Irish Delegates walk out of Ahmadinejad UN Speech

Mahatma coat

I thought my Point was rather clear.

but for those who may have difficulty grasping the nuances

the Main Stream Media LIE, they spin Bullsnit to make us believe things that simply arent true about People they have been told to demonise by their Overords.

at the sae time they cover up blatant Bulsh1t prepetrated by people the overlords consider Friendly to their objectives.

Iran has not Invaded anyone, Iran is not Opressing anyone, IRan is not lying to us on a daily basis.

Benny_Cake

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I thought my Point was rather clear.

but for those who may have difficulty grasping the nuances

the Main Stream Media LIE, they spin Bullsnit to make us believe things that simply arent true about People they have been told to demonise by their Overords.

at the sae time they cover up blatant Bulsh1t prepetrated by people the overlords consider Friendly to their objectives.

Iran has not Invaded anyone, Iran is not Opressing anyone, IRan is not lying to us on a daily basis.

Your changes don't make Ahmadinejad's comments sound much better.

Mahatma coat

is it Untrue tho????

JustinDee

Mahatma coat wrote: »

is it Untrue tho????

They haven't tried to invade anyone, that could be true.
Oppression? Die-cast proxy support for Syrian regime, Hezbollah's antics and Hamas logistically and politically (not that Hamas even know what democracy is) for a start. Then there's Iran itself.
As for lying, you must have seen Press TV...

Son Of A Vidic

I find it amazing that a country that claims to be neutral, would walk out in such a fashion. Regardless of who is ranting on, surely such an act could be easily misinterpreted. Now to balance things out, perhaps next time we should walk out when Israel have the floor. Because that troubled little 'nation' has killed quite a few Irish citizens and at times acted like an enemy nation. Certainly more than Iran ever has, so lets go for a some balance.

View

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I find it amazing that a country that claims to be neutral, would walk out in such a fashion.

Even diplomats should have the right to say "Okay, enough sh*te, we're out of here".

SamHarris

wes wrote: »

I already did. Obama and Netanyahu, both gave factually inaccurate accounts of the Israel/Palestine conflict. There nonsense was clearly on par with Ahmadinejad.



Yes, and Obama exonerating Israel from any responsibility from the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't any better imho. Both of them came up with a lot of nonsense but in the case of Ahmadinejad he offended Westerners, so he is apparently pure evil, where as Netanyahu and Obama just offended Palestinians and Arabs, so that ok then. Deranged crap from the West is a-ok as per usual.

Personally, this is a huge double standard from our delegates imho, and it also reenforces Iran's feeling that there being unfairly treated.

Simply put, if our delegates were happy to sit through Israeli and American nonsense, then they should have done the same with Iran. As it stands, the whole thing is just childish.

Firstly Irish delegates do not and should not pretend they have the same relationship with Iran as they do with the US or even Israel. Ridiculous and childish to call for them to act as if they do.

Secondly, if Arabs want to walk out when offended they should - and often dont even show up to Israeli speeches.

Thirdly, yes accusing the US government of killing 3000 of its own citizens with no evidence should be walked out on by allies and friends of the US, sitting through the BS affords the psychopath far more respect than he deserves. It's an insult to a friendly nation, and should be dealt with as such. That you believe that Obama said anything approaching as crazy says alot more about your politics than it does about Obama's historical fallacies.

Sheer insanity that people would call for Irish delegates to even pretend that an Iranian, N Korean or any number of any other crackpot backwaters are equally important to show solidarity with as the US or that any speech gets near as crazy as Ahmadinejad. He offeneded anyone capable of critical thinking, not just Westerners. THIS was childish, not peoples descision to publicly display how much they disagreed with him.

There is no double standard, its just the standard applied is not what you wish it was It has much more to do with protecting Irish interests and relationships rather than showing a solidarity with the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, for whatever reason.

Next time an American president goes on an a rascist, borderline crazy speech and Irish delegates dont walk out, you will have an absolutly wonderful point.

sdanseo

There is a plethora of evidence that 9/11 was not all it seems, whether or not it was a full blown inside job is another thread (there are hundreds on boards alone) - but it is QUITE CLEAR that we have not been told the full story in some areas.

Jist of this thread thus far:
Iran is stupid because its president is a fascist nutjob.
USA is stupid because its leaders are greedy selfish power-hungry world-policing oil-guzzling gun-toting nutjobs.

Lesser of two evils there? I'm having genuine trouble deciding.

SamHarris

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I am well aware that Churchill wasnt Prime Minister in 1939 but he was still one of the major players in the Commons and the Media in agitating for War.

my point is, The third Reich and the USSR had a pact for the Invasion of Poland, so surely War should have been declared on Both.

Lots of people here are complaining about Bluster form Ahmidinijhad but no one seems to be refuting the claims he made, hint Shouting 'its not true' does not equal disproving the claim.

as for Ahmidinijhads Holocaust stance, can someone point out where he says he dosent believe it happened, or would this be another case of wilfully misrepresenting his call for an open and honest debate on the topic?

He wants "open and honest" an debate on it in the same fashion he wants an "open and honest" debate on 9/11, that is to say he wants someone else to be blamed for it, Zionists almost certainly.

If you believe his calls for a revision of the holocaust are merely a wish to see historical truth uncovered, and not entirelly motivated by his hatred of "zionists" and his belief that "they" had something to do with it then your not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Pretending that it is not a poltiically and racially loaded call to make at a UN conference given the situation in the region is entrielly childish, and exactly the type of obfuscation that weakeans peoples attempts to appear as though they are merely looking for "fairness" from Irish delegates.

SamHarris

sdeire wrote: »

There is a plethora of evidence that 9/11 was not all it seems, whether or not it was a full blown inside job is another thread (there are hundreds on boards alone) - but it is QUITE CLEAR that we have not been told the full story in some areas.

Jist of this thread thus far:
Iran is stupid because its president is a fascist nutjob.
USA is stupid because its leaders are greedy selfish power-hungry world-policing oil-guzzling gun-toting nutjobs.

Lesser of two evils there? I'm having genuine trouble deciding.

It wasnt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking read this, apply it to anything you hear about 9 11, then reach a conclusion about whoever carried it out. There is a reason anyone who routinely applies skeptical thinking will look at a 9 11 truther like the nutjob they are, every contending "theory" has been comprehensivly debunked, if you have one that hasnt been already your not looking hard enough or your idea is so out there that no one could be bothered addressing it. There is a 9 11 conspiracy forum anyway (very sadly), so take it there if you want to thrash it out with the other geniuses.

"Iran is stupid" - "the US is stupid" . . . ?

Ahmadinejad was walked out on because of the overt rascism and hatred of his speech, not because people think "Iran is stupid" - whatever the hell that means.

Obama certainly said nothing even approaching as insulting or loaded as him, regardless of how dissapointing his speech may have been to those that support the Palestinian cause.

Netanyahu, whilst his comments are conistantly almost scarely fascist and I am very far from being a fan also merely mostly harped on about his own people, and again there may have been outright lies but at no point did he bother with a rascist diatribe.

Delegates would not have walked out if they merely disagreed whole heartedly with Ahmadinejad, they would and should if he is trying his best to outright insult people. If people were as insulted by Netanyahu's lies and poltical spin as they were from Ahmadinejad rascism and unfounded accustations of mass murder, then I would contend that those people already had a very strong opinion about Palestine to be begin with, one very negative towards Israel, and are excercising blatantly the "double standards" they so like to accuse others of.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Every other one of his points referred to the USA.

Even this one?

"Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world. Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?"

who the fug

Overheal wrote: »

Even this one?

"Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world. Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?"

Persia

Overheal

I did not see that one coming.

evercloserunion

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The two world wars caused by the US? Nuclear bomb against defenseless people? His conspiracy notions about 9/11. He said European countries were paying a fine or ransom to the Zionists because of the Holocaust. He said NATO sanctioned drug trafficking. He said the US and allies threaten Iran because they question the holocaust.

:pac: yeah, it is really accurate.

The US *did* use the bomb against defenseless people. The vast majority of victims of the bomb were not armoured, gun-carrying soldiers, they were unarmed civilian inhabitants of the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And they met a truly horrific end.

As for the US starting the two world wars, I'm not sure that's what he was actually saying. It seems to me that he was making a general criticism of the West, not just the US.

He's still a nutter though.

evercloserunion

Deleted User wrote: »

Every other one of his points referred to the USA.

It's clear you haven't read the speech, he also makes reference to four hundred years of slavery and colonialism in Africa dating back to medieval times.

Boskowski

People calm down please.
The man is as nuts as Michael O'Leary. No more no less. He is playing the stage brilliantly. You mustn't forget he is playing to a different audience, he is not playing to you and me who are as much brainwashed by our media than we claim his audience to be.
There is a lot of rhetorics in there but most of it is actually true and in fairness the USA are a manipulative, imperialistic we come first and who gives a sh1t about the rest power with a very mixed record in history. Most if what he said is not actually false.

The whole Iran story over the last 20 years is just another example of how propaganda works and how even the most outrageous lies become gospel if you keep repeating them enough

regi

There are a lot of stories told about Iran that illustrate the barbarity inherent in their current system, but I'm not sure they are all lies, as you refer to them.

Most recently, they took a 17 year old boy, put a nylon rope around his neck and winched him up in the air until he was dead.

Jonny7

Boskowski wrote: »

he is not playing to you and me who are as much brainwashed by our media than we claim his audience to be.

Dude, so like *inhales*.. if we are brainwashed one way, and they are brainwashed the other way... who's right?

pablomakaveli

I dont think its been pointed out that all the delegates from countries in the EU walked out of the speech. So i imagine it was an agreement between all EU countries rather than the Irish delegates doing so independently.

Diplomats from more than 30 countries, including the US and EU nations, left the hall as he attacked the West, denounced Israel and questioned the Holocaust.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15028776

I can understand the reason for walking out. Ahmadinejad just uses his speeches at the UN to try and provoke the Western nations and Israel. You'd hardly expect the delegates to sit through a speech that is only intent on insulting their countries in an outrageous manner.

edanto

regi wrote: »

There are a lot of stories told about Iran that illustrate the barbarity inherent in their current system, but I'm not sure they are all lies, as you refer to them.

Most recently, they took a 17 year old boy, put a nylon rope around his neck and winched him up in the air until he was dead.

Iran execute the highest number of minors in the world. They disgust me.

Yet, the Irish envoys should not be walking out on speeches. If you have something to say, stand up and say it.

pablomakaveli

edanto wrote: »

Iran execute the highest number of minors in the world. They disgust me.

Yet, the Irish envoys should not be walking out on speeches. If you have something to say, stand up and say it.

Are the delegates allowed question a speaker during their speech though?

Son Of A Vidic

View wrote: »

Even diplomats should have the right to say "Okay, enough sh*te, we're out of here".

Who said they shouldn't? But since we joined the Americans and French ect, you couldn't quiet say it was the act of a neutral nation now could you? Which is not a problem providing we treat other deserving countries similarly. I refer to Israel of course and perhaps when we walk past their delegation, we might ask if they could return our stolen Irish passports. And perhaps not murder under the cover of our flag in future, to avoid sullying our international reputation with their primitive standards.

edanto

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Are the delegates allowed question a speaker during their speech though?

Probably not. But every now and again, we get the chance to stand up and make our speech. It's during those times that we should say what's on our minds and speak like men, not feeble diplomats.

We could comment, in the most objective way we can find, on various human rights abuses around the world. We could tell the world what we got wrong about our banking sector and admit our mistakes. That's all a bit of a tangent and off topic for this thread though....

Batsy

Originally Posted by sdeire
There is a plethora of evidence that 9/11 was not all it seems

And most of it is complete and utter tosh that has not been disproved by experts and which only the extremely gullible or simple would believe.

The most bizarre 9/11 conspiracy site I went on tried to tell us that no planes hit the WTC that day (despite the fact that millions of New Yorkers must have seen the planes hit the towers with their own eyes) and that "there was not enough rubble" at Ground Zero after the towers collapsed (and they believed the towers collapsed by a secret US military ray gun fired from the sky).

JustinDee

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I refer to Israel of course and perhaps when we walk past their delegation, we might ask if they could return our stolen Irish passports. And perhaps not murder under the cover of our flag in future, to avoid sullying our international reputation with their primitive standards.

At least no-one from Ireland has been involved in terrorism and paramilitarism overseas while using false/stolen irish passports, eh?

Boy oh boy, can Irish folk be hypocritically self-righteous and sanctimonious.

Boskowski

Jonny7 wrote: »

Dude, so like *inhales*.. if we are brainwashed one way, and they are brainwashed the other way... who's right?

As with all those things - neither. The truth is somewhere inbetween.

What kind of answer did you expect?

Boskowski

regi wrote: »

There are a lot of stories told about Iran that illustrate the barbarity inherent in their current system, but I'm not sure they are all lies, as you refer to them.

Most recently, they took a 17 year old boy, put a nylon rope around his neck and winched him up in the air until he was dead.

I'm not saying they're all lies.

However, most of the stuff thats being spurted about Ahmadinejad in our media are rubbish and are following a certain political agenda. And most people seem content merely repeating the stuff rather than read/think for themselves.

With regards to the story you're referring to. Terrible that he was underage, yes. But in the end they hung someone who killed someone and was convicted by a court of doing so. Circumstances weren't clear-cut but more or less the same thing could have happened in the USA only its an injection or the chair over there...

All you need to do look at is the Troy Davis case. No innocent little boy surely, but at the same time most of the witnesses withdrew claiming their statements were taken under police pressure but the execution went ahead nonetheless.

Actually this one is a great example in two ways. Because when you had a look at the media coverage around the time of the execution you would think he was an innocent victim of the brutal American justice system. It was all 'black'' witnesses withdrew', 'police pressure'. A certain picture was painted simply by omitting certain details. Why? Cos it suited for some reason. Media does that all the time.

SamHarris

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's clear you haven't read the speech, he also makes reference to four hundred years of slavery and colonialism in Africa dating back to medieval times.

It always gets my goat when nationalist Middle Eastern leaders use slavery as an example of the evil and decadence of the West, considering it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue and was practised for much longer in many North African and Middle Eastern states. Could make a strong argument it still legally exists in many of those places.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

It always gets my goat when nationalist Middle Eastern leaders use slavery as an example of the evil and decadence of the West, considering it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue....................

Ye wha? Pull the other one.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Ye wha? Pull the other one.

Arab slavers in Zanzibar was where Europeans originally began buying slaves for the New World, as always it was economic preassures that brought it to the fore but culturally it was much more ingrained in Arab society and for a much longer period than in the West. Eritrea for example only very recently ended its slavery policies. Mauritania in 2007. The Caucuses only ceased the practice following a Russian invasion. Persia illegalised it in 1927, under enormous Western preassure - it had been a staple of Persian culture for millenia.

All very well documented, just google African Slave trade. Merely pointing out it is hardly a position upon which a proponant of pan - Islamic civilisation can take the moral high ground visa a vis the West.

Just another example of Ahmadinejad's complete ignorance about world history and cutlural trends. Although he probably relies more on other peoples ignorance when he makes his points than the substance of his arguments. Seems to work a charm in some quarters.

nacho libre

SamHarris wrote: »

. Could make a strong argument it still legally exists in many of those places.

It(slavery) is certainly "tolerated" in Sudan. There are an estimated 5, 000 people kept as Slaves in London according to agencies who are tasked with dealing with this issue. The bulk of these people come from Sudan. The devils on horseback(janjaweed) are notorious for kidnapping children and selling them off as slaves.

Gadaffi was directly complicit in the rise of the janjaweed by creating Tajammu al-Arabi, a nationalist and racist pan arabic group in north africa.

evercloserunion

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's clear you haven't read the speech, he also makes reference to four hundred years of slavery and colonialism in Africa dating back to medieval times.

I did read it I'll concede I got the point wrong. I still think that there was nothing wrong with walking out on him.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Arab slavers in (..........)quarters.

Trotting out a history of Arab slavery does not justify the remark "it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue".

Slavery in Europe does not have its origins with Arab practices, trade or no.

SamHarris wrote: »

Merely pointing out it is hardly a position upon which a proponant of pan - Islamic civilisation can take the moral high ground visa a vis the West..

...if thats all you were pointing out, I wouldn't have bothered remarking on it.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Trotting out a history of Arab slavery does not justify the remark "it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue".

Slavery in Europe does not have its origins with Arab practices, trade or no.


...if thats all you were pointing out, I wouldn't have bothered remarking on it.

Probably not a question that has a real answer, however the first African slaves in Europe and the US were bought from Arabs, indeed a massive amount of wealth was generated for decades for the Middle East through the practice.

I was being flippant when I implied it was the main or only factor that lead to slavery becoming such a huge industry in the West however - no doubt the massive demand for new and cheap labour was the main drive - you are right about that, apologies.

Yes that was what I was pointing out but also that nearly the entirety of his speech had little or no basis in fact - if a speech from a representative of a country is dedicated to insulting a major cultural and economic ally of Ireland then I believe it behooves us, and many others with respect for the States, to show how little we agree with him.

To say nothing of his clear anti Semitism (if anyone believes his questioning of the Holocaust is motivated by anything else, then they are kidding themselves and I have no doubt are politically motivated in their own opinion.)

I have not seen any valid argument yet why Ahmadinehjad (can we please start using an acronym for that name?) should be treated by everyone in the assembly as though he just gave another speech. If Obamas speech consisted of him going on about the evils of Islamic civilisation for the past couple of hudnred of years, Im certain some countries would have walked out too. And well they should have.

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

Trotting out a history of Arab slavery does not justify the remark "it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue".

Slavery in Europe does not have its origins with Arab practices, trade or no.

Slavery and Arabs are both irrelevant to the subject of Madmanijad anyway.
Iranians are not Arabs. They don't even speak Arabic.

StudentDad

JustinDee wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

Trotting out a history of Arab slavery does not justify the remark "it was Arab culture and slavers that originally brought the idea into vogue".

Slavery in Europe does not have its origins with Arab practices, trade or no.

Slavery and Arabs are both irrelevant to the subject of Madmanijad anyway.
Iranians are not Arabs. They don't even speak Arabic.

Doesn't really matter what he was saying, just rabble rousing for a home audience. He has pretty much sabre rattled himself into a corner. If he tries to take a middle ground his power base will erode, if he keeps going he'll have to do something stupid that we'll all regret. In the end he's just a dictator trying to convince his own people that he's the good guy.

SD

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

Slavery and Arabs are both irrelevant to the subject of Madmanijad anyway.
Iranians are not Arabs. They don't even speak Arabic.

You might point that out to the person who brought it up.

wes

StudentDad wrote: »

In the end he's just a dictator trying to convince his own people that he's the good guy.

He is not a dictator. The Supreme Leader has a lot more power than him, and when he recently tried to go against the Supreme Leader, he was put in his place. You are right in that he was speaking to a home audience.

kraggy

Who are the Irish people that sit in the UN? Are they civil servants or a team of ambassadors to the UN or something?

Chuck Stone

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you think Obama and Netanyahu's speeches were in even the same timezone of inaccuracy and just plain insanity as Ahmedinijads then your credibility is completely shot.

Granted, Netenyahu and Obama would be much more carefull about what they say but it would still be high on rehtoric and low on substance.

You would think that rather then Obama and Netenyahu - Ahmedinijad and Netenyahu would be more kindered spirits if you listen to their sabre rattling. Indeed Netenyahu's sabre rattling regarding Iran is alarming former high ranking Israeli intelligence officials.

Dagan describes the current Israeli government as "dangerous and irresponsible" and views speaking out against Netanyahu as his patriotic duty. And his abhorrence of Netanyahu is not uncommon in the Israeli security establishment. Accordingto Think Progress, citing the Forward newspaper, 12 of the 18 living ex-chiefs of Israel's two security agencies (Mossad and Shin Bet), are "either actively opposing Netanyahu's stances or have spoken out against them". Of the remaining six, two are current ministers in Netanyahu government, leaving a grand total of four out of 18 who independently support the prime minister.

In short, while Congress dutifully gives Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, the Israelis who know the most about both Netanyahu and Israel's strategic situation think he is a dangerous disaster.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201171775828434786.html

I often wonder what kind of country Iran would be now if the UK/US hadn't overthrown it's democratically elected government in the 1950's for having the audacity to move towards nationalization of it's British controlled oil industry.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

You might point that out to the person who brought it up.

Im fully aware he is not, once again I was merely pointing out how historically innaccurate yet another one of his claims were.

Jonny7

Boskowski wrote: »

However, most of the stuff thats being spurted about Ahmadinejad in our media are rubbish and are following a certain political agenda.

"Most" of the stuff? can you provide examples?

The British sailors crossing into Iranian waters story is the only one I can really think of.

When you say "our media" which media are you referring to exactly? major networks in the US, or Irish and British media like RTE, The Guardian, etc or world media including Asian, Indian, Scandinavian news?

Mahatma coat

the Shatt al Arab incident??? depends on which line of bullsnit you believe I suppose, but the Iranians have a bit more of a teritorial claim to those Waters than the british. I'd tend to believe that the brits did indeed stray into Iranian Waters.

Batsy

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Shatt al Arab incident??? depends on which line of bullsnit you believe I suppose, but the Iranians have a bit more of a teritorial claim to those Waters than the british. I'd tend to believe that the brits did indeed stray into Iranian Waters.

The Algiers Agreement, ratified by both nations (Iraq and Iran) in 1976, remains in force. It defined the Iran-Iraq international boundary in the Shatt al-Arab by a series of precisely defined turning points closely approximating the 1975 thalweg or deepest channel, ending at point "R". Point "R", at 29°51′16″N 48°44′45″E / 29.85444°N 48.74583°E / 29.85444; 48.74583 (WGS84) is about 8.6 nautical miles (16 km) southeast of the tip of Iraq's Al-Faw peninsula at high tide. Point "R" is where the thalweg in 1975 was adjacent to the furthest point of exposed mud flats at "astronomical lowest low tide." Point "R" thus constitutes the end of the land boundary of the two nations, despite being under water at all but the lowest tides.

According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at the UK's Durham University, the location provided by the Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 1.7 nautical miles (3.1 km) southwest of this Point "R" boundary terminus and 1.6 nautical miles (2.9 km) south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: "The point lies on the Iraqi side of…the agreed land boundary." This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its waters. But the location provided by the British government is not in disputed territory according to IBRU, which says the boundary is disputed only beyond Point "R" (to the east and southeast). Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel#Legal_treaties_in_force_at_site

walshb

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

JustinDee

walshb wrote: »

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

Afghanistan provided logistics and sanctuary for the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Europe and the US.
Wholly different to the hijacking of catastrophe in an attempt to justify Iraq.

Mahatma coat

Wha?????????

you Talkin about the CIA Agent who lived in Pakistan?????

JustinDee

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Wha?????????

you Talkin about the CIA Agent who lived in Pakistan?????

Do more delving into where Al-Q operations were based at the time and where training and planning took place.
Try Steve Coll's book on the subject actually. More constructive literature on the matter and less pamphletic tosh normally found in the JCR.

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

Aghanistan was an operation which had the support of a wide range of the international community. The country had been a source of problems for India, Iran, and many of the former soviet states as well as the US.

walshb

Those taliban, who were supported by the Americans when they were fighting the Russians.

Support or not, the whole war on terror is just madness. Safer world? No, madder world.

And, what has the U.S. done in Afghansistan apart from killing, and having its men butchered? What has it acheived?