US role for UK troops in Iraq [Archive]

The Doc

16-10-2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
please tell me what you think the aim of the Iraq war war?

It was to remove the brutal dictator called Saddam Hussien.

All I am syaing is.... that France and Co are whinging and moaning so much they should help instead of letting us do the work just like at the beginning of the war.

The Iraq war-war? ( :p) Get Saddam out and get some money in. Success. :thumb:

They shouldn't help. If you will excuse the poor analogy, the war was like a party. "France and Co" didn't want the party together, The UK and US went ahead anyway andmade the house look like a tip, and now expect France and Co to help them clean the house up again. Which is stupid.

lukesh

16-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by the doc horatio
The Iraq war-war? ( :p) Get Saddam out and get some money in. Success. :thumb:

They shouldn't help. If you will excuse the poor analogy, the war was like a party. "France and Co" didn't want the party together, The UK and US went ahead anyway andmade the house look like a tip, and now expect France and Co to help them clean the house up again. Which is stupid. tell me why do you think France and Co wasn't interesting in ousting Saddam?

Blagsta

16-10-2004, 09:19 PM

Maybe 'cos they knew the awful mess it would create?

lukesh

16-10-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Blagsta
Maybe 'cos they knew the awful mess it would create? rubbish!

Oil for food programme that is why!

Senor Miguel

16-10-2004, 09:53 PM

France and co werent interested in removing Saddam because hes not a threat hasnt been for ages, simple.........oil for food what has that got to do with it?......

lukesh

16-10-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by apollo_69
France and co werent interested in removing Saddam because hes not a threat hasnt been for ages, simple.........oil for food what has that got to do with it?...... take a educated guess!

marv

17-10-2004, 09:19 AM

Why should French and Germen troops risk their lives to clear up the mess which the US and the UK created?

The war is illegal it broke international law and the arguement that Saddam was breaking UN resolutions is a desperate attempt by Blair and Bush to try and find a reason which makes the war legal.

Saddam did not have WMDs and that was the reason that was given to Britain to go to war.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by marv
Why should French and Germen troops risk their lives to clear up the mess which the US and the UK created?
Wait a minute, it isn't the coalition troops making the mess, it is the Islamic terrorists who have waged a war on us.
These foreigners who are not even Iraqis are claiming to be doing something good for Iraqis.
They are currently brainwashing teenagers and young adults alike into thinking that we are a bad enermy and we need defeating.

Just remember, the coalition troops are there to make peace, the terrorists are making the mess!

Anyway isn't it better when the international community comes together to fight terrorism? Or would you like us to be bitter enermies where absolutkey nothing good will be achieved?

Originally posted by marv

The war is illegal it broke international law and the arguement that Saddam was breaking UN resolutions is a desperate attempt by Blair and Bush to try and find a reason which makes the war legal.
My opinion was that whether the war was illgeal or not, it has done some good. Saddam is no longer in power to start developing WMD, killing his own people and tourturing men, woman and children.

Saddam Hussien was constantly not cooperating with the UN.
Saddam Hussiens actions in the past have been illgeal,..... invading other countries for no given reason, killing hiw own people, allowing his horrible sons to rape woman... the list is endless....

But from your account these are not illgeal are they?

Aladdin

17-10-2004, 11:36 AM

No Luke, it is the Allied troops who created this unholy mess in the first fucking place.

It was because of the illegal war on Iraq that things are now much much worse for ordinary Iraqis that it was.

That thier country is on the brink of civil war and desintegration.

That terrorism, until April last year pretty much non-existent, is now everywhere.

That world has been divided.

That old allies are now adversaries.

That relations between the Arab world and the West are at their lowest point in recent history.

That the world is an infinitely worse place since that bunch of lying murdering scumbags violated international law for the sake of oil revenues.

And may I remind you that the immense majority of the mass killings Saddam did happened when he was a friend of America and Britain? I didn't hear the right wingers complain about human right abuses then...

Get a fucking grip for once!

Blagsta

17-10-2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by lukesh
rubbish!

Explain why you think it's rubbish.

Originally posted by lukesh
Oil for food programme that is why!

What's that got to do with it?

lukesh

17-10-2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Aladdin
No Luke, it is the Allied troops who created this unholy mess in the first fucking place.
The allied troops didn't wage a war on Civilisation. The terrorists are currently doing this.

Originally posted by Aladdin

It was because of the illegal war on Iraq that things are now much much worse for ordinary Iraqis that it was.
It is because of the terrorists that Iraq is in its position!

Originally posted by Aladdin

That thier country is on the brink of civil war and desintegration.
That is because of foreign terrorists.

Originally posted by Aladdin

That terrorism, until April last year pretty much non-existent, is now everywhere.
The terrorists were based else where, at least we know where they are now!

Originally posted by Aladdin

That world has been divided.
True.

Originally posted by Aladdin

That world has been divided.

That old allies are now adversaries.
Some of the "old allies" such as France didn't help us to defeat Saddam for oil... the oil for food programme.

Originally posted by Aladdin

That relations between the Arab world and the West are at their lowest point in recent history.
Why is this? because we got rid of Saddam Hussien or that the terrorists have made Iraq what it is today. There are people like you who seem to think that coalition troops have made Iraq how it is now and not the terrorists.

Originally posted by Aladdin

That the world is an infinitely worse place since that bunch of lying murdering scumbags violated international law for the sake of oil revenues. Do you mean Alqaeda? Hamas? Oh of course you don't. You think that the West makes out these are a threat and you don't think they are,

Originally posted by Aladdin

And may I remind you that the immense majority of the mass killings Saddam did happened when he was a friend of America and Britain? I didn't hear the right wingers complain about human right abuses then...
did we hear the left who acre so much about them?

remember son.... most right wingers don't care about Iraqis remember!

Originally posted by Aladdin

Get a fucking grip for once! Grow up!

lukesh

17-10-2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Blagsta
Explain why you think it's rubbish.

What's that got to do with it? France and Co wasn't interesting in getting rid of saddam Hussien as they were in a progress of a deal with him.... oil for food programme.

Sound bout right.

Uncle Joe

17-10-2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
please tell me what you think the aim of the Iraq war war?

It was to remove the brutal dictator called Saddam Hussien.

All I am syaing is.... that France and Co are whinging and moaning so much they should help instead of letting us do the work just like at the beginning of the war. France and co. let you do the work? As I recall, they were quite emphatic about you not going to any trouble, as the weapons inspectors were still carrying out their work...

Uncle Joe

17-10-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
France and Co wasn't interesting in getting rid of saddam Hussien as they were in a progress of a deal with him.... oil for food programme.

Sound bout right. How about you demonstrate that 'oil for food programme' is more than just a convenient slogan to throw at people by actually telling us what that phrase means to you? I'm sorry if that entails having to think about it for a moment...

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
please tell me what you think the aim of the Iraq war war?

It was to remove the brutal dictator called Saddam Hussien.

can i just ask you why you support the war on Iraq, every other thread you make is about focusing on domestic issues like immigration, tax, education then you say stuff like "it was to remove the brutal dictator called saddam hussein", tell the truth, you didn't give one shit about the plight of Iraqi's before the war, you don't care about the plight of the Iraqi's now and you never will, you're just supporting it cos all your right wing heroes do, you haven't got a clue.

Blagsta

17-10-2004, 02:01 PM

I don't think luke actually has any opinions of his own. I suspect he is merely parroting shit he hears off other people.

ShyBoy

17-10-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
The allied troops didn't wage a war on Civilisation. The terrorists are currently doing this.

You *could* argue it's the other way around, but that's a debate for another time and place. All I ask is that you recognise that there are almost always two sides to every story, and the story in Iraq is no exception.

Clandestine

17-10-2004, 03:54 PM

Luke, if you wanted to actually understand the real geo-strategic agenda under which our invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan happen to fall, then you would bite the bullet and read the lengthy report of the Project for the New American Century entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You would also be well served to read the book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as National Security Advisor to Carter and has been heavily involved with the Trilateral Commission since he acted as its first director in 1973).

If you had even a remote clue how completely sold on bogus and easily spun PR about "terrorists" (none of whom are actually ever proved to be terrorists and the vast bulk so named whom are held indefinitely without charge or due process of law) you truly are, you would hang your head in shame.

Suffice to say that the mainstream bullshit about Iraq being overrun by "outside terrorists" is nothing more than a smokescreen to denigrate and demean the patriotism of the vast majority of Iraqis who it is well documented as fact DO NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY.

They are not idiots, nor are they some mass of uneducated simpletons. Iraqis are perfectly capable of arranging their own self determined futures, even should civil war ultimately be required (and where hasnt civil war been a facet of national development even in our industrialised West?). What they rightfully have risen up against is our foreign domination and occupation and installation of corporate serving powermongers who have themselves lusted to reclaim power since they fled the country in the 1950's!!

Allwai himself is fully known (along with his cousing Ahmed Chalabi) as being longtime CIA informants and pawns and the fact remains that we are there to ensure that control over the future production and distribution of Iraq's oil and oil wealth serves OUR oil conglomerates, not those of the formerly nationalised Iraq state industry nor the people of Iraq.

Of course the truth of the matter requires you have some capacity to understand the complicated struggle going on in the foreign policy arena and the crisis of "Peak Oil" which our world is facing.

Until you are prepared to wrestle with more than the convenient simplistic soundbites sold to you by mainstream corporate media, you wont have any real understanding of what the War on Terror truly is and how freely and inappropriately even the term "terrorist" is being used to villify any who dare to rise up against the rebirth of imperialism and conquest (and those corrupt leaders who have chosen to serve that agenda, such as Karimov or Musharraf).

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Luke, if you wanted to actually understand the real geo-strategic agenda under which our invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan happen to fall, then you would bite the bullet and read the lengthy report of the Project for the New American Century entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You would also be well served to read the book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as National Security Advisor to Carter and has been heavily involved with the Trilateral Commission since he acted as its first director in 1973).

If you had even a remote clue how completely sold on bogus and easily spun PR about "terrorists" (none of whom are actually ever proved to be terrorists and the vast bulk so named whom are held indefinitely without charge or due process of law) you truly are, you would hang your head in shame.

Suffice to say that the mainstream bullshit about Iraq being overrun by "outside terrorists" is nothing more than a smokescreen to denigrate and demean the patriotism of the vast majority of Iraqis who it is well documented as fact DO NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY.

They are not idiots, nor are they some mass of uneducated simpletons. Iraqis are perfectly capable of arranging their own self determined futures, even should civil war ultimately be required (and where hasnt civil war been a facet of national development even in our industrialised West?). What they rightfully have risen up against is our foreign domination and occupation and installation of corporate serving powermongers who have themselves lusted to reclaim power since they fled the country in the 1950's!!

Allwai himself is fully known (along with his cousing Ahmed Chalabi) as being longtime CIA informants and pawns and the fact remains that we are there to ensure that control over the future production and distribution of Iraq's oil and oil wealth serves OUR oil conglomerates, not those of the formerly nationalised Iraq state industry nor the people of Iraq.

Of course the truth of the matter requires you have some capacity to understand the complicated struggle going on in the foreign policy arena and the crisis of "Peak Oil" which our world is facing.

Until you are prepared to wrestle with more than the convenient simplistic soundbites sold to you by mainstream corporate media, you wont have any real understanding of what the War on Terror truly is and how freely and inappropriately even the term "terrorist" is being used to villify any who dare to rise up against the rebirth of imperialism and conquest (and those corrupt leaders who have chosen to serve that agenda, such as Karimov or Musharraf).

whats the odds luke says something utterly stupid and off the point in reply to this intelligent post above, he probably wouldn't even understand what it means, take his own interpretation and say something about jihad or something stupid like that.

Clandestine

17-10-2004, 04:18 PM

Yes i have no doubt you are correct. Nevertheless, perhaps some seed of what I have repeatedly tried to awaken him to realise will sink in and in years to come, with maturity, further education and the hopefully the effort to read the reference works i have recommended, he will finally see the truth of what has been said here and now.

Frankly, when the reality of our Peak Oil crisis sinks in, far greater percentages of our current self deluded populations will realise just how systematically and extensively they have been lied to and misinformed of the real agenda being played out as we speak.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by turlough
can i just ask you why you support the war on Iraq yes of course you can but I have said a billion times.

I support this war because it got rid of a brutal dictator.

Originally posted by turlough
tell the truth, you didn't give one shit about the plight of Iraqi's before the war, you don't care about the plight of the Iraqi's now and you never will, you're just supporting it cos all your right wing heroes do, you haven't got a clue. There you go again, talking absolute rubbish!

:crazyeyes

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Blagsta
I don't think luke actually has any opinions of his own. I suspect he is merely parroting shit he hears off other people. Blagsta get in the real world.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by TheShyBoyInTheCorner
You *could* argue it's the other way around, but that's a debate for another time and place. All I ask is that you recognise that there are almost always two sides to every story, and the story in Iraq is no exception. Of couse, I have already identified.

I think it comes down to who you think is evil.

Where as a clear majority of you think the coalition troops are the evil ones while the terrorists are the peace makers.

Sounds bout right again.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Luke, if you wanted to actually understand the real geo-strategic agenda under which our invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan happen to fall, then you would bite the bullet and read the lengthy report of the Project for the New American Century entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You would also be well served to read the book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as National Security Advisor to Carter and has been heavily involved with the Trilateral Commission since he acted as its first director in 1973).

If you had even a remote clue how completely sold on bogus and easily spun PR about "terrorists" (none of whom are actually ever proved to be terrorists and the vast bulk so named whom are held indefinitely without charge or due process of law) you truly are, you would hang your head in shame.

Suffice to say that the mainstream bullshit about Iraq being overrun by "outside terrorists" is nothing more than a smokescreen to denigrate and demean the patriotism of the vast majority of Iraqis who it is well documented as fact DO NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY.

They are not idiots, nor are they some mass of uneducated simpletons. Iraqis are perfectly capable of arranging their own self determined futures, even should civil war ultimately be required (and where hasnt civil war been a facet of national development even in our industrialised West?). What they rightfully have risen up against is our foreign domination and occupation and installation of corporate serving powermongers who have themselves lusted to reclaim power since they fled the country in the 1950's!!

Allwai himself is fully known (along with his cousing Ahmed Chalabi) as being longtime CIA informants and pawns and the fact remains that we are there to ensure that control over the future production and distribution of Iraq's oil and oil wealth serves OUR oil conglomerates, not those of the formerly nationalised Iraq state industry nor the people of Iraq.

Of course the truth of the matter requires you have some capacity to understand the complicated struggle going on in the foreign policy arena and the crisis of "Peak Oil" which our world is facing.

Until you are prepared to wrestle with more than the convenient simplistic soundbites sold to you by mainstream corporate media, you wont have any real understanding of what the War on Terror truly is and how freely and inappropriately even the term "terrorist" is being used to villify any who dare to rise up against the rebirth of imperialism and conquest (and those corrupt leaders who have chosen to serve that agenda, such as Karimov or Musharraf). Listen right I do NOT have the time or energy to read your books or your links etc you throw at me.
Please either be brief about things.

Most of what you produce, the links and things are dead biased anyway.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by turlough
whats the odds luke says something utterly stupid and off the point in reply to this intelligent post above, he probably wouldn't even understand what it means, take his own interpretation and say something about jihad or something stupid like that. intelligence has nothing to do with it....

common sense is what is needed in this world.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
yes of course you can but I have said a billion times.

I support this war because it got rid of a brutal dictator.

There you go again, talking absolute rubbish!

:crazyeyes

the inference of this statement is that you DO care about the plight of the Iraqi's and are a compassionate young fella, hmm, that would explain all the threads you have made about AIDS, the various other dictotors in the world who massacre their civillians and all the other threads about poverty and hunger in the third world :rolleyes:

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by lukesh

Most of what you produce, the links and things are dead biased anyway.

and yours aren't

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by turlough
the inference of this statement is that you DO care about the plight of the Iraqi's and are a compassionate young fella, hmm, that would explain all the threads you have made about AIDS, the various other dictotors in the world who massacre their civillians and all the other threads about poverty and hunger in the third world :rolleyes: Wage a war on them if I could.

I am only 16 mate and lower class.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by turlough
and yours aren't the links I have produced..... mostly come from the BBC - which is a highly respect news source right?

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
intelligence has nothing to do with it....

see now you're thinking like george bush and tony blair, don't need intelligence to prove a point.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by turlough
see now you're thinking like george bush and tony blair, don't need intelligence to prove a point. common sense is the best way in some cases.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
Wage a war on them if I could.

I am only 16 mate and lower class.

whats that got to do with anything, i'm 17 from lower class, still doesn't mean i don't care, you've made numerous posts about saddam the brutal dictator but none on any other dictators or wrongs in this world, do they not count, and if they do, why haven't you made any threads about them, lkets face it, you don't care about the plight of the Iraqi's, never had never will.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
common sense is the best way in some cases.

seriously, spending a trillion dollars removing a man who posed no threat to the western world, putting a country in turmoil, numerous other wrong things they've done, and for what, removing a dictotor, hardly a substitute. where's the common sense in that.

Clandestine

17-10-2004, 04:35 PM

Luke, unless you make the time to understand you will remain clueless to the truth behind the slogans and labels you so willingly regurgitate.

Considering that the two references i provided to you are the direct and concrete documented agendas of those (and by those) currently in power in Washington, bias isn't even a relevant argument for your refusal to educate yourself further.

You want simple answers and unfortunately (since foreign policy is crafted to serve complex corporate and elite interests) that is simply not possible. These agendas are not written to cater to 1 minute televised blurbs just before the 5 minutes given to sports and weather. They are documents which require you to learn about the bigger context of finite resources and the opportunity afforded to the US thanks to the inbalance of military might since the end of the Cold War.

As I said before, until you prepared to do more than make snide one line quips and dismissive excuses for your unwillingness to read and learn, your posts will continue to be little more than pointless childish tirades.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by turlough
whats that got to do with anything, i'm 17 from lower class, still doesn't mean i don't care, you've made numerous posts about saddam the brutal dictator but none on any other dictators or wrongs in this world, do they not count, and if they do, why haven't you made any threads about them, lkets face it, you don't care about the plight of the Iraqi's, never had never will. mate who has said I don't care? You again?

you don't know me at all so stop telling lies!

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by turlough
seriously, spending a trillion dollars removing a man who posed no threat to the western world, putting a country in turmoil, numerous other wrong things they've done, and for what, removing a dictotor, hardly a substitute. where's the common sense in that. removing a dictator sounds the most impressive.

listen mate...i support this war because it got rid of saddam hussien....

i am not blair or bush so I do NOT have to tell you the rest of the story.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Luke, unless you make the time to understand you will remain clueless to the truth behind the slogans and labels you so willingly regurgitate.

Considering that the two references i provided to you are the direct and concrete documented agendas of those (and by those) currently in power in Washington, bias isn't even a relevant argument for your refusal to educate yourself further.

You want simple answers and unfortunately (since foreign policy is crafted to serve complex corporate and elite interests) that is simply not possible. These agendas are not written to cater to 1 minute televised blurbs just before the 5 minutes given to sports and weather. They are documents which require you to learn about the bigger context of finite resources and the opportunity afforded to the US thanks to the inbalance of military might since the end of the Cold War.

As I said before, until you prepared to do more than make snide one line quips and dismissive excuses for your unwillingness to read and learn, your posts will continue to be little more than pointless childish tirades. I have the sun mate remember.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
mate who has said I don't care? You again?

you don't know me at all so stop telling lies!

well you obviously don't care about them, or anyone who is suffering in the world at the moment, i know that some day you'll mature properly and look at things from a neutral stance, i'm not a leftie in the strictest stance, i'm quite conservative in many aspects of life but i looked at this war from a neutral stance and i used my intelligence to gather what was needed to make a firm conclusion, and that is that the war is a sham,everyone who has any bit of common sense will realise that and i think it's time you stopped splurting out one-liners made up by the neo-cons and think for yourself, for once, please think for yourself.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by turlough
well you obviously don't care about them, or anyone who is suffering in the world at the moment, i know that some day you'll mature properly and look at things from a neutral stance, i'm not a leftie in the strictest stance, i'm quite conservative in many aspects of life but i looked at this war from a neutral stance and i used my intelligence to gather what was needed to make a firm conclusion, and that is that the war is a sham,everyone who has any bit of common sense will realise that and i think it's time you stopped splurting out one-liners made up by the neo-cons and think for yourself, for once, please think for yourself. mate will you stop talking rubbish.... what is your aim???

what do you mean i don't care?

You don't live my life, you don't know me so stop it!

who says i don't think the war is a sham? see what i mean your making stuff up.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
removing a dictator sounds the most impressive.

sorry mate, that would of course explain the numerous other threads you've made about the need to remove other evil dictators in this world.
:rolleyes:

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
mate will you stop talking rubbish.... what is your aim???

what do you mean i don't care?

You don't live my self, you don't know me so stop it!

i don't know you personally but i know the type of person you are, gullable, will listen to anything that gets shoved in front of your face on TV etc etc, pretend you care because it suits your political ideology, there's no point in arguing with you anyway, you never listen, or read the posts properly anyway. we're not trying to change you, just guide you to the truth. you're obviously not listening.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by turlough
i don't know you personally but i know the type of person you are, gullable, will listen to anything that gets shoved in front of your face on TV etc etc, pretend you care because it suits your political ideology, there's no point in arguing with you anyway, you never listen, or read the posts properly anyway. we're not trying to change you, just guide you to the truth. you're obviously not listening. you do not know me at ALL not one bit.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:50 PM

mate you will say i have changed the day i start to say your opinions.

i am entiltled to my own opinion - some of you guys don't understand that.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by lukesh

i am entiltled to my own opinion - some of you guys don't understand that.

but is it YOUR opinion or just some neo-con opinion that you've swallowed up, i genuinely believe that you don't have a fucking notion of anything that happens in the world today, the history of US foriegn policy etc etc, there's fucking shit loads of shit you need to read (not news reports or news websites) to understand even 10% of the shit that is happening today and all you do is say silly thing like "we've removed a dictator, the world is safe", it really is annoying when people with intelligence have a debate then someone comes in with silly one liners like this, please luke, read up on all this stuff and come back when you understand the situation better, it really IS deeper than just removing a tyrant.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by turlough
but is it YOUR opinion or just some neo-con opinion that you've swallowed up, i genuinely believe that you don't have a fucking notion of anything that happens in the world today, the history of US foriegn policy etc etc, there's fucking shit loads of shit you need to read (not news reports or news websites) to understand even 10% of the shit that is happening today and all you do is say silly thing like "we've removed a dictator, the world is safe", it really is annoying when people with intelligence have a debate then someone comes in with silly one liners like this, please luke, read up on all this stuff and come back when you understand the situation better, it really IS deeper than just removing a tyrant. do you think i have the time to read loads of apper backs? college and work is hard enough!
I understand a lot of it anyway.

mate... this is how much you know about me.... you think I get my opinions from the sun. this says it all!

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
do you think i have the time to read loads of apper backs? college and work is hard enough!
I understand a lot of it anyway.

mate... this is how much you know about me.... you think I get my opinions from the sun. this says it all!

where did i say you get your opinions from the sun, you said yourself from the BBC website and i told you not to, i'm doing A-levels and i always find time to read, maybe instead of sitting on the internet talking shit you could get off your arse and read these books, clandestine has already given you a hint where to start and you basically tell him to fuck off, and trust me luke you DON'T understand alot of it anyway, it's laughable to say you understand it, i don't even know half of it and i consider myself to be more intelligent than you when it comes to politics.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by turlough
where did i say you get your opinions from the sun, you said yourself from the BBC website and i told you not to, i'm doing A-levels and i always find time to read, maybe instead of sitting on the internet talking shit you could get off your arse and read these books, clandestine has already given you a hint where to start and you basically tell him to fuck off, and trust me luke you DON'T understand alot of it anyway, it's laughable to say you understand it, i don't even know half of it and i consider myself to be more intelligent than you when it comes to politics. i read too much as it is..... i ahve had 5 politics boosk thrown at me, i have work, i have the gym, circuit training..... i have no time to read a book that dams america presence.

Yerascrote

17-10-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
i read too much as it is..... i ahve had 5 politics boosk thrown at me, i have work, i have the gym, circuit training..... i have no time to read a book that dams america presence.

JESUS CHRIST, where did any one say read books that dams americas presence, you're only after proving my accusation that you don't read posts properly, i said read books about america's foreign policy in general, read books that tell you facts, not bias shit, from the right or left, and if you've read the truth (as what has definately happened in histroy) then you'll realised what americas motives are, i hope to good you've read this post properly

p.s so you're saying that besides sleeping which takes up 8 hours, that you are constantly busy 16 hours a day every week, bullshit, i do history, english lit and irish, how much reading do you think i have to do, i always have time to read, you're wasting time now on this internet that could be used reading, that reminds me, i'm away to read :)

MrG

17-10-2004, 05:08 PM

well you spend an awful lot of time in here posting

so stop posting as much on here and make some time, yu have these books thrown at you? read them then

to get anywhere in politics i think you dont have to have the knowledge par se, but you need the mindset to be able to understand what is thrown in front of you, much as myself and turlough do

and until you get there, you need to be able to make the time if you are going to post in politics and debate

you just said it yourself you dont have the time for this stuff, then dont bother coming here and wasting your time then, do something you are good at

Clandestine

17-10-2004, 05:11 PM

Well luke, once again you put forward an argument that only shows how presumptuous you are. The references i cited do not damn anything, they are put out by those who are in fact behind our foreign policy and show quite clearly what the actual interests at stake are.

But then, since you wont bother to get and read them, you remain clueless and merely spout slogans and rhetoric used to numb the minds of the gullible and easily led, like yourself.

Blagsta

17-10-2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
and lower class.

Why do you side with the ruling classes then?

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by turlough
JESUS CHRIST, where did any one say read books that dams americas presence, you're only after proving my accusation that you don't read posts properly, i said read books about america's foreign policy in general, read books that tell you facts, not bias shit, from the right or left, and if you've read the truth (as what has definately happened in histroy) then you'll realised what americas motives are, i hope to good you've read this post properly

p.s so you're saying that besides sleeping which takes up 8 hours, that you are constantly busy 16 hours a day every week, bullshit, i do history, english lit and irish, how much reading do you think i have to do, i always have time to read, you're wasting time now on this internet that could be used reading, that reminds me, i'm away to read :) I do have other things to do apart from college work and btw I do 4 subjects!

mate you hate me, you don't think i am worth the hassel... so why do you carry on and on? This is what puzzles me. Do you enjoy it?

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by MrG
well you spend an awful lot of time in here posting

so stop posting as much on here and make some time, yu have these books thrown at you? read them then

to get anywhere in politics i think you dont have to have the knowledge par se, but you need the mindset to be able to understand what is thrown in front of you, much as myself and turlough do

and until you get there, you need to be able to make the time if you are going to post in politics and debate

you just said it yourself you dont have the time for this stuff, then dont bother coming here and wasting your time then, do something you are good at my politics tecaher said in my report i am making sound progress.
but i feel as though my essay writing is pants. needs work.

but sometimes i feel like giving up.

MrG

17-10-2004, 05:15 PM

he only carries on because you provide him something to fire at by been stupid

and im doing a degree course, which requires quite high attention to, and im doing quite a lot of work per week, and this is computing work, my political knowledge and thirst is now a hobby rather than the work it was at a level and when i had a nice job

i still manage

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:19 PM

instead of moaning about how much time i spend here why not concentrate on your own lives and let me do what i want to do.

i am quitting college anyway, well thinking of it.

Uncle Joe

17-10-2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
my politics tecaher said in my report i am making sound progress.
but i feel as though my essay writing is pants. needs work.

but sometimes i feel like giving up. Why don't you write a little summary of the 'Oil for Food' controversy? Kill two birds with one stone...

Here's a name to start you off: Benon Sevan.

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Why don't you write a little summary of the 'Oil for Food' controversy? Kill two birds with one stone...

Here's a name to start you off: Benon Sevan. eres another one...

pisss off

MrG

17-10-2004, 05:45 PM

thats what you said an hour ago

so why dont you

lukesh

17-10-2004, 05:50 PM

yeah this fuckian shit forum has put me in a mood now.... you wont put me down. you wont get at me

i'll allow you dickheads to continue to con your selves over things like no one abuses the welfare system and all that.

Blagsta

17-10-2004, 05:51 PM

No one has said that no one abuses the welfare system you utter plank.

Aladdin

17-10-2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
yeah this fuckian shit forum has put me in a mood now.... you wont put me down. you wont get at me

i'll allow you dickheads to continue to con your selves over things like no one abuses the welfare system and all that. Are you drunk again Luke?

Uncle Joe

18-10-2004, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by lukesh
eres another one...

pisss off You've got a hell of an attitude problem, mister :mad:

Seriously though, you are pushing the boundaries by aiming such crude invective directly at other posters. If you do get banned, and choose to return, try to learn the lesson. I'd say that you should try staying away for a week or two, but with Thanatos failing to grace us with his presence, we're short a clown.

Clandestine

18-10-2004, 08:42 AM

I suspect Thanatos is out gunning down Democratic pollsters across Oregon to do his bid to eliminate the "traitors" (as he would undoubtedly put it). ;)

Aladdin

18-10-2004, 10:42 AM

Why don't we call out for him? Every time we do so, he 'mysteriously' knows about it and is happy to oblige.

Clandestine

18-10-2004, 10:57 AM

The Iraqis are amongst the highest educated populations in the Middle East, they are fully capable of determining their own internal sovereign organisation without our imperialistic interventions keeping the ethnic tensions on full boil.

Simply put, we are doing what has long been the penchant of the West (invented by the British sadly) of dividing and conquering.

MrG

20-10-2004, 02:58 PM

I'd imagine Blair has rather less blood on his hands than he has Bush's personal fluids

Aladdin

20-10-2004, 05:16 PM

Blair challenged in parliament over US request (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3758856.stm)

Could someone explain to me* why an army of 130,000 people suddenly finds it a struggle to transfer 650 of them to a certain area and has to rely on the British to provide those soldiers?

* Naturally the question is rhetorical. I know perfectly well (and so does everyone else) why the US needs to use British troops.

Make no mistake: regardless of all that's happened until now, illegal wars and all, any British soldier who gets killed while fulfilling the US request will be the full and direct responsibility of Tony Blair. As far as I'm concerned he might as well have shot them himself. For this is NOTHING but a pathetic, disgusting, patronising and abusive request that was politically motivated so fucking Bush is not seen as having to request new troops or having any extra US soldiers killed just before the election.

What a fucking spineless, pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister of an alleged sovereign nation we have! :mad: :mad: :mad:
(If Blair does indeed accept the US 'request', as he would appear to be prepared to do)

MrG

20-10-2004, 05:24 PM

because british soldiers are better at dong their job in certain situations and are trained to make decisions themselves rather than be the cannon fodder that the US soldiers are

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 02:48 PM

It's a strange set of affairs. Why are British troops needed to move? The USA has over 100,000 troops on the ground - can't some of them be moved instead? What happened to the idea of international co-operation over this, if the idea ever existed in the first place? All this is very odd.

Aladdin

21-10-2004, 02:50 PM

*IT'S OFFICIAL- IT'S OFFICIAL- TONY BLAIR IS A SPINELESS, PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A PRIME MINISTER*

Government confirms British troops WILL be sent to Central Iraq as per US' ''request'' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3761658.stm)

I'm surprised Tony hasn't flown to the US and joined Bush's election tour to be honest...

:rolleyes:

MrG

21-10-2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin

Make no mistake: regardless of all that's happened until now, illegal wars and all, any British soldier who gets killed while fulfilling the US request will be the full and direct responsibility of Tony Blair. As far as I'm concerned he might as well have shot them himself. For this is NOTHING but a pathetic, disgusting, patronising and abusive request that was politically motivated so fucking Bush is not seen as having to request new troops or having any extra US soldiers killed just before the election.

so if they die under british command it will be ok

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
I'm surprised Tony hasn't flown to the US and joined Bush's election tour to be honest.

All this could be very embarrassing for Tony if John Kerry becomes President next month.

budda

21-10-2004, 02:53 PM

Iraq's going to get a LOT worse when they attack Falugah (however the hell you spell it) in the next few days.

The attack will come before the election, but the fight back will be after.

MrG

21-10-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by stargalaxy
All this could be very embarrassing for Tony if John Kerry becomes President next month.

it wont be embarassing, just blair will have no friends left

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by MrG
it wont be embarassing, just blair will have no friends left

It WILL be embarrassing for Tony, but a bloody good laugh for the rest of us!

Aladdin

21-10-2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by MrG
so if they die under british command it will be ok No is not, and to a degree Tony Blair is responsible for every single death and injury British soldiers sustain in wars that have nothing to do with defending Great Britain or upholding international law.

To the best of my knowledge no soldier was told when he signed up that in addition to defending one's country or intervening abroad to bring peace under international law, he could also be sent to fight illegal wars motivated by greed, power and oil revenue.

The families of all soldiers killed to date, both here and the US, must feel very comforted that their loved ones died so oil corporations and weapons manufacturers could have an early Christmas.

But this latest development is even worse because in addition to having to keep soldiers in a lawless hellhole Bush and Blair have created in the first place, the spineless poodle is now committing further troops to a much more dangerous area for the sole purpose of protecting Bush’s re-election chances.

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
But this latest development is even worse because in addition to having to keep soldiers in a lawless hellhole Bush and Blair have created in the first place, the spineless poodle is now committing further troops to a much more dangerous area for the sole purpose of protecting Bush’s re-election chances.

I supported the war originally, now I just feel furious about all the lies I was told. Iraq is in a dire state, though, and I think we'll have to focus on re-building the country. With some luck, we might see Tony one day at a war crimes tribunal. But don't bet on it.

MrG

21-10-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by stargalaxy
I supported the war originally, now I just feel furious about all the lies I was told. Iraq is in a dire state, though, and I think we'll have to focus on re-building the country. With some luck, we might see Tony one day at a war crimes tribunal. But don't bet on it.

we will never see george bush or tony blair in a war crimes tribunal

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by MrG
we will never see george bush or tony blair in a war crimes tribunal

Exactly. And that's a shame.

Fiend_85

21-10-2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
*IT'S OFFICIAL- IT'S OFFICIAL- TONY BLAIR IS A SPINELESS, PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A PRIME MINISTER*

Government confirms British troops WILL be sent to Central Iraq as per US' ''request'' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3761658.stm)

I'm surprised Tony hasn't flown to the US and joined Bush's election tour to be honest...

:rolleyes:

Letter written by my course director here at uni.

"Noted that our illustrious Prime Minister said that he was 'up for the job' in reference to another term in office. Such a shame that he is not up to the job"

MrG

21-10-2004, 03:40 PM

i dont think tony blair should go to a war crimes tribunal, he should he tried if anything in an Iraqi court

after all the war tribunal international thingy is doing exactly what bush and blair did, taking away the oppertunity to do justice from where it should be carried out to an international stage where i see there is no power

Fiend_85

21-10-2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by MrG
i dont think tony blair should go to a war crimes tribunal, he should he tried if anything in an Iraqi court

War crimes should always be tried in an international court.

MrG

21-10-2004, 03:43 PM

ive since edited the post

Fiend_85

21-10-2004, 03:44 PM

I bow to you

Aladdin

21-10-2004, 03:44 PM

Yes. And yet Saddam won't be sent to The Hague.

I wonder if the chance of a fair trial and the opportunity for Saddam to speak freely is somehow unnerving for the Americans.

I mean, it's not as if Saddam could say anything incriminating is it?

stargalaxy

21-10-2004, 03:44 PM

Sadly, the two warmongers themselves won't ever be put on trial. Inevitably, they'll find some legal tricks and loopholes to get out of a trial. Meanwhile, Iraq will burn to the ground.

marv

21-10-2004, 03:46 PM

Letter written by my course director here at uni.

"Noted that our illustrious Prime Minister said that he was 'up for the job' in reference to another term in office. Such a shame that he is not up to the job"

I don’t know if I would agree with that Fiend, on the domestic front then I think Blair and Labour have done alright.

I was going to vote for them in the next elections BUT the Iraq war has changed my view of Blair.

He went against a large proportion of people by agreeing to go to war with America on Iraq. Many including me see Blair as little more than a yes man for Bush.

MrG

21-10-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by stargalaxy
Sadly, the two warmongers themselves won't ever be put on trial. Inevitably, they'll find some legal tricks and loopholes to get out of a trial. Meanwhile, Iraq will burn to the ground.

do you have anything new to add?

Fiend_85

21-10-2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
Yes. And yet Saddam won't be sent to The Hague.

I wonder if the chance of a fair trial and the opportunity for Saddam to speak freely is somehow unnerving for the Americans.

I mean, it's not as if Saddam could say anything incriminating is it?

It should be an international court. Saddam Hussein hasn't broken any laws in Iraq, he has however, broken international law, an as such should be tried by an international court in the Hague.

Fiend_85

21-10-2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by MrG
do you have anything new to add?

I bow to you sir.

Fiend_85

23-10-2004, 12:51 PM

Because I posted in the thread on Lib Dem policy in Iraq thread, I need to finish it here, rather than derail that one horribly.

My feeling is that the UK is much much better at hearts and minds, it would be better for the Iraqis if they had troops that were good a peacekeeping in the area. It may be dangerous now, but hopefully it won't stay that way for long. Especially if we can convince the US to piss off out of the way.

wheresmyplacebo

23-10-2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Because I posted in the thread on Lib Dem policy in Iraq thread, I need to finish it here, rather than derail that one horribly.

My feeling is that the UK is much much better at hearts and minds, it would be better for the Iraqis if they had troops that were good a peacekeeping in the area. It may be dangerous now, but hopefully it won't stay that way for long. Especially if we can convince the US to piss off out of the way.

the americans arent doing agood job of keeping the peace, and this talk of a strong attack will only lead to more civilian casulties and seeing the americans as outsider invaders rather than outsider help

we really should ask the UN to take over as more for the iraqis sake than the americans, as the americans only make it worse, they dont realise youve got to win over hearts and minds of average civilian, so when some rebel attacks, people think "what an idiot - the US/UK are here to help" in stead of "what a good idea"

and people must realise all the leaders of these rebelgroups, theyre not doing it for iraqis theyre doing it so if the americans leave they can take command of country

Clandestine

23-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Fact is this invasion was always truly about conquest and imposition of our chosen replacement to suit our corporate and military interests, not about "outside help". "Help" was merely the PR sold to the public to elicit support for an otherwise illegal act of transational aggression.

and people must realise all the leaders of these rebelgroups, theyre not doing it for iraqis theyre doing it so if the americans leave they can take command of country

Actually what people need to realise is that whether they are doing it as patriotic Iraqis or to cultivate their own power base for eventual control, THEY have that right as indigenous Iraqis. We (US and UK) do not have any right whatsoever to either be on their soil nor be imposing our preferred puppets upon them.

That is the real bottom line here.

wheresmyplacebo

23-10-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Actually what people need to realise is that whether they are doing it as patriotic Iraqis or to cultivate their own power base for eventual control, THEY have that right as indigenous Iraqis. We (US and UK) do not have any right whatsoever to either be on their soil nor be imposing our preferred puppets upon them.

That is the real bottom line here.

i know what it was all aobut its their right to have people trying to take command, its what world politics is about

but however we've gone in there, and the normal iraqi people no matter how skeptical and cynical, as first welcomed our helping them oust saddam this article i just read helps lots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3944741.stm

no matter how much i hate the reasons for it, saddam is gone, but we should try and stop the next saddam taking power by sheer dictatorship, and i know saddam only killed those who opposed thus leaving the normal population with jobs, but that still isnt reason to says he's okay really

freethepeeps

23-10-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
we should try and stop the next saddam taking power by sheer dictatorship, and i know saddam only killed those who opposed thus leaving the normal population with jobs, but that still isnt reason to says he's okay really

It isn't up to 'us' who runs Iraq - thats how we got into the mess in the first place -

and thats how so many Iraqis ended up getting killed, despite the fact that Blair and Bush were warned it would happen.

Turns out that Tone and Dubya are no better than Saddam.....

Clandestine

23-10-2004, 07:16 PM

Allawi is himself a product of the CIA and his cousin Chalabi is a fugitive criminal for massive embezzlement in Jordan. Dont be so naive as to think this anything but history reapting itself.

Once again, it is WE who have no right whatsoever to do or say anything about their internal governance and if there were any consistency to international law, both the UK and US admins would be on trial for waging war of aggression against another sovereign state. End of...

wheresmyplacebo

24-10-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by freethepeeps
It isn't up to 'us' who runs Iraq - thats how we got into the mess in the first place -

and thats how so many Iraqis ended up getting killed, despite the fact that Blair and Bush were warned it would happen.

Turns out that Tone and Dubya are no better than Saddam.....

i know i dont support putting ina puppet regieme either, but since we're there now we have to clean up the mess we made

lukesh

24-10-2004, 05:14 PM

I don't understand why the Americans want us to send 800+ troops to baghdad. There are many America troops that coulod do the job, so why ours?

Some of you guys have said that Blair is trying to help Bush to win. What a load of rubbish.
Sending 800+ troops to Baghdad means nothing to the Americans. We have troops in Iraq anyway. It hasn't even hit the headlines over there. So you can throw that idea out of the window.

I believe that the Americans just want to send out troops there because they are too scared to do it them selves.
If I was Blair I would toe the line, butI admire his support for President Bush though.

Fiend_85

24-10-2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by lukesh
I don't understand why the Americans want us to send 800+ troops to baghdad. There are many America troops that coulod do the job, so why ours?

Read the posts about the skills of British troops compared to US troops, and the link posted by wheresmyplacebo.

Clandestine

24-10-2004, 05:44 PM

but since we're there now we have to clean up the mess we made

This excuse plays like a broken record, showing just how successfully the paradigm created by repetitive mainstream media claims has been assimilated into the thinking of even those who simulataneously claim to realise and oppose the lies surrounding this imperialistic endeavour.

Friend, our continued presence in a land which recognises its occupation and ongoing attempted subjugation to US control and corporate profiteering (with token percentages to those who aided and abetted the conquest), is what maintains the "mess" and guarantees the continued (essentially unreported) slaughter of civilians (oh but we're "not as bad as saddam" after all) duly labelled as "terrorists", "insurgents", "radicals" or any other such dehumanising term that avoids recognising them as simple average everyday native Iraqi patriots fighting against a far too widely sanctioned (even tacitly by statements like yours above) by our western publics.

Until our leaders are forced to withdraw every last illegally occupying soldier from a land which we never had any right to invade in the first place, the mess will never BE cleaned up.

That again, is the bottom line. How many more dead will it take before this toned down but no less false paradigm of "we must stay there to clean up the mess we made" is also finally seen for just another in the series of exposed lies?

I fear far far too many.

Fiend_85

24-10-2004, 05:46 PM

What do you think would happen to Iraq if every British and US citizen both military and civilian left?

Clandestine

24-10-2004, 06:25 PM

I personally believe that Allawi, Chalabi and the non-indigenous INC/INA would rightfully be hounded out of the country on a rail for starters.

Beyond that, what results in terms of internal sovereign interethnic struggles for power is not our place to pontificate upon. That IS the point. If there is a civil war WITHIN Iraq's borders, what gives you, I, our leaders or any other nation the right and patriarchial authority to dictate to them what they may or may not do in THEIR country???

Again, Friend, our own nations had civil wars as part of our histories of national development. Why should Iraq be subjugated just to soothe external sensibilities about possible civil war?

If you wish to see an end to the mess WE created, then WE must depart and take with us our leaders grasping intents to establish and entrench a system wholly subservient to western corporate control.

Fiend_85

24-10-2004, 06:27 PM

I would have prefered a civil war/removal of the former regime internally, but I still feel that we have a responsibility to repair the infrastructure until they're in the position to fight amongst themselves. We don't stand by an let people die anywhere else in the world, why should we walk away and leave them to it here just because we caused it?

Clandestine

24-10-2004, 06:38 PM

We don't stand by an let people die anywhere else in the world

Do you actually believe this?? If so, you are rather naive.

The Iraqis are perfectly capable of restoring their own infrastructure and certainly in bringing in those they choose to assist them in doing so. To suggest that we alone can restore what we destroyed is to adopt an extremely parochial and clonialistic view toward the Iraqis.

But then, the colonialistic view is precisely part and parcel of the groupthink paradigm being falsely reinforced by mainstream media.

Edited to add: so you suggest that by storming in with our troops and tanks and apache rockets ready to blast residential neighbourhoods and call any who oppose such actions "terrorists" (to justify the continuation of our attacks) to "stop" people people being killed (a contradiction in itself), we help such situations? Amazing!

Fiend_85

24-10-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Do you actually believe this?? If so, you are rather naive.

I wouldn't, personally, and there are international treaties in existance for the protection of humanity at large. How effective it is remains another debate...

Originally posted by Clandestine
The Iraqis are perfectly capable of restoring their own infrastructure and certainly in bringing in those they choose to assist them in doing so. To suggest that we alone can restore what we destroyed is to adopt an extremely parochial and clonialistic view toward the Iraqis.

But then, the colonialistic view is precisely part and parcel of the groupthink paradigm being falsely reinforced by mainstream media.

The iraqis are capable, I just think that we should help them. Nor are we other only ones who can restore what was destroyed, in fact we can't do it at all, because we don't understand what was lost.

Clandestine

24-10-2004, 06:43 PM

Those last words were the truest you said so far. So by that token, our continued presence only adds further suffering and destruction to that which we wrongfully visited upon them in the first place.

Thus, our moral (and indeed legal) imperative is to put an end to our presence there altogether.

morrocan roll

24-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Clandestine
Those last words were the truest you said so far. So by that token, our continued presence only adds further suffering and destruction to that which we wrongfully visited upon them in the first place.

Thus, our moral (and indeed legal) imperative is to put an end to our presence there altogether. i have to disagree clan.
we should never have gone there in the first place thats for sure but ...we cannot steam into a country ...destroy it's very infrastrucure ...set up all the conditions needed for a civil war of destruction and death ...and then run.
that would be even more imoral than what we have done to that nation over the last 25 years.
we made their minor problems into our major problems ...you think we should just cut and run having reduced the place to rubble and blood. a place that IS ...of global significance ...the middle east.

freethepeeps

24-10-2004, 08:48 PM

The tactic of resistance includes attacking coalition troops, the so-called "Iraqi" government, and anybody who co-operates with either.

Coupled with that, it seems that the main priority of the US led administration is the carve-up and privataisation of Iraqs industries and resources, especially oil........

There is no credible evidence of any real attempt to reconstruct and repair what 'we' have destroyed.

I repeat, I think that in the same way that Iraq has been forced to reparate for attacking Kuwait, the US and Uk should be afforded of PAYING for Iraq to be made habitabke again.

However, their troops are not welcome and are an impediment to any programme of reconstruction and development.

Coalition out, and then the UN should offer an international force and agency to undertake the work needed, paid for by the US and UK, and without any US/UK involvement beyond financial reparation.

:)

morrocan roll

24-10-2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by freethepeeps
The tactic of resistance includes attacking coalition troops, the so-called "Iraqi" government, and anybody who co-operates with either.

Coupled with that, it seems that the main priority of the US led administration is the carve-up and privataisation of Iraqs industries and resources, especially oil........

There is no credible evidence of any real attempt to reconstruct and repair what 'we' have destroyed.

I repeat, I think that in the same way that Iraq has been forced to reparate for attacking Kuwait, the US and Uk should be afforded of PAYING for Iraq to be made habitabke again.

However, their troops are not welcome and are an impediment to any programme of reconstruction and development.

Coalition out, and then the UN should offer an international force and agency to undertake the work needed, paid for by the US and UK, and without any US/UK involvement beyond financial reparation.

:) i can agree with that to a point ...the point being is that the united states won't allow the united nations to do such a thing.
if we can between us all force such a situation then fine but ...i think it would require that the united staes and the united kingdom be kicked out of the united nations ...i just can't see that happening overnight.