The Iraq thread 3

[theavonlady 2]

Until George Bush goes, i would agree with Eizei, stay out of it if you can.....

Are you saying that the Iraqi's should suffer because the anti-Bush agenda is more critical?

[Balschoiw 0]

Are you saying that the Iraqi's should suffer because the elections in november is more critical?

Got you !

[Pathy 0]

Sometimes, those reports and images of these arabs stoning our troops who are just trying to help, or cheering and chanting in the street when one gets injured, its just......enougth to make you think "we should just pull out, let these f***s get everything they deserve when thier country erupts into civil war"

Thats just me in a "pissed off with ungrateful ragheads" mood (racist term intended in context of the pissed off mood (if you get that) )

[Pathy 0]

Until George Bush goes, i would agree with Eizei, stay out of it if you can.....

Are you saying that the Iraqi's should suffer because the anti-Bush agenda is more critical?

Frankly, yes.

Lol, how does the countries of Europe leaving the US to clean up its own mess make iraqis suffer? All it does is means someone else is taking responsibility rather than the USA.

And my point actually was, until war monger bush is gone, i wouldnt help the USA so that, as Eizei said, the US can go from one messy war to another, wherever they want to go next.......

I mean, thats going to make even MORE people suffer.

[Tovarish 0]

Until George Bush goes, i would agree with Eizei, stay out of it if you can.....

Are you saying that the Iraqi's should suffer because the anti-Bush agenda is more critical?

It may well be more critical to set a precedent of "you break it, you bought it" so that the U.S. thinks twice before embarking on such an adventure again. It may prevent a whole lot more suffering in the future. As I see it now, as long as the U.S. demands control of Iraq and calls itself it's liberator, let them handle it. Now if they handed over command to the U.N., admitted that the war was fought under false pretences, and agree to pay for the majority of the reconstruction, that's a different story. But of course the US would loose a lot of face and I don't see any of that happening easily.

The U.S. Turned it's back on Europe to start this war, so who's to blame if those Freedom Fries don't taste so great anymore?

[Pathy 0]

Well at least Toverish sees what i was getting at.......

[denoir 0]

Sometimes, those reports and images of these arabs stoning our troops who are just trying to help, or cheering and chanting in the street when one gets injured, its just......enougth to make you think "we should just pull out, let these f***s get everything they deserve when thier country erupts into civil war"

Keep in mind that you started dropping bombs on them. You are also the ones that came with a lot of grand promises, but did not deliver. Furthermore you represent a culture that they are not too fond of. It is insane to think that they owe you some gratitude.

You break it, you pay. And think next time before you start dropping bombs next time.

[ralphwiggum 6]

The U.S. Turned it's back on Europe to start this war, so who's to blame if those Freedom Fries don't taste so great anymore?  

McDonald's.

seriously, TBA said they can do this war on US's own, and that means we Americans get all the goods and bads. sticking my words is not easy to do, but that's what is happening.

[MLF 0]

Sometimes, those reports and images of these arabs stoning our troops who are just trying to help, or cheering and chanting in the street when one gets injured, its just......enougth to make you think "we should just pull out, let these f***s get everything they deserve when thier country erupts into civil war"

Keep in mind that you started dropping bombs on them. You are also the ones that came with a lot of grand promises, but did not deliver. Furthermore you represent a culture that they are not too fond of. It is insane to think that they owe you some gratitude.

You break it, you pay. And think next time before you start dropping bombs next time.

er the British have been nothing but patient , listened, helped them, never gone in heavy handed, used a glove of velvet when it comes to 'occupying' Basra and other areas.

[ralphwiggum 6]

true that UK troops have done a nice job in peacekeeping, but they are also part of Coalition and is de facto in charge of security, so when security is threatened it is normal for people to point fingers at current occupying force.

[denoir 0]

er the British have been nothing but patient , listened, helped them, never gone in heavy handed, used a glove of velvet when it comes to 'occupying' Basra and other areas.

What Ralph said. Even if the British have been managing their areas better than their US counterparts, you are still the occupying force. You did drop bombs on them and even in Basra things aren't that peachy. You may think of yourself as 'liberators' and very nice chaps in general, but I doubt that the Iraqis share that view.

[theavonlady 2]

Are you saying that the Iraqi's should suffer because the elections in november is more critical?

Got you !  

I don't know how you think you got me.

Whether Bush ups and dies tomorrow or loses or wins the elections in November will not help the Iraqis.

But Pathy answered me very frankly.

[denoir 0]

Whether Bush ups and dies tomorrow or loses or wins the elections in November will not help the Iraqis.

Big difference between those two. Bush dies: Hello mr President Cheney  

[MLF 0]

point fingures yes, throw stones and if they had a chance rip a British soldier limb from limb, no. They have no gratitude, they cannot expect a country that has gone through 2 wars and a major chunk inbetween under sanctions and expect there country to be at western standards the next day, hey the water and electrict wasn't exactly reliable before we got there, how would they like it if the US was in charge of Basra and instead of talking to the locals after ever incident on why they are mad instead we go in with gunships and heavy handed might. o and sorry i forgot after the military stage of the operation were we dropping bombs on them.

[theavonlady 2]

Whether Bush ups and dies tomorrow or loses or wins the elections in November will not help the Iraqis.

Big difference between those two. Bush dies: Hello mr President Cheney    

OK, pretend all the Republicans ran off to Venezuala with the contents of Fort Knox.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Whether Bush ups and dies tomorrow or loses or wins the elections in November will not help the Iraqis.

Big difference between those two. Bush dies: Hello mr President Cheney    

OK, pretend all the Republicans ran off to Venezuala with the contents of Fort Knox.

uhm.....Iraq?

[denoir 0]

OK, pretend all the Republicans ran off to Venezuala with the contents of Fort Knox.

*starts humming "Goldfinger" theme*...

Removing Bush doesn't necessarily mean that the Iraq situation will fix itself. It's quite possible that we are beyond the point of no return. Regardless, it's impossible to predict.

Furthermore, I'm not too impressed with Kerry so I'm not at all sure that a regime change in the US would make any difference.

What we can say is that if US ends up alone paying the bill for a grand failure in Iraq, it won't be going on any larger military adventures for the next 20 years or so. Which could be a good thing.

[Pathy 0]

Ahahaha......

Yes Avon, i'm not in the buisness of trying to "get you" (or get one up on you as i would put it), im just trying to get my POV across clearly. One-upmanship is not good grounds for a discussion......

And from my POV, cleaning up after Americans is not a) going to make any less iraqis suffer (actually, as i write that i think, well at least a UN force wont keep shooting Iraqis) b)going to be good if we encourage Mr Bush to keep up his "War on Terror" which just seems to be breeding more terror.......

Oh and the British have always been light with the Iraqis, they did not bomb Basra to a smoking ruin, they have tried to connect with the locals, however, if the attackers are outsiders hell bent on destruction, it doesnt matter either way. But its just these people CELEBRATING when a UK soldier gets hit, or stoning UK soldiers ON THIER WAY TO HELP IRAQI CASUALTIES.

Btw that article didnt say, but the UK troops who got stoned (lol, you know what i mean) had to retreat, ie, didnt get to those wounded.........

Its a whole different mentality, if a bomb went off in London, people may be angry at the Police for not stopping it, but even if we had a culture of throwing stones in protest, we would wait till after the police had sorted the situation before we started attacking them........

[theavonlady 2]

Its a whole different mentality, if a bomb went off in London

Funny you should mention that.

Quote[/b] ]Terror on the dole

................

According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.

"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while simultaneouslylimiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall.

...................

You may or may not want to read the whole thing on an empty stomach.

[turms 0]

Its a whole different mentality, if a bomb went off in London

Funny you should mention that.

Quote[/b] ]Terror on the dole

................

According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.

"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while simultaneouslylimiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall.

...................

You may or may not want to read the whole thing on an empty stomach.

If I were to post a article, where they interwiev young jewish radicals, and quoting how they want to kill all the muslims I would be banned and gategoizized as antisemitite.

Not to get totally offtopic, Poland is rethinking its position in Iraq, and Thailand also: from Reuters

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]If I were to post a article, where they interwiev young jewish radicals, and quoting how they want to kill all the muslims I would be banned and gategoizized as antisemitite.

No you wouldn't be.  

If you are quoting somebody else especially with source provided it's not you talking, it's him.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]But its just these people CELEBRATING when a UK soldier gets hit, or stoning UK soldiers ON THIER WAY TO HELP IRAQI CASUALTIES.

I understand your point or should I say your feelings. However, I can assure you that I would possibly have used every opportunity to cheer if I had been in the same shoes.

And I'm not the least offended by it because of several factors/experiences I would have faced during the last ten years:

- it is likely that my family and I suffer from malnutrition because of embargo.

- it is likely that my family and I were denied medicines when I or they got seriously sick because of the embargo.

- it is likely that someone in my family or some of my friends were killed during the last campaign.

- it is likely that my family and I suffer from lack of water.

- it is likely that my family and I suffer from lack of food.

- it is likely that my family and I suffer from lack of heating and electricity.

- it is likely that my family and I suffer from lack of safety.

So why be surprised?

[bmgarcangel 0]

@Denior & theavonlady:

Look, if president dies tormorrow, won't make any difference.

@whatever :

The Draft will be reinstituted I bet. If it does I believe its for the good for one but most of the american people are like fuck that. I don't want to fight for my country or serve. That makes me very very sick.

I believe the american military ( my military ) is smaller then it should be and we need more people. SOme are saying "FUCK ANOTHER VIETNAM!" but i'm saying "We've needed troops in other wars, thats why the draft has been brought up in more then just VIETNAM!"

Think about it too, the Iraqis are determined bastards but they don't kill as fast as the World War Two foes did. Remember then, back then what it took to get passed 500 killed by enemy fire in a year took only sometimes a day!

~Bmgarcangel

[miles teg 1]

Sometimes, those reports and images of these arabs stoning our troops who are just trying to help, or cheering and chanting in the street when one gets injured, its just......enougth to make you think "we should just pull out, let these f***s get everything they deserve when thier country erupts into civil war"

Thats just me in a "pissed off with ungrateful ragheads" mood (racist term intended in context of the pissed off mood (if you get that) )

Pathy calling them rag heads I is like me calling you a honky/white trash/cracker/red neck/ect...  (assuming your white).

I don't appreciate it and in case you haven't noticed we have your so called "rag heads" on this forum.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't use those deragatory terms no matter how pissed off you are.  

For one thing all of you are making assanine assumptions that those people who stoned the British soldiers EVEN KNEW that their were a bunch of dead children.  For all you know they may have thought it was just a bunch of dead policemen who they may hate.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[NavyEEL 0]

For one thing all of you are making assanine assumptions that those people who stoned the British soldiers EVEN KNEW that their were a bunch of dead children.  For all you know they may have thought it was just a bunch of dead policemen who they may hate.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I don't quite see how that justifies the stoning of British soldiers...