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
Comments
-
You label sources of information provided to you as "anti-war" or "anti-american" yet you have failed to provide any sources for your contentions thus far.
Being somewhere does automatically make you more informed than someone that isnt'.
My family is from Louisiana and yet they still think there were "snipers" waiting to take out rescue workers during the Katrina disaster as was oft reported in American media at the time.
The problem with "information that is provided to back up an arguament" is that it is biased to your view point. Everything that the lot of you have provided shows the anti-american/anti-war bias to it. That is your view point and that is the type of material I would expect you to read. Just as I would not expect you to watch Fox News if you had it available (except for the entertainment value).
Show me something that has an unbiased assesment and I will be happy to discuss that.
As for your statement:Being somewhere does automatically make you more informed than someone that isnt'.
You are an expert because you read all the anti-war/anti-american propaganda? You are no better than all the suposidley patriotic pro-war/pro-Bush americans that support the war because Fox News and their preachers tell them so.
Being somewhere makes you see first hand what "someone that isn't" thinks he understands. Being somewhere gives you the ability to make a realistic assesment of so called "facts" being bandied about here.
I am sorry you do not think highly of your family. That is such a shame as family is very important.0 -
Sovtek, I wouldn't bother arguing.
The 'anti-american' sources he is referring to are:
The BBC
The John's Hopkins School of Public Health (an +American+ university!!!!)
and...
wait for it...
GAO (The U.S. Government Accountability Office - "the investigative arm of Congress")
My friend, you are right, make us all happy and don't bother!
My friend, the pieces are anti-american biased opinions provided to support your anti-american feelings.
As for John Hopkins, they did a study to see the post-invasion mortality rates in Iraq. You were the one to use their numbers and infer that the Americans did all the killings. In your view they were also responsible for all the cholerala and HIV deaths as well.
Are they planning on inflict a bit of Polio as well next year?0 -
I took a look at the GAO report. But wait for it.....that wasn't what it said.
You got your "facts" from slate and not the GAO. Why didn't you mention that?
Here are the conclusions of the GAO report that you might find interesting:For the past 2½ years, the United States has provided $30 billion with the intent of developing capable Iraqi security forces, rebuilding a looted and worn infrastructure, and supporting democratic elections. However, the United States has confronted a lethal insurgency that has taken many lives and made rebuilding Iraq a costly and challenging endeavor. It is unclear when Iraqi security forces will be able to operate independently, thereby enabling the United States to reduce its military presence.
Similarly, it is unclear how U.S. efforts are helping Iraq obtain clean water, reliable electricity, or competent health care. Measuring the outcomes of U.S. efforts is important to ensure that the U.S. dollars spent are making a difference in the daily lives of the Iraqi people. In addition, the United States must ensure that the billions of dollars it has already invested in Iraq’s infrastructure are not wasted. The Iraqis need additional training and preparation to operate and maintain the power plants, water and sewage treatment facilities, and health care centers the United States has rebuilt or restored. In response to our reports, State has begun to develop metrics for measuring progress and plans for sustaining the U.S.-built infrastructure. The administration’s next budget will reveal its level of commitment to these challenges.
But the challenges are not exclusively those of the United States. The Iraqis face the challenge of forming a government that has the support of all ethnic and religious groups. They also face the challenge of addressing those constitutional issues left unresolved from the October referendum—power of the central government, control of Iraq’s natural resources, and the application of Islamic law. The new government also faces the equally difficult challenges of reducing subsidies, controlling public salaries and pensions, and sustaining the growing number of security forces. This will not be easy, but it is necessary for the Iraqi government to begin to contribute to its own rebuilding and stabilization efforts and to encourage investment by the international community and private sector.
We continue to review U.S. efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces, develop the oil and electricity sectors, reduce corruption, and enhance the capacity of Iraqi ministries. Specifically, we will examine efforts to stabilize Iraq and develop its security forces, including the challenge of ensuring that Iraq can independently fund, sustain, and support its new security forces; assess issues related to the development of Iraq’s energy sector, including the sectors’ needs as well as challenges such as corruption; and examine capacity-building efforts in the Iraqi ministries.0 -
Everything that the lot of you have provided shows the anti-american/anti-war bias to it. That is your view point and that is the type of material I would expect you to read. Just as I would not expect you to watch Fox News if you had it available (except for the entertainment value).
Actually they have Sky News over here which is owned by the same company and has the same editorial slant as Fox. They also show CBS, ABC, and CNN over here as well.
Again I AM AMERICAN!Show me something that has an unbiased assesment and I will be happy to discuss that.
You have to back up your arguments with sources...i tink that's actually in the forum rules if IIRC. You can't just dismiss a source as "biased". You have to point out what exactly is inaccurate as well if you want to be taken seriously.You are an expert because you read all the anti-war/anti-american propaganda? You are no better than all the suposidley patriotic pro-war/pro-Bush americans that support the war because Fox News and their preachers tell them so.
I never said I was an expert nor do I claim to be an expert on Europe/Ireland merely because I live here.Being somewhere makes you see first hand what "someone that isn't" thinks he understands. Being somewhere gives you the ability to make a realistic assesment of so called "facts" being bandied about here.
That assumes that you actually make assessment based on facts. I know South Africans that chastise me for my viewpoints about that country (I used to live there) and then turn around and say "blacks aren't as smart because we had to evolve living in a cold climate".I am sorry you do not think highly of your family. That is such a shame as family is very important.
My comment actually does not reflect negatively on my family. How do you do the rolleyes smiley?0 -
Dear MrGalway (David McSavage?)
The modus operandum of boards when it comes to replying to posts of a disagreable nature is attack the post not the poster, but your posts have been so vacuos that I have no other course of action but to call you an idiot.
Mark
Not one of your posts has had any substance, and apart from the stench of troll of them I would say nothing in your empty little brain apart from a george bush fetish
;-)0 -
Advertisement
-
Sovtek-Sky news may be owned by the same corporation but it has far from the same editorial slant as Fox news which by the way is available on sky digital so it's easy enough to compare them.
Fox news is beamed into aproximately 400,000 homes in Ireland and its the exact same version that is received in the states.
The CNN version over here is the European version which editorially and content wise can be very different to it's U.S sister.
<intermission music>
Mr Galway please no personalisations in your posts.
Carry on0 -
Mediatraitor Behave
You have received an official infraction warning.
One more outburst like that and you will be banned for a week.0 -
Sovtek-Sky news may be owned by the same corporation but it has far from the same editorial slant as Fox news which by the way is available on sky digital so it's easy enough to compare them.
That's arguable I think. I know it's toned down compared to Fox but it's still the same slant IMHO. It has to be to have a modicum of credibility in the UK/Ireland. It still has the pro-American, pro-Israel slant that Fox does. They often enough use Fox correspondents in their reports.Fox news is beamed into aproximately 400,000 homes in Ireland and its the exact same version that is received in the states.
I wasn't aware of that. Which carrier shows it? I only have basic NTL so I could have missed it. Not that I'm going to get digital cable for Fox...but it would be good for a laugh every once in a while.The CNN version over here is the European version which editorially and content wise can be very different to it's U.S sister.
That's true that it shows things in Europe that it omits from it's American counterpart. I wouldn't say, over all, that its that different though.0 -
-
The news and events mix on sky Ireland here .I wasn't aware of that. Which carrier shows it? I only have basic NTL so I could have missed it. Not that I'm going to get digital cable for Fox...but it would be good for a laugh every once in a while.
It comes as standard with most basic channel mixes at about 20 to 30 euro per month depending on how many you mix.
Most if not all of the 400k + subscribers in Ireland would have access.
You'd need a dish sovtek but the bonus is that you would get the aljazeera English language news channel aswell(thats free actually) so you can escape to it when you've had enough of fox.
The English versions of France 24 and Russia today are on there aswell for free.0 -
Advertisement
-
No exceptions...read Article 51 of the UN Charter. In any event if that was the reason for invading Iraq then the US would have to prove that threat to the Security Council and get a resolution authorizing force.
During WW2 there was no UN Charter or UN so while morally that would have been repulsive it would not have necessarily been against international law.
Fair enough they acted on their own accord but the reasons were justifiable and were perfectly acceptable reasons under the charter.A statement like that just completely defies reality and the history of Iraq and the region. Saddam was a US puppet until he invaded Kuwait and even then he ask permission to do so.
Key word being was a US puppet. And although he may have asked if he could invade Kuwait he didn't accept the decision given to him as seen by the development Gulf War where America tried to overthrow him. Sadaam was simply not going to tolerate a US ally next door showing its influence.He also offered to go into exile if the US would not invade Iraq.
Doubtful [can I see a source for that], even if he did it was likely to be an empty promise dictators will always try to hold onto their power no matter what. To say Sadaam was just going to roll over and go into exile if the US didn't invade Iraq is laughable especially looking at his recent past.Incidentally since they invaded Iraq the obvious government that would be formed from a truly democratic system (instead of the puppet government they have now under Maliki) would be Islamic and have a lot of influence from Iran.
Yes and thankfully America has not allowed this to happen until such a time as the Iranian influence has been eliminated from the area, only then can they let the people decide what government they want as right now they are being completely mislead by Iranian sponsored Anti-American propaganda0 -
Rubbish, you claimed Iraq was "next door"SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I'm talking in an influential sense Iraq is certainly as much Afghanistan's neighbor as Iran.
And you're also wrong, Saddam was a secularist Arab, he had virtually no influence of events in Afghanistan. Nor did he even try to support a particular faction there.0 -
meditraitor wrote: »
Not one of your posts has had any substance, and apart from the stench of troll of them I would say nothing in your empty little brain apart from a george bush fetish
;-)
Thank you for providing the evidence showing just how open minded the posters here seem to be.:rolleyes:0 -
-
Actually meditrator is the only one who attacked the poster and not the post and you saw what the moderator did.
Well Meditrator's concern that MrGalway is trolling is backed up by the comments you made:
"You have to back up your arguments with sources...i tink that's actually in the forum rules if IIRC. You can't just dismiss a source as "biased". You have to point out what exactly is inaccurate as well if you want to be taken seriously."
He has shown no intention of attempting to back up his arguments, and simply dismisses anything that doesn't support his fabricated views - predominantly with reference to the posters 'anti-Americanism', which is both abusive and non-sensical.
Noam Chomsky on 'anti-Americanism':
"NC: The notion “anti-Americanism” is a revealing one. It is drawn from the lexicon of totalitarianism. Thus people who think that the US is the greatest country in the world are “anti-American” if they criticize the acts of the Holy State, or join the vast majority of the population in believing that the corporate sector has far too much influence over government policy, or regard private corporate institutions created by state power and granted extraordinary rights as “a return to feudalism” (to quote old-fashioned conservatives, a category that now scarcely exists). And so on.
In totalitarian societies, the usage is standard. In the former Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “anti-Russian.” Where a democratic culture prevails, the usage would be regarded as comical. If people who criticize Irish government policies were condemned as “anti-Irish,” I suppose people would collapse in ridicule in the streets of Dublin. At least they should.
The notion has an interesting history. It traces back to King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, who denounced the Prophet Elijah as an “ocher Yisrael” (a proper translation, now used in Israel, is “hater of Israel”). His reason was that Elijah condemned the acts of the evil King, who, like totalitarians since, identified the state (himself) with the population, the culture, the society.
People are entitled to revere King Ahab and Soviet commissars, and to adopt the term “anti-American,” on their model. But we should have no illusions about how they are choosing to identify themselves."
http://www.mediabite.org/article_On-the-Media--Anti-Americanism-and-Disparity_393277505.html0 -
Thank you for providing the evidence showing just how open minded the posters here seem to be.:rolleyes:
mrgalway alas has not provided any information to back up his claims in his many posts to this thread.He is then surprised at all the anti american rhetoric he claims to have encountered in this thread when its a debate, and thats all it is. People are and should be allowed to oppose the US foreign policy and not just accept it without question or agree with it for that matter if they wish but do not condemn people for that.0 -
Rubbish, you claimed Iraq was "next door"
And it is, it may not be bordering but it is next door, I would consider it a neighbor the same way I would consider Scotland and Wales to be next door to one another or Italy and Spain, given the size of places like Russia and America I don't think its too outlandish to claim that countries seperated by a few hundred miles can't be considered being basically next to another and my point was they are neighbors in the sense of being right next to each other and as such Iraq would have a massive degree of influence....And you're also wrong, Saddam was a secularist Arab, he had virtually no influence of events in Afghanistan. Nor did he even try to support a particular faction there.
What I am saying is Iraq would be just as influential on events in Afghanistan as Iran if it so chose, just because Sadaam wasn't involved doesn't mean he couldn't have if he wanted to. Iraq had just as much influence it just chose not use it but if a democratic ally of America was to spring up in the area they would definitely start to use their influence into their favour0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »What I am saying is Iraq would be just as influential on events in Afghanistan as Iran if it so chose, just because Sadaam wasn't involved doesn't mean he couldn't have if he wanted to. Iraq had just as much influence it just chose not use it but if a democratic ally of America was to spring up in the area they would definitely start to use their influence into their favour
Thats not what you said. You said that Saddam was opposing a US backed Afghanistan. Not that it matters. Afghanistan has ever right to be as anti American as it wants and any country in the area can join them. That doesn't give any country the right to invade another because one isn't doing what they like.
Article 51 UN Charter
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.0 -
Give it up, Iraq is over 1000 miles away from Afghanistan.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »few hundred miles can't be considered being basically next to another and my point was they are neighbors in the sense of being right next to each other and as such Iraq would have a massive degree of influence...
Which demonstrates how little you know of Afghanistan and the people whom inhabit that country. Iran shares a very long border with Afghanistan, has loads of common history and language. The majority Pashtun population in Afghanistan are an eastern Iranian people.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »What I am saying is Iraq would be just as influential on events in Afghanistan as Iran if it so chose, just because Sadaam wasn't involved doesn't mean he couldn't have if he wanted to. Iraq had just as much influence it just chose not use it but if a democratic ally of America was to spring up in the area they would definitely start to use their influence into their favour
I suppose you also think that Iraqis and Iranians are the same people too.
But do tell us SpAcEd OuT, what influence do you think Saddam had on Afghanistan?
What influence do you think he could have had under 12 years of UN Sanctions?0 -
Let's revisit some of your statements SpAcEd OuT shall we?
It sounds as though you believe Iraq is next door to Afghanistan which it certainly is not.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »America immediately needed the neighbors on side. Pakistan as we saw, duly complied, Iraq however didn't. In order for America to have a successful campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq needed to be dealt with. Afghanistan would never have been successful with a brutal, repressive tyranny next door and of course Sadaam would never support a democratic ally of USA.
But who are Afghanistan's actual neighbors and are might they be "brutal, repressive tyranny(ies)" that would surely render USA's attempts unsuccessful in Afghanistan according to your post, no?
Well, the neighbours aren't pretty:
Uzbekistan, an authortarian dictatorship
Turkmenistan, an authortarrian dictatorship
Tajikistan, another dictatorship
Pakistan, a country ruled by a military dictatorship via coup.
Iran, an Islamist republic
China, a communist state.0 -
Advertisement
-
Has Afghanistan been successfully dealt with as spaced out seems to imply.I dont think so.The Taleban appear to be getting stronger ,there is as much heroin as before ,warlords still rule .Still I suppose it keeps the US and UK from getting bored . What is the point of it ?Is it oil again or is it a vital east west corridor? It is not sentiment surely for the oppressed people.0
-
Give it up, Iraq is over 1000 miles away from Afghanistan.
Yep which is a few hundred miles [622 to be exact] as stated in my previous post. You can rewrite it any way you want to make the figure look outlandish but as most people know given the size of Asia that is hardly a massive amountWhich demonstrates how little you know of Afghanistan and the people whom inhabit that country.
I know enough of Afghan people to know that they will always side with whoever has their best interests.Iran shares a very long border with Afghanistan, has loads of common history and language. The majority Pashtun population in Afghanistan are an eastern Iranian people.
Once again that means little, as stated above Afghans will always side with whoever they can most benefit fromI suppose you also think that Iraqis and Iranians are the same people too.
No RedPlanet I don't think that nor have I ever said that I honestly don't know where you got that from.But do tell us SpAcEd OuT, what influence do you think Saddam had on Afghanistan?
What influence do you think he could have had under 12 years of UN Sanctions?
Once again I didn't say he had an influence I said he could have had an influence if he wanted.
To answer your second question, the sanctions were obviously not working if America decided to go into Iraq so obviously he still had a high level of influence0 -
Let's revisit some of your statements SpAcEd OuT shall we?
It sounds as though you believe Iraq is next door to Afghanistan which it certainly is not.
I've already cleared up this matter and it is perfectly logical to me to say Iraq is a neighbor of Afghanistan in the nearby vicinity.But who are Afghanistan's actual neighbors and are might they be "brutal, repressive tyranny(ies)" that would surely render USA's attempts unsuccessful in Afghanistan according to your post, no?
Well, the neighbours aren't pretty:
Lets go through themUzbekistan, an authortarian dictatorship
Allies of USATurkmenistan, an authortarrian dictatorship
No influenceTajikistan, another dictatorship
Allies of USAPakistan, a country ruled by a military dictatorship via coup.
Allies of AmericaIran, an Islamist republic
America possibly planning action, certainly against the state.China, a communist state.
China have absolutely no interest in Afghanistan are certainly economic allies of America and would never support an insurgency against America0 -
What influence do you think Saddam could have had on Afghanistan, given he was under 12 years of UN Sanctions? (you know since it was obviously a major concern:rolleyes:)SpAcEd OuT wrote: »Once again I didn't say he had an influence I said he could have had an influence if he wanted.
To answer your second question, the sanctions were obviously not working if America decided to go into Iraq so obviously he still had a high level of influence
What influence are you refering in your last sentence?
Are you talking about Saddam's influence in Iraq?"America decided to go into Iraq so obviously he still had a high level of influence"0 -
Are you talking about Saddam's influence in Iraq?
I'm saying Sadaam obviously still had a high level of influence in the middle east as well as Iraq yes.
Lets face it the sanctions were an attempt to overthrow a tyranny that had gassed it own people, caused instability in the region and was brutal. The sanctions obviously weren't working as Sadaam was still in power so America decided after Sept 11 to stabalise the area.0 -
We can knock sentiment squarely on the head. The US is certainly not going to care about foreign plight when it allows the medical system there to kill in the order of tens of thousands through malpractice, prescription drugs, unnecessary surgery, etc. If they cared about life this would have been addressed already. So they are not there for the good of anyone's health or well being except for the peace of mind of it's corporate interests. Be that oil, rebuilding and/or military contracts.It is not sentiment surely for the oppressed people.
Nick0 -
America donates more to charity than any other country.
Just thought i'd throw that out there.0 -
Most analyisis that i've read describe Saddam's Iraq under UN Sanctions as being very isolated.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I'm saying Sadaam obviously still had a high level of influence in the middle east as well as Iraq yes
But you are claiming he obviously had a high level of influence in the ME.
Obviously he couldn't influence things militarily, and politically he as pretty much out in the cold among his neighbors.0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »America donates more to charity than any other country.
Just thought i'd throw that out there.
Why?
But since you mentioned it...
Net ODA in 2006 as percent of GNI Country Aid amount by GNP
Sweden 1.03
Luxembourg 0.89
Norway 0.89
Netherlands 0.81
Denmark 0.8
Ireland 0.53
UK 0.52
Belgium 0.5
Austria 0.48
France 0.47
Finland 0.39
Switzerland 0.39
Germany 0.36
Spain 0.32
Australia 0.3
Canada 0.3
New Zealand 0.27
Japan 0.25
Portugal 0.21
Italy 0.2
USA 0.17
Greece 0.16
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
oh and while we're at it:
"The United States is the largest supplier of weapons to developing nations, delivering more than $9.6 billion in arms to Near East and Asian countries last year.
The U.S. sales to the developing countries helped boost worldwide weapons sales to the highest level since 2000, a congressional study says.
The total worldwide value of all agreements to sell arms last year was close to $37 billion, and nearly 59 percent of the agreements were to sell weapons to developing nations, according to the Congressional Research Service report."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0901-08.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
But that's not a good measure since they have a larger pool to collect from.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »America donates more to charity than any other country.
Just thought i'd throw that out there.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-per-capita0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement