The Iraq Thread 2

[ralphwiggum 6]

Do we really have to start from the scratch again ?

if that includes a pint of beer and some high quality Hyenna BBQ, yes

be honest people. the old economics saying goes, "You ge tbread not becuase of the baker's generosity, but becuase of his need to make money."

of course, peacekeeping is a noble mission, and it should be encouraged if needed. however, it is also true that leaving no international pressure would not work in interest of world in whole, since the chance of the instability becoming a greater problem is why there is international effort to deal with it.

Quote[/b] ]It´s obviouse that TBA served it´s own interest only , not even the interests of the US people.

duh!

but then again, on the other hand, some critics of TBA themselves need to get their acts together instead of acting as if they are morally superior than TBA when they have no better claim.

[9mm 0]

Since Bush Christian fundamentalism was brought up, we can no longer dascribe this invasion as a "War for oil".

[theavonlady 2]

So basically, what it's saying is that a life of freedom and liberty, as the US indeed attempts to provide to its citizens, is right, versus something like a dictatorship, which is wrong.

So?

He's saying that God thinks those are the right things. And not everybody agrees of that. Especially not the way that America interprets those ideals.

If he's willing to go to war over that then he's no better than those that started the crusades.

Where did he say that he went to war over that?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There is no US law that forbids an elected official to state his beliefs. There is certainly no way that you can prevent anyone in any country from being influenced by his/her upbringing and philosophy.

When he makes a statement as the president, he is representing an office and not himself as an individual. While his references to his beliefs may be legal, they are certainly unethical.

I disagree. I don't think the world "unethical" applies in general to this behavior in the United States.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]on the other hand there are some nations who only are interested in blaming others for their own fault and call others hypocrits when they have their own shortcomings.

LOL its kinda laughable actually , but is their a nation dangerous then america? In terms of weapons and fire power capable of destroying the earth more then many times over?*Yeah russia is but i dont see them launching crusades overseas atm*

I agree there are many nations with their own shortcomings but thats their problem not 'your's , your country has shortcomings which are capable of f@cking up the world in the meanwhile those few petty countries dont have that capability the worse they can do is destroy themselves

*Goes of to wonder what this had to do with Iraq*

oops but thats Offtopic...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I disagree. I don't think the world "unethical" applies in general to this behavior in the United States.

It is closer to "wrong" or perhaps even "illegal" as the constitution clearly states that religion and state have to be completely separated. If you keep mentioning religious symbols (christian ones on top!) then you are not guaranteeing perfect separation of state and religion, as stated by the constitution.

The other thing is, in these troubled times where religion is a bit of a touchy subject, mentioning christian symbols like this is probably not the smartest move. In times like this it is probably wiser to keep religious references to a minimum. If you don't cause offence, you don't cause conflicts.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]but then again, on the other hand, some critics of TBA themselves need to get their acts together instead of acting as if they are morally superior than TBA when they have no better claim.

Well they all tried. The UN did, germany did france did some other 120 plus countries did. How do you handle a leader or better say administration that doesn´t give a F**** about other countries opinions ?

The logic consequence if TBA was running germany would be to attack USA and hunt the TBA down with money on their heads.

I think you know why noone does such. It´s a US privilege to start such nonsense actions.

No fun at all overall - people get killed every day for this neo thinking.

I´ll sit back and watch US troops getting killed. As long as YOU the US people don´t stand up, noone will stop that freaks.

Don´t say it won´t work. It has worked and it would work.

[9mm 0]

Well they all tried. The (...)germany did france did some other 120 plus countries did.

Oh come on, I would say that politcs/national interests came first, Ethical issues were at most secondary motives.

Guess that was the Ralph's point.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I agree there are many nations with their own shortcomings but thats their problem not 'your's ,

in that case discussion about US's civil rights should not be a topic in anyother nations other than here in US. thus those who yak about how bad TBA is to Americans should not sound their opinion since it's not their country.

sounds familiar? it's because that is your argument applied in other direction. in extension, i can claim that shotcomings here in US should not be discussed in Arba Leagues or anyother nations since it's domestic problem.

Quote[/b] ]your country has shortcomings which are capable of f@cking up the world in the meanwhile those few petty countries dont have that capability the worse they can do is destroy themselves

nope. Japan gave grief to asian nations, Hitler did to europe and more, Stalin and other USSR leaders did to rest of the world too.

in to day's world, any nation can have significant impact on world politics. just look at Pakistan and Afghanistan. who would have thought it would come to current situation if it weren't for our friend OBL?

the problem that faces everyone in world politics is that they all have their own benfit in mind and can yak about other's fault for whole day while suddenly becoming a jerk when it comes to their shortcomings. same for US, same for France, same for Saudi Arabia, same for India, same for China, same for Japan.

Quote[/b] ]*Goes of to wonder what this had to do with Iraq*

then don't bother replying.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Well they all tried. The UN did, germany did france did some other 120 plus countries did. How do you handle a leader or better say administration that doesn´t give a F**** about other countries opinions ?

yup we all tried. but if it wasn't for continuous opposition of France for the sake of opposition, who knows if that was able to prevent TBA from going in with that shitty little idea of "non-UN compliance'?

Quote[/b] ]I think you know why noone does such. It´s a US privilege to start such nonsense actions.

nope. goes for all nations.

Quote[/b] ]

As long as YOU the US people don´t stand up, noone will stop that freaks.

Don´t say it won´t work. It has worked and it would work.

eh, death will stop those 'freaks' after all they will die, whether it is from gun battle or getting old

let's see how nov election turns out.

[denoir 0]

Well they all tried. The UN did, germany did france did some other 120 plus countries did. How do you handle a leader or better say administration that doesn´t give a F**** about other countries opinions ?

yup we all tried. but if it wasn't for continuous opposition of France for the sake of opposition, who knows if that was able to prevent TBA from going in with that shitty little idea of "non-UN compliance'?

They didn't oppose it because the sake of opposition but because there was no justification for war. Something like 90% of the French people were opposed to the war and their democratically elected leaders represented that view in the UN.

And blaming it on France is quite silly as of about 200 countries, something like 40 supported the war.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]in that case discussion about US's civil rights should not be a topic in anyother nations other than here in US. thus those who yak about how bad TBA is to Americans should not sound their opinion since it's not their country.

sounds familiar? it's because that is your argument applied in other direction. in extension, i can claim that shotcomings here in US should not be discussed in Arba Leagues or anyother nations since it's domestic problem.

Ofcourse i am strict believer of the same thing  

What happens here is our problem, what happens at your placeis yours .... did i ever cry elephant tears on american civil rights no? But do i hear american and american media  govt crying elephant tears over our internal matters and in many countrys ... a big FAT YES   .

You see where this is headed?

Now do you see why i made that comment i few pages and where i was coming from?

Quote[/b] ]who would have thought it would come to current situation if it weren't for our friend OBL?

Who would have thought that the same OBL was nurtured by the CIA along with the native american friendly saudi govt  

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh come on, I would say that politcs/national interests came first, Ethical issues were at most secondary motives.

No, we have intelligence agencies also and they said from the scratch there was no imminent danger coming from Iraq.

There were UN inspectors handling the WMD issue quite well as shown now. That were the things we based our decisions on.

What´s better in your opinion ? Sending in 200 UN inspectors non-violent with little money and NOONE killed, or sending in some 100.000 soldiers, at least 3000 civis killed, victims on teh invaders side and a huge money gap in your pocket. I don´t want to talk about the wreckened Iraq as it is right now.

In fact france had an equal role on opposing the war than we had (germany). So if you bash the french it´s nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]nope. goes for all nations.

The western world wich I count the US in should restrain from unilateral actions. Unilateral actions have proven to be wrong. Therefore we have agreed on the UN.

I can´t remember a comparable war started unilateral against the will of the majority of the world population recently.

Don´t pull me into WW2. It´s long over and WE learned our lessons pretty well.

Quote[/b] ]eh, death will stop those 'freaks' after all they will die, whether it is from gun battle or getting old

Gun battle for Bushie is quite an irrelevant thing as he ran away more than one time from military duties.

It´s your constitution that should take him out of office.

He´s not qualified, he does not serve the country with his job and he betrayed millions. He´s alos responsible for the deaths of innocent civillians in large amounts and willingly sent soldiers to a war with faked reasons.

That´s what you should be after. The wait-and-see strategy has already cost a lot of lifes and didn´t raise the US reputation abroad.

In fact most people think that USA has turned into a mubo-jumbo republic with little interest on foreign affairs and ego-tripping at it´s best. Even the US can´t afford to make that much enemies. You simply can´t pay for all that.

Quote[/b] ]let's see how nov election turns out.

I hope we don´t have to wait that long. It´s harm done to your country by some neo freaks. Stop it.

Meanwhile in funny Iraq:

Bremer rejects Blair´s WMD claims

and some Iraqi policemen shot dead again by US soldiers.

" policemen killed by US forces near Kirkuk

I am laughing at the expression

Quote[/b] ]and said that they have opened an investigation

as there must be hundreds of these investigations running right now. You remember tomahawks in Bagdad market ?

Still investigated ?

Pfff....

[ralphwiggum 6]

They didn't oppose it because the sake of opposition but because there was no justification for war. Something like 90% of the French people were opposed to the war and their democratically elected leaders represented that view in the UN.

And blaming it on France is quite silly as of about 200  countries, something like 40 supported the war.

i'm talking about general French opposition to US lead initiatives, whether they were under TCA or TBA. Even during TCA, there were some French-led oppositions on certain issues and the reason why they did it is because they could, not because they had alternatives.

Instead if they had some more honest stance like, 'Ok, we don't mind the initiative, but we will only let it happen under certain conditions such as having UN oversight in the process' would be a good way, not just saying, 'no thank you'.

This kind of attitude unfortuntely gave ideas to US neo-con nuts that following words of international community doesn't help. should ther had been reasonable attitude, such thoughts would not have been around more rampantly.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]should ther had been reasonable attitude, such thoughts would not have been around more rampantly

But there were seriouse initiatives to prevent Dr. USA using the big bad driller. I mean our foreign minister Fischer talked and wrote his ass off to keep the US from starting the war.

Initiatives like that of course only can be heard if you want to hear them

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ofcourse i am strict believer of the same thing  

What happens here is our problem, what happens at your placeis yours .... did i ever cry elephant tears on american civil rights no? But do i hear american and american media  govt crying elephant tears over our internal matters and in many countrys ... a big FAT YES   .

You see where this is headed?

Now do you see why i made that comment i few pages and where i was coming from?

no, you meade elephant screams about how 'bad' US's moral is citing some history of US a few pages back, remember? those were more or less internal matters.

funny thing is, as i stated over a few months interval, when US goes into world politics all cry 'intrusion' and when US stays indifferent, they cry 'withdrawal'. On the other hand, the closest example i can think of right now where it should be is recent deployment to Liberia wherer Marines were there, but not as an acrive force.(of course they all left already, and that is problem with me, but nonetheless this shows that it could be done.

Quote[/b] ]Who would have thought that the same OBL was nurtured by the CIA along with the native american friendly saudi govt

oh yeah. we helped him to get rid of USSR from Afghanistan. i guess next time when some country gets attacked we should let them just suffer it.

Bals:

Quote[/b] ]The western world wich I count the US in should restrain from unilateral actions. Unilateral actions have proven to be wrong. Therefore we have agreed on the UN.

I can´t remember a comparable war started unilateral against the will of the majority of the world population recently.

Don´t pull me into WW2. It´s long over and WE learned our lessons pretty well.

it is over but still lingering, like a fog.(or bad beer after taste ) and if you haven't noticed, i said Hitler, not Germany. I agree that UN is the way to go, but with a caution. it's been only slightly over 100 yrs that world is able to communicate real time and exchange ideas. before that for thousands of years there were limited, if not scarce exchange, which fostered difference as big as Homer Simpson's belly. so i am expecting more conflicts before all earthlings grow up mentaly.

Quote[/b] ]Gun battle for Bushie is quite an irrelevant thing as he ran away more than one time from military duties.

It´s your constitution that should take him out of office.

He´s not qualified, he does not serve the country with his job and he betrayed millions. He´s alos responsible for the deaths of innocent civillians in large amounts and willingly sent soldiers to a war with faked reasons.

That´s what you should be after. The wait-and-see strategy has already cost a lot of lifes and didn´t raise the US reputation abroad.

In fact most people think that USA has turned into a mubo-jumbo republic with little interest on foreign affairs and ego-tripping at it´s best. Even the US can´t afford to make that much enemies. You simply can´t pay for all that.

so you want fast justice instead of waiting for voter's ballot attck to bring ultimate downfall of TBA? I say that is a fine dandy solution for Milosevic. As denoir pointed out a lot of times, NATO could have just waited for Milo to get voted out, but the military action only strengthened it. in other words, when fall is about to happen, let it fall on its own. no need to make a fuss out of it.

i guess you meant 'freaks' to be neo cons, while i thought it was guerrilla fighters.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]should ther had been reasonable attitude, such thoughts would not have been around more rampantly

But there were seriouse initiatives to prevent Dr. USA using the big bad driller. I mean our foreign minister Fischer talked and wrote his ass off to keep the US from starting the war.

Initiatives like that of course only can be heard if you want to hear them  

i don't think i made my point clear. during 90's after fall of USSR, most of the other nations were able to throw this and that to US initiatives, since that was their way of saying 'we are a significant players in world politics'. in other words, even well before Iraq war 2, the climate of international politics was to drag US down for sake of it, or achieve a notoriety for being able to. it was show of political force.

unfortuntaely such action lead neocons to beleive that world is against them, and when TBA gets the chance, they execute as they thought.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]the closest example i can think of right now where it should be is recent deployment to Liberia wherer Marines were there, but not as an acrive force.(of course they all left already, and that is problem with me, but nonetheless this shows that it could be done

Now that´s a nice example. I checked latest status on Liberia some hours ago and had no info on US vessels at Liberia coastline anymore, but what I received was a totally outnumbered bangladesh UN contingent running the job quite well. I feel pretty disapointed that US forces not even touched ground there. According to TBA full mouthed proposals Marines should be running the country now  

Quote[/b] ]even well before Iraq war 2, the climate of international politics was to drag US down for sake of it, or achieve a notoriety for being able to. it was show of political force

I can not confirm that from my point of view. US and europe had the chance to settle down after USSR broke apart and we switched our policies that way. USA nowadays seems to push enemies or better say create enemies to enforce their military budget and create new enemies. We all know that war on terror is a joke as terrorism can´t be fought with armies.

Quote[/b] ]it is over but still lingering, like a fog.(

That´s a very very sad thing as we do everything to avoid such things to happen. We don´t talk about vietnam, hiroshima , nagasaki here in germany when we talk about the US but Nazis and the 3rd reich has it´s biggest fan community in the US  and the UK.

Quote[/b] ]so you want fast justice instead of waiting for voter's ballot attck to bring ultimate downfall of TBA?

No the only thing I EXPECT to see from home of the free land of the brave is that you get your butts out on the street and tell your administration what you think of it. Or did FOX already glue you to your seats that much ?

Quote[/b] ]i guess you meant 'freaks' to be neo cons, while i thought it was guerrilla fighters.

Guerilla fighters would be too much of an honor to TBA.

They are incompetent, proven multiple times.

And the neo´s are freaks. They have a very weird view of the world and their role within, don´t they ?

Edit:

Gonna take a nap of sleep now. Tomorrow will be my first day at camp again.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]the closest example i can think of right now where it should be is recent deployment to Liberia wherer Marines were there, but not as an acrive force.(of course they all left already, and that is problem with me, but nonetheless this shows that it could be done

Now that´s a nice example. I checked latest status on Liberia some hours ago and had no info on US vessels at Liberia coastline anymore, but what I received was a totally outnumbered bangladesh UN contingent running the job quite well. I feel pretty disapointed that US forces not even touched ground there. According to TBA full mouthed proposals Marines should be running the country now  

so you can claim that TBA is ruining Liberia?

Quote[/b] ]I can not confirm that from my point of view. US and europe had the chance to settle down after USSR broke apart and we switched our policies that way. USA nowadays seems to push enemies or better say create enemies to enforce their military budget and create new enemies. We all know that war on terror is a joke as terrorism can´t be fought with armies.

The world after fall of USSR was arraigned so that US is on top echelon and others, who were just sligtly less influential were around it. other nations had chance of putting road blocks to US initiatives, although they did not neceesarily disagree, but just to 'remind' others that they could do so.

Quote[/b] ]No the only thing I EXPECT to see from home of the free land of the brave is that you get your butts out on the street and tell your administration what you think of it. Or did FOX already glue you to your seats that much ?

ok, so unrest in US..hmm..let's see how world economy reacts to that.

Quote[/b] ]Edit:

Gonna take a nap of sleep now. Tomorrow will be my first day at camp again.

have fun whaling on others

take care

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]No the only thing I EXPECT to see from home of the free land of the brave is that you get your butts out on the street and tell your administration what you think of it. Or did FOX already glue you to your seats that much ?

ok, so unrest in US..hmm..let's see how world economy reacts to that.

Bleh, you know it would not be such a big event, could get back on track rather quickly. And it's not like the economy is more important than justice in this case, or is it.

[EiZei 0]

Blair admits weapons of mass destruction may never be found

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1120996,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Tony Blair yesterday signalled that weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq, in his first admission of fallibility over the central justification he gave for going to war with Iraq.

In his most downbeat assessment of the contentious issue so far, the prime minister said he did not know whether WMD would be unearthed, and conceded that this flew in the face of widespread initial expectations.

"I do not know is the answer," he admitted. "I believe that we will but I agree there were many people who thought we were going to find this in the course of the actual operation ... We just have to wait and see".

Quite a change of tone when compared to his speeches one year ago, eh?

[theavonlady 2]

It is closer to "wrong" or perhaps even "illegal" as the constitution clearly states that religion and state have to be completely separated.

Illegal?! Not at all. Read carefully.

Us Declaration of Independence:

Quote[/b] ]WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

US Constitution, Article 6:

Quote[/b] ]Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

US Bill Of Rights, 1st Ammendment:

Quote[/b] ]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quote[/b] ] If you keep mentioning religious symbols (christian ones on top!)

What Christian symbol did Bush mention?

Quote[/b] ]then you are not guaranteeing perfect separation of state and religion, as stated by the constitution.

Read the Constitution again.

Quote[/b] ]The other thing is, in these troubled times where religion is a bit of a touchy subject, mentioning christian symbols like this is probably not the smartest move. In times like this it is probably wiser to keep religious references to a minimum. If you don't cause offence, you don't cause conflicts.

That's debatable, especially in a country that's overly Christian.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Ok, so I stand corrected on the subject of illegality.

As for christian remarks he made, ok, they are not really christian, its just that these remarks are most often associated with christians. It is possible that I am being PC though.

The US may be overtly christian, but it is also a (drags clichee out of memory) melting pot of different cultures. According to the CIA factbook, there are 84% catholics and protestants, and 10% none(??), but 2% Jewish and 4%other. 6% of the population, this may seem low, but we are still talking about a good 17 million people here.

Percentage may be low, but that is still a lot of people. Ideally, a leader should be aware of this and tailor his speeches thus.

[theavonlady 2]

It is possible that I am being PC though.

Post creative?

What's PC?

Quote[/b] ]The US may be overtly christian, but it is also a (drags clichee out of memory) melting pot of different cultures. According to the CIA factbook, there are 84% catholics and protestants, and 10% none(??), but 2% Jewish and 4%other. 6% of the population, this may seem low, but we are still talking about a good 17 million people here.

No argument about that. As a religious, observant Jew, I have no problems with Bush's particular words, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]No argument about that. As a religious, observant Jew, I have no problems with Bush's particular words, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.

That might be because Bush is standing on your side of the fence, so to speak.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

What's PC?

Politically correct