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

I'm Confused

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    Don't be so bloody childish. You know well who he is referring to.

    Coillte Bhoy?

    Celtic fan then?

    Let me guess, you support the Palestinian cause? Am I right?

    I got this Derren Brown thing going on you see...


  • Options
    #33
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Deleted User wrote: »
    "Their" land or the land seized by Israel in wars that sought to crush that country? And kicked off like all the Jews that were expelled from Arab States into Israel a few decades back, which was a very significant factor in the problem now.

    But it's all been argued elsewhere.

    IMO, everything except the land they lost during the six day war, e.g. land being stolen today, land taken from them immediately after WW2, etc.


  • Options
    #34
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    Iraq when/if fixed will be a far better place than it was. Whether the price is worth paying is debatable, but Saddam was evil. The Yanks and Brits aren't. They might not be shining knights or anything, but they're not evil.

    They don't seem evil to you, but the average Iraqi might disagree with you.

    I understand and appreciate they look like us and talk like us and share the same culture as us, but the US in particular are by far the most evil force in the world. If you don't believe me all you have to do is ask yourself who else (apart from Russia) is invading and bombing other countries, in the process killing thousands/millions of innocent people.

    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    Was Israel the aggressor in the 1940s? Or 1967? Or for the Yom Kippur war?

    I don't think the Palestinians are innocent, but I do think one side (Israel) is worse than the other.


  • Options
    #35
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where do you want to start? Gassing thousands of Kurds. Or did they havbe 'yappy' mothers and deserve to get 'offed'?

    The West happily supported him, when he was gassing the poor Kurds, and even helped him gas the Iranians, during his war of aggression against Iran.

    Also, the stated reasons for war, were imaginary WMD's and non-existent links to Osama, and not what you mentioned above. For some bizare reason, you seem to have ignored the real reason for the war of aggression against Iraq.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is this a quiz? Is the answer Saddam Hussein, Kuwait, and the bogus **** was that it belonged to Iraq?

    His reasons are no worse than imaginary WMD's and rants about "Gog and Magog".


  • Options
    #36
    Coillte_Bhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,904 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Coillte Bhoy?

    Celtic fan then?

    Let me guess, you support the Palestinian cause? Am I right?

    I got this Derren Brown thing going on you see...


    Right on both counts. However i don't see why you necessarily make the connection. The majority of Celtic fans dont give a toss either way.

    Whats the Darren brown remark??:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    PrestonDaly wrote: »
    I am confused about something.

    1.5 millions civilains have been killed in Iraq since the UK/US invasion in 2003, they never get a mention.

    A soldier gets whacked and we get a sob story, the mother yapping on about how he was "such a good boy". Wait a minute love, your son joined the army on his own accord, no one forced him to pick up a rifle and go overseas to "defend freedom".

    The coffin will be paraded through the local town and we will get various hero stories. In all only 150 or so British soldiers have been "offed" in Iraq.

    I'm sick of the propaganda.

    Simple: It's local news. "Woman murdered in Limerick" is going to make the front page on the RTE website. It's not going to receive a blip on the San Francisco Chronicle.

    NTM


  • Options
    #38
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure about the humour or drama. I don't think the Kurds got those subtleties. As long as the Brits and the Yanks patrol the borders, I'm happy that the world is a better place. Gimme the land of the free and the home of the brave over Sharia Law any day.

    Saddam, was a secular Arab nationalist and his country had secular laws, so I can't quite fathom what your talking about exactly. Sure, Iraq under Saddam, had many a problem, but trying to justify the US/UK's war of aggression using imaginary wrongs, probably isn't the best tactic, in light of the non-existent WMD's.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wes wrote: »
    For some bizare reason, you seem to have ignored the real reason for the war of aggression against Iraq.

    Possibly, to get back to the OP, because this thread isn't really about analysing the causes of war in the Middle East, but contrasting the reports of the deaths of Iraqi civilians with media treatment of military casualties.

    I am aware of the whole WMD/oil/regime change ideas, when I raised the issue of Kuwait I was responding to a 'who started it' question glibly, rather than proposing some analysis of the causes.


  • Options
    #40
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Simple: It's local news. "Woman murdered in Limerick" is going to make the front page on the RTE website. It's not going to receive a blip on the San Francisco Chronicle.

    NTM

    I agree.

    People forget the news media are businesses working in the entertainment industry. They are not fair or balanced and shouldn't be seen as fair or balanced.


  • Options
    #41
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    Iraq when/if fixed will be a far better place than it was. Whether the price is worth paying is debatable, but Saddam was evil. The Yanks and Brits aren't. They might not be shining knights or anything, but they're not evil.

    Good and Evil, tends to be a matter of opinion really. I am sure the relatives of the people the US has murdered could care less about the democratic values of the murderer's.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Possibly, to get back to the OP, because this thread isn't really about analysing the causes of war in the Middle East, but contrasting the reports of the deaths of Iraqi civilians with media treatment of military casualties.

    I am aware of the whole WMD/oil/regime change ideas, when I raised the issue of Kuwait I was responding to a 'who started it' question glibly, rather than proposing some analysis of the causes.

    Well, the main problem with that line of arguement is that the US, didn't even use it, so it kind of falls flat. Saddam, was not a threat to anyone at the time, so the war served no real purpose imho. Personally, I think the US people should be just as angry and calling for those behind it to be jailed as the Iraqi's, as they have lost a lot of people and money on a unneccessary war.


  • Options
    #43
    anonymous_joe
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭anonymous_joe


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    They don't seem evil to you, but the average Iraqi might disagree with you.
    I'd be more scared of hardline Islamic loopers than the Yanks.

    I'd also know which group would be more likely to break out the death squads when they took over.
    I understand and appreciate they look like us and talk like us and share the same culture as us, but the US in particular are by far the most evil force in the world. If you don't believe me all you have to do is ask yourself who else (apart from Russia) is invading and bombing other countries, in the process killing thousands/millions of innocent people.
    Like that time they attacked the poor innocent Serbs.

    Or when they ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. What had they done to anybody?

    America as I said, is far from perfect, but they're not evil. Most of the time they have good intentions when tehy attack/invade places, even if things work out badly.

    QUOTE]
    I don't think the Palestinians are innocent, but I do think one side (Israel) is worse than the other.[/QUOTE]
    You're probably right, but I a;ways temper that by wondering what would happen if the positions were reversed. I don't think either side has much to be proud of.
    wes wrote: »
    Saddam, was a secular Arab nationalist and his country had secular laws, so I can't quite fathom what your talking about exactly. Sure, Iraq under Saddam, had many a problem, but trying to justify the US/UK's war of aggression using imaginary wrongs, probably isn't the best tactic, in light of the non-existent WMD's.

    Are you takin the píss!?

    He committed genocide! He murdered people for shíts and giggles! He brutalised his people when they attempted to oust him following the Gulf War! The guy was scum and deserved his fate.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    However i don't see why you necessarily make the connection.

    Between Celtic fans and people who support the Palestinian cause? It was no great stretch of my imagination. I thought it was kinda obligatory, much the same way as someone from a crime ridden corpo estate is usually a Shinner...


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wes wrote: »
    Well, the main problem with that line of arguement is that the US, didn't even use it, so it kind of fall flat.

    It is a matter of fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure why you are still banging on about whether it was a cause of the war or not, or whether the US used it or not. It happened. Someone asked what did Hussein invade and I pointed out Kuwait. You can't delete it from the history books just because the present conflict was based on the WMD claim. Hussein gassed Kurds. I'm not sure if the Yanks used that or not, but he did.


  • Options
    #46
    Coillte_Bhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,904 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Between Celtic fans and people who support the Palestinian cause? It was no great stretch of my imagination. I thought it was kinda obligatory, much the same way as someone from a crime ridden corpo estate is usually a Shinner...

    What a load of bull. As i said most Celtic fans have no political allegiances of any description but you obviously think you are being oh so clever.


  • Options
    #47
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 56,026 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    PrestonDaly wrote: »
    I am confused about something.

    1.5 millions civilains have been killed in Iraq since the UK/US invasion in 2003, they never get a mention.

    A soldier gets whacked and we get a sob story, the mother yapping on about how he was "such a good boy". Wait a minute love, your son joined the army on his own accord, no one forced him to pick up a rifle and go overseas to "defend freedom".

    The coffin will be paraded through the local town and we will get various hero stories. In all only 150 or so British soldiers have been "offed" in Iraq.

    I'm sick of the propaganda.


    Some were "forced" over there and these I do have sympathy for. Young strong men travelling thousands of miles to die like dogs on the street.
    It's scandalous, and for what exactly? I just cannot understand it.

    As for the Iraq victims or others, we all know they too are dying, so if you are
    bothered that much about them, then keep up the publicity.


  • Options
    #48
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    I don't believe whats actually happening here.

    There are really people out there who still believe this ' We did the right thing in Iraq' crap? People who believe that 'Iraq will be a better place eventually' stuff and that this justifies turning the place into something horrible where hundreds of thousands of people got killed?

    Where have you been the last few years? In an isolation tank?


  • Options
    #49
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    Are you takin the píss!?

    He committed genocide! He murdered people for shíts and giggles! He brutalised his people when they attempted to oust him following the Gulf War! The guy was scum and deserved his fate.

    No, I am not taking the piss. You clearly decided to ignore what I was saying and instead bang on about a whole lot of other nonsense instead. It really is rather simple, Saddam was a secular dictator, so the comments about Sharia law, made no sense and I was just pointing that out.

    I also, mentioned that Iraq under Saddam, had plenty of problems, and it would make more sense to focus on those as opposed to stuff, he did not do, you know like the imaginary WMD's that the "good" US were banging on about.

    The West, were best friends with Saddam, when he was commiting genocide, but its not like that matters, as it easier to ignore such things. Really, odd that so many years later that the "Good" USA suddenly cares, albeit years after the people are long dead...

    Also, the US stood by and let all those poor people who tried to oust Saddam, be killed by him and normally it wouldn't be there fault, except for the fact that when they tried to oust Saddam, it was after the US encouraged them to do so. Instead of doing something then and there the US left them to be killed as per usual.

    Now, we all know that the US did not invade Iraq, due to any of the above. They weren't too bothered by them at the time, or anything. So the "Good" US, is at best a self centred nation like every other one out there.


  • Options
    #50
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It is a matter of fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure why you are still banging on about whether it was a cause of the war or not, or whether the US used it or not. It happened. Someone asked what did Hussein invade and I pointed out Kuwait. You can't delete it from the history books just because the present conflict was based on the WMD claim. Hussein gassed Kurds. I'm not sure if the Yanks used that or not, but he did.

    Yeah, he did those things and no one is denying them. The simple fact remains that when Iraq was invaded, those things had no bearing on him being invaded and that he was no threat to anyone at the time. In the context of the most recent war, the genocide against the Kurds (Saddam was supported by the West at the time) and the invasion of Kuwait have no relevance to the most recent invasion. Iraq, was already being punished under crippling sanctions (half a million children died due to them), for Kuwait and were not a threat to anyone.


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    What a load of bull. As i said most Celtic fans have no political allegiances of any description but you obviously think you are being oh so clever.

    Well then I do have the Derren Brown gift. You clearly have made up your own mind on the Palestinian matter, independantly of what other Celtic fans think, and fair play to you.

    You should read Celtic sites though, man they just love them Palestinians!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Coillte_Bhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,904 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well then I do have the Derren Brown gift. You clearly have made up your own mind on the Palestinian matter, independantly of what other Celtic fans think, and fair play to you.

    You should read Celtic sites though, man they just love them Palestinians!

    Ah, just realised the darren Brown mention. Im a bit slow today. And yes im a member of many Celtic forums and i agree, there would be sympathy to the palestinians on some of those.

    I just think thats its a bit lazy of you to immediately put me on one side of the argument cos of the team i follow. Equally it annoys me that people automatically assume people wearing celtic jerseys are shinners. Nothing could be further from the treuth in my case. Mind you, it annoys me just as much that little skangers think it's obligatory to wear a celtic shirt to prove their republican credentials. Hmm, am i making any sense here?:o


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    Equally it annoys me that people automatically assume people wearing celtic jerseys are shinners. Nothing could be further from the treuth in my case. Mind you, it annoys me just as much that little skangers think it's obligatory to wear a celtic shirt to prove their republican credentials. Hmm, am i making any sense here?:o

    You are making sense!

    I didn't make the point about Celtic fans and Shinners. Though if someone has both a Celtic jersey and a Tallaght accent, it's absolutely true!


  • Options
    #54
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    Was Israel the aggressor in the 1940s? Or 1967? Or for the Yom Kippur war?
    Just for the sake of accuracy, in 1947 there was a low intensity conflict between the Jews and indigenous Arabs in the area of the British mandate. After the creation of Israel the surrounding Arab countries attacked. These two conflicts are usually seen as being seperate from each other. The surrounding Arab states were not the indigenous Palestinian population.

    In 1967 Israel was the initial aggressor making a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. While Egypt was threatening it is still unsure about whether they were going to attack Israel.

    In 1973 Egypt attacked the Sanai in order to reclaim land lost during the June 1967 war. However, this war could have been avoided if Isreal had accepted the Jarring proposal for peace in 1971 as Egypt did.

    You also left out the Suez crisis in 1956 when Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai.

    Anyway, these are interesting things to bring up but have little to do with the legal status of the territories under international law, which is clear.


  • Options
    #55
    jhegarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    realcam wrote: »
    People who believe that 'Iraq will be a better place eventually' stuff and that this justifies turning the place into something horrible where hundreds of thousands of people got killed?

    Would you apply the same logic to d-day ?


  • Options
    #56
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Was there a developing situation back in 1998/9 where the then Iraqi Government were formulating a case in the World Court which supposedly stood quite a good chance of securing a positive decision for them ?

    I recall skimming thru some reports at the time which referred to the developing Legal Case giving the Elder Bush regieme a new sense of urgency about getting stuck into the country before they caused huge embarrassment by winning legal title to Kuwait.....?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Every one of them who puts a bullet through the head of some Taliban fighter or some Iraqi terrorist is a hero, and is a freedom fighter.

    Beating up the third world - a Heroes calling indeed

    What did Saddam do by the way...please tell us.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where do you want to start? Gassing thousands of Kurds.

    He was allied with the West when that went on, wasn't he? That campaign was over a few years before the 1st Gulf war......... And I do believe part of the deal that brought him into the fold was the end of US support for the Kurds and having Turkey close its borders to their fighters. So it can't be that.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is the answer Saddam Hussein, Kuwait,

    Nope, that was Gulf 1 in the early 90's. Sanctioned by the UN.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure about the humour or drama. I don't think the Kurds got those subtleties. As long as the Brits and the Yanks patrol the borders, I'm happy that the world is a better place. Gimme the land of the free and the home of the brave over Sharia Law any day. ,

    Saddam ran a secular state. Please explain therefore, what "Sharia Law" has to do with Iraq.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Their" land or the land seized by Israel in wars that sought to crush that country

    The aqquisition of territory by force is internationally outlawed. Thats why it was possible to get backing to remove Saddam from Kuwait relatively easily.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I thought it was kinda obligatory, much the same way as someone from a crime ridden corpo estate is usually a Shinner...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I didn't make the point about Celtic fans and Shinners. Though if someone has both a Celtic jersey and a Tallaght accent, it's absolutely true!

    Try sticking to the issues.


  • Options
    #58
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Was there a developing situation back in 1998/9 where the then Iraqi Government were formulating a case in the World Court which supposedly stood quite a good chance of securing a positive decision for them ?

    I recall skimming thru some reports at the time which referred to the developing Legal Case giving the Elder Bush regieme a new sense of urgency about getting stuck into the country before they caused huge embarrassment by winning legal title to Kuwait.....?

    Do you have a source for this? I've checked around but all I can find is some stuff on a border demarcation commission from 1991. Nothing about the ICJ though.


  • Options
    #59
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Nodin wrote: »

    What did Saddam do by the way...please tell us.

    .

    Ah sure he was a grand fellow. He never gassed his own people ( Kurds ), he never inflicted terror or torture on his own people, he never threatened little Israel or tried to build a supergun, he never invaded Kuwait , he never had the fourth most powerful army in the world.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #60
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    jimmmy wrote: »
    Ah sure he was a grand fellow. He never gassed his own people ( Kurds ), he never inflicted terror or torture on his own people, he never threatened little Israel or tried to build a supergun, he never invaded Kuwait , he never had the fourth most powerful army in the world.:rolleyes:

    I think you need to read the whole thread. We've already established that he did all of these things. What I think he's getting at is 'what did he do prior to the current war to justify an invasion'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    jimmmy wrote: »
    Ah sure he was a grand fellow. He never gassed his own people ( Kurds ), he never inflicted terror or torture on his own people, he never threatened little Israel or tried to build a supergun, he never invaded Kuwait , he never had the fourth most powerful army in the world.:rolleyes:

    Um, he never actually had the 4th most powerful army in the world, that was a whole lot of hyperbole from the West.

    Also, as pointed out above, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, the West didn't seem to be too bothered. When, he was doing all that nasty crap to his own people, the West, also didn't mind either.

    As for threatening little Israel, you'd have a valid point, if you know, Israel didn't bomb, invade and threaten her neighbours just like good old Saddam, which incidently the US actively aids and abets, but its hardly the only striking bit of American hypocrisy in the region, afterall they do support there good friends in Saudi Arabia to the hilt as well.

    Everything you said is pretty irrelevant, as they had nothing to do with the West invading Iraq, as it has been clearly established that it was due to imaginary WMD's and imaginary links to Osama. Its simple, at the time of the Iraq invasion, what did Saddam do that justified a war by the US and co? Was he a actual threat to anyone, especially considering the crippling sanctions, which caused the death of half a million children?


Advertisement