American Troops?

Snowball

Man pointed out that there has been no poll, so here we are

Dritz

scum, trying to start a war that is going to end up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and what about the families? friends? and people who will be affected by the deaths of all those to die in this war? THE ONE WE ARE HELPING TO START BY FUELLING THE ****ING PLAINS!!!! GET THE **** OFF MY ISLAND U PSYCHOTIC ASSHOLE!!!
He only wants to control oil fields, should we let him kill people over oil that is ****ing up our planet all the time anyway? All it is is one potential mad man attacking another!

PH01

What's the big deal - US troops have been passing through Shannon for years and nobody kicked up a fuss then?

Snowball

Originally posted by PH01
What's the big deal - US troops have been passing through Shannon for years and nobody kicked up a fuss then?

they were not starting a war with a contry that is not actualy attacking them or they do not need to defend them selves from.
Bush is starting a war over oil, nothing less. What happend to Osama? What happend to alkieda? Why do 1 in every 2 americans think that Sad am was responsable for the twin towers? oil

Borzoi

if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

Snowball

Originally posted by Borzoi
if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

So wtf r the 300,000 US troops doing surrounding Iraq? And under international law set down by the UN any war that is started by a country without good reason or in self defence is illegal. So is oil a good reason because self defence is not when USA could turn Iraq into a waste land in a day or less.

"But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat." If I had 5 ppl surounding you telling you (not asking you) to hand over a gun that u may or may not have, what way would you react? would you think that I was going to attack you? DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO?

Meh

Originally posted by Borzoi
But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

There's no prejudgement. It's simply a statement of one of the possible opinions on the situation. It would be different if the poll question asked "Should we allow US troops through Shannon to wage illegal war on Iraq?".

moodyblue

SNIPPED!

[It is rude to correct someones spelling like that. Either post an opinion on the discussion or don't bother posting in Politics again.

Next time you do this I will ban you. - Gandalf]

Thorbar

Woah you can spell moodyblue do you want a medal?

PH01

4fùcks sake, if you have nothing to add to a discussion except to correct spelling then do it somewhere else like a 'correct spelling forum'...

Anyway, what is wrong with fighting a war over oil? It's one of the essential products which the world needs. Hey, we all want cheap petrol!

Snowball

Originally posted by PH01
Anyway, what is wrong with fighting a war over oil? It's one of the essential products which the world needs. Hey, we all want cheap petrol!

lol, we need. ffs. we all want cheap petrol! omg. If the world is defined by the terms of cheap oil so we can all have an easier life ... well then **** the lot of you!
How many ecological disasters have there been caused y oil? And one of the main problems is that the oil companies have so much money that they can block technologies that do not use oil products. Electric cars for example.
A war started by a man who is really no worse than the man he is attacking over a substance that will in turn make his friends and family more rich? I see a problem there. Do u?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Borzoi
if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

Couldn't agree more. . . . . I do not think that American troops should be allowed to use ireland as a stepping stone for any military action, because Irelands constitution tells me that that would be illegal. The nature of that military action is irrelevant !

PH01

Originally posted by Snowball
lol, we need. ffs. we all want cheap petrol! omg. If the world is defined by the terms of cheap oil so we can all have an easier life ... well then **** the lot of you!
How many ecological disasters have there been caused y oil? And one of the main problems is that the oil companies have so much money that they can block technologies that do not use oil products. Electric cars for example.
A war started by a man who is really no worse than the man he is attacking over a substance that will in turn make his friends and family more rich? I see a problem there. Do u?

You said it - the world is defined by cheap oil. And oil supply. Lets be honest here. If the supply of oil is threatened then the world economy is also at risk. So many products are made from oil (see list below) and not just petrol and if the oil price increases so does the price of these products (and many more). This then has a hit on inflation. Then higher interest rates follow. Recession, job losses, less money for health care, ...blah, blah blah. You name it, everything gets ***ked if oil increases in price.
Iraq with WMD is a threat that can not be ignored - it threatens oil, it threatens us. So the US and the UK are doing us a big favour in quenching this threat.




Products Made From Oil

Clothing Ink
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Transparent tape
Antiseptics
Vacuum bottles
Deodorant
Pantyhose
Rubbing Alcohol
Carpets
Epoxy paint
Oil filters
Upholstery
Hearing Aids
Car sound insulation
Cassettes
Motorcycle helmets
Pillows
Shower doors
Shoes
Refrigerator linings
Electrical tape
Safety glass
Awnings
Salad bowl
Rubber cement
Nylon rope
Ice buckets
Fertilizers
Hair coloring
Toilet seats
Denture adhesive
Loudspeakers
Movie film
Fishing boots
Candles
Water pipes
Car enamel
Shower curtains
Credit cards
Aspirin
Golf balls
Detergents
Sunglasses
Glue
Fishing rods
Linoleum
Plastic wood
Soft contact lenses
Trash bags
Hand lotion
Shampoo
Shaving cream
Footballs
Paint brushes
Balloons
Fan belts
Umbrellas
Paint Rollers
Luggage
Antifreeze
Model cars
Floor wax
Sports car bodies
Tires
Dishwashing liquids
Unbreakable dishes
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Combs
Tents
Hair curlers
Lipstick
Ice cube trays
Electric blankets
Tennis rackets
Drinking cups
House paint
Rollerskates wheels
Guitar strings
Ammonia
Eyeglasses
Ice chests
Life jackets
TV cabinets
Car battery cases
Insect repellent
Refrigerants
Typewriter ribbons
Cold cream
Glycerin
Plywood adhesive
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial turf
Artificial Limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Mops
Beach Umbrellas
Ballpoint pens
Boats
Nail polish
Golf bags
Caulking
Tape recorders
Curtains
Vitamin capsules
Dashboards
Putty
Percolators
Skis
Insecticides
Fishing lures
Perfumes
Shoe polish
Petroleum jelly
Faucet washers
Food preservatives
Antihistamines
Cortisone
Dyes
LP records
Solvents
Roofing
CDs
Fiber Optics
Computers

Snowball

I perfectly understan that pertolium supplies most modern materials (hell if we had no plastic tomorrow I would be wasting my education in the computer industry) but my point is that its going to run out (hell oil was predicted to run out in the sevenies) and since the oil scare in the (was it the 70's or 80's????) the US has not exported or used any of their oil, they are stock pilling it.

P.S: Fibre Optics are made with glass, teflon and plastic coering on the outside. Snowball = Networking student

mike65

Originally posted by Snowball
the US has not exported or used any of their oil, they are stock pilling it.

Wrong! The US oil reserves are at a near historic low, thanks in large part to the ongoing Venezuela oil strike. That and all those SUVs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,875662,00.html

Mike.

rien_du_tout

I would have gone for the "they shouldnt be allowed use shannon on their way to an illegal war" so I went for the comprimise thing though I dont think there's much comprimising needed if the interpretation of the constitution is weighted in the non-war favour. I would wish to see no military transportation vehicles from any country allowed in ireland or over irish airspace weather the world felt that the war was just or not. Only a UN mandate would justify a war for me or landings/refuellings/soldiers having a fag on the side of a runway ,and even at that it's the better but not best solution, which I guess doesnt exist, being non participation in war. I know that's idealistic so the UN is the next best bet.

Iraq with WMD is a threat that can not be ignored

by PH1

Yes it is, I would like all WMD to be dismantle but it aint gonna happen unfortunately. Surely if WMD are found in Iraq the UN will provide a mandate for action of some kind. Hopefully not military action but most like so. Let the weapons inspectors do their work. Which last time round was hampered by the US using some of them as spies. I presume there were no repercussions for that showing of non-confidence. Hmmmmmm...... It didnt bring the downfall of the UN yet the powersharing institutions werent so lucky.

seán

seán

Barry Aldwell

The american troops can come and go as they like, weapons or no weapons

The troops are unarmed, and travelling on chartered airline flights. All their weapons, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, having been brought there last month on Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships from Diego Garcia and Italy last month.

Snowball

Originally posted by mike65
Wrong! The US oil reserves are at a near historic low, thanks in large part to the ongoing Venezuela oil strike. That and all those SUVs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,875662,00.html

Mike.

....raising fears that the government will be forced to tap its strategic reserves even before any full-blown

My point exactly, does anyone know how much is there in there "strategic reserves"???? Since the last scare they have been officially stockpiling in both the open reserves and the strategic reserves and also they have been quietly stockpiling.
I read somewhere (can't remember now but will look for it) that the US gov. imports aprox. 80% or more of their countries needs and that the countries oilfields produce just enough to keep the country going.

Snowball

Here are more people who don’t know what they are really talking about. Because they don’t inform them selves as much as they could.

Originally posted by Barry Aldwell
The troops are unarmed, and travelling on chartered airline flights.

DO you read the papers, watch the news or primetime or anything like that? DO you think that the people at The Shannon Peace camp would be protesting about weapons passing through Shannon if there was really none?
US troops (and all other troops around the world) travel with their weapons (like side arms [glocks] and their rifles [M16's]) on the plains in case that when they get to the "Theatre of operations" there is some kind of threat and they need them. It also saves the US military from having to deploy men and the arms separate, this way they deploy ready men in one go. Also there were an ex. US General and a British General both said the same that they have never seen or heard of ground troops travelling without their weapons.

Originally posted by Barry Aldwell
All their weapons, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, having been brought there last month on Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships from Diego Garcia and Italy last month.

Have you any idea the amount of equipment that 300,000 men need? There is no way that it is already there. Also the 300,000 men number will raise much higher, prob past the 500,000 mark.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Snowball
DO you read the papers, watch the news or primetime or anything like that? DO you think that the people at The Shannon Peace camp would be protesting about weapons passing through Shannon if there was really none?
US troops (and all other troops around the world) travel with their weapons (like side arms [glocks] and their rifles [M16's]) on the plains in case that when they get to the "Theatre of operations" there is some kind of threat and they need them. It also saves the US military from having to deploy men and the arms separate, this way they deploy ready men in one go. Also there were an ex. US General and a British General both said the same that they have never seen or heard of ground troops travelling without their weapons.

Yes, in fact I do read the papers and watch the news. Some troops might carry weapons, probably on C-130s carrying perishables (food, water, etc.), but most are on charter flights that are virtually indistingushable from civilian flights.

Originally posted by Snowball
Have you any idea the amount of equipment that 300,000 men need? There is no way that it is already there. Also the 300,000 men number will raise much higher, prob past the 500,000 mark.

They've been massing weapons for 12 years, plus what the Maritime Pre Positioning Ships brought in, and the C130s that are causing all the trouble in Shannon.

actually the only problem i have with american troops landing in shannon is how it affects our neutrality. (in my eyes). I wish we could just say we're neutral or not, and then stick to our guns one way or the other. If we're neutral, then we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries wars (even to the point of letting foreign troops to land in route to their final destination). If we're not going to be neutral lets at least announce it the world, and aid our allies in more than words.

Snowball

Originally posted by klaz
actually the only problem i have with american troops landing in shannon is how it affects our neutrality. (in my eyes). I wish we could just say we're neutral or not, and then stick to our guns one way or the other. If we're neutral, then we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries wars (even to the point of letting foreign troops to land in route to their final destination). If we're not going to be neutral lets at least announce it the world, and aid our allies in more than words.

well put klaz

Sand

Id prefer Ireland to be more open in its support for the US, but sadly that just doesnt seem to be an option - so the old nod and wink approach will have to do. On a related note the war planners may be counting on exams in the next few months decimating the "legions" of the protestors.

Snowball

Originally posted by Sand
Id prefer Ireland to be more open in its support for the US, but sadly that just doesnt seem to be an option - so the old nod and wink approach will have to do. On a related note the war planners may be counting on exams in the next few months decimating the "legions" of the protestors.

the nod and wink has always been our way.
Would not be suprised and I also think that bush is pushing so hard because he thinks that if the war starts the US public will get bihind it and his up comming election will be safe. I hope the **** not, we will be all in trouble if he is in charge of one of the bigest and scariest nations around.

I hope the **** not, we will be all in trouble if he is in charge of one of the bigest and scariest nations around.

I agree. Especially with america's perseption of themselves as the sheriff protecting western civilisation. This has been increasing over the last two decades, but with Bush at the steering wheel, things could get alot worse.

The Saint

I think we should put sanctions on the US for human rights violations, for posessing WMD's, training and funding terrorists, illegal use of force and not operating within international law.

I think we should put sanctions on the US for human rights violations, for posessing WMD's, training and funding terrorists, illegal use of force and not operating within international law.

then America would attack us, for restricting their right to do such things. Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation, so they have the right to do whatever they like.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation,

Was it Churchill who said that America was the only nation to go from ignorance to decadence without ever becoming civilised?

And here they are as the self-proclaimed bastion of civilisation.

Sometimes these things make me smile...but I'm sure someone will accuse me of being anti-American for saying that.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Was it Churchill?

Originally posted by Oscar Wilde:
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
then America would attack us, for restricting their right to do such things. Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation, so they have the right to do whatever they like.

What was it Gandhi said when asked what he thought about western civilisation - something to the effect that he thought it would be a good idea if it came about?

"What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea." Mohandas Gandhi

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/q141784.html

The funny thing is that America throws its roots off to quickly. They forget that they as a country aren't around that long. The fact is that they received most of their civilisation from people emmigrating from Europe. Shame their ancestors didn't put something in the constitution to the effect, "if you have nuclear weapons, one of the best equipped armies in the world, and a crazy guy for a president, don't dare attack a foreign country, without just & realistic cause".

But they didn't. Unfortuently.