excessive for the crime of not forcing sheep to wear diapers so that their genitalia show, isn't it?

    NTM


Advertisement