Printable View
Alex-Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H@23 December 2003 - 00:57
It is clearly documented and well known that George W Bush didn't win the election (don't ask me for a "source", type "Bush didn't win" in Google and have a browse through the 1,290,000 pages on the subject.)
Could you break this down to the bits that concern you so that I might correct your mis-understanding about the 2000 U.S. Presidential election?
What do you mean the Iraqi resistance.Quote:
Originally posted by Robert864@22 December 2003 - 21:18
I say to the Iraqi resistance, who ever they are (and now it could be anyone), grit your teeth and choke the enemy’s neck.
Resistance is a group of fighters within the country, who act on behalf of the people of that country, to fight against an occupying force. If you mean something else please let me know.
a, I do not see the Allied Forces as being an occupying force. If they were they would not be assisting in setting up a new government and infrastructure. Both political and physical. They would not be encouraging the Iraqi people to Govern themselves representatively, a thing that has not happened for many years.
b, I do not believe that the people fighting against the Allied Forces represent the majority of Iraqi citizens. From what I can see, if anything they represent the deposed regime. Which the people are glad to see the back of. In essence they are fighting against the wishes of most of the citizens. However they don't care about that, they never have.
I find the part of your post which I quoted quite disturbing. It reminds me of George Galloway, the Glasgow MP.
lol....searched for "bush didn't win"....and went into first one i found
http://www.cafeshops.com/irregulargoods.5962701
funny :lol:
this topic reminds me of a bill hicks routine
the presidential adviser " iraq sir...terrible weapons "
president " how do you know ? "
the presidential adviser " well.....we looked at the receipt sir "
president " well as soon as that check clears we are going in "
Your selective moralising really is nauseous. Assisting in setting up new governing institutions? What on earth are you talking about? It is obviously clear for all to see that the Iraq war is nothing other than theft - oil being the thief’s loot.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@23 December 2003 - 16:25
a, I do not see the Allied Forces as being an occupying force. If they were they would not be assisting in setting up a new government and infrastructure.
To steal the oil the US is subjecting Iraq to a repressive occupation. US forces are murdering and brutalising ordinary Iraqis every day – this is why so many US soldiers are dying. But the deaths of these civilians do not count in the eyes of the Americans, and are so often dismissed in the media as “collateral damage”, if reported at all.
The US does not, and never has given a damn about Iraq and its population, if they did they would not have supported Mr Hussein’s murderous regime. There was a chance to help the Iraqis at the end of the last gulf war, but the insurrection was not supported and thousands died. All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.
We can only hope that as the soldiers keep dying, the good Americans (and I believe that they do exist....somewhere) will be stirred into removing that crazy drunken despot that is Bush.
Actually i'm a bit hazy on that one...Quote:
Originally posted by Robert864@28 December 2003 - 15:15
It is obviously clear for all to see that the Iraq war is nothing other than theft - oil being the thief?s loot.
I saw a depressing article in the Independent sometime last week about the apparent giving up of the US military of the usual 'hearts and minds' campaign in parts of Iraq, they had instead opted for a policy of fear and intimidation in order to make the locals cooperate in giving information about suspected anti-coalition combatants. It also added that there have been a number of civilian deaths that went largely unreported due to logging them under non-combat deaths e.g as "road traffic accidents" one example given was when a prominents cleric was killed when a US tank drove completely over his car. Hardly the most common RTA...Quote:
US forces are murdering and brutalising ordinary Iraqis every day ? this is why so many US soldiers are dying. But the deaths of these civilians do not count in the eyes of the Americans, and are so often dismissed in the media as ?collateral damage?, if reported at all.
Governments will always act in what they consider their countries best interests, in this case it meant making hard choices about supporting leaderships who are morally repugnant to you, but if the alternative is detrimental to the country you have been elected to protect and serve then occasionally ethics will be overlooked.Quote:
The US does not, and never has given a damn about Iraq and its population, if they did they would not have supported Mr Hussein?s murderous regime.
why didn't we (Britain US etc) support the last uprising? Why is it right to have toppled Saddam? Personally i am glad he's gone, but that doesn't mean it was right to do it.Quote:
There was a chance to help the Iraqis at the end of the last gulf war, but the insurrection was not supported and thousands died.
what a load of bsQuote:
All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.
Agreed. They are, however, responsible for 10's of thousands of them.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 02:49
what a load of bsQuote:
All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.
:)
Fat Bastard, despite your criticism of the US you (and the author of your article) have fallen for a piece of US propaganda.
Iran invaded Iraq to kick of the Iran-Iraq war, not the other way round. Iran had been running border raids to ferment revolution within Iraq (Iran having just had the revolution that ousted the Shah) and Iraq finally retaliated. By any measure of international law, Iran started the conflict and Iraq was entitled to attack in self defence.
Interestingly, when the US supported Iraq (though of course the US also armed Iran at the same time) they referred to it as the Iran-Iraq war. It got changed to the Iraq-Iran war to try and reinforce the propaganda of Iraq being the guilty party.
As for the rest of this thread, I have only one thing to add really.
The UN is not a sovereign nation with a standing army. When the UN fails to act, it is because the member states refuse to act. Once example is Rwanda, where UN workers asked for more military assistance and were told to piss off by the US and other countries. Of course, now americans use Rwanda as an example of why the UN is worthless. Funny old world :)
This issue is far more complicated than border skirmishes, and goes back forever.
Here is one view, there are many more.
The Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Conflicts contributing to the outbreak of hostilities ranged from centuries-old Sunni-versus-Shia and Arab-versus-Persian religious and ethnic disputes, to a personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's".
Iraq and Iran had engaged in border clashes for many years and had revived the dormant Shatt al Arab waterway dispute in 1979. Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory, while Iran insisted that the thalweg--a line running down the middle of the waterway--negotiated last in 1975, was the official border. The Iraqis, especially the Baath leadership, regarded the 1975 treaty as merely a truce, not a definitive settlement.
Source.
Whatever happened, and whoever was implicit, Sadam will get all the blame, such is politics.
:)