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
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Sand wrote: »
    Yeah, yeah the old if you do it its terrible, but if I do it then its fine logic.

    No, I just happen to understand the difference between the acts of an invader and the acts of someone defending themself/seeking retribution.

    They are not equal and should not be viewed equally.

    Sand wrote: »
    Youd probably think the US were hypocrites for complaining about the Lockerbie bombing when they shot down an Iranian airliner...I'm right arent I, you do dont you? You probably wont even grasp why thats hilarious.

    I'm afraid my intelligence level is a lot higher than you think.

    You have a simplistic, black and white view of the world.


  • Options
    #93
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,817 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Sand wrote: »
    1.5 million civillians killed in Iraq since the US/UK invasion in 2003?

    Sure it wasnt 15 million civillians? With the rate of inflation on these figures, its always best to aim higher with the claims.



    And if you were a US soldier and some Iraqis killed some of your unit, would you drive down to the local village and start screaming "Lets do them! Lets do the whole ****ing village!"

    Because you're a moderate, reasonable person.
    :rolleyes:

    what is your motivation for disputing the figures? does it lessen the crime. you do believe a crime was committed,don't you;)

    also, as you well know if America or any country is invaded you 'd get a similar reaction from a section of the populace. isn't there something in the un charter about armed resistance to occupation being legitimate??


  • Options
    #94
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,817 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    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:

    Donald must of thought so back in eighties. i wonder were any of the right-wing press in the US focusing on how vile he was back then to his own people.


  • Options
    #95
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Nodin wrote: »
    You will, of course, quote from the post that 'appears to have sympathy' for Saddam please, as I'm burning with curiosity as to what possible combination of words could have given that impression. Unless, of course, you made a mistake, in which case you can retract the remark and no harm done......

    Maybe you do not "have sympathy for Saddam", in which case I apologise. However I just got that impression form your posts eg when it came to Saddam you wrote
    "What did Saddam do by the way...please tell us."

    But yet when it came to the other side, the side who stood up to him in Gulf war 1 and 2, the coalition forces - eg the yanks and brits

    you wrote " Beating up the third world - a Heroes calling indeed ".

    ;)


  • Options
    #96
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Originally Posted by jimmmy viewpost.gif
    Oil would be dearer than it is if Saddam was still in power,.

    Nodin wrote: »
    Whats your exact reasoning behind that statement?

    Because the current govt regime in Iraq is reasonably friendly to the US....certainly their is a lot of "co-operation" between them and the coalition forces. Do you think Saddam would do all he could to help the west if he was still in power ? I suppose you think he invaded Kuwait just so he could give the oil there to the west as cheaply + efficiently as possible ?

    Its nice we in Ireland are beneffiting for a steady and reasonably cheap supply of world oil now anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jimmmy wrote: »
    Maybe you do not "have sympathy for Saddam", in which case I apologise. However I just got that impression form your posts eg when it came to Saddam you wrote
    "What did Saddam do by the way...please tell us."

    But yet when it came to the other side, the side who stood up to him in Gulf war 1 and 2, the coalition forces - eg the yanks and brits

    you wrote " Beating up the third world - a Heroes calling indeed ".

    ;)


    Thank you for responding.
    The remark I was replying to was

    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.

    Thats nothing to do with either war, and rather fails to analyse motive. Gung ho nonsense, in fact.

    I might further point out that as Saddam was doing nothing of any scale to stand up to prior to Gulf II the Americans can hardly be said to have been "standing up to him". It also implies he was some sort of force, which was most certainly not the case.
    Jimmy wrote:
    Because the current govt regime in Iraq is reasonably friendly to the US....certainly their is a lot of "co-operation" between them and the coalition forces.

    You're missing something. For one thing, world oil supply is not dependent on Iraq, nor was it ever.

    Secondly, the massive rise in oil prices from September 2003 to 2008 - after the fall of Saddam - was due to a number of factors, most of them relating to fear over supply and demand.

    I might add that subverting the resources of another country at the expense of its inhabitants is colonialism at its most reprehensible.


  • Options
    #98
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Nodin wrote: »
    The remark I was replying to was


    Quote:
    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.

    I did not make the above comment. Please check your facts and do not blame me or accuse me of anything, for comments I did not make.


  • Options
    #99
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Nodin wrote: »
    It also implies he was some sort of force, which was most certainly not the case.
    People thought that, just before he invaded Kuwait. People thought Libya was not much of a force except it supported terrorism. People thought the taliban were not much of a force to be too worried about until 9/11. Certainly the administration in Iraq is friendlier now towards the Americans etc than Saddam was ...plus they do not gas the kurds etc ;)
    Nodin wrote: »
    You're missing something. For one thing, world oil supply is not dependent on Iraq, nor was it ever. .

    Nobody ever said world oil supply is dependent on Iraq.

    The fact is, world oil supply is limited and Iraq does have substantial reserves.
    Nodin wrote: »
    I might add that subverting the resources of another country at the expense of its inhabitants is colonialism at its most reprehensible.

    The current government in Iraq are glad of this "subverting the resources" as you call it, and have requested the US ,UK and other coalition forces to remain there a while longer. There were a lot of crowds on the streets at the toppling of Saddam, his statues etc being knocked....maybe you would prefer if he was still in power, gassing kurds, attacking Kuwait + Israel, and possibly ( not unlike that other foe of the west ,Libya in the eighties ) supporting international terrorism.


  • Options
    #100
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jimmmy wrote: »
    I did not make the above comment. Please check your facts and do not blame me or accuse me of anything, for comments I did not make.

    I've gone over that post again. I never said you did make that comment, nor could a reasonable reading of that post yield such an interpretation. If you aren't capable of reading and interpreting posts in the context of a thread/discussion or are unwilling to make the effort to read through same before posting, thats not my problem.
    jimmmy wrote: »
    People thought that, just before he invaded Kuwait.

    We aren't talking about then, we're talking about the second Gulf War. You seem to shift between time periods and ignore continuity when you're reaching for rhetoric.

    jimmmy wrote: »
    People thought Libya was not much of a force except it supported terrorism..

    And they were correct. Libya was actually beaten in a war by Chad. As Chad is one of the five poorest states on the planet, its rather an achievement to lose to them.

    What point was it you were trying to make?
    jimmmy wrote: »
    Certainly the administration in Iraq is friendlier now towards the Americans etc than Saddam was ...plus they do not gas the kurds etc..

    Saddam was barred from the North of the country before the second gulf war, so he was unable to attack the Kurds before the invasion. The current administration is "friendlier" to the Americans because they are dependent on them.
    jimmmy wrote: »
    Nobody ever said world oil supply is dependent on Iraq.

    The fact is, world oil supply is limited and Iraq does have substantial reserves

    .....then what grounds have you for saying current oil prices are attributable to the overthrow of Saddam, when they were lower before he was overthrown and only rose after his overthrow?

    Why didn't you address the problem of the dates I pointed out previously?
    jimmmy wrote: »
    maybe you (.........)terrorism.

    And more pathetic nonsense, in much the same vein as one of your earlier comments.

    Previously you stated
    jimmmy wrote: »
    He was suspected in being an allay of the taliban

    I ask you again - do you have some source for this statement?


Advertisement