American wake up call?

[GraceAbounds]

Money raised in America with a tin cup on the counter in a pub? What are you talking about?

 

[gLing]

Do you actually think Iraq was about us caring about Iraqis? Now they say it is, but our original intentions for a LONG TIME, EVEN BEFORE Bush senior was to establish Iraq is a military foothold in the region.

Read what I said in the other thread. lol

 

[All Else Failed]

what was raised in america was in fact a small amount......i ask you a question.....sean mcgowen of the pogues,always pennyless despite a string of hit records.......why do you think that is

glasgow celtic football club.....one of the best supported clubs in britain,they sell more merchandise than most......earning mega millions......yet financially they could never compete with rangers....why is that?

They gave their money to the IRA, of course, but thats besides the point ( I love the pouges, btw).

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Here we go again. Good times. opcorn2:

 

[GraceAbounds]

If America was as evil as you portrayed AEF, I'd move. Thank God that the majority of Americans DO see a lot of GOOD INTENTIONS and GOOD DEEDS from this country.

You and others here seem to dwell on the negatives constantly. Don't get me wrong. America is not perfect. Of course we make mistakes - each leader does - and each country does. Our leaders are human and so are our citizens - none are without their mistakes and misdeeds. But on a whole we are not the evil bunch you constantly portray.

This country is full of well intentioned people with good hearts that drive them to help and love others and want good for others as well - within our borders and outside of our borders. And though our leaders are not perfect, we have been blessed to have many well intentioned leaders (Democrats and Republicans alike) that have done many a good thing for this country and for other countries.

 

[All Else Failed]

Read what I said in the other thread. lol

Except Iraq is worse off when it comes to stability now than it was then. Saddam's tactics for order were wrong a brutal, but I think its sad that so many civilians (more than Saddam EVER killed) have to die because of our own greedy gains. More civilians are dead, there is more fighting and violence, and the majority of Iraq is still uncontrolled.

And yes, it DOES matter why we went in, since it was a totally illegal move and we basically shit on everyone who even DARED to say anything against us, like our shit doesn't smell. Our government (while not a surprise) lied to us to feed their insatiable hunger for raw resources and power.

 

[skyblue]

They gave their money to the IRA, of course, but thats besides the point ( I love the pouges, btw).

the pogues were total garbage....if you want to hear a band that puts the .free ireland' message across through music listen to 'stiff little fingers'

 

[skyblue]

what really bothers me about the iraq thing is the protected of the kurds........theres no fly zones to protect them......but because turkey is a so called allie its allowed to stage bombing runs in kurdish areas

 

[All Else Failed]

If America was as evil as you portrayed AEF, I'd move. Thank God that the majority of Americans DO see a lot of GOOD INTENTIONS and GOOD DEEDS from this country.

You and others here seem to dwell on the negatives constantly. Don't get me wrong. America is not perfect. Of course we make mistakes - each leader does - and each country does. Our leaders are human and so are our citizens - none are without their mistakes and misdeeds. But on a whole we are not the evil bunch you constantly portray.

This country is full of well intentioned people with good hearts that drive them to help and love others and want good for others as well - within our borders and outside of our borders. And though our leaders are not perfect, we have been blessed to have many well intentioned leaders (Democrats and Republicans alike) that have done many a good thing for this country and for other countries.

Of course our country isn't as overt and barbaric as other terrorist supporting countries, everyone knows that. We do plenty of good things that are worth merit. I just don't think its bad, and should be always recognized, that when it comes to international terrorism and the funding and aiding of it, we're just as guilty as anyone else. I would hardly call those "mistakes".

 

[All Else Failed]

the pogues were total garbage....if you want to hear a band that puts the .free ireland' message across through music listen to 'stiff little fingers'

I own most of their material.

 

[debbie t]

stiff little fingers ..alternative ulster...a musical interlude..love ya ian

YouTube - stiff little fingers-alternative ulster '79

 

[gLing]

Except Iraq is worse off when it comes to stability now than it was then.

Because the nation is still in transition and that transition as been exasperated by the fact of terrorist funding from other nations like Syria and Iran.

Saddam's tactics for order were wrong a brutal, but I think its sad that so many civilians (more than Saddam EVER killed) have to die because of our own greedy gains.

That is not true. You really should not take the bogus lancet report seriously.
Also if you want to play the numbers game how many civilians dies under Hitler's rule and Tojo Japan as opposed to civilian deaths as a result of the allies fighting a war to destroy them?
It is very lopsided and going by your logic, it was wrong for the allies to fight those two regimes because the war itself resulted in more civilian causalities than what the dictators inflicted on their own.

But again that isn't even the case in Iraq.

More civilians are dead, there is more fighting and violence, and the majority of Iraq is still uncontrolled.

Again not true, especially after the surge. Any fighting and violence is the result of the terrorists. If the terrorists disappeared what do you think the US would do? They would rebuild the infrastructure, set up a democratic government and train that new governments military and police. In other words a freer Iraq.

And yes, it DOES matter why we went in, since it was a totally illegal move

Illegal? lol It was Illegal for the US to enforce UN sanctions that the UN itself refuse to enforce? It was illegal for the US to enforce the cease fire agreements?

and we basically shit on everyone who even DARED to say anything against us, like our shit doesn't smell.

You mean we griped at other governments in the UN that were for the sanctions but refuse to enforce them?

Our government (while not a surprise) lied to us to feed their insatiable hunger for raw resources and power.

Still don't believe there was a lie there. Not only did the Bush administration believe there were WMDs but so did other nations and so did the previous administration.

In other words according to you, the fact the US propped up Saddam to fight what we saw as a bigger threat, Iran, it is now a bad thing we have turned our ire towards Saddam and removed him.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

===:ninja
opcorn2:

 

[All Else Failed]

Because the nation is still in transition and that transition as been exasperated by the fact of terrorist funding from other nations like Syria and Iran.
Oh, wait, I thought Iraq was supposed to be mostly safe and stable according to our freinds in Washington? Do you disagree with them?

That is not true. You really should not take the bogus lancet report seriously.
Also if you want to play the numbers game how many civilians dies under Hitler's rule and Tojo Japan as opposed to civilian deaths as a result of the allies fighting a war to destroy them?
It is very lopsided and going by your logic, it was wrong for the allies to fight those two regimes because the war itself resulted in more civilian causalities than what the dictators inflicted on their own.

But again that isn't even the case in Iraq.

...I wasn't even suggesting that? I was just pointing out the fact that more innocent people have died under our bombings and take over then when Saddam was in power. I'm not even using this as a reason as to why we should "fight".

Again not true, especially after the surge. Any fighting and violence is the result of the terrorists. If the terrorists disappeared what do you think the US would do? They would rebuild the infrastructure, set up a democratic government and train that new governments military and police. In other words a freer Iraq.

I'm talking about since Saddam was overthrown. There has been markedly more violence and foreign fighters flooding into the region. It MAY be less now, but the fact that Iraq is basically an OK corral is still true.

A freer Iraq? Or a nation we now more or less control since we've decided to build a permanent military base there? Do you think we're just going to let them do what they want? That would be stupid in the eyes of the military and their interests for the region.

Illegal? lol It was Illegal for the US to enforce UN sanctions that the UN itself refuse to enforce? It was illegal for the US to enforce the cease fire agreements?

Yes, it was in defiance of even our own constitution and international law, and several agreements we decided to abide by in the past. it was illegal.

You mean we griped at other governments in the UN that were for the sanctions but refuse to enforce them?

No we called several nations who wanted further UN investigations cowards, terrorist supporters and so on to demonize them, and to set the standard that if anyone disagrees with us "you're on their side". Oh, and the millions and millions...and millions....and millions of people that said "no" when we were going to invade.

Still don't believe there was a lie there. Not only did the Bush administration believe there were WMDs but so did other nations and so did the previous administration.

In other words according to you, the fact the US propped up Saddam to fight what we saw as a bigger threat, Iran, it is now a bad thing we have turned our ire towards Saddam and removed him.

We've had out eyes on Iraq for a long time, its not that new of an idea.

No, I think it's all bad. We're perfectly fine with supporting terrorists like Saddam when we need him and when our interests act up against us we illegally invade their country and take them over. You're fine with that?

[/quote]


^^^^^

 

[GraceAbounds]

Because the nation is still in transition and that transition as been exasperated by the fact of terrorist funding from other nations like Syria and Iran.

That is not true. You really should not take the bogus lancet report seriously.
Also if you want to play the numbers game how many civilians dies under Hitler's rule and Tojo Japan as opposed to civilian deaths as a result of the allies fighting a war to destroy them?
It is very lopsided and going by your logic, it was wrong for the allies to fight those two regimes because the war itself resulted in more civilian causalities than what the dictators inflicted on their own.

But again that isn't even the case in Iraq.

Again not true, especially after the surge. Any fighting and violence is the result of the terrorists. If the terrorists disappeared what do you think the US would do? They would rebuild the infrastructure, set up a democratic government and train that new governments military and police. In other words a freer Iraq.
Illegal? lol It was Illegal for the US to enforce UN sanctions that the UN itself refuse to enforce? It was illegal for the US to enforce the cease fire agreements?
You mean we griped at other governments in the UN that were for the sanctions but refuse to enforce them?

Still don't believe there was a lie there. Not only did the Bush administration believe there were WMDs but so did other nations and so did the previous administration.

In other words according to you, the fact the US propped up Saddam to fight what we saw as a bigger threat, Iran, it is now a bad thing we have turned our ire towards Saddam and removed him.

Spot on. :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[gLing]

Oh, wait, I thought Iraq was supposed to be mostly safe and stable according to our freinds in Washington? Do you disagree with them?

Did you not understand the transition part? The victory over saddam's forces was very swift. The unstable element is who? The terrorists fighting for what? Another oppressive regime. And yes after the latest surge, violence has calmed down but it will not be the end of it for some time.
Just because it isn't fast enough for you does not mean we should drop everything and leave it or that we should not have destroyed such a horrible regime such as Saddam's.

...I wasn't even suggesting that?

Yes you were.

I was just pointing out the fact that more innocent people have died under our bombings and take over then when Saddam was in power. I'm not even using this as a reason as to why we should "fight".

That statement is not true. Again you should not take the lancet report seriously. It is laughable at best.

I'm talking about since Saddam was overthrown. There has been markedly more violence and foreign fighters flooding into the region. It MAY be less now, but the fact that Iraq is basically an OK corral is still true.

Of course, when a government had been overthrown there will be upheaval. Again transition.

A freer Iraq? Or a nation we now more or less control since we've decided to build a permanent military base there? Do you think we're just going to let them do what they want? That would be stupid in the eyes of the military and their interests for the region.

When we defeated Japan and Germany we left permanent bases yet we do not dictate what they do today.

Yes, it was in defiance of even our own constitution and international law, and several agreements we decided to abide by in the past. it was illegal.

17 violations of UN resolutions over a period of 12 years. Not to mention cease fire agreements the bulk of which falls on the US to enforce. What is exactly illegal here. The fact we enforced them when other decided not to?

No we called several nations who wanted further UN investigations cowards, terrorist supporters and so on to demonize them,

Did our government do that or did certain angry and vocal members of the population do that?
And further UN investigations why? The years of investigations since the end of the gulf war were blocked and railroaded time after time. Why would it be any different in 2001? When does one say enough is enough and take action? According to you 12 years is not enough. Maybe 20, 30, 40, 100?

and to set the standard that if anyone disagrees with us "you're on their side". Oh, and the millions and millions...and millions....and millions of people that said "no" when we were going to invade.

Not disagree with us, but actually stand up to terrorism. The French disagreed with us on Iraq yet they in their own way stand up to terrorism.
I don't recall reading any speech by Bush claiming France is against us.

And what about the millions and millions who said yes take out Saddam? Including many many democrats one of which is running for president right now.

We've had out eyes on Iraq for a long time, its not that new of an idea.

Says who? A random liberal blogger? A democratic senator looking for reelection? A nut from Daily Kos? or perhaps Alex Jones? Or maybe even a secret Cheney document that was recently uncovered by a mysterious whistle blower?

No, I think it's all bad. We're perfectly fine with supporting terrorists like Saddam when we need him and when our interests act up against us we illegally invade their country and take them over. You're fine with that?

Your reasoning fails.
If we support what we now call terrorists to fight something we find as a bigger threat, it is wrong. Just because we did does not mean it is wrong to fight them now. If we made the mess, then we should clean it up.

 

[All Else Failed]

You never fail to completely miss what I'm saying.

 

[IntruderLS1]

===:ninja
opcorn2:

:homo:

 

[GraceAbounds]

Excellent post gLing. Spot on.

 

[gLing]

You never fail to completely miss what I'm saying.

I know exactly what you are saying because I used to agree with it.
At this point I doubt you even know what you are saying.