Should people really be helping the situation in Iraq?

true

[QUOTE)
Or they dont want their troops killed?

OK, by saying fat and lazy I meant cowardly as well.



Yup and the first contry to reassure was France ! though a good friend tells you when your doing something stupid and Iraq was a bit silly with the whole WMD story. though if you feel the Irish or French or Germans are fat and lazy, then sign up to one of those armies help out in Iraq and put ur money where your mouth is[/QUOTE]

France - a good friend to the US and UK ? The UK and US may have helped France out in the past a few times - otherwise the French would be speaking German now - but does not France always act out of self interest? Note how the French authorities build their detention centre for illegial immegrants only a few miles from the channel tunnel, to help the thousands of illegial immigrants who escape and pass through there each week. There are over a dozen other countries helping the UK and US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As regards your point about me "joining one of those armies and put my money where my mouth is" has it occured to you that even if I was of a suitable age and fitness, me giving up my existing job and joining the Irish army will not do anything for anybody in any of these countries. Collectively, just as in WW2 ,the cold war, and the first Gulf war we let the US and UK do the dirty work. The result, my friend is that we speak English
( as opposed to German or Russian ), we have a good standard of living and cheap oil.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

Collectively, just as in WW2 ,the cold war, and the first Gulf war we let the US and UK do the dirty work. The result, my friend is that we speak English
( as opposed to German or Russian ), we have a good standard of living and cheap oil.

As I have already pointed out to you (top of this page) in case you havnt noticed English is not the native language of the majority of the people of this island and is a language that was imposed through 800 years of oppression. :rolleyes:

In any case none of this has any relevence to what is happaning in Iraq now so if you want to continue this debate maybe we should start a new thread.

true

AmenToThat wrote:

As I have already pointed out to you (top of this page) in case you havnt noticed English is not the native language of the majority of the people of this island and is a language that was imposed through 800 years of oppression. :rolleyes:.

We are talking about spoken and written languages, not "native"languages ( maybe "red indian" is the native langauge of North America , but live in that era if you want ). I have lived in Ireland ( unoccupied Ireland as I suppose you would call it ) for over 40 years and I have never hear a word of spoken Irish anywhere outside of school ( where it was rammed down our throats ) or RTE. I must be newsagents every day of the week and I never saw an Irish magazine or newspaper. Dont tell me English is not the language of the majority of the people on this island. As regards 800 years of oppression, not everyone would agree with you there. Over ten times more Irishmen fought in WW1 than fought in the easter rising. Look at the roads, the railways, the canals ,the buildings the British built. Do you think life was a bed of roses in England itself for English people over those 800 years ? Did you never look at what life was like in the rest of the world during those 800 years? You sound as if you would have preferred to live under Hiitler or Stalin : then you would really know what oppression was like.

AmenToThat wrote:

In any case none of this has any relevence to what is happaning in Iraq now so if you want to continue this debate maybe we should start a new thread.

It was you that brought up the 800 years etc. Our relationship with the UK and US, who are our two main trading partners , and where many of our emigrants have gone to over the years, has a lot to do with Iraq, as the two main countries in the coalition trying to help the govt and police service of Iraq at the moment are the UK and US. Your bitterness about 800 years should not affect the future of the people of Iraq.

Big Ears

true wrote:

It was you that brought up the 800 years etc. Our relationship with the UK and US, who are our two main trading partners , and where many of our emigrants have gone to over the years, has a lot to do with Iraq, as the two main countries in the coalition trying to help the govt and police service of Iraq at the moment are the UK and US. Your bitterness about 800 years should not affect the future of the people of Iraq.

actually he said that in response to 'if it wasn't for the US and Uk we'd all be speaking German , Russian now' or something along those lines .

Ireland is/or was of no economic or strategic advantage to either Germany or Russia and an invasion of the Emerald Isle would have only been a waste of their time , making it doubtful we would be speaking either language .(as our first language anyway)

elivsvonchiaing

AmenToThat wrote:

As I have already pointed out to you (top of this page) in case you havnt noticed English is not the native language of the majority of the people of this island and is a language that was imposed through 800 years of oppression. :rolleyes:

In any case none of this has any relevence to what is happaning in Iraq now so if you want to continue this debate maybe we should start a new thread.

I'm with you on this.. **** the Nigerians! Tanzanians/Kenyans/Somalians rock! Official language is now Kiswahili :rolleyes:

true

Next time you have nothing to do study a bit of what happened in places like Norway, Holland, Denmark etc. If in Poland go to Auchwitz. If in Germany go to the museum at Dachau. I will guarantee it will change your mind. Look at Stalins history in Eastern Europe. I do not think you can be too complacent about our little part of the world, which after all just stayed safe because of the Brits and the Yanks, and the many people from other countries who helped them, inc Ireland.

sovtek

true wrote:

which after all just stayed safe because of the Brits and the Yanks, and the many people from other countries who helped them, inc Ireland.

...you mean like those untold millions of Russians that died fighting Hitler?
Do you need to do a bit of study yourself...not that any of this is on topic that I can tell.

Big Ears

Norway was a key economic territory for the Nazi's and Holland , Denmark and people were key strategic ones , Hitler wasn't after world domination but central and eastern Europe domination , making an Invasion of Ireland pointless and the only way we would be speaking German as our first language is if they invaded .

Big Ears

sovtek wrote:

...you mean like those untold millions of Russians that died fighting Hitler?
Do you need to do a bit of study yourself...not that any of this is on topic that I can tell.

yup more Russians killed in WW2 than British and Americans combined .

true

Big Ears wrote:

yup more Russians killed in WW2 than British and Americans combined .

Yes, I know that, but I did say "many others", and I did not want to go too far off topic, as the Russians are not relevant to the point that was being made.

Regarding Hitlers plans for these islands after the war , you obviously have not studied this in the event of a german victory. Hitler respected the British more than most other races, but still planned to use all British men to build an autobahn to India / the far east. Useful extermination it could be called. Hitler did invade neutral countries, there were citizens from neutral countries in his concentration camps and do you really think he would have stopped his panzers at Newry if he had invaded from Scotland, or hesitated to invade the UK through " the free state " if that would have been viable...a plan which he did investigate. Do not forget Ireland was strategically placed during the war, and its ports / airbases would have been of invaluable use to both the UK and US ,especially during the battle of the atlantic. This means Ireland was of strategic interest to Germany as well.

sovtek

true wrote:

Yes, I know that, but I did say "many others", and I did not want to go too far off topic, as the Russians are not relevant to the point that was being made.

Then what point were you making when you said this:

Collectively, just as in WW2 ,the cold war, and the first Gulf war we let the US and UK do the dirty work.

and this:

I do not think you can be too complacent about our little part of the world, which after all just stayed safe because of the Brits and the Yanks,

and this:

France - a good friend to the US and UK ? The UK and US may have helped France out in the past a few times - otherwise the French would be speaking German now

But you are right...it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Sand

Then what point were you making when you said this:

Collectively, just as in WW2 ,the cold war, and the first Gulf war we let the US and UK do the dirty work.

I think the point he was making, which every "but what about the russians!!!!!" people miss when championing the Red Armys contribution in beating the Nazis - which was undoubtedly extremely significant - was that the Soviet Empire wasnt much better than the Nazi Empire.

Ask the poor bastards who had the misfortune to be liberated by the Soviet military machine and be pretty much annexed to Stalins ambitions for empire - let alone the atrocities the Russian troops visitied, not only on the Germans but on every nationality they encountered, including even Russians. Stalin and the Soviets undermined and destroyed practically every political anti-nazi structure or group they did not control utterly - they left the Polish revolutionaries to be crushed so as not to have to deal with them, and many leftist dissidents were shocked to find that the Red Army liberators and the political commissars were not interested in negotiating with them but rather interrogating them and imprisoning them.

If were talking about the defeat of totalarian regimes and their infliction of immense human misery, then yes the dirty work was done by the US and the UK - who at one point only 60 odd years ago were the only *powerful* free market liberal democracies left in a world of Communism, Nazism, Fascism and other left wing totalarian madness.

And even if you want to still argue that the Red Army should be championed for its ensuring East Europe passed from one nightmare to another then youd have to accept that the Red Armys war machine wouldnt have got off the ground without the industrial might of the US. Hell, even the most "russian" of tanks, the T-34 was a derivitive of an American design that was sent over to them.

So thats what I would imagine he meant by stating the US and the UK did most of the dirty work in actually *liberating* Europe and indeed the world, rather than simply annexing it.

But you are right...it has nothing to do with Iraq.

De Gaulle and his messing was to do with Iraq?

France has always steered its own course at the expense of pretty much any other concern, and dreamt of punching far above its own weight.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

I
And even if you want to still argue that the Red Army should be championed for its ensuring East Europe passed from one nightmare to another then youd have to accept that the Red Armys war machine wouldnt have got off the ground without the industrial might of the US. Hell, even the most "russian" of tanks, the T-34 was a derivitive of an American design that was sent over to them.

.

this is off topic but another example of how you take a germ of truth and twist it
the Soviets bought tanks from most western powers in the 20s and 30s they copied and developed from them
the soviets bought 2 christie tanks in 1931 from the US a design that the US military turned down from these and other tanks the T34 was developed. it was not sent over to them as part of the allied efforts in the second world war
it was sold to them.
they improved on it and built what is generally accepted as one of the best if not the best tank of WW2


BTW i accept that swapping the nazis for the soviets was only a slight improvement for eastern europe.
It has always struck me as ironic that the invasion of poland was the start of ww2 and at the end of ww2 they were nearly as bad off with the soviet occupation.

true

Well said, and basically I stand over what I said a few pages back.

true wrote:

Of course other nations should help the UK, US, New Zealand etc establish peace and democracy in Iraq. The Irish, French and Germans are just sitting on the fence, fat and lazy. If it were not for the US and UK, we would be speaking German or Russian.
Yet again we let them do the dirty work , and complain at the same time. A bit like when we cried over 9/11, and reassured America we were their special friend. A friend in need is a friend indeed....

AmenToThat

true wrote:

Well said, and basically I stand over what I said a few pages back.

And ruined a perfectly good topic in the process, well done you!

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

So thats what I would imagine he meant by stating the US and the UK did most of the dirty work in actually *liberating* Europe and indeed the world, rather than simply annexing it.

No it isnt, he basically claimed that Ireland "owed" the US and Britian for their contribution during the second world war, conveniently forgetting that many thousands of Irish died in that war and that American and Britian did have somewhat of a vested interest in getting out there and fighting the germans/japanes.
While convenently forgetting that the only foreign force that has oppressed the people of this island is the very force (britian) he says we now owe a debt!

The question of helping America is another matter in my opinion but I believe the world tried to help them........by telling and pleading with them not to get involved in the first place!
They didnt listen and instead went in while at the same timesidelineing the UN

The only way to resolve the Iraqi situation is for the Americans and the British to pull out not to row in behind them and compound several errors with yet more.

sovtek

AmenToThat wrote:

The question of helping America is another matter in my opinion but I believe the world tried to help them........by telling and pleading with them not to get involved in the first place!
They didnt listen and instead went in while at the same timesidelineing the UN

The only way to resolve the Iraqi situation is for the Americans and the British to pull out not to row in behind them and compound several errors with yet more.

Well said and great job getting us back on topic.

Redleslie2

Orwell wrote:

For those who feel deeply about contemporary politics, certain topics have become so infected by considerations of prestige that a genuinely rational approach to them is almost impossible. Out of the hundreds of examples that one might choose, take this question: Which of the three great allies, the USSR, Britain and the USA, has contributed most to the defeat of Germany? In theory, it should be possible to give a reasoned and perhaps even a conclusive answer to this question. In practice, however, the necessary calculations cannot be made, because anyone likely to bother his head about such a question would inevitably see it in terms of competitive prestige. He would therefore start by deciding in favour of Russia, Britain or America as the case might be, and only after this would begin searching for arguments that seemed to support his case.

true

AmenToThat wrote:

No it isnt, he basically claimed that Ireland "owed" the US and Britian for their contribution during the second world war, conveniently forgetting that many thousands of Irish died in that war and that American and Britian did have somewhat of a vested interest in getting out there and fighting the germans/japanes.
While convenently forgetting that the only foreign force that has oppressed the people of this island is the very force (britian) he says we now owe a debt!

The question of helping America is another matter in my opinion but I believe the world tried to help them........by telling and pleading with them not to get involved in the first place!
They didnt listen and instead went in while at the same timesidelineing the UN

The only way to resolve the Iraqi situation is for the Americans and the British to pull out not to row in behind them and compound several errors with yet more.

Yes, many thousands of Irish died in WW2 , and "Amen to that" should be pround and grateful for their sacrifice. "Amen to that" says America and Britain had a vested interest in fighting the germans / jananes ( sic). Yes, I suppose to stay alive and protect your country and families. ( Ever been to a German concentration camp, or read about conditions in Japanese p.o.w. camps in Burma ? )

Many more Irish people chose to fight in British uniforms than in the IRA, Amen to that. A lot of people do not see the British as a oppressive influence, Amen to that. They did build a lot of infrastructure and give employment, you know. A lot of of Irish people have got goods jobs and livings in the UK and US. Do you think the rest of the world was like Disneyland over the last 800 years ?

From your argument it would seem that only the US and UK are helping out the Iraqi administration. Actually there are over a dozen other countries as well that pay a smaller part. I think "Amen to that" , you should be grateful to the likes of the US and UK for all they have done for us. As J.F. K once
said, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" ) . You seem to be asking "ask not what I.... but what can I do against ...

halkar

True, why are you comparing Iraq to WWII? This is not WW but if (god forbid) turnes out to be, it will be totally fault of your US and UK whom does not care about any other nation in the world. Iraq invaded Kuwait and all world got together to stop this. Invasion is invasion, Saddam invaded Kuwait and Hitler invaded Poland and others and Bush invaded Iraq. Only difference is Bush is getting away with it.

true

Saddam invaded Kuwait with what was then the fourth biggest army in the world. Saddams record of torture and human rights abuses, gassing the Kurds etc has parallels with Hitler : the main difference is one of scale. Bush jnr is finishing off the job that should have been finished at the end of Gulf war 1. The US and UK are not "mine", as you say. The US and UK do care about at least some other nations in the world. The UK has historically been the secend largest contributer to the EC since its foundation. The US helped Germany with the Marshall plan, for example.
Both the US and UK have accepted millions of immigrants from around the world, inc Ireland. Both UK and US put a lot of money in to Ireland, north and south, in many different ways. Its a bit rich for you to say they ( US and UK ) do not care about any other nation in the world. Halkar, you are like a little boy that gets his Christmas presents and then whinges that Santy Claus and his parents never gives anybody anything.

Sand

No one is going to rush to help the coalition in Iraq.

You could argue that this is because of the U.N. fracas and to an extent it is. If only the debate hadnt been so devisive surely the assistance would be pouring in to try and establish a functioning liberal democracy beset by Baathist throwbacks and fundmentalist terrorists. Not. Darfur is still waiting for any meaningful assistance, despite there being little in the way of division over the issues. Again, no one wants to get involved because its bad news.

Basically, in the selfish calculations of self interest it makes sense for nations to claim theyre in favour of peace, love and freedom blah blah. But when push comes to shove its cheaper politically and economically to be less....ambitious. U.N. peacekeeping missions, when they can actually find the troops, are usually based around a core of western military providing technical or other non-combatant support and then 3rd world troops to do the **** work. Nations arent generally inclined to making sacrifices on the behalf of other peoples. Iraq cant be expected to be any different.

From an even more cynical point of view the Iraq situation suits powers like China, Russia and France which are all traditionally suspicious of or hostile to American interests. Theyve managed to isolate the U.S. and several continental European nations to an extent unknown since the 1930s. The U.S. is tied up in Iraq fighting the insurgents there, which limits there ability to intervene elsewhere - rants about invasions of Syria, Iran or North Korea are just plain laughable. And Russia/China have exploited the bad feeling to draw closer to the E.U. states, which is amusing in the Russian case particularly given that Chechnya makes Iraq look like a tea party. Why any of these powers would want to help, or encourage others to help, the Coalition out is a mystery.

American and Britian did have somewhat of a vested interest in getting out there and fighting the germans/japanes.

What was Britains or Frances interest in the German-Polish border? Surely it would have been in their interest to unleash the Germans against the Russians and have to two "evil empires" knocking the 7 shades of crap out of each other, especially seeing as neither was militarily prepared for WW2? Hell, they could fuel their flagging economies by churning out supplies to either side.

And what was the American interest in the Germans? They could never seriously threaten the continental U.S? Surely theyd have been better off reaching some sort of accomadation with Hitler - I mean they found one with Stalin afterall? The Japanese, I agree was a different case - the Pacific was big enough for only one "sphere of influence" and a clash between the U.S. and exspansionist Japan was inevitable. But again, the Americans agreed that the Germans should be made the priority and the Japanese to be dealt with afterwards. Weird.

While convenently forgetting that the only foreign force that has oppressed the people of this island is the very force (britian) he says we now owe a debt!

Well, we do. If not for the British Armed Forces - which included many Irish volunteers as well, the traitors - and indeed the stubborness of Churchill (I dont like the man, and I think he was overrated but he got one thing right, appeasement leads to disaster) when Britain stood practically alone against the Nazis after the fall of France, then the prospects for liberal democracy in any corner of Europe today would be very, very dim.

Redleslie2

Please mods, for the love of the gods, make the schoolboy historians stop and sort of put the thread back on topic.

halkar

true wrote:

Saddams record of torture and human rights abuses, gassing the Kurds etc has parallels with Hitler : the main difference is one of scale. Bush jnr is finishing off the job that should have been finished at the end of Gulf war 1. .

Sounds like what is US doing right now. What a way to finish a job.

The US and UK do care about at least some other nations in the world. The UK has historically been the secend largest contributer to the EC since its foundation. The US helped Germany with the Marshall plan, for example.

Are we in the same planet? They wouldn't give a $hit about any nation unless it benefits them.

Both the US and UK have accepted millions of immigrants from around the world, inc Ireland.

Can you tell me how many Kurdish people they took while Saddam was driving them out of Iraq and gassing? Can you tell me how many people from Sudan or Africa US taking a year. Are they taking anyone from Iraq after destroying their homes and lives?

Halkar, you are like a little boy that gets his Christmas presents and then whinges that Santy Claus and his parents never gives anybody anything.

nevermind! have a nice year

true

Have a nice year yourself, Halkar. I recommend you travel to the middle east some time, and read a bit of current affairs / learn some facts about the middle east.

true

Sand wrote:

If not for the British Armed Forces - which included many Irish volunteers as well, the traitors - and indeed the stubborness of Churchill (I dont like the man, and I think he was overrated but he got one thing right, appeasement leads to disaster) when Britain stood practically alone against the Nazis after the fall of France, then the prospects for liberal democracy in any corner of Europe today would be very, very dim.

Your statement is correct Sand, except I think your reference to the 50,000 or so brave men and women from all classes and creeds who left these shores to fight Nazism should not be described as traitors. Many of them died so that you and I may live in peace and prosperity. They were anything but traitors.

Moriarty

I think you'll find the sarcasam level was increased for parts of Sand's post, for the benefit of our 'ra supporting fellow posters.