Very happy. I love you George Bush.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by shotamoose
So some are happy, some unhappy. And these, of course, are only the ones who are left after Saddam, Bush and Blair have had their way.

More importantly, who cares whether they are happy or unhappy? Since when have their views been important?

Wook

Originally posted by daveirl
(continues) Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

Good point !, maybe they should liberate our ass in return, get rid of those croked politicians

bonkey

Originally posted by yankinlk
dodgy becasue it was changed mid way whne pro war was winning.

Care to explain the logic behind that?

I added two options when 9 votes in total had been cast. I added them because the vote was skewed to a pro-war slant in the first place.

Orriginally, it allowed you to support the war with no other jsutification, but to be anti-war you had to vote for one of three stances - two of which are not exactly written in what you could call "neutral language".

I added the "no, for another reason" option, and also decided to add the "undecided - Ill make my mind up when we see more" option, as that was missing too.

Since then, a total of 38 votes have been case (excluding my own). 26 of them have been for these two options. Just over 70%.

If anything, I "unskewed" the vote by adding in options that were clearly missing.

If anyone thinks this - or any poll - was altered by us politics mods because one side or another was winning, then you'd be sorely mistaken.

jc

Slutmonkey57b

Why do you think Western news outlets wouldn’t show such scenes?

For balatantly propagandistic pro-American reasons.

Funny, they've seemed quite happy so far to show footage of propagandistic ANTI-American peace rallies.
But obviously, the explaination is that the media are incapapable of showing the "real" truth, as opposed to, say, what might be happening in front of them.

The western media are far too obsessed about getting one over on their commercial competitors to worry about which government they are sucking up to - witness Sky News' failure to mention that John Simpson had been caught up in the friendly fire incident that killed Kurds in the north.

I haven’t noticed that happening, either here or anywhere else. But the progress of the war so far has certainly disproved the pre-war predictions of mass civilian casualties, a Vietnam-style quagmire and massive popular opposition to the invasion.

One death from such an ignoble campaign is unacceptable. And as to mass opposition to the war, the governments simply ignored that mass opposition. In a country of 52 million, when 2 million turn out to protest in the capital city, with more across the country, you might think the government would notice. Nope they didn't. As to the US, I think 500,000 in Washington DC alone says it all really.

Is one death from ignoring the problem any less ignoble? No. Please, to those who harp on about the tradgedy of war, wake up. Yes deaths among the civilian population are terrible. Yes the mother whose child is killed will not thank his (even inadvertant) killers. This is such a non sequiter its only purpose in bringing it up is to conduct a moral seige of sentimentality. The mother of a child dragged off and tortured isn't going to thank his captors either.

Don't pretend that your objection is a principled one based on a love of human rights - it isn't. For every avoidable death currently happening in Iraq, there are a hundred avoidable deaths happening elsewhere in the world. Only the other day Mugabe rounded up 300 political opponants and had them "disappeared". Where was the "principled" stand of the great President Chirac against this illegal, immoral, and evil man? Uuuuuhhh. Hmmm. The absolute crux of the anti-war argument to me is this, and it is one that is the greatest indictment of western society and of its terminal decline:

Don't get your hands dirty.

The truth is that we in the west don't really care who gets murdered or who gets tortured or who gets bombed - provided we're not the ones doing it. What really bothers the anti-war protesters is that westerners are having to get their hands dirty - it might end up being the right thing. It might end up being the wrong thing. But the simple basic code has been broken: Don't get involved. It's much better to leave things and sort it out once its all calmed down. Who cares how many were done for in the killing fields? What matters is that we principled westerners cared about it and got involved - after it was all finished.

There have been thousands of casualties. But there are thousands of casualties elsewhere. 1200 cases of SARS in the Far East. 10 Villages burnt to the ground and the inhabitants massacred in tribal violence in Nigeria. 600 bodies found in a mass grave in Bosnia. But that's ok because we principled westerners aren't involved. For either good or bad intentions. Not Involved is what's important.

What's equally important is that those who worry about the "consequences" of the iraqi war recognise those worries for what they are: the idea that the problems engulfing the middle east will spread to the west. Not that the problems will be made worse for the people who are already living with them - but that we in the comfortable west might have to live with them also. Again, this is not an argument that paints many of the anti-war persuasion in a saintly glow. It merely exposes hipocricy.

Slutmonkey57b

Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

The anti-war argument goes that westerners have no right to interfere or impose on the iraqis, and that more attention should be paid to what the Iraqis want rather than what's good for Bush's cronies. Therefore what the Iraqi people think should, ABSOLUTELY, outweigh what the punter on the streets of Neasden thinks. Because your objections are supposedly there to protect these Iraqi people. As opposed to your own selfish interests.

originally posted by Eomar...
The allies would have beaten Hitler had these taken place or not - neither were major production centres for the war effort. You have obviously never experienced proper loss due to such activities. I have and I say you are wrong.

I'll make the obvious retort to this particular post as nobody else has:

You have not been the victim of carpet bombing in the second world war. Don't be ridiculous. Define your previous experience of either WWII carpet bombing or modern precision guided asymmetrical command-and-control based warfare.

I wasn't against this war for any humanitarian reasons. TBH, i didn't care too much abt the people who died in the war. Its a war, so people will die. However, i was against this war, because it was so pointless.

The Pro-war camp, have come out with many reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and not one of them has stood up to any inspection, with the possible exception of WMD's. If the world really cared abt the Iraqi people, then Saddam would have been deposed 12 years ago, or arrested after the chemical attack on the Kurds.

Simple answer is, that as long as its not affecting our own countries directly it doesn't matter. We might shake our heads in disgust when some journalist brings it out, but we forget it relatively quickly.

However, i have still to be convinced that this war, is just. Nobody has given me any reasons that justify this blatent attack on another nation. The coalition have broken all the unofficial rules, that they've been building since the cold war, in invading anothers nations borders. As far as i'm aware, there was no formal declaration of war by the US against Iraq. These are some of the issues i have with this war. I see it as being unnecessary, and in fact a stupid move that will inflame the Middle East.

Will you be so happy to have supported this war, when all western states despite their original stance in this war, are hit by Islamic fundelmentalist Terrorism? I'm sure you'll use it as justification for the invasion, despite the fact that this invasion will be what created the discord in the 1st place.

A box of snakes has been opened here, and all your pro-war claims have not justified the war to me. That is why i'm against this war.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b

You've just confirmed every point I've made about the hipocricy and self-centredness of the anti-war protest.

This war is what it is - human existance in action. Either good can come out of it or bad, but it is messy and uncertain and contradictory and unpleasant - what people really want when they say "Not in my name" is "Scr!w the other guy - I'm going home."

Don't pretend that you're any more principled than someone who says "cool! they just blew up that building with a massive bomb!". You're just attempting to be less obvious.

Slutmonkey57b - as i've said many times. I'm am not part of the anti-war camp. I'm not against all wars. I'm just against this one.

Don't pretend that you're any more principled than someone who says "cool! they just blew up that building with a massive bomb!". You're just attempting to be less obvious.

crap. If i think its cool, i'll say so. I have nothing to prove here. I don't need any respect from you. For all i know you're just some spotty little knacker, that has occassional internet access in the local prison. I describe what i think, not what i think you want to hear. Otherwise i wouldn't get into so many arguments with Sand, and Éomer.

This war is what it is - human existance in action. Either good can come out of it or bad, but it is messy and uncertain and contradictory and unpleasant - what people really want when they say "Not in my name" is "Scr!w the other guy - I'm going home."

War exists. I have no problem with that. However, i have problems for the reasons for war. There was no justification for this war, and if you think there was, you're fooling yourself.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
There was a general on r4 this morning musing over the possibility of reinstating "elements" of Sadamns Police force and local Bathist apperatchiks to oversee the maintenence of "law and order" after the inhabitants went of Basra went on a looting spree.

Sorry but i thought this was a war to Liberate the people of iraq,not buy new uniforms for Sadamns Goons.

What have the musings of a general on the radio got to do with anything? You’re really clutching at straws here aren’t you?

Originally posted by klaz
Well consider that in 6 months Iraq will be forgotten, and the world will focus on some new conflict. Iraqi troops that used to follow Saddam, will probably slaughter the population that rose to help the allies. And nobody will care.

Its very easy to be pro-war, and pro-regime-change when the worlds largest superpower has an interest, but most people will ignore Iraq, once the US/UK decides that its been "liberated". Shame really, since the Iraqi people will probably face more death & destruction than before the Invasion.

This is all speculation, of course. Just like before the invasion everyone said that Saddam had WMD's...:rolleyes:

Just like before the invasion everyone said it would be another Vietnam, the Arab street would rise up, the Iraqis would put up a stubborn resistance, hundreds of thousands of civilians would die…blah blah blah. How many wars do you people have to lose before you cop on to reality?

Originally posted by Zukustious
When the Americans win, they will make Saddam out to be a hell of a lot more evil than he was.

Yes, they’ll probably make up stories about him invading other countries, killing millions, using chemical weapons in campaigns of genocide, terrorising and torturing his own population blah blah blah.

Originally posted by Sparks
Also, it's good to recall that as bad as SH was, he was actually better than what he replaced, as hard as that is to concieve of.

a. In what way was he better?
b. Even if that were true, which it’s not, who gives a ****?

Thing is, this is a lot like Afghanistan. There, eliminating the Taliban was a boon to humanity - abandoning the promise to rebuild the Afghan nation was a crime.

More sick-in-the-head anti-Americanism. There’s only so much the US can do to make that country a fully-functioning democracy, but of course, any shortcomings whatsoever will be used as a stick to beat the Americans with.

But can I take it that you supported the war in Afghanistan then?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
For balatantly propagandistic pro-American reasons.

I’m sick of all this “the meeja is biased” crap as well. If Iraqis were out on the streets celebrating a victory over the Americans you can be damned sure it would be shown on Western TV.

And as to mass opposition to the war, the governments simply ignored that mass opposition. In a country of 52 million, when 2 million turn out to protest in the capital city, with more across the country, you might think the government would notice. Nope they didn't. As to the US, I think 500,000 in Washington DC alone says it all really.

The governments did notice, but thankfully, they pressed on regardless. Anyway, I was referring to predictions of mass opposition among Iraqis.

This is ridiculous in itself. How a pro-war supporter can condemn an anti-war protestor for not caring about human rights when the human rights being breached are generally those of the Iraqis being murdered by the US not to mention the incompetence of the US in terms of the number of Brits they have killed.

I don’t apologise for saying it: Anti-war = anti-human rights.

Do you honestly believe that the firestorming of Dresden or the destruction of Cologne from the air were warranted? They were not. The allies would have beaten Hitler had these taken place or not - neither were major production centres for the war effort.

To be honest I’d probably agree with you there – they weren’t warranted. I was thinking more of the civilian deaths in occupied Europe rather than in Germany.

Sanctions kept in place by what nations? Oh yes that's right. The ones presently bombing Iraq into the ground.

a. Iraq is not being bombed into the ground.
b. The suffering of Iraqi civilians was caused by Saddam, not sanctions.
c. It’s still another good reason to support the war.

I think it is fairly obvious what he is talking about Biffa - that the invading forces or forces of occupation, now that the war is almost 'won' will not take kindly to interanl opposition, violent or peaceful.

Please stop deluding yourself.

Do you ever think that two wrongs do not make a right? That more deaths will somehow make right the deaths that have gone before? I think that is absurd.

No two wrongs do not make a right but the Americans have not done anything wrong.

Originally posted by daveirl
Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

The protestors worldwide don’t count because they don’t have to live under Saddam’s regime.

Originally posted by shotamoose
It's pragmatism rather than, er, moronism. The times are too dangerous right now to be a purist, you're better off just backing the winning side.

But you seriously think they’d come out on the streets and celebrate? When and where has that ever happened before?

Say someone douses you with petrol, sets you on fire and then puts it out. You'll be relieved the ordeal is over, but you'd be entitled to your suspicions as to their motives and their actions in the future.

Saddam is the one who doused them in petrol and set them alight. The Americans are the one who put the fire out. Wouldn’t you thank them in that situation?

I'm talking about the young Iraqi men being rounded up by soldiers in every occupied town. Some militia or Ba'athists or soldiers in plain clothes, some just in plain clothes.

I saw one report of this happening – it was in Basra where the British were trying to break the opposition with minimum use of force. Working on tip-offs from locals, they would storm the homes of Ba’ath party members and take them away. Do you have any source for the “thousands” you mention?

And the ordinary soldiers in Baghdad, and the people who've arrived to fight from Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere. Since they're facing overwhelming odds, they might actually believe in their cause - not pro-Saddam maybe, but more likely anti-coalition.

But are they ordinary soldiers or are they those with a vested interest in the regime?

And coalition forces are indeed encountering resentment, as this story shows:

The link doesn’t work, but from what you’ve quoted all I can see is a lefty reporter putting an anti-war slant on people celebrating their freedom.

Just like before the invasion everyone said it would be another Vietnam, the Arab street would rise up, the Iraqis would put up a stubborn resistance, hundreds of thousands of civilians would die…blah blah blah. How many wars do you people have to lose before you cop on to reality?

I haven't lost any wars. Hell i haven't been in any. Have you?
Where the **** does reality come into this. For someone advocating war, you have a very limited grasp as to how it works. War is based on estimates. There are NO certainties. They say that the best soldier is a lucky one.

Our suggestions that Iraq would turn into another vietnam, are not over yet. Remember vietnam was conquered, and it was only after the initial invasion that resistance rose. Also consider that these are estimates. Nobody said that they would definetly rise up. Unlike you we realise that everything is uncertain. Perhaps its time for you to be realistic, and stop playing with your toy plastic soldiers.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by klaz
I haven't lost any wars. Hell i haven't been in any. Have you?

Lose as in call wrong.

Where the **** does reality come into this.

No matter how many times America goes to war and wins, no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct, there are always lefties who will slander them and predict their doom.

Remember vietnam was conquered, and it was only after the initial invasion that resistance rose.

No it wasn't, Vietnam was split into the communist North and the capitalist South after the French left. The Americans got involved because South Vietnamese Commies, the Vietcong, were trying to overthrow the South's government. There was no invasion.

Lose as in call wrong

Call wrong? The war isn't over yet. Iraq has not been pacified. Nor has it been occupied. The people haven't had time to adjust to American occupation. Nor has the coalition proven any the reasons for this war.

No matter how many times America goes to war and wins, no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct, there are always lefties who will slander them and predict their doom.

I'm not a lefty, or is anbody that thinks the US is wrong, one of them? Should i call you a lefty simply because u disagree with me?

How honourably America acts? You have got to be joking. People are just used to seeing how dishonourably the US acts. Or are you going to tell me its ok, to ignore the Geneva Convention whenever its inconvenient? I haven't seen too many honourable acts by the US. Can you tell me of them, or rather do these honourable acts outweigh the dishonourable acts?

Predict their doom? Hardly. Everyone knew that they would win this war. It was just a matter of guessing whether they'd loose alot of troops in the process. **** Happens. We have been wrong so far, however, that doesn't mean all predictions are invalid. Likewise your predictions are just as invalid or valid as ours. Just because you're pro-war doesn't give you total control over who is correct.

No it wasn't, Vietnam was split into the communist North and the capitalist South after the French left. The Americans got involved because South Vietnamese Commies, the Vietcong, were trying to overthrow the South's government. There was no invasion

My apologies. Invasion was a bad choice of words. But considering the number of troops sent over by the US, invasion popped into my head. But the fact still stands, that the initial campaign made by the US was a success. It was afterwards that the **** hit the fan.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

b. Even if that were true, which it’s not, who gives a ****?

Well, that just sums up your reasoning. Blinkered to say the least. I'm sure someone sitting at the receiving end of a 2000lb 'precision' bomb gives a sh*te.

More sick-in-the-head anti-Americanism. There’s only so much the US can do to make that country a fully-functioning democracy, but of course, any shortcomings whatsoever will be used as a stick to beat the Americans with.

Umm ... the US blew the crap out of what was left of the country (which wasn't much admittedly) BUT the US also promised to help rebuild the country and provide funding to get it running. So far it has practically ignored the new Afghani government, which had to go THEM to get some of the funding promised.

One more thing Biffa ... accusing people of being "anti-american" & "sick in the head" because they disagree with current american policy does not make them anti american nor sick in the head and only point's out the incapabilities of the accuser.

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

I don’t apologise for saying it: Anti-war = anti-human rights.

WTF?????????? WHERE did you get that one from? I'm not going to even respond because:
a) I'm astounded
b) my response would get me banned.

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

Please stop deluding yourself.

Sound words of self-advice me thinks

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>
No two wrongs do not make a right but the Americans have not done anything wrong.

See my above words on self-advice. Anything else I want to say regards that above quote will get me banned.

The protestors worldwide don’t count because they don’t have to live under Saddam’s regime.

Ah .. but we all share this earth, and we all have to live with the consequences somewhere down the line. Cause & Effect. Action & Reaction. The current US line on unilateralism is already having repercussions on the international community

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

Saddam is the one who doused them in petrol and set them alight. The Americans are the one who put the fire out. Wouldn’t you thank them in that situation?

Thank them for what exactly? Handing the petrol and matches to Saddam and saying "knock yerself out wee man!" to him?

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

But are they ordinary soldiers or are they those with a vested interest in the regime?

Might have been on bbc online, or perhaps skynews, but there as a paragraph in a news article there yesterday where a boy who had been captured in the fighting for Baghdad was asked why he fought such overwhelming force. His response was "It's my country". Argue that one please.

The link doesn’t work, but from what you’ve quoted all I can see is a lefty reporter putting an anti-war slant on people celebrating their freedom.

Ah yes ....... the good auld "Hawk" argument of "if you're not with me, you're against me and a hippy commie b*stard liberal".

Oh Pleeeeeease folks.
It's a bit rich of us, in the relative safety of this land to be arguing who called, this situation rightly or wrongly at this stage.
All I know, is i'm watching, people,lots of them dancing in the streets of Shia Baghdad clapping at U.S tanks and throwing flowers in front of them now on sky news.

That suggests to me that despite the awfull civilian tragedy, of this war, they, the people that matter have made up their minds, (despite, bunker busters and market bombs) regarding, which was the lesser of the two evils, and they are saying down down Sadam.
His catalog of atrocities over the last couple of decades aparently fresher in their minds than what the war has brought.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
All I know, is i'm watching, people,lots of them dancing in the streets of Shia Baghdad clapping at U.S tanks and throwing flowers in front of them now on sky news.

And, according to the BBC, they're calling "Saddam is the enemy of God". LOL. Islam has returned to Iraq

bonkey

I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch.

Stop getting self-righteous about each other's words, and look to your own.

I'd much rather not have to intervene "forcibly".

no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct

I think the point people are making is that the US is not sufficiently honourable in its conduct.

Numerous cases across numerous conflicts have bene brought up to show this. I'm not going to go reiterating them.

The US has a history of going into situations with what appear to be the best of intentions....typically fighting for freedom and democracy. Closer examination usually reveals ulterior motives as well - not necessarily a good or a bad thing.

Where the problem arises is where they act dishonourably, or even questionably, and discard it as "we were fighting for freedom, and bad things happen so just accept it".

Yes, bad things happen in war. The thing is that it is incumbent on all involved to ask of each situation "was this unavoidable and truly accidental".

The US have acted numerous times on what they term "credible intelligence". What amazes me is the number of times that "credible" turns out to be "inaccurate", and yet its still good enough to drop bombs on civilian shelters (Gulf War), residential areas (current war), and so on.

So we have "we're pretty sure that risking the lives of X civilians will allow us to remove person Y".

This is honourable? This is doing everything possible to minimise civilian fatalaties, casualties and suffering?

Its hard to say without access to any form of statistics (e.g. estimated level of certainty in the accuracy of the information pre-op vs statistical accuracy of the information post-op).

Such information would indicate if intelligence is frequently over-rated in its credibility, as well as showing what level of certainty is sufficient for an operation (possibly normalised against estimated civilian cost).

Unfortunately, this information is not available. I'm not saying that the US is hiding something, but it does mean that there is definitely scope for both points of view. Neither are brainless or stupid....its just a case of how high you set your standards in my book.

For me, and clearly for many others, the US military does not act with sufficient care at all times.....or, if it does, it under-publicises the extent of how much unintential damage it knows statistically that it will cause.

Neither of these are acceptably "honourable" to me to blindly accept the horrific costs just as "the reality of war".

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch.

Stop getting self-righteous about each other's words, and look to your own.

Noted

Where the problem arises is where they act dishonourably, or even questionably, and discard it as "we were fighting for freedom, and bad things happen so just accept it".

<SNIP>

Its hard to say without access to any form of statistics (e.g. estimated level of certainty in the accuracy of the information pre-op vs statistical accuracy of the information post-op).

<SNIP>

For me, and clearly for many others, the US military does not act with sufficient care at all times.....or, if it does, it under-publicises the extent of how much unintential damage it knows statistically that it will cause.

Neither of these are acceptably "honourable" to me to blindly accept the horrific costs just as "the reality of war".

jc

In point of the "honourability" of conduct, would people consider dropping 4 2000lb Bunker-Buster bombs on a restaurant in a civilian area, *hoping* it would take someone out to be a just and honourable act?

They essentially dropped 8000lb's of munitions designed to penetrate underground bunkers on a civilian structure "just to make sure". Smacks of carelessness and an utter disregard for their claimed mandate of minimising civilian casualties to me.

Kill the patient to kill the cancer.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
They essentially dropped 8000lb's of munitions designed to penetrate underground bunkers on a civilian structure "just to make sure". Smacks of carelessness and an utter disregard for their claimed mandate of minimising civilian casualties to me.

This is exactly the type of situation I mean.

If they were certain (100% - an impossibility, I know) that the bunker was there, and contained a target of significant military value, then yes....I would say that it was a valid target. I accept the refusal to allow Human Shield defences to work, as long as the worth of the target is sufficient...which in this case would be true if Saddam was there.

However, what I would question is how certain they were, or what degree of "certainty" or "credibility" is needed in order to authorise such a mission. 99% certain? 90%? 75%?

How is such certainty measured, and is that method of measurement acceptably "honourable"?

jc

I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch

okies :ninja:

Éomer of Rohan

I must admit, Lemmings comments regarding Biffa's post were entirely justified; his self righteous attitude made me simply not want to reply until I read the subsequent posts.

Anyway, regarding this title 'Lefties wake up....you have lost again.' I don't actually think that could be any more petty. The Socialists at least were not supporting Saddam Hussein so although the war is over or at least nearly over, there has been nothing 'lost' except a lot of innocent Iraqi lives and livelihoods.

As to the 'right' being vindicated in their support for this war, I think that the saying the 'proof of the pudding....' about covers it. People may be in Baghdad 'celebrating' but I don't think that the 20,000 people I watched on TV is an accurate representation of the feelings of a people who have lost sons to the war machine of the US and who have seen their country attacked and destroyed. Also, since the US have already announced that 'democracy will not be immediately instituted' I wonder how long it will be until another, possibly more reliable dictator is in the seat of power. As to reconstruction, well we have seen the lack thereof in Afghanistan - why would the US not play the same game in Iraq? With Halliburton and other US corporations in charge of the reconstruction efforts, well all I can say is the Iraqi future looks as bleak as it did pre-decision 'to invade Iraq illegally.'
I am glad the war is over and if the US pull out immediately and simply stick to supplying financial resources gratis to Iraq then some good has come of the war - but they won't and I don't think that even the right wingers are under that delusion, though invariably they will try to rationalise and justify the interference (once again) in another nations sovereign affairs - even though the dictator with which they justified their war and intervention is no longer there.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Anyway, regarding this title 'Lefties wake up....you have lost again.' I don't actually think that could be any more petty.

Agreed.

With Halliburton and other US corporations in charge of the reconstruction efforts,

Wrong.

Éomer of Rohan

Well, three things;

One - read the subtitle of that article.
Two - this simply means another corporation will be taking charge
Three - someone obviously realised that people weren't that stupid and might realise that Dick Cheney had run Halliburton for 12(?) years and that it was too blatantly corrupt.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I’m sick of all this “the meeja is biased” crap as well.
...
The link doesn’t work, but from what you’ve quoted all I can see is a lefty reporter putting an anti-war slant on people celebrating their freedom.

Hilarious . So the media is biased when you disagree with what they report, but fearless truth-tellers when you don't?

The link works fine for me, and it's from the UK Independent. I can see why you'd dismiss it as slanted since it tries to give all sides of the story.

The suffering of Iraqi civilians was caused by Saddam, not sanctions.

More selective ignorance. The suffering of the Iraqi people was caused by Saddam AND sanctions AND the people who helped him stay in power for so long.

But you seriously think they’d come out on the streets and celebrate?

I'm quite certain that some people who didn't want this war are very glad that Saddam is gone. They don't like the way it happened or that it was the Americans who did it, but they like that he's gone.

I saw one report of this happening – it was in Basra where the British were trying to break the opposition with minimum use of force. Working on tip-offs from locals, they would storm the homes of Ba’ath party members and take them away. Do you have any source for the “thousands” you mention?

The British alone have thousands of prisoners, which includes civilians claiming to be non-combatants. They've been picking up people in every town they occupy, which isn't very many at the moment, so there'll be plenty more when they and the US eventually take over the rest of Iraq. There's a lot of people who are being arrested on suspicion of being fedayeen, secret police, soldiers, scientists, etc. Which is fine, the point being that a lot of this is going on 'local knowledge' alone, that there are undoubtedly scores being settled and that people are realising that it's best to adopt as pro-US/UK an attitude as possible.

But are they ordinary soldiers or are they those with a vested interest in the regime?

We can't know their motives, the point is that resistance was stubborn in the face of overwhelming force and there is still pockets of it about.

Overall my point is that the Iraqi people want peace and free self-determination. This was not a war fought for those principles, it was a war fought for American interests. Actually, I find it almost amusing that some of the people who tell us that the US can and should act only in its own interests now tell us that it's been acting out of altruism all along. But whatever. This war shouldn't have happened, but now I want it to be over as soon as possible with the minimum of casualties and for Iraq to be rebuilt as a real independent democracy.

Éomer of Rohan

What's the world coming to? I agree with Eomer 100%

I laughed my ass off at that one. Quite pleased too LOL.

The Corinthian

Why on Earth are people arguing with Biffa? He's a troll, not a really person at all - let’s be honest, his posts are comical in their level of political incorrectness. He makes Alan B’Stard look like a wet.

Probably just a regular having a laugh...

Éomer of Rohan

Why on Earth are people arguing with Biffa? He's a troll, not a really person at all - let’s be honest, his posts are comical in their level of political incorrectness. He makes Alan B’Stard look like a wet.

Oh good grief, I actually agree with you for once! What is the world coming to!? Mind you, I'd be unsurprised if you said the same about me LOL.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Mind you, I'd be unsurprised if you said the same about me LOL.

Not at all. It’s quite evident that you’re probably a first/second year in some college, where a far-left group adopted you shortly after entering, as they are your primary social group above being the source of your ideological focus.

Éomer of Rohan

It’s quite evident that you’re probably a first/second year in some college, where a far-left group adopted you shortly after entering, as they are your primary social group above being the source of your ideological focus.

Well, one out of four ain't bad lol

I approached the Socialist Party aged 15. Certainly not the other way around and even then, that was after serious political analysis from my first year at grammar school led me in the leftist direction. I reached all Marxist conclusions myself.

They are certainly not my 'social' group. I prefer my other friends to be honest, though that is not to say that I refuse to go out for a drink after branch meetings or protests.

They are not my 'ideological focus' - I watch the news, draw my own conclusions and then read the party interpretation while maintaining an open mind on issues apart from the ones that I have already concluded in my own thought.