'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'

DrumSteve

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Zogby is run by a democrat who is openly opposed to the war.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I prefer getting information from actual interviews with soldiers rather than relying on a biased persons account of the information

everything has a bias.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I prefer getting information from actual interviews with soldiers rather than relying on a biased persons account of the information

But Zogby's poll was based on information from actual interviews with soldiers. It was what the soldiers themselves said, represented in poll form.

Now sure, you can weight the questions, and you can selectively choose who to ask, and of those you ask choose who;s answers to take....but then again, actual interviews with soldiers involves all the same levels of bias.

Statistically, however, the more people you ask, the harder it is to grossly misrepresent the overall trends. Zogby's poll was based on close to 1000 soldiers' responses. Did you read close to 1000 interviews?

Trode

bonkey wrote: »

Because its our way of life they're bombing into other countries.

Remember...its fine to use force to push agendas we approve of, but unconscionably immoral to use the same force to push agendas we disapprove of.

Do you seriously not believe this to be true? Or are you just being deliberately vague to hide an implication of bias?

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

They at the time of support had no idea that these leaders and groups were going to do what they did.
They never intentionally said ''hey these guys are going to mass murder people lets back them''. As I said America has made mistakes in choosing who they have backed in the past this however is different from Iran who are supplying training and weapons to groups THEY KNOW are involved is the mass murdering of civilian populations.

They not only had an idea in most cases...they trained them. Google "School of the Americas". In the case of Cambodia Nixon said "anything that flies on anything that moves". If one doesn't know that's a recipe for mass murder of civilians then they need serious psychological evaluation.
Again there is no evidence in regards to Iran.

To use in conventional warfare not against civilian populations.

Then how come when the Halabja "incident" occured Ronny Raygun blamed the atrocity on Iran?

Firstly do you even know how many millions upon millions of lives were saved by this act. Japan had no intention of surrendering and for those who say Japan was about to surrender had no airforce etc. BULL**** the Japanese people had no intention of surrendering as they didn't want to lose honour the nuclear bombing gave the emperor the excuse to surrender.

I'm afraid if anything is bull****...it's your contention.
The Emperor was sending envoys to seek terms for a surrender.

Secondly this was WW2 era. bombing civilian cities was a tatic employed by people on every side of the war. During that time it was a winning at all costs mentality. It wasn't a nice time to be living in but those were the times.

That may be true but it proves false your contention that they have never intentionally targeted civilians. In fact America and the UK were planning on bombing civilians at the same time as the Germans...not because of.

...Yeah... Japan during the 40s.... good country... It wasn't like it was involved in genocide or anything.

Thats the "they aren't as bad as we are so its ok" defense.

You make it sound like being anti-communist, have a strong zionist community[Are you racist], being captalist and using oil are something to be ashamed of which is ridiculous.

Zionism is racist. Actually the UN drafted a resolution saying as much but was vetoed by the US and has most of the same tenets as Apartheid.

Oil Guzzling Policies - Nope not true OPEC owns most of the oil not America even if they invade a country they don't own the oil so the theory that they are invading countries to take all their oil is simply false, just because you read it on indymedia doesn't make it true

If America invade a country they very much control the oil. That is a stated goal to control middle east as far back as Eisenhower.

Captalist/Anti-Communist - In fairness that was during the cold war when the domino theory was in effect. They were effectively fighting a war against Russia except never directly. And I think we will all agree that a captalist society is a better one to live under than a communist society [see South Korea/North Korea, Western Germany/Eastern Germany etc.]

The old cold war defense. Doesn't wash. Firstly American intelligence knew that the Soviet Union was no threat to America and secondly they inflated figures to make it look like they were to the American public.
A capitalist society under America was probably better than one under the Soviet Union (neither being a true form of their supposed economic systems). I would argue that capitalism isn't necessarily better than communism and I think a few in here might argue the same. That's another thread and one that often occurs in this forum.

bonkey

Trode wrote: »

Do you seriously not believe this to be true? Or are you just being deliberately vague to hide an implication of bias?

I believe its an attitude that some people (consciously or otherwise) subscribe to, and that others do not subscribe to....and every nuance in between.

Zulu

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians

Just on that well taught out point, I might remind you of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both these atom bombs resulted in the immediate deaths of around 120,000 civilians from injuries sustained from the explosion and acute radiation sickness, and an unknown amount of deaths over time from long-term effects of radiation.

America is the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons on civilians.

Trode

bonkey wrote: »

I believe its an attitude that some people (consciously or otherwise) subscribe to, and that others do not subscribe to....and every nuance in between.

I find it hard to believe that anyone genuinely believes all 'agendas' are equally valid or invalid, morally or otherwise, and that enforcing one over another is always wrong. But it wouldn't be the first time humanity has disappointed me.

faceman

Mordeth wrote: »

it's no threat to us, here.. we're mostly white and pretty rich. But lots of people all over the world are going to die because of these weapons, not all of them 'enemy combatants'.

If it's wrong for Iran to do it, why is it ok for the Americans?

I really dont understand what point you are tryin to make? Are you trying to say that the activities that the iranian and iraqi government carried out are comparable with what the US does?? Maybe you can elaborate on your point please?

sovtek wrote: »

If America invade a country they very much control the oil. That is a stated goal to control middle east as far back as Eisenhower.

Can you show how the americans control the oil and how its used for their benefit? Do you think the these "wars on terror" that the US engage in is part of a higher agenda? Since 2001, the US has had annual budget deficits on average of $250bn. to quote from an post of mine from another thread:

me! wrote:

Increased US spending on national defense and homeland security combined with the US gov’s tax cutting agenda has reduced natural spending increases in areas that are traditionally considered contributors to economic growth and national security.

The US gov curtailed health, education and public safety spending in recent years as it pumped the extra cash into its military. The spending growth and tax cuts have led to budget deficits (approx $250 billion at present). This leads to higher interest rates (as we saw from 2003 to 2007 where the trend was one way - up) The long term effect of increased spending on military resources has the long term effect of actually costing more in terms of foregone growth opportunities, especially in the context of the need to allocate greater resources to an aging population.

The dollar is worth feck all at the moment. So the oil agenda, how has the US benefited?

wes

faceman wrote: »

The dollar is worth feck all at the moment. So the oil agenda, how has the US benefited?

Haliburton, seem to be doing really well these days.

SpAcEd OuT

sovtek wrote: »

They not only had an idea in most cases...they trained them. Google "School of the Americas". In the case of Cambodia Nixon said "anything that flies on anything that moves". If one doesn't know that's a recipe for mass murder of civilians then they need serious psychological evaluation.

I don't know what the quote means ''anything that flies on anything that moves'' care to elaborate

sovtek wrote: »

Then how come when the Halabja "incident" occured Ronny Raygun blamed the atrocity on Iran?

Maybe because they didn't want people knowing they made a mistake in who they decided to back. Different from intentionally targeting civilians

sovtek wrote: »

I'm afraid if anything is bull****...it's your contention.
The Emperor was sending envoys to seek terms for a surrender.

Oh I'm sure the emperor wanted to surrender but the Japanese obsession with honor made this impossible for him. After the bombings he had an excuse and could surrender without losing face. You are aware that nearly every credible historian backs this theory.

sovtek wrote: »

That may be true but it proves false your contention that they have never intentionally targeted civilians. In fact America and the UK were planning on bombing civilians at the same time as the Germans...not because of.

I don't think you can judge a country today based on it's actions during WW2 as they were very different, drastic times. If you want to judge countries today based on their actions in WW2 then no country comes out of the conflict well. But I don't think thats fair its akin to me saying that Germany is a bad country because they murdered millions of jews. Move on

sovtek wrote: »

Thats the "they aren't as bad as we are so its ok" defense.

Might want to rephrase that

If you meant ''We aren't as bad as them so it's ok'' I was saying that in response to another poster saying America had to make up claims about countries it invaded to make them look bad

sovtek wrote: »

Zionism is racist. Actually the UN drafted a resolution saying as much but was vetoed by the US and has most of the same tenets as Apartheid.

Maybe because being nationalistic doesn't make you racist.

sovtek wrote: »

If America invade a country they very much control the oil. That is a stated goal to control middle east as far back as Eisenhower.

No OPEC is. You might want to check your sources

sovtek wrote: »

The old cold war defense. Doesn't wash. Firstly American intelligence knew that the Soviet Union was no threat to America

:rolleyes:

SpAcEd OuT

Zulu wrote: »

Just on that well taught out point, I might remind you of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both these atom bombs resulted in the immediate deaths of around 120,000 civilians from injuries sustained from the explosion and acute radiation sickness, and an unknown amount of deaths over time from long-term effects of radiation.

America is the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons on civilians.

Might want to read the whole thread I have already addressed that point.

SpAcEd OuT

wes wrote: »

Haliburton, seem to be doing really well these days.

Did you even read his quoted point

Zulu

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Might want to read the whole thread I have already addressed that point.

Read the thread, the point still stands

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

They at the time of support had no idea that these leaders and groups were going to do what they did. They never intentionally said ''hey these guys are going to mass murder people lets back them''. As I said America has made mistakes in choosing who they have backed in the past this however is different from Iran who are supplying training and weapons to groups THEY KNOW are involved is the mass murdering of civilian populations.

HELLO!!!!!
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THEY ARE NOT SOLD TO DICTATORSHIPS FOR COMMUNITY WELFARE YOU IMBECILE. THEY SOLD THEM FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THEY WERE FOR, IRAQ WAS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE IRAN IRAQ CONFLICT, THE US SOLD THEM THE WEAPONS. => ARE COMPLICIT IN THEIR USE END OF STORY

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

To use in conventional warfare against Russia

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS AWARE THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD THEIR HANDS A LITTLE FULL AND BURNED JUST OUTSIDE KABUL AT THE TIME, THEY WERE OF NO THREAT TO IRAQ, UNLESS THE US CONSIDERED AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC A DIRECT RUSSIAN THREAT?????

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Firstly do you even know how many millions upon millions of lives were saved by this act.

NO AND NEITHER DO YOU

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Japan had no intention of surrendering and for those who say Japan was about to surrender had no airforce etc. BULL**** the Japanese people had no intention of surrendering as they didn't want to lose honour the nuclear bombing gave the emperor the excuse to surrender.

I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IF THE WAR IN THE ORIENT HAD DRAGGED ON MUCH LONGER, THE RUSSIANS, WITH ONLY ONE HOSTILE FRONT, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TO LONG ABOUT THROWING THEIR NUMBERS BEHIND SECURING A VAST WEALTH OF PORTS AND RESOURCES IN CHINA, LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE JAPANESE BACK DOOR, THEREBY CRIPPLING THEM, DON'T KID YOURSELF, IT WAS A TACTICAL DECISION TO HURRY THE PROCESS BEFORE THE SOVIETS GOT THERE, BERLIN GOT LUCKY IMO.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

...Yeah... Japan during the 40s.... good country... It wasn't like it was involved in genocide or anything.

LETS JUST HIT THE DR. STRANGELOVE BUTTON THEN SHALL WE????

CIVILIAN TARGETS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NOT ALLOWED (repeat until it sinks in)

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You make it sound like being anti-communist, have a strong zionist community[Are you racist], being captalist and using oil are something to be ashamed of which is ridiculous. In fact Ireland ticks all the boxes apart from having a large jewish population [which there is nothing wrong with by the way]

I will admit to being a supporter of a Palestinian nation, and I think that anybody who isn't has either a very shallow political knowledge, or is just a downright hypocrite.
On Capitalism, The Username gives it away, The flaws in the Capitalist system enrage me, the preach about efficiency, and yet squander oil now, denying future generations the resources to construct the infrastructure necessary to support our planets growing population. Socialism, and its evolution is a pet interest of mine, there are many positive sides to comprmised Marxist theory, and anybody that cannot recognize that fact needs to extract stuff from orifi.
No, I am in no way racist, and yes being a flat out capitalist and squandering oil (or any resource) is something to be ashamed of, a fact that your offspring, or maybe their offspring may appreciate.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Oil Guzzling Policies - Nope not true OPEC owns most of the oil not America even if they invade a country they don't own the oil so the theory that they are invading countries to take all their oil is simply false, just because you read it on indymedia doesn't make it true

The US Dollar has been sliding since OPEC Changed from DOllar indexing to Euro, I never said that the US was taking the Oil, What the US is doing is generating defense contracts, to spur their dying economy, in order to increase their dollar value, in order to buy the oil.
Instead of your indymedia smart alec remarks, try opening a book, I would suggest house of bush, house of Saud by Craig Unger, Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Does America Need a foreign Policy by Henry Kissinger, and The great war for civilization by Robert Fisk. When your done with those, unwind by watchin a movie by Aaron spelling about the Federal reserve bank. These sources are all open to legal scrutiny and subject to Libel law, I suggest you beware the Indymedia remarks.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Britain got the quieter regions to begin with yet still Basra is a hostile region today.

Britain took the care to find out where the quieter regions were, they were pulled into the war, A willing leader of a decieved nation.

NOW will you please, stop posting NEO CON gibberish, Go read the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (The neo-con manifesto) and reflect on how badly mistaken you have been.

Or have I mis-read those books ?:rolleyes:

AngryHippie

I was being ironic, do the remarks about the "communist threat" describe anything like a US administration today , Orwell, anyone for bacon ?????

Sorry about all the quotations in my last post and sorry for calling spaced out an imbecile, but it is quite frustrating trying to dismantle a wall of ignorance with a chisel of civility, the blunt instrument of name calling can sometimes shake the foundations enough to bring the whole lot down.

Heres Hoping:D

jonny72

Neoconservatism is completely and utterly about war and conflict. Its a warped Machiavellian policy of democracy through force, thinly veiled as some kind of battle between good and evil.

Who has benefited from this policy? the Iraqis? no, the Afghans? no.. the only people who have got something out of this are the..

Islamic Extremists (a bigger cause)
Warmongers (war)
War profiteers (money)
and the Military (action)

But now theres a problem, the Military are not benefiting any more, they are really taking the brunt of this...

So what do the Neocons want now? Iran.. (you don't exactly hear Neocons talking about anything else but war and the necessity of it)

Who does that benefit?..

Islamic Extremists
Warmongers
War profiteers

But not the Military..

The intelligence community and the Military in the US are pushing back against the hawks and that is very evident in the release of this information about Iran.

The Neocon movement, if you could call it that, is deeply unpopular in the States and is practically dead. Many of its most ardent supporters in the administration have fallen by the wayside due to corruption, lies, incompetence, etc. The only thing this movement wants is war.. war with Iran.. this latest information has dealt a huge blow to that.. and thats why I am not surprised to hear from their support base (singular in this case).

Pointless bloodshed with Iran is certainly not going to happen anytime soon, and I am glad of that.

queenlex

surprise, surprise, surprise!! Overstated or just downright lied that is the question? That governement are total hypocrits and liars they have been since they came in they should be ashamed of themselves!

Bush probably couldnt spell the word nuclear anyway he is so amazingly thick!

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that both of you are deciding what you want US soldiers to be feeling / thinking, and that neither of you have access to any sort of reliable, unbiased information regarding the feelings of the troop corps in general.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but seriously....it helps neither of your cases to be arguing what you think these people are thinking.

Anyone can make **** up. The convincing arguments are made by those who can stick to what is known. Ironically, this is why its a bad idea to even consider supporting the notion of an invasion of Iran.

When BushCo wanted to invade Iraq, they offered reason after reason, based on "hard evidence" that turned out to be either overstated, misinterpreted, or flat-out made up. Finally, they went with what amounts to the same logic that SpAcEd OuT is offering here....Saddam is a very bad man and deserves to be taken out of power.

If that was a good enough reason, then the whole issue of nuclear weapons would never have even made it onto the radar. That it did, and was heartily overstated and embraced by BushCo and their ideologues shows that they fundamentally understand that the argument SpAcEd OuT is offering - that Iran is run by very very bad men who deserve to be taken out of power - is insufficient. That's why it was never the primary reason in Iraq...until as much paranoia, hatred and fear as possible had been stoked up amongst the US populace so that they were gung ho to quickly follow on the "success" of the Afghanistan war.

It might be sufficient if we allow the same pattern as happened with Iraq to continue. Nuclear threat will be replaced with allegations of WMD usage in the Iran-Iraq war. Ties with 911 will be hinted at. And so on and so forth, until one day its all summed up into the notion that "Iran is run by very very bad men, so its ok to invade".

What seems to be overlooked here, however, is that this time things really are different. When going into Iraq, the US could point to Afghanistan and claim it to be the most comprehensively successful and cost-effective war ever waged. This was used as the shield against all criticism that going into Iraq was dumb because there was no plan to win the peace. No-one doubted the US could win the war....but the peace was a problem which Afghanistan was the response to.

Now, 4 years later, Afghanistan is no longer a shining example of how to do it right. Iraq is a shining example of how to do it wrong. The "war bill" runs to hundreds of billions already spent (and estimated trillions in total)...and for what?

Invading Iran on the "bad bad people" argument....not gonna happen...at least not yet.

But the pattern..

Look at what we were told...

Iran must be stopped because they're lying to us and are secretely building nukes.

Then we get the report...

Iran are not lying to us and have stopped their nuclear weapons program just like they said they were.

The response?

Iran can't be trusted. They lie and make things up. We might need to bomb them anyway...but not until we find a new pretext.

And why can't we trust Iran? Why...because they told us the truth, while those saying they can't be trusted made **** up.

It makes perfect sense. Iran tell the truth - they're untrustworthy. US government make **** up....they should be listened to. Why? Because we don't want to live in fear of being ruled by some foreign culture. Because we love McDonalds, Ben & Jerrys, and all that other All-American goodness. Because Americanism is an intrinsic part of our Irish way of life.

I am happy to state as fact that in a recent poll that was made, 70% of the US soldiers who were questioned wanted to 'come home'. I will try to find a link to it and post it up. I think that this figure is a damning indictment of US government relations with the soldiers who bow to there whims. Whims that have cost 3,000+ troop lives and at least 500,000 civilian deaths. The troops obey their orders; MIAs/defections are still relatively small and, given the amount of dissatisfaction shown by the troops' poll, the US government should be thankful for their loyalty. I don't see any sign of them being truly grateful for their anti-Islamic war, apart from contrived photo-ops and veterans/injured who do not even get proper care for their wounds at the army hospitals. Oh, let's not forget about the fact that, for a fraction of the trillions budget spent thus far, army personnel could have proper armour for themselves and for the vehicles they drive. Grateful, my arse.

If I may deal with what I perceive to be your overall point, I see it too. The propaganda war has already begun. However, they will find it much harder this time. Last time the four major news networks were leaned on hard by the administration to add fuel to the war flames. This time MSNBC and CNN, in particular, are not being so easy to steamroll over. CBS are not quite so moderate in their reporting, but are nowhere near as shilling for war as Fox are. This is the only real avenue available for the US government to reach out to their core support. This time the US people are more wary and will deal with any last bit of this possible war in the elections this time next year, just like they did this time last year.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason that both cannot be correct.

There's little doubt that the troops, and the Army as an institution want out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity, but I have also little doubt that the vast majority want to do so only when the situation feasibly allows it. I was still in my previous unit when it received its marching orders for another tour next year, and I would certainly not call the overall attitude a negative one. More of a resigned "OK, let's knuckle down and git 'r done."

NTM

You have explained better what I was referring to by saying 'loyalty'. Thanks.

However, I argue that I am more accurate than SpacedOut, who I am beginning to believe has the most apt usernick on boards.ie.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Has anything ever been proved from all of this.....


No.

Therefore you cannot state as fact that the elections were rigged if they were, all of these investigative organisations [and there were independent ones as well] would have stated the elections were rigged following their investigation. None of them stated the elections were rigged and as such your opinion on the matter is little more than a conspiracy theory.

Here you have made your clearest misstatement.

After the last two presidential elections, in particular, there were several commissions setup in several states and their decisions ranged from simple interference to outright fraud.

I am not stating an opinion, I am stating factual findings of bi-partisan commissions. You've just not heard of them due to the bubble you live in.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

They at the time of support had no idea that these leaders and groups were going to do what they did. They never intentionally said ''hey these guys are going to mass murder people lets back them''. As I said America has made mistakes in choosing who they have backed in the past this however is different from Iran who are supplying training and weapons to groups THEY KNOW are involved is the mass murdering of civilian populations.

Bad intelligence is no excuse for gross errors of judgment.

Oh wait, we've heard this one before, lol.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

To use in conventional warfare not against civilian populations.

Weapons which they used on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Firstly do you even know how many millions upon millions of lives were saved by this act. Japan had no intention of surrendering and for those who say Japan was about to surrender had no airforce etc. BULL**** the Japanese people had no intention of surrendering as they didn't want to lose honour the nuclear bombing gave the emperor the excuse to surrender.

Secondly this was WW2 era. bombing civilian cities was a tatic employed by people on every side of the war. During that time it was a winning at all costs mentality. It wasn't a nice time to be living in but those were the times.

I don't know "how many millions were saved by this act", but I'm sure you have accurate figures, lol. Such preposterous scaremongering is typical of a neo-con. Just out of curiosity, I'm dying to hear your figure?

Luckily, humans have evolved a little since this and most democracies now would not ever dream of doing something that, even at a stretch, will harm civilians. It's a shame that the US government still has some catching up to do in this regard.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

...Yeah... Japan during the 40s.... good country... It wasn't like it was involved in genocide or anything.

Sorry, you are not going to be able to excuse the only use, ever, of a weapon of mass destruction on civilians. Twisting of facts and daft logic along with portraying the innocent victims as being evil-doers-to-be is quite simply insane.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You make it sound like being anti-communist, have a strong zionist community[Are you racist], being captalist and using oil are something to be ashamed of which is ridiculous. In fact Ireland ticks all the boxes apart from having a large jewish population [which there is nothing wrong with by the way]

Now

Oil Guzzling Policies - Nope not true OPEC owns most of the oil not America even if they invade a country they don't own the oil so the theory that they are invading countries to take all their oil is simply false, just because you read it on indymedia doesn't make it true

Captalist/Anti-Communist - In fairness that was during the cold war when the domino theory was in effect. They were effectively fighting a war against Russia except never directly. And I think we will all agree that a captalist society is a better one to live under than a communist society [see South Korea/North Korea, Western Germany/Eastern Germany etc.]

No he is not a racist, he is simply stating the accurate portrayal of the US as being a meddlesome entity, only interested in what is good for themselves, and to a lesser extent, their allies.

Ireland does tick all the boxes as you say, but we don't go around invading countries & killing civilians while using dressed up, and false, intelligence to try and justify the unjustifiable.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Britain got the quieter regions to begin with yet still Basra is a hostile region today.

All of Iraq is now unstable. The cause: an unjustifiable US/UK, and a small few other countries, invasion in 2003.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I have seen many interviews with soldiers on various news channels in which they all state that despite the hardship they want to stay until the job is done. There was a poll on C4 news awhile back that said something like 80pc [give or take] wanted to stay in Iraq until the job is done. CNN had a news piece that was saying that the majority of soldiers would support an invasion of Iran if it meant stabalizing the Iraqi region.

I dispute this. 70% wanted to come home according to a very recent poll. Your figures don't stack up.

Note the part "...if it meant...". I think that says it all and another war, which the US troop levels could not cope with, is inconceivable.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Nope. Those governments aren't supporting insurgents. They aren't supplying weapons to insurgents to kill civilians with. They aren't training insurgents in how best to effectively kill civilians. Under your notion we should invade Britain for supplying insurgents. It doesn't work like that those countries aren't intentionally supplying insurgents in fact they are trying to prevent it.

Are you saying that every weapon that is used in Iraq is coming from Iran?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Agent Orange was used to kill foilage they never used it to intentionally kill civilians and weren't aware at the time the damage it was doing.

See my earlier point about bad intelligence. This is also a indication of lack of foresight.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Either had North Korea, yet they still managed to build a nuclear weapon.

North Korea are not a threat to anyone. They've recently agreed to wind-down their program and are allowing inspectors in.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Look at the level of US involvement then look at the other countries level of involvement I think you will find it was a largely US force in the Balkans and that the US did pretty much 90pc of the work. :o

Bottom line: it was a UN operation. Period. I'm not interested in how involved the US were in it; I'm just correcting your misstatement about the operation being a solely US venture.

(BTW, I don't appreciate you editing my composition)

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Zogby is run by a democrat who is openly opposed to the war.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I prefer getting information from actual interviews with soldiers rather than relying on a biased persons account of the information

This poll was conducted using actual interviews with soldiers. You have beaten yourself with your own logic, again.

Don't forget that Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies were involved in the tabulation, too. I suppose they are left wing loons, too?!

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Might want to read the whole thread I have already addressed that point.

Yes, you did, using the same tired, twisted logic.

Manic Moran

I dispute this. 70% wanted to come home according to a very recent poll. Your figures don't stack up.

And I would dispute the conclusion you are drawing from the poll figure. Do not confuse "We want to come home soon" with "we should come home now."

Similarly:

You have explained better what I was referring to by saying 'loyalty'.

Whilst loyalty to the oath of enlistment is doubtless a factor, you are omitting the concept of duty to the mission itself. It happens that a lot of servicemen are of the belief that Iraqis should have a better life than the violent situation they have now, and if it is needed that a military presence be used to help, then being the selfless people that they are, they'll be the ones to do it, since few others seem interested. I am one of the latter. I do not see how we can in good conscience, leave the Iraqis who shared their tables with me to their fates in a state of civil strife.

I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IF THE WAR IN THE ORIENT HAD DRAGGED ON MUCH LONGER, THE RUSSIANS, WITH ONLY ONE HOSTILE FRONT, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TO LONG ABOUT THROWING THEIR NUMBERS BEHIND SECURING A VAST WEALTH OF PORTS AND RESOURCES IN CHINA, LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE JAPANESE BACK DOOR, THEREBY CRIPPLING THEM,

Are you implying that lives lost in a Russian/Japanese campaign in China don't count? Russian-involved battles were not known for low casualty counts.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

And I would dispute the conclusion you are drawing from the poll figure. Do not confuse "We want to come home soon" with "we should come home now."

I did not say "we want to come home soon".

Sorry, I have read up on this, and other, polls. I'm not interpreting them wrong. Another figure, and perhaps one that puts things in more perspective, is that only 23% of the troops think that they should "stay as long as is necessary". This happens to be Bush's policy position.

Yet another startling stat from this poll is that 90% believe they are there as retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11. Very funny that, since he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

HELLO!!!!!
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THEY ARE NOT SOLD TO DICTATORSHIPS FOR COMMUNITY WELFARE YOU IMBECILE. THEY SOLD THEM FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THEY WERE FOR, IRAQ WAS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE IRAN IRAQ CONFLICT, THE US SOLD THEM THE WEAPONS. => ARE COMPLICIT IN THEIR USE END OF STORY

Hello. They sold Iraq weapons to use in conventional warfare against the Iranian military. They did not sell them with the intention for Iraq to use them on civilians.

AngryHippie wrote: »

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS AWARE THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD THEIR HANDS A LITTLE FULL AND BURNED JUST OUTSIDE KABUL AT THE TIME, THEY WERE OF NO THREAT TO IRAQ, UNLESS THE US CONSIDERED AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC A DIRECT RUSSIAN THREAT?????

No they supplied the Afghanis with weapons to fight a country the US were technically at war with and who were committing horrible atrocities in Afghanistan.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IF THE WAR IN THE ORIENT HAD DRAGGED ON MUCH LONGER, THE RUSSIANS, WITH ONLY ONE HOSTILE FRONT, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TO LONG ABOUT THROWING THEIR NUMBERS BEHIND SECURING A VAST WEALTH OF PORTS AND RESOURCES IN CHINA, LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE JAPANESE BACK DOOR, THEREBY CRIPPLING THEM, DON'T KID YOURSELF, IT WAS A TACTICAL DECISION TO HURRY THE PROCESS BEFORE THE SOVIETS GOT THERE, BERLIN GOT LUCKY IMO.

So do you have any actual intentional evidence that Russia would have done this I guarantee you don't.

And trust me a Russian invasion of Japan would have been far worse civilian deaths than America [Even if they did drop a nuclear bomb]

AngryHippie wrote: »

LETS JUST HIT THE DR. STRANGELOVE BUTTON THEN SHALL WE????

CIVILIAN TARGETS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NOT ALLOWED (repeat until it sinks in)

WW2 times my friend. Win at all costs mentality. Losing was not an option. I suppose you hate all the allies in WW2 for doing exactly the same [Nuclear or not it was still killing civilians] As said earlier if you want to judge countries based on their actions during the WW2 era then the Germans are still a bunch of murdering Nazis and the Japanese are Genocidal Nuts but of course that isn't fair.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I will admit to being a supporter of a Palestinian nation, and I think that anybody who isn't has either a very shallow political knowledge, or is just a downright hypocrite.

O.K thats fine so am I, it doesn't mean you can criticize a country for having a zionist community thats completely racist and you can hide it all you want by saying a Jewish nationalist population[which there is nothing wrong with by the way] but anyone can see what you wanted to say was 'jewish community'. You know the Palestinians have done horrible things to the jewish people as well you cannot criticize America for looking out for a large section of it's own population.

AngryHippie wrote: »

On Capitalism, The Username gives it away, The flaws in the Capitalist system enrage me, the preach about efficiency, and yet squander oil now, denying future generations the resources to construct the infrastructure necessary to support our planets growing population. Socialism, and its evolution is a pet interest of mine, there are many positive sides to comprmised Marxist theory, and anybody that cannot recognize that fact needs to extract stuff from orifi.
No, I am in no way racist, and yes being a flat out capitalist and squandering oil (or any resource) is something to be ashamed of, a fact that your offspring, or maybe their offspring may appreciate.

Oh god

I am sure communism is great, I mean we have so many examples.....East Berlin, North Korea, Soviet Russia

And do you honestly think a communist government wouldn't squander oil exactly the same.

Communism is great in theory but in reality it doesn't work. At all.

AngryHippie wrote: »

The US Dollar has been sliding since OPEC Changed from DOllar indexing to Euro, I never said that the US was taking the Oil, What the US is doing is generating defense contracts, to spur their dying economy, in order to increase their dollar value, in order to buy the oil.
Instead of your indymedia smart alec remarks, try opening a book, I would suggest house of bush, house of Saud by Craig Unger, Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Does America Need a foreign Policy by Henry Kissinger, and The great war for civilization by Robert Fisk. When your done with those, unwind by watchin a movie by Aaron spelling about the Federal reserve bank. These sources are all open to legal scrutiny and subject to Libel law, I suggest you beware the Indymedia remarks.

I have read Robert Fisk's book already and am fully aware of the points raised in House of Saud. I don't see how Robert Fisk's book is relevant to your accusation that America steals oil from ME countries [Which is what you implied whatever way you want to dress it up] and House of Saud if anything proves the opposite that America has to actually heed to a ME country to get a steady flow of oil.

America did not start a war in order to create defense contracts that would in turn spur on their economy. That is a conspiracy theory. Ever notice that a lot of arguments against America are conspiracy theories of what you think they are doing

AngryHippie wrote: »

Britain took the care to find out where the quieter regions were, they were pulled into the war, A willing leader of a decieved nation.

LOL so there goes your point about Britain's regions being quieter due to them treating the civilians better unlike the American's who according to you are just there to break stuff

AngryHippie wrote: »

YOU IMBECILE

I do not appreciate personal abuse.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

However, I argue that I am more accurate than SpacedOut, who I am beginning to believe has the most apt usernick on boards.ie.

In fairness theres no need for personal abuse.

I have no problem arguing points with you but there is no need to being childish about the matter.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Bad intelligence is no excuse for gross errors of judgment.

No it's not and I have admitted America has made mistakes. This is different from some cynical posters on here that say that America intentionally made this mistakes with the goal of mass murdering civilians

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Weapons which they used on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

As stated America gave Iraq those weapons with the intention of them being used on Iranian military they did not know Sadaam was going to use them on his own people years after they gave them to him.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I don't know "how many millions were saved by this act", but I'm sure you have accurate figures, lol. Such preposterous scaremongering is typical of a neo-con. Just out of curiosity, I'm dying to hear your figure?.

I obviously don't have an exact figure but nearly every credible historian believes the figure to be in the millions.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Sorry, you are not going to be able to excuse the only use, ever, of a weapon of mass destruction on civilians. Twisting of facts and daft logic along with portraying the innocent victims as being evil-doers-to-be is quite simply insane.

I'm not potraying the victims as evil doers I am saying that the Japanese emperor although wanting to surrender couldn't because of the Japanese obsession with honor. The Nuclear bombing allowed him to do this without losing face amongst his people.

Sometimes in order to good you may have to engage in evil.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

No he is not a racist, he is simply stating the accurate portrayal of the US as being a meddlesome entity, only interested in what is good for themselves, and to a lesser extent, their allies.

Oh yes because its not like America are the biggest donaters to charity [and per capita as well if you were to include the amount they give to NGOs,governments etc.] it's not like America have sent the more troops than all other countries put together on peace keeping missions, its not like America gives out free healthcare to other countries etc.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

All of Iraq is now unstable. The cause: an unjustifiable US/UK, and a small few other countries, invasion in 2003.

I was saying that in response to Angry Hippys claim that the British regions in Iraq were more stable because of the BA's conduct whilst America's regions were bad because of the American soldier's conduct, I think you agree with me that that claim is utterly false and that all of Iraq is unstable.

However it is becoming more stable despite the carbombing violence is dropping http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL057734620071205?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Despite the day's bloodshed, overall attacks across Iraq have fallen to their lowest level in nearly two years, focusing attention on whether the Shi'ite-led government can reconcile with disaffected minority Sunni Arabs.


Things are starting to piece together, people are actually disaffecting from Al-Qaeda to join neighbourhood security patrols

Earlier on Wednesday the government took a step in that direction by announcing it would put 45,000 of the patrol members on its payroll by the middle of 2008.

That means tens of thousands of armed Sunni Arabs, many believed to have fought against the government before this year, will soon be working for it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL057734620071205?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

imp

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

So do you have any actual intentional evidence that Russia would have done this I guarantee you don't.

And trust me a Russian invasion of Japan would have been far worse civilian deaths than America [Even if they did drop a nuclear bomb]

Actually the Soviets invaded China and some other Japanese-controlled territories a few days before the Japanese surrendered, having promised at the Yalta conference to declare war on Japan within 90 days of Germany being defeated.