who is the biggest war criminal?

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Hypnospin, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    So he ran a secular gov't. Big whoop. He was also offensive to his neighbor's & more offensive to his own citizen's. Ideally Iraq should have been carved up into 3 countries (N., Central, & S.) by the League of Nations, at it's 19th(?) cen. (re)inception, & it would have been a more peaceable/stable area.
     


  2. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Britain should have "carved up" America "into 3 countries", "& it would have been a more peaceable/stable area".

    Joshing with ya... The British boot was off your neck in the late 1700s, there may well come a time when your great grandchildren look back at the time that the American boot was off the neck of the Arabs.
     
  3. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,126
    Likes Received:
    111
    Insolence ?!

    The USA's presence in Germany, was part of the ALLIED presence in Germany after 1945.
    The British also had a military presence there - so it wasn't just your country.

    And to repeat the point, your country wasn't in Europe because of misplaced benevolence : your country was in Europe post '45 to underpin the commercial dividend that companies like IBM, Coca-Cola reaped on the back of the Marshall Plan.
     
  4. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,126
    Likes Received:
    111

    and I suppose that it's only a mere con-incidence that Iraq holds the second highest quantity of oil in the world ? (Saudi has the highest).
    Maybe that oil statistic awakened Bush's imperialist tendencies ?
     
  5. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm confused :confused: As an American voter I don't see why it should be within your interest to support this particular war. I mean, the negatives of overthrowing a lightweight, past-his-date dictator outweigh the positive benefits.
    Saddam was a spent dictator. He wasn't the threat he was made out to be. When push came to shove the so-called madman didn't launch any chemical attack on Israel or anyone else. Bush and co knew all along that the idea of a chemical attack was a bunch of baloney.
    The irony is that Iraq has now become a genuine threat since it's a magnet for jihadists and nutters, the very people Saddam had kept out.
    As I said, the day the U.S. invaded Iraq and all the papers over here were applauding the idea and how easy it was going to be, I was one of those who predicted Iraq would become the new Afghanistan with the U.S. taking the role of Soviet troops. What I mean is, the tanks rolled quite easily into Afghanistan with little resistance. It was only as time went on that Russian casualties started to increase in a steady drip. It's the same in Iraq. The Iraqi resistance will get better and better and more organised. Many of them will migrate to other countries and form fresh terrorist networks, become far more dangerous and destructive.
    U.S, casulaties will obviously continue day by day, the suicide bombings, kidnappings, murder of Iraqis e.t.c. will just be another news bulletin. It was the same in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Telaviv.
    This has been a colossal mistake. My guess is support for the war will start to manifest itself seriously within maybe 6 more months to a year. The question is, what will happen when the U.S. pulls out?

     
  6. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Support for the "war" in Iraq has dropped precipitously over here. Bush is smarting because of it. My Governor (Virginia) gave a good speech at the national press club indicating that Bush missed a golden opportunity to ask the citizenry to contribute to our countries effort's. According to Gov. Warner, Bush should have asked people to pay down the debt, donate anything & everything to easing the burden on families, ect...Instead, Bush just gave the Governor & people in his tax bracket a tax cut. Bush blew that opportunity. Now he's got no support for our nat'l guard, enlistment's are down, ect...Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz "gravely" miscalculated this endeavo(u)r, of their's, & they are going to pay for it in the end. ESPECIALLY since none of them were active duty military, like myself. They are asking the military to do something that they weren't willing to do. What's it called again :confused: ...oh yes :eek: -hypocrisy :mad:
     
  7. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice to see that you "lightened-up" a bit ;) Sometimes I wonder about the "red-state's" (conservative sometimes referred to as:"Jesusland") & "blue-states"(Liberal's) seperating along the Mason-Dixon Line [ Pennsylvania's southern state demarcation/border]. President Lincoln would not have it. "One Union", non-negotiable. (I live in one of the handful of, blue-counties in Virginia; the one directly opposite Washington on the other side of the Potomac River. I live in formerly rebel held territory which the Union/Federal forces finally wrested from the Confederate States in the mid 1860's; interesting history. The first battle of The Civil War-"Bull Run"-15 miles from my abode-was supposed to be a resounding victory for the Union/Federal's BUT they ended up getting "routed" & the Confederate States thereby won the 1st battle of our Civil War) When we are threatened is when we come together. Red & Blue stater's serve alongside eachother in the military. Granted, we have some way's to go but we are perservering based upon English Law(?)
     
  8. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,126
    Likes Received:
    111
    Apart from the unethical aspect of the initial invasion, you are correct no thought was given to what was going to happen in the aftermath of that invasion.
    The US military has confirmed that no plans were put in place for the aftermath.
    if you look at the planning : Rumsfeld has been consistently criticised for keeping too low a level of troops in Iraq.
    (but that's what the USA wanted : Vietnam and all that still resonates).

    So now you have a country which is not secured in real terms : you have diplomats from other countries being kidnapped, you have hostage taking, you have US troops still dying and the infrastructure is in a worse state than it was prior to the invasion.

    But remember what Bush said to the American people two weeks ago : he wanted to open up another front, so as to keep the war off American territory.
    I believe that Iraq is that front.
    The danger with this strategy is that Iraq is now a training ground to battle harden terrorists and it does nothing to further secure America.
    The mere presence of the USA in Iraq provides the perfect recruiting tool for
    every single anti-American recruit throughout the world.
    I think this invasion was folly. (as well as unethical and illegal)
     
  9. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I would have disagreed with you about the similarity of law until Tony Blair suspended due process in line with the PATRIOT Act.
     
  10. Wurm

    Wurm New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    davidmc -

    re your last post: it's a shame so many Jesuslander's are still reliving the demarcations of over 140 years ago. I wonder when "Southerner's" will get over it and no longer call themselves Southerners?

    I know - I've lived in TN, FL, TX, and for a short while, VA.
     
  11. Kakashi

    Kakashi Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    36
    I have to go with no.29 supporting genocide. That's the most evil thing to do, second would be terrorism both of them targeting civilians men, women and children.

    Such acts should be stopped and should be put to justice asap, or they could just do what our president did, opened up a city ripe for conquest of terrorists then when all the terrorists in the region numbering thousands where inside the city, the government bombed it for months killing every terrorist so problem solved, other terrorist are afraid to come to the Philippines anymore.
     
Loading...
Loading...