Iraq

[el Ingles]

Originally posted by alicem
Humm, if it wasn't obvious my p.c suddenly appeared to jam and I didn't think my post had gone through!!!

Happens at times .

Yes do agree the Kurds have had a hard time of it over the centuries and is another example of how boundries and country building ( this time blame the British and the French after ww1 and the fall of the Ottoman empire ) imposed from the outside will not work , and I don´t think that in 10 years time it will be a better situation for them .

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Stiff Upper Lip
Tough to blame an individual soldier for the actions of a government. Perhaps putting it into context would help.

A young person comes out of high school and decides that the idea of military service would allow them to live on their own, make a modest salary, and build experience.

In this country (USA) one of the most difficult things a person can do is to establish themselves in a self-sustaining career. We have a lot of 'opportunity' here, but also a lot of competition. As with much of Europe, our economy is very tight for jobs.

Once you are 'in' the armed forces, it would be very difficult to simply refuse to follow orders or fulfill the mission. You are in essence, not really in control of your own destiny. I thought is was represented well in films like Full Metal Jacket.

I am sorry that the world chooses to solve its problems with violence. But I understand how it happens. If you are backed into a corner, sometimes you must throw a punch or hand gernade.

It happens in war and in one on one conflict in lines at McDonalds. This urge to conquer each other seems ingrained in our DNA. The urge to protect ourselves, right a perceived injustice, or crush some ******* that you feel is out of line are natural human emotions.

As for the men and women who are over in Iraq. May they come back alive and healthy. May they live to party with their friends and family.

I'm glad that you've posted this message.
I don't think that anyone is blaming individual soldiers in either the British/USA armies.
Of course, anyone who joins any army is dependent upon those
in charge making the right decision.
With regard to Iraq, it certainly appears that those who took the decision to go to war in Iraq, did so on a false premise.
In fact, their decision was based on several false issues.

Unfortunately, for the soldiers in the British/American forces, they have no choice but to obey the orders of those who took the
decision to go to war.

Now that the USA and Britain are occupying Iraq - it is those soldiers who are in the firing line and not those who's decision it was to put them there.

 

[alicem]

Originally posted by limerickman
I'm glad that you've posted this message.
I don't think that anyone is blaming individual soldiers in either the British/USA armies.
Of course, anyone who joins any army is dependent upon those
in charge making the right decision.
With regard to Iraq, it certainly appears that those who took the decision to go to war in Iraq, did so on a false premise.
In fact, their decision was based on several false issues.

Unfortunately, for the soldiers in the British/American forces, they have no choice but to obey the orders of those who took the
decision to go to war.

Now that the USA and Britain are occupying Iraq - it is those soldiers who are in the firing line and not those who's decision it was to put them there.

Cheers Lim, you took most of the words out of my mouth for me.

As for my word of 'innocent'....I hoped you would pick up on the fact that with my parents and Godparents in that line of work I do know how 'the system' works. My Dad was still serving and almost went to the first Iraq war, many of my school friends did due to us being boarders and their fathers with the RAF and it wasn't pleasant as 2 men (fathers with young families who may not have supported what he HE HAD TO DO, but supported their Dad in the loving sense)were captured. A young(ish) girl/boy doesn't forget seeing their friends cry for their captured Dads or as an adult having dated an ex Goldstream (brain dead...sp?!) Guard who has now lost it due to what he saw on his tours of N.Ireland, Bosnia and the other I can't remember, nor see my parents faces or that of our extended network live that stress.-(but they wanted to do it so you just have to go with them and respect them)

My point is that each individual as has been pointed out joins up knowing they may have to fight. Many did their service without having to and learnt a very valuable craft and line of work at the same time. If you do go in you follow your orders and work as a team as Lim said. If not, well, a slapping around, co*ked up mission and then unhonourable discharge and rightly so as you have put your life and those beside you in danger.

The point is, you can't just think...'oh, I need a job, what shall I do...oh, yeah, I'll join up for 3 years to learn how to be an engineer' (for eg) You have to be prepared to fight and that could mean killing another in eye to eye combat and not through detached button pressing to let off a scud or two. You are a soldier first and an engineer/whatever your choice second.

I am not anti military hence it being difficult to choose which words to use to try and explain. I have great respect for all those soldiers and intelligence personnel. But, I am anti this last war and cannot see any sign yet due to its usefulness like the hunt for wmd.....blimey, they got Saddam and he was a needle in a haystack compared to how big wmd sites would be!

As my Dad would say; Prior Planning and Preparation Prevent **** Poor Performance. Seems he hit the nail on the head re this last fiasco.

Alice x

 

[alicem]

Oh, btw, I used the term 'you' as in a general context btw, not directed at yourself Lim

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by alicem
Cheers Lim, you took most of the words out of my mouth for me.

As for my word of 'innocent'....I hoped you would pick up on the fact that with my parents and Godparents in that line of work I do know how 'the system' works. My Dad was still serving and almost went to the first Iraq war, many of my school friends did due to us being boarders and their fathers with the RAF and it wasn't pleasant as 2 men (fathers with young families who may not have supported what he HE HAD TO DO, but supported their Dad in the loving sense)were captured. A young(ish) girl/boy doesn't forget seeing their friends cry for their captured Dads or as an adult having dated an ex Goldstream (brain dead...sp?!) Guard who has now lost it due to what he saw on his tours of N.Ireland, Bosnia and the other I can't remember, nor see my parents faces or that of our extended network live that stress.-(but they wanted to do it so you just have to go with them and respect them)

My point is that each individual as has been pointed out joins up knowing they may have to fight. Many did their service without having to and learnt a very valuable craft and line of work at the same time. If you do go in you follow your orders and work as a team as Lim said. If not, well, a slapping around, co*ked up mission and then unhonourable discharge and rightly so as you have put your life and those beside you in danger.

The point is, you can't just think...'oh, I need a job, what shall I do...oh, yeah, I'll join up for 3 years to learn how to be an engineer' (for eg) You have to be prepared to fight and that could mean killing another in eye to eye combat and not through detached button pressing to let off a scud or two. You are a soldier first and an engineer/whatever your choice second.

I am not anti military hence it being difficult to choose which words to use to try and explain. I have great respect for all those soldiers and intelligence personnel. But, I am anti this last war and cannot see any sign yet due to its usefulness like the hunt for wmd.....blimey, they got Saddam and he was a needle in a haystack compared to how big wmd sites would be!

As my Dad would say; Prior Planning and Preparation Prevent **** Poor Performance. Seems he hit the nail on the head re this last fiasco.

Alice x

Alice,

Yes, you explained this very well.

 

[Fixey]

Originally posted by bioguy

I don't like wars either, but we have been attacked repeatedly and have finally realized that it will continue unless we stay on the offensive and take the war to those who started it.
-Bioguy

Your going to attack the US? for it is surely known that they started this war.
Who backed Isreal? (customary rights or no, putting a Jewish state in the middle east was a good idea? mabey not...) who pumped money weapons and traing into BinLaden? only problem is Binladan didnt embrace the US after the war and become another lakey. Who put Saddam in power? come on people, If you try to oppress a race of people, dont get all ansy when they complain.....(any and all Flames should be posted to me directly via mail to my RL name and adress, thats GW Bush, C/O the Whitehouse....... )

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Fixey
Your going to attack the US? for it is surely known that they started this war.
Who backed Isreal? (customary rights or no, putting a Jewish state in the middle east was a good idea? mabey not...) who pumped money weapons and traing into BinLaden? only problem is Binladan didnt embrace the US after the war and become another lakey. Who put Saddam in power? come on people, If you try to oppress a race of people, dont get all ansy when they complain.....(any and all Flames should be posted to me directly via mail to my RL name and adress, thats GW Bush, C/O the Whitehouse....... )

The concept is called 'Blowback'.

The backing of Saddam in the 1980's (when Rummie was photographed shaking hands with the Butcher of Baghdad) and the funding of the Afghanistan mujahadeen (Osama Bin Laden)
by the USA in the 1980's : are now 'blowing back' toward the USA.
You see our enemies, enemy, is our friend.
Both Saddam and Afghan mujahadeen opposed the USSR : thus it was expedient for the USA to back them in the 1980's.
Thus the USSR's enemy's (BinLaden and Saddam) were politically correct.
But since the end of the cold war, both these party's had to be dealt with, because they had become too powerful in their own right.
Now, because it's no longer expedient, the USA make them enemy no.1.
The bad seeds sown in the 1980's are blowing back to USA (to use the CIA terminology).

 

[Fixey]

Originally posted by limerickman
The concept is called 'Blowback'.

The backing of Saddam in the 1980's (when Rummie was photographed shaking hands with the Butcher of Baghdad) and the funding of the Afghanistan mujahadeen (Osama Bin Laden)
by the USA in the 1980's : are now 'blowing back' toward the USA.
You see our enemies, enemy, is our friend.
Both Saddam and Afghan mujahadeen opposed the USSR : thus it was expedient for the USA to back them in the 1980's.
Thus the USSR's enemy's (BinLaden and Saddam) were politically correct.
But since the end of the cold war, both these party's had to be dealt with, because they had become too powerful in their own right.
Now, because it's no longer expedient, the USA make them enemy no.1.
The bad seeds sown in the 1980's are blowing back to USA (to use the CIA terminology).

Awsome, so now the baddies are so dealt with the US will now A) leave them in peace and pay them billions in compensations for the pain that the US's forien policy has caused or B) stay there and put in a US puppet leader to drain the country dry while giving contracts to US and British companies to make more money of the blood and sweat of the opressed Nation?

 

[bioguy]

Originally posted by Fixey
Your going to attack the US? for it is surely known that they started this war.
Who backed Isreal? (customary rights or no, putting a Jewish state in the middle east was a good idea? mabey not...) who pumped money weapons and traing into BinLaden? only problem is Binladan didnt embrace the US after the war and become another lakey. Who put Saddam in power? come on people, If you try to oppress a race of people, dont get all ansy when they complain.....(any and all Flames should be posted to me directly via mail to my RL name and adress, thats GW Bush, C/O the Whitehouse....... )

Israel—I agree that it was a mistake to create a Jewish state in the middle east after WWII. However, they did have a legitimate historical claim to the land and they had undergone genocide at the hands of the Nazi’s. Had I been alive back then, I would have supported making some large part of Germany a Jewish state. I wasn’t, so I have to form opinions based on the political situation presented in my lifetime. As a result, I support a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel.

BinLaden and the Mujahadeen – yes, the U.S. pumped money, weapons and training into the Mujahadeen to wage guerilla warfare against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state whose territorial ambitions had to be combated. It would have been unwise in the extreme to do this with U.S. troops. Doing so would have lead to a hot war. That BinLaden and Al Qaeda now attack civilians in terrorist attacks is not our fault. The blame is on the terrorists themselves. However, I do acknowledge that we helped them into a position where they could do real damage, and believe that we now have a responsibility to bring to justice those who target civilians.

Saddam – We helped Saddam attain power in order to maintain a balance of power in the mideast. Yes, oil had something to do with it. Our economy is based on oil. In retrospect, I’d say it was probably an error. Thankfully we just corrected that error.

As for oppressing a people, I’d say that the Afghanis were oppressed under the rule of the Taliban. I’d say that by removing the Taliban and installing a democratic system we are freeing them from oppression. Same goes for Iraq. As far as I’m concerned, I’d like to see all governments become democratic. I just don’t see how we’re oppressing anyone.

Please expand on your assertion that the U.S. started this war. I fail to see the connection. My only guess is that you are referring to the creation of Israel. My understanding of Bin Laden’s goals was to: 1. destroy Israel, 2. topple all pro-western dictatorships in and near the Middle East, 3. unite all Muslims, and 4. establish (by force) a single Muslim state (Al Quaeda goals). If I’m not mistaken, it was the British who created an Israeli state in Palestine under the direction of the League of Nations. In any case, the U.S. did play a major part in this. Still—I’d like to know what you would have done with the Jewish refugees—put them in an oven?

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Fixey
Awsome, so now the baddies are so dealt with the US will now A) leave them in peace and pay them billions in compensations for the pain that the US's forien policy has caused or B) stay there and put in a US puppet leader to drain the country dry while giving contracts to US and British companies to make more money of the blood and sweat of the opressed Nation?

Let's look at chronology here :

Saudi Arabia has been a US ally since 1991 Gulf War.
However, SA also funds Wahabi Islamic teachings (strict Islamic
code of conduct).
So on a soverign level, SA is pro-West but it's people are very
pro-Islamic.
And there is a reason why the SA gov, have this juxtaposition.

SA gov knows that this large Wahabi interest needs to be channeled, so SA support the creation of madrasas (Islamic schools where the Wahabi versions of Islam is taught) throughout the rest of the Muslim world.
Thus, the anger and resentment of those in SA who oppose the pro-West stance is channeled and distilled away from the goverment in SA, and in to the madrasas throughout the Islamic
world.

The USA have calculated that it is only a matter of time before the SA could fall to this Wahabi movement.
Thus, USA fears that a SA theocracy could be installed and that this theocracy could decide to cut all links with the West.
Thus, Oil supplies dry up.

So USA and Britain decide to remove SH from power in Iraq in order to open up another supply line.
A makeshift puppet goverment will be installed : BP, Amoco, Exxon
Shell will be invited to tender to pump oil out of Iraq (just like when Kuwait which was part of Iraq - it's 14th province - was annexed in 1948 and a new country was created).
Britain and USA therefore will not need to rely on SA - and if it falls
they will have another ready source of oil.

 

[Fixey]

Originally posted by bioguy

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state whose territorial ambitions had to be combated.

remove the word "territorial ambitions" and replace with "economic ambitions and world domination" and you have the USA today.....Do as your told or we will not trade with you/invade you/ embargo you is not the act of a government wanting freedom and democracy for all. IMO bombs are not the only form of terrorism....at worst the USA is a terrorist state, at best a schoolyard bully in need of a good hiding.....and just so im not mis-understood I think binladen SH et al should be lined up against the wall with all other fanatics AND the idiots that helped get them there power.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Fixey
remove the word "territorial ambitions" and replace with "economic ambitions and world domination" and you have the USA today.....Do as your told or we will not trade with you/invade you/ embargo you is not the act of a government wanting freedom and democracy for all. IMO bombs are not the only form of terrorism....at worst the USA is a terrorist state, at best a schoolyard bully in need of a good hiding.....and just so im not mis-understood I think binladen SH et al should be lined up against the wall with all other fanatics AND the idiots that helped get them there power.

And this is the difficulty, aren't we - the so-called good guys - supposed to have higher standards than all the despots, dictators, tyrannical leaders ?
Isn't this what's supposed to make us different - the fact that we
are supposed to have democracy ?

The lies peddled about SH and Iraq were gross.
In 1991, his WMD were destroyed - his son and law told the CIA
this, when he defected to Jordan in 1995.
His son in law was charge of the WMD program.

Bush & Co started putting pressure on the UN about WMD.
The weapons inspectors couldn't find anything.
Bush insisted that they were there - so did Blair and Howard and
Aznar.
Then Bush & Blair came out with the line that Saddam was helped
BinLaden at 9/11 !!!!!!!!!!!!
It was an outrageous claim.
The you had Powell, lying to the UN with photographs of so-called
mobile WMD launch facilities - when in fact all he had were photographs of juggernauts !!!!!!!

I want to state that SH and BinLaden actions cannot be justified
under any circumstances.
SH's regime was truly grotesque and 9/11 was totally and utterly
inexcusable.

But Bush, Blair, Howard and Aznar lied.
They knew that what they were telling us were lies.
In my book, this is simply not good enough - we're supposed to be better than this.

 

[el Ingles]

I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again a " historical right " is just stupid , by that England owns most of France and the Moors own half of Spain or more - stupid .
Oh and what about the original inhabitantes of north and south america ? don´t they have a " historical right " to have their lands returned to them and their userpers expelled ?

 

[alicem]

Originally posted by ewep


'War is not fun. For those of you who haven't experienced it, it's hell! You never know what's going to happen and you never feel safe in your own house. You worry about your family at home and the family cry themselves to sleep EVERY night'.



Sarcasm at its highest through the 'moderators'?

'Good giggle' was had by all? (try reading the above if you havn't served yourself because it is SO true)

If so, congratulations, just carry on posting your vote for the **** that is in Office. C+P away but didn't anyone know that to belittle is to be little?

That picture is no better than the atrocious yet real photos/video broadcasted across the world of American Soldiers abusing detainees.

I am not advocating S.H's actions in the slighest, nor those pictures which we have all seen.

However, the 'Geneva Convention' still exists, even for criminals like S.H and you have just breached it and lowered yourself to the same level.

Nice one, hope you are still smiling and not that of sarcasm.

~shaking head~

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by limerickman
The concept is called 'Blowback'.

The backing of Saddam in the 1980's (when Rummie was photographed shaking hands with the Butcher of Baghdad) and the funding of the Afghanistan mujahadeen (Osama Bin Laden)
by the USA in the 1980's : are now 'blowing back' toward the USA.
You see our enemies, enemy, is our friend.

Lim, enough of the "Rummie shaking hands" posts... This is at least the third time I've seen you recycling you old material...

How about some european hand shakers...eh?

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by limerickman
But Bush, Blair, Howard and Aznar lied.
They knew that what they were telling us were lies.
In my book, this is simply not good enough - we're supposed to be better than this.

So YOU know do you...particularly Bush Lied? You know this to be fact? You've been hanging out with GWB and now you read minds do you...Guess what I'm thinking right now?

I would take your comments more seriously if you started them with "I believe this to be true or it is my opinion that he lied" But now you know these people lied? You should write a book...

The bottom line is Intellegence is either partly correct or partly incorrect..it is never, 100% one way or the other.

So, lets keep it real.....

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by zapper
Lim, enough of the "Rummie shaking hands" posts... This is at least the third time I've seen you recycling you old material...

How about some european hand shakers...eh?

Who invaded Iraq ?
None of these guys posted here.

Who invaded Iraq ?
Rumsfeld & Co !

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by zapper
So YOU know do you...particularly Bush Lied? You know this to be fact? You've been hanging out with GWB and now you read minds do you...Guess what I'm thinking right now?

I would take your comments more seriously if you started them with "I believe this to be true or it is my opinion that he lied" But now you know these people lied? You should write a book...

The bottom line is Intellegence is either partly correct or partly incorrect..it is never, 100% one way or the other.

So, lets keep it real.....

The USA/Britain/Spain and others have been occupying Iraq for the past 15 months.

Prior to this occupation, the USA/Britain/Spain, claimed that SH had nuclear/biological weapons.
Despite their unfettered access within the territory of Iraq,
despite the fact that they captured and interrogated many of the
so-called deck of cards - despite the fact that they have thrown out the Geneva Convention when interrogating and tortuing prisoners : THEY HAVE STILL BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN ONE SCINTILLA OF "EVIDENCE" TO BACK UP THEIR REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR.

They lied before the war started and they continue to lie throughout.

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by limerickman
Who invaded Iraq ?
None of these guys posted here.

Who invaded Iraq ?
Rumsfeld & Co !

So, you are saying??? it's better to be the friend of the "butcher" and remain loyal than to "use" the "butcher" while you can then, remove him? Sorry, I don't follow...

In my "opinion" I would think more of someone who realized his mistake and moved to remove a cancer than one who continued to lay in the same bed with the butcher even when presented with an opportunity to do the right thing...

You know, like I said before....Even, if there are now WMD's to be found which I might add are HARDER to find than a fugitve. He fired on Planes enforcing the U.N. approved sanctions. But since none of your planes were being shot at it doesn't matter does it? The horse has been dead along time ago, but the "no WMD's found" argument is lame...

As far as Saddam being harder to find..I doubt it.. You can't slice Saddam into little tiny pieces and send portions of him here and there and buried wherever and put him back together presto and have an intact dictator on your hands...

Lots of people shook hands with the "butcher" the only difference is we are the only ones that parted ways...!

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by zapper
So, you are saying??? it's better to be the friend of the "butcher" and remain loyal than to "use" the "butcher" while you can then, remove him? Sorry, I don't follow...

In my "opinion" I would think more of someone who realized his mistake and moved to remove a cancer than one who continued to lay in the same bed with the butcher even when presented with an opportunity to do the right thing...

You know, like I said before....Even, if there are now WMD's to be found which I might add are HARDER to find than a fugitve. He fired on Planes enforcing the U.N. approved sanctions. But since none of your planes were being shot at it doesn't matter does it? The horse has been dead along time ago, but the "no WMD's found" argument is lame...

As far as Saddam being harder to find..I doubt it.. You can't slice Saddam into little tiny pieces and send portions of him here and there and buried wherever and put him back together presto and have an intact dictator on your hands...

Lots of people shook hands with the "butcher" the only difference is we are the only ones that parted ways...!

This is wrong.

The USA backed him because my enemy's enemy (ie Iran/Iraq)
is therefore my friend.
It was expedient for Rumsfeld & Co to support Saddam during the
1980's because the USA were opposed to Khomeni (Iran), as was
Hussein.

Just as it was expedient for them to remove Saddam in 2003.

This is the core of this whole discussion.

The fact that someone like Hussein is evil, doesn't matter.
If he is evil but happens to be on the correct side of whatever the prevailing opinion is in Washington - he is allowed to stay.
But when he is on the wrong side of whatever the prevailing opinion is in Washington - he is removed, despite the fact that he is evil, regardless.