NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

Maybe they would be greatful if you didn't invade their countries and kill thousands of them over decades thanks to sustained airs strikes and economic sanctions.

Don't think supporting Israel is winning you any friends in the Muslim world either.

you think the sunnis enjoyed the regime change..?

nah un wont touch it with a barge poll they know it was a daft idea in the first place.
And if you support the kurds you may aswell say byebye regional stability hello kurdish attempts to succeed from nation like Turkey...
Just a thought. Your mess you fix it (well our, as our dumb a$$ government is over there too....) bring on the slaughter coz it could be a really messy one... but all is not lost yet, although trouble seems to rising it hasn't hit that critical point yet... it is still managable although the "We're going to arrest this dude on this arrest warrant that we havn't bothered about for a year coz he's started some relatively peacful protests which escallated a tad... and a day later... oh $h!7 their shooting at us!!! $h!7!!!

"Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

Thats a fantastic idea, nothing like provoking Turkey into a military confrontation to bring stability to the region. It's not like we need a Muslim country as a long standing military ally in the Middle East.

I know we disagree on a lot of issues but I think you've raised an interesting point here. It would be great to see the birth of 'Kurdistan'. Unlike many minority ethnic groups in various countries, the Kurds are distributed in an area that is fairly easy to define: northern areas of Iraq and Iran, and south-eastern Turkey. They have social cohesion, common ethnic, cultural and religious roots and a strong sense of national identity.

There's only a wee little problem: the Iraqis, Iranians and particularly the Turks aren't exactly keen on allowing them their own state. The west doesn't seem inclined to stir (for some very good reasons, chiefly stability). Nothing will get done.

Sigh. It's never easy.

Oh, as an aside, I believe the Kurds are Sunnis. You need to differentiate between Iragi Sunnis and Kurdish Sunnis. Well, really you should differentiate between Ba'athist Iraqi Sunnis and moderate Iraqi Sunnis as well. There's a good chance of brainache though.

Don't think supposting Israel is winning you any friends in the Muslim world either.
But then again, with the kind of "friends" you can find in the Muslim world, who needs enemies?

I am unsure about what to make of the recent developments in Iraq. It could be orchestrated by Iranian proxies. It could be the power struggle for who will grab more influence on July 30, after the power transfer. It could be that the anti-American card is being played in the power game inside the Shia community- seeing as the religious Shia leaders, including the ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemn the violence. I don't think there is enough of a basis already to talk about a full scale Shia rebellion though.

I am really glad for the Kurds, by the way. While the Arabs keep fighting and quarreling, the Kurds, it seems, grab what they are given and make the best of it. I will not be surprised if this whole story ends with Shias and Sunnis engaging in a perpetual blood bath for the next 50 years and the Kurds building themselves the second most advanced society in the Middle East.

If the Kurds ever gain independence, I sure hope they will become Israel's allies :D

If the Kurds ever gain independence, I sure hope they will become Israel's allies :D[/quote]

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally

Let's face it, Paul Bremer has arsed up the reconstruction which is why there is the civil unrest that there is. He should either resign or be sacked and replaced with someone who has a better grasp of diplomacy and is capable of getting the essential services in Iraq up and running again.

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally
Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel) and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers. India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...

Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel). India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...
and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers.

Israel + Turkey + Kurds?
How do you think Turkey would feel about this?

If the Kurds ever gain independence, I sure hope they will become Israel's allies :D

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally[/quote]

Ahmm...you don't have too good a grasp of history do you?...Granted the Diaspora may have sent Jews left and right after the Roman occupation, but there were always Jewish claims to the land....the fact that Arab muslims bedouins became fixated on the land (they're not Palestinians, for your information, that would imply there had been an Arab Palestine, nope, never was...the closet they got was the Roman Provincial name "Palestina"...but that province covered the Jewish kingdom of Judea and one other which I forgot the name.

If anything Palestinians are Jordanian...but the Palestinian arabs were getting to much power so in the 1970s the King of Jordan kicked out their political infrastruture.

A string of Eygptian, Turkish, and Syrian bodies governed parts or all of Israel over the centuries..by this time, the bedouin arabs had made their homes in the midst of the Jewish Diaspora.

the name Palestine came back into style with the British Mandate.

As for the declaration of Independence....get your facts straight please, the Israelis were simply exercising the terms of the United Nations under their resolution grantind them a state..one day..one day after the Jews declared a state (within the boundaries originally agreed to with the UN) no less then 4 Arab armies descended on the new State of Israel..end result..they got their asses handed to them on a platter...the Palestinian arabs were told by the Arab nations (not one of whom actually voted for the partition).."Don't worry...we'll take care of these Jews, you don't have to declare your own state, you can have it all"..the ink wasn't even dry on the UN resolution before the Palestinias had agreed that they'd never accept partition.

yes its off-topic..but I felt I had to correct some historical inaccuracies

Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel). India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...
and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers.

Israel + Turkey + Kurds?
How do you think Turkey would feel about this?
A bit uneasy, probably, but if there was an understanding that the existance of Kurdistan rules out the legitimacy of the claim for Turkish Kurds territorial authonomy (like the existance of Israel means that Jews no longer need a state of their own elsewhere), I think they would come to terms with it. eventually.

Israel + Turkey + Kurds?
How do you think Turkey would feel about this?
A bit uneasy, probably, but if there was an understanding that the existance of Kurdistan rules out the legitimacy of the claim for Turkish Kurds territorial authonomy (like the existance of Israel means that Jews no longer need a state of their own elsewhere), I think they would come to terms with it. eventually.

One of the Turkish conditions on any kind of support in Iraq was that there would be no independant Kurdish state. They may come to terms with it eventually or we may end up with another India / Pakistan, Israel / Palestine...

Israel + Turkey + Kurds?
How do you think Turkey would feel about this?
A bit uneasy, probably, but if there was an understanding that the existance of Kurdistan rules out the legitimacy of the claim for Turkish Kurds territorial authonomy (like the existance of Israel means that Jews no longer need a state of their own elsewhere), I think they would come to terms with it. eventually.

One of the Turkish conditions on any kind of support in Iraq was that there would be no independant Kurdish state. They may come to terms with it eventually or we may end up with another India / Pakistan, Israel / Palestine...
Nothing like mutual gain to unite the unlikely parties. Or a mutual enemy. In our case, that be Syria. Israel is mad at them for supporting Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorists, the Turks are mad at them because Syrial wants a piece of their land (Alexandretta) and harbor terrorists from the PKK. The Kurds are, surprisingly, also mad at Syria for oppressing the Syrian Kurds (a while ago Syria violently suppressed a string of Kurdish riots). Alliance between the three would besiege Syria and put it into quite a predicament.

Nothing like mutual gain to unite the unlikely parties. Or a mutual enemy. In our case, that be Syria. Israel is mad at them for supporting Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorists, the Turks are mad at them because Syrial wants a piece of their land (Alexandretta) and harbor terrorists from the PKK. The Kurds are, surprisingly, also mad at Syria for oppressing the Syrian Kurds (a while ago Syria violently suppressed a string of Kurdish riots). Alliance between the three would besiege Syria and put it into quite a predicament.

Turkey's major problem with Syria has been their support for the PKK (Kurdish separatists) operating out of Lebanon. Turkey consider the Kurds to be *gasp* terrorists!

Israel + Turkey + Kurds?
How do you think Turkey would feel about this?
A bit uneasy, probably, but if there was an understanding that the existance of Kurdistan rules out the legitimacy of the claim for Turkish Kurds territorial authonomy (like the existance of Israel means that Jews no longer need a state of their own elsewhere), I think they would come to terms with it. eventually.

One of the Turkish conditions on any kind of support in Iraq was that there would be no independant Kurdish state. They may come to terms with it eventually or we may end up with another India / Pakistan, Israel / Palestine...
Nothing like mutual gain to unite the unlikely parties. Or a mutual enemy. In our case, that be Syria. Israel is mad at them for supporting Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorists, the Turks are mad at them because Syrial wants a piece of their land (Alexandretta) and harbor terrorists from the PKK. The Kurds are, surprisingly, also mad at Syria for oppressing the Syrian Kurds (a while ago Syria violently suppressed a string of Kurdish riots). Alliance between the three would besiege Syria and put it into quite a predicament.
Strange thing is the Kurds don't even get along among themselfs. If I remember right, a few back, when the Turks invaded North Iraq the Iraqi Kurds actually helped the Turkish army to smoke out PKK strongholds.

Turkey's major problem with Syria has been their support for the PKK (Kurdish separatists) operating out of Lebanon. Turkey consider the Kurds to be *gasp* terrorists!
Not the Kurds, mind you. The Marxist nutcases from the PKK. There's quite a bit of difference.

As Simkaria had just pointed out,


...a few back, when the Turks invaded North Iraq the Iraqi Kurds actually helped the Turkish army to smoke out PKK strongholds.
...which goes to show you that the Turks and the Kurds CAN get along when they want to :D

Turkey's major problem with Syria has been their support for the PKK (Kurdish separatists) operating out of Lebanon. Turkey consider the Kurds to be *gasp* terrorists!
Not the Kurds, mind you. The Marxist nutcases from the PKK. There's quite a bit of difference.

As Simkaria had just pointed out,


...a few back, when the Turks invaded North Iraq the Iraqi Kurds actually helped the Turkish army to smoke out PKK strongholds.
...which goes to show you that the Turks and the Kurds CAN get along when they want to :D

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally
Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel) and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers. India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...

Go head, be offensive by calling what I say is 'drivel', I didn't say you were 'ill - informed' did I? This shouldn't get personal, but you have manged to offend me a fair bit by saying that. Anyone who thinks the Turks would sign an alliance with the Kurds shouldn't be calling what other people say 'drivel'.

History - I know it. Irgun, ever heard of it? The long history of the Jews in the middle east put simple - they originated there, lost a heap of wars and ended mainly settling in Europe. If that gives them the right to the land once they left it, that means I can go back to Ireland and claim a hunk of it because thats where my family origionally came from. Logical.

Since when have Arab states been expansionist? You'll find it's Isreal that expanded its borders over the last 30 years.

Love to stay and chat but I'm off to bed, this is definately an interesting topic

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally
Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel) and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers. India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...

Go head, be offensive by calling what I say is 'drivel', I didn't say you were 'ill - informed' did I? This shouldn't get personal, but you have manged to offend me a fair bit by saying that. Anyone who thinks the Turks would sign an alliance with the Kurds shouldn't be calling what other people say 'drivel'.

History - I know it. Irgun, ever heard of it? The long history of the Jews in the middle east put simple - they originated there, lost a heap of wars and ended mainly settling in Europe. If that gives them the right to the land, that means I can go back to Ireland and claim a hunk of it because thats where my family origionally came from. Logical.

No..actually UN Resolution..I believe 248 gives the Israelis the right of self-determination based on boundaries that the UN crafted that gave a homeland to both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs..only the Arabs didn't want to play ball, hell...British customs officers allowed the Jordanian Arab Legion (the only Arab outfit worth a damn, and that was because the British trained it)..to watlz right on thru the border....Seems the Jordanians, and the other Arab states told the Palestinians..."Don't bother having your own country..you'll get it all"...well..they got b-slapped right and proper...by an undermanned, underarmed, poorly equipped Israeli force.

Yes..I've heard of the Irgun, and the Stern Gang, and the Haganah, the pre-cursors to the Israeli Commando units..I've also heard of Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, what is your point?

The bottom line here is that the UN gave a homeland to both Jews and Arabs, but your blame should go straight to the people who weren't even going to bother reading the UN resolution..the Arabs.

What's so good about Isreal? The fact it booted people off their own land, started as a nation thanks to terrorism (1948 King David Hotel Bombing) and continues to treat Palestinians, who's land they took in the first place, no better then the Apartheid regime treated blacks? Some great ally
Can't be bothered to comment on this drivel. I've answered this kind of "opinions" so many times here that I simply can't be bothered anymore. Just run a search on my posts, its all there.

Of course Israel would be a great ally for the Kurds. For the Middle East to become stable, the Arab League should be counterbalanced by a powerful alliance of non-Arab states, that would restrain their expansionist tendencies. Israel and Turkey already have quite a lot of defense agreements, including modernization of the Turkish tanks and helicopters by Israel (Turkey is the only NATO member right now who uses Russian weapons modernized to suit the NATO standards, and most of this modernization is done by Israel) and the right for the IAF to use Turkish airspace for maneuvers. India also has been forging ties with Israel in defense and technology exchange. Kurdistan could make an excellent addition to this alliance. Iran, if converted back to a secular state, could become an even better one...

Go head, be offensive by calling what I say is 'drivel', I didn't say you were 'ill - informed' did I? This shouldn't get personal, but you have manged to offend me a fair bit by saying that. Anyone who thinks the Turks would sign an alliance with the Kurds shouldn't be calling what other people say 'drivel'.

History - I know it. Irgun, ever heard of it? The long history of the Jews in the middle east put simple - they originated there, lost a heap of wars and ended mainly settling in Europe. If that gives them the right to the land, that means I can go back to Ireland and claim a hunk of it because thats where my family origionally came from. Logical.

No..actually UN Resolution..I believe 248 gives the Israelis the right of self-determination based on boundaries that the UN crafted that gave a homeland to both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs..only the Arabs didn't want to play ball, hell...British customs officers allowed the Jordanian Arab Legion (the only Arab outfit worth a damn, and that was because the British trained it)..to watlz right on thru the border....Seems the Jordanians, and the other Arab states told the Palestinians..."Don't bother having your own country..you'll get it all"...well..they got b-slapped right and proper...by an undermanned, underarmed, poorly equipped Israeli force.

Yes..I've heard of the Irgun, and the Stern Gang, and the Haganah, the pre-cursors to the Israeli Commando units..I've also heard of Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, what is your point?

The bottom line here is that the UN gave a homeland to both Jews and Arabs, but your blame should go straight to the people who weren't even going to bother reading the UN resolution..the Arabs.

Turkey consider the Kurds to be *gasp* terrorists!
Actually, I once heard one official line from the Turkish government about who the Kurds are.
The Kurds are ethnic Turks who due to their long isolation in the mountains forgot to speak their Turkish mother tongue. That was an official explanation on who Kurds where which also was tought in school for years.

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

What?!? They don't want the US democracy in Iraq? Now that is truly amazing considering all the billions of dollars the US has 'invested' in bombing the country for the last 13 years or so, dumping tons of depleted uranium where people live, killing how many people? Blackmailing the nation for oil against medicin/food/etc through different channels. I don't get it. The Iraqi people really should be throwing roses on the US soldiers and buy extra hamburgers from McDonalds just to show their support. I know I would if I lived in Iraq. I'd even learn that merry song of yours, the star something banner, by heart and sing it five times a day turning my head against Washington, crying in gratefulness over the mercy and goodness such a great nation has showed a poor third world country who just happens to have oil.

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

What?!? They don't want the US democracy in Iraq? Now that is truly amazing considering all the billions of dollars the US has 'invested' in bombing the country for the last 13 years or so, dumping tons of depleted uranium where people live, killing how many people? Blackmailing the nation for oil against medicin/food/etc through different channels. I don't get it. The Iraqi people really should be throwing roses on the US soldiers and buy extra hamburgers from McDonalds just to show their support. I know I would if I lived in Iraq. I'd even learn that merry song of yours, the star something banner, by heart and sing it five times a day turning my head against Washington, crying in gratefulness over the mercy and goodness such a great nation has showed a poor third world country who just happens to have oil.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, they do throw lot's of firework shows for them.
You know, the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air. :lol:

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

What?!? They don't want the US democracy in Iraq? Now that is truly amazing considering all the billions of dollars the US has 'invested' in bombing the country for the last 13 years or so, dumping tons of depleted uranium where people live, killing how many people? Blackmailing the nation for oil against medicin/food/etc through different channels. I don't get it. The Iraqi people really should be throwing roses on the US soldiers and buy extra hamburgers from McDonalds just to show their support. I know I would if I lived in Iraq. I'd even learn that merry song of yours, the star something banner, by heart and sing it five times a day turning my head against Washington, crying in gratefulness over the mercy and goodness such a great nation has showed a poor third world country who just happens to have oil.

Your facts are a tad bit off...We haven't bombed them prior to the Gulf War 2 since the first Gulf War, but we did in accordance with UN Resolutions enforce with other nations a No-Fly Zones, the purpose of which was to deter Saddam from killing his own people, you remember those mass graves of his right?...

The UN ran the Food for Oil program which was corrupted, not by the US but by other nations.

And as has already been discussed..the amount of radioactivity that DU shells expend is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, and that's a worst case amount.

But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

There were so many GREAT reasons to take out Saddam I'd need a calculator to figure them all out.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..but they expected us to do the dying..and then willy nilly they wanted us gone.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..

But you made such a mess of reconstruction that even the most pro American of them are finding it hard to support Paul Bremer's administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1184900,00.html

But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

There were so many GREAT reasons to take out Saddam I'd need a calculator to figure them all out.

Then why don't you explain to the Kurds why the US didn't take him out back then when he actually DID have WMD's and wasn't so nice to his people. Now after so many years thats your justification? Kinda pathetic.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..

But you made such a mess of reconstruction that even the most pro American of them are finding it hard to support Paul Bremer's administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1184900,00.html

Well..every dog has it's day...and then some have two....we at least agree on this..that Bremer has done a slipshod job as administrator...what was needed was a strong Arab-American who knew the lingo, the culture, the intricacies of Iraqi politics and ethnicities, and I'm not talking bout the criminal Chalabi either..as to how they should have done it...not familiar enough with the political-social aspect to comment on it.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..

But you made such a mess of reconstruction that even the most pro American of them are finding it hard to support Paul Bremer's administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1184900,00.html

Well..every dog has it's day...and then some have two....we at least agree on this..that Bremer has done a slipshod job as administrator...what was needed was a strong Arab-American who knew the lingo, the culture, the intricacies of Iraqi politics and ethnicities, and I'm not talking bout the criminal Chalabi either..as to how they should have done it...not familiar enough with the political-social aspect to comment on it.

Never thought that would happen :D
Someone with a bit of diplomacy and a bit more skill in dealing with Arab culture would have been a good thing. Do US officials never resign when they have made a complete mess of things?

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

What?!? They don't want the US democracy in Iraq? Now that is truly amazing considering all the billions of dollars the US has 'invested' in bombing the country for the last 13 years or so, dumping tons of depleted uranium where people live, killing how many people? Blackmailing the nation for oil against medicin/food/etc through different channels. I don't get it. The Iraqi people really should be throwing roses on the US soldiers and buy extra hamburgers from McDonalds just to show their support. I know I would if I lived in Iraq. I'd even learn that merry song of yours, the star something banner, by heart and sing it five times a day turning my head against Washington, crying in gratefulness over the mercy and goodness such a great nation has showed a poor third world country who just happens to have oil.

Your facts are a tad bit off...We haven't bombed them prior to the Gulf War 2 since the first Gulf War, but we did in accordance with UN Resolutions enforce with other nations a No-Fly Zones, the purpose of which was to deter Saddam from killing his own people, you remember those mass graves of his right?...

The UN ran the Food for Oil program which was corrupted, not by the US but by other nations.

And as has already been discussed..the amount of radioactivity that DU shells expend is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, and that's a worst case amount.

But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

There were so many GREAT reasons to take out Saddam I'd need a calculator to figure them all out.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..but they expected us to do the dying..and then willy nilly they wanted us gone.

MY facts are a tad bit off? UN wanted this war to begin with? And if you believe that two packs of cigarettes a day crap about the DU, would you like your kids to be forced to smoke only two packs a day?

Point is, (which you obviously missed completely) that the US hasn't done very much for the Iraqi people in order to make them adore the US, has it? From an Iraqi point of view, what good has the US brought? Except for the removal of Saddam? During the last 13 years or so? On who do you think the Iraqi blame their misery? Saddam only? Well, except for him...

And now your airforce is bombing a mosque in Falluja killing over 40 making the US occupation forces even more popular.

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

What?!? They don't want the US democracy in Iraq? Now that is truly amazing considering all the billions of dollars the US has 'invested' in bombing the country for the last 13 years or so, dumping tons of depleted uranium where people live, killing how many people? Blackmailing the nation for oil against medicin/food/etc through different channels. I don't get it. The Iraqi people really should be throwing roses on the US soldiers and buy extra hamburgers from McDonalds just to show their support. I know I would if I lived in Iraq. I'd even learn that merry song of yours, the star something banner, by heart and sing it five times a day turning my head against Washington, crying in gratefulness over the mercy and goodness such a great nation has showed a poor third world country who just happens to have oil.

Your facts are a tad bit off...We haven't bombed them prior to the Gulf War 2 since the first Gulf War, but we did in accordance with UN Resolutions enforce with other nations a No-Fly Zones, the purpose of which was to deter Saddam from killing his own people, you remember those mass graves of his right?...

The UN ran the Food for Oil program which was corrupted, not by the US but by other nations.

And as has already been discussed..the amount of radioactivity that DU shells expend is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, and that's a worst case amount.

But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

There were so many GREAT reasons to take out Saddam I'd need a calculator to figure them all out.

And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..but they expected us to do the dying..and then willy nilly they wanted us gone.

MY facts are a tad bit off? UN wanted this war to begin with? And if you believe that two packs of cigarettes a day crap about the DU, would you like your kids to be forced to smoke only two packs a day?

Point is, (which you obviously missed completely) that the US hasn't done very much for the Iraqi people in order to make them adore the US, has it? From an Iraqi point of view, what good has the US brought? Except for the removal of Saddam? During the last 13 years or so? On who do you think the Iraqi blame their misery? Saddam only? Well, except for him...

And now your airforce is bombing a mosque in Falluja killing over 40 making the US occupation forces even more popular.

No..I didn't miss your point..but we'd been a little busy ya know..dealing with Baathist Thugs and foreign fighters and potential Al-Queda affiliated groups...to do all the things we'd planned on..

But..but..as for things we have done..we've gotten the water situation resolved (a situation bad BEFORE we got there)...we restored power to the electrical grid (a situation that favored the Sunnis in their region, now it's country-wide)..schools have reopened..hospitals have reopened..

And the only one that should be blamed is Saddam, he lead his people in a disastrous war with Iran for 8 yrs..that ruined his economy..to get his people off a bad economy..he raised the flag of nationalism and invaded Kuwait...he and he alone is to blame for his people's plight.

And now your airforce is bombing a mosque in Falluja killing over 40 making the US occupation forces even more popular.
Apparently the US airforce also wiped out an entire family today with some precision bombings.

But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

There were so many GREAT reasons to take out Saddam I'd need a calculator to figure them all out.

Then why don't you explain to the Kurds why the US didn't take him out back then when he actually DID have WMD's and wasn't so nice to his people. Now after so many years thats your justification? Kinda pathetic.

Because if you recall..prior to and during the First Gulf War..we WERE quite able to take out Saddam..but the Arab States refused to endorse any action that took out "one of their own"...

Now..that deal was struck with another Administration...it does NOT tie our current administration's hands though..so finally we were able to give aid to those people, who by the way are flourishing now....is that pathetic as well?..you know..the Kurds doing better without Saddam in charge?

And the only one that should be blamed is Saddam, he lead his people in a disastrous war with Iran for 8 yrs..that ruined his economy..to get his people off a bad economy..he raised the flag of nationalism and invaded Kuwait...he and he alone is to blame for his people's plight.
And who was his bestests of bests bud during those years? Common you know you want to say it.

And the only one that should be blamed is Saddam, he lead his people in a disastrous war with Iran for 8 yrs..that ruined his economy..to get his people off a bad economy..he raised the flag of nationalism and invaded Kuwait...he and he alone is to blame for his people's plight.
And who was his bestests of bests bud during those years? Common you know you want to say it.

Actually I could care less if he slept with any of our politicians..that is moot to the issue of the current administration..none of the actions Saddam took were either condoned, requested, or desired by previous Administrations. You want to condemn previous administrations actions and political implications then fine bash away..but you can't condemn a current administration who finally wanted to DO something bout it later on.

Let me put it to you this way....Andrew Jackson committed as President one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in forcing not one but 6 tribes out the Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma..my own people he marched them in the dead of winter on what is called the Trail of Tears. Now..by your analogy...any administration that attempted to right that wrong or make amends for past administrations actions and policies should be debated?

Because if you recall..prior to and during the First Gulf War..we WERE quite able to take out Saddam..but the Arab States refused to endorse any action that took out "one of their own"...
From what I remember it was the Bush administration that was "worried" about Iraq breaking down in civil war if Saddam was removed.

Now..that deal was struck with another Administration...it does NOT tie our current administration's hands though..so finally we were able to give aid to those people, who by the way are flourishing now....is that pathetic as well?..you know..the Kurds doing better without Saddam in charge?
Oooooh...another administration. That of course makes everything alright then.
I just watched the news. Yeah, they were throwing parties in several cities cause they are so "happy" to be "flourishing" under US occupation. The US supplied the big firework show. The Ukrainians were party poopers and went away to sulk. Yeah, you sticking your head in the sand and pretend all is well is kinda pathetic.
Like I said. The Kurds would be doing better for some 13 years if Saddam had left back then.

Go head, be offensive by calling what I say is 'drivel', I didn't say you were 'ill - informed' did I? This shouldn't get personal, but you have manged to offend me a fair bit by saying that.
I have little patience for the kind of posts like your original one lately. I've been debunking them effectively on this forum ever since I'm here, and I can already make accurate replies to posts such as yours by just quoting my own old posts. Lately, I began calling things by their name, not caring much for who takes offense.


Anyone who thinks the Turks would sign an alliance with the Kurds shouldn't be calling what other people say 'drivel'.
I proved my point on this issue, I think. Want to refute- go ahead.


History - I know it. Irgun, ever heard of it?
Probably more than you have. At least enough to know that Irgun (IZL to be precise) would qualify under contemporary international law as a lawful guerilla movement. They were targeting enemy military and government officials, not random civilians. The King David hotel, for example, was the headquarters of the British colonial administration, and there was a warning message delivered before the attack, so the Brits and other inhabitants could evacuate their personnel. The French embassy was wise enough to listen, the Brits were not.
Besides, if we go along the "who started it" line of thought, it definitely was not the Irgun. Arab massacres of Jews in Palestine go at least as far back as the Damascus blood libel of 1840, way before the Zionist movement began their settlement campaign. And I am quite sure that this was also not the beginning.


The long history of the Jews in the middle east put simple - they originated there, lost a heap of wars and ended mainly settling in Europe. If that gives them the right to the land once they left it, that means I can go back to Ireland and claim a hunk of it because thats where my family origionally came from. Logical.
Well, with a minor correction (replacing Europe with the Arab League) this would pretty much sum up the Palestinian claim as well :roll: Except that the Palestinians didn't really know they were Palestinians until the Jewish state came along.


Since when have Arab states been expansionist? You'll find it's Isreal that expanded its borders over the last 30 years.

Hmm, let's see. Can you name two Arab states that have a shared border, yet do not have a territorial dispute? (wth the exception of the tiny Gulf states who simply don't have the military to back such claim up)?
Can you name a non-Arab state sharing a border with an Arab state, on piece of whose land this Arab state has not made a claim?

Because if you recall..prior to and during the First Gulf War..we WERE quite able to take out Saddam..but the Arab States refused to endorse any action that took out "one of their own"...
From what I remember it was the Bush administration that was "worried" about Iraq breaking down in civil war if Saddam was removed.

Now..that deal was struck with another Administration...it does NOT tie our current administration's hands though..so finally we were able to give aid to those people, who by the way are flourishing now....is that pathetic as well?..you know..the Kurds doing better without Saddam in charge?
Oooooh...another administration. That of course makes everything alright then.
I just watched the news. Yeah, they were throwing parties in several cities cause they are so "happy" to be "flourishing" under US occupation. The US supplied the big firework show. The Ukrainians were party poopers and went away to sulk. Yeah, you sticking your head in the sand and pretend all is well is kinda pathetic.
Like I said. The Kurds would be doing better for some 13 years if Saddam had left back then.

You're still avoiding the issue that irregardless of how they might have occured THEN..they are still better off NOW....all your gloom and doom is pathetic...you want instant peace and singing kumbiyah?..It doesn't work that way..it NEVER worked that way..besides..if you know of a better plan, please..present it..please tell me how all sides in this situation can co-exist peacefully...I'm dying to know this.

Actually I could care less if he slept with any of our politicians..that is moot to the issue of the current administration..none of the actions Saddam took were either condoned, requested, or desired by previous Administrations. You want to condemn previous administrations actions and political implications then fine bash away..but you can't condemn a current administration who finally wanted to DO something bout it later on.
Not condoned eh? I don't remember alot of sputtering protests coming from Washington. And your current administration just wanted to help the poor Iraqi's? Do you actually believe that?

Let me put it to you this way....Andrew Jackson committed as President one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in forcing not one but 6 tribes out the Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma..my own people he marched them in the dead of winter on what is called the Trail of Tears. Now..by your analogy...any administration that attempted to right that wrong or make amends for past administrations actions and policies should be debated?
Well, I don't see the US army invading and occupying the reservations, destabilizing the entire region in order to right the wrong. Do you?

You're still avoiding the issue that irregardless of how they might have occured THEN..they are still better off NOW....all your gloom and doom is pathetic...you want instant peace and singing kumbiyah?..It doesn't work that way..it NEVER worked that way..besides..if you know of a better plan, please..present it..please tell me how all sides in this situation can co-exist peacefully...I'm dying to know this.
The issue is that the US screwed up big time. And keep making up excuses for it. WMD's, naughty Saddam, not a nice man. And if you say better off you mean Beirut style right? Cause thats what a Lebanese reporter called the situation. No I don't expect instant peace.
As for a better plan. A bit late. That boat has sailed. They should have done their homework before they went in on how to deal with Muslims and don't expect them to love them just because their Americans like they did.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Don't you just love the way yanks still drone on about how ungrateful people are to them?
'We got rid of that nasty Sadaam'. Well, you told the rest of the world to bugger off, now enjoy the fruits of your labour. Ah, wait, you don't want to do that do you. You want to drop the potato that you cooked to destruction. You just won't say sorry for the thousands of innocent dead you caused but you want a grateful, compliant, beaten Iraq to say thank you. You send a Jew to administer the place and fail to understand why he's resented, what magnificent diplomatic skills King George has (or at least the clique that controls him). And when an awkward point comes up, we have to read all sorts of irrelivent historical jibberish. Like how nasty that awful Sadaam was. With all the money and technology sold to him by that oh so nice Rumsfeld, bummy rummy. It was okay for Sadaam to kill any amount of Iranians, it was okay for him to kill his own people, including Kurds, with weapons supplied by the west, including the saviour of the world, the US. The American empire is merely the latest in line and fortunately all the signs of its decay and decline are showing. But this empire surely must be awarded the twin titles of 'Most Hypocritical' and 'Most Whining'. Instead of forever moaning about everyone else and demanding respect (which is earned and is brilliantly lacking) and love, sort your own blighted society out. Starting by ridding yourself of the gangster Bush.
Now that would be doing something good for the world.

You're still avoiding the issue that irregardless of how they might have occured THEN..they are still better off NOW....all your gloom and doom is pathetic...you want instant peace and singing kumbiyah?..It doesn't work that way..it NEVER worked that way..besides..if you know of a better plan, please..present it..please tell me how all sides in this situation can co-exist peacefully...I'm dying to know this.
The issue is that the US screwed up big time. And keep making up excuses for it. WMD's, naughty Saddam, not a nice man. And if you say better off you mean Beirut style right? Cause thats what a Lebanese reporter called the situation. No I don't expect instant peace.
As for a better plan. A bit late. That boat has sailed. They should have done their homework before they went in on how to deal with Muslims and don't expect them to love them just because their Americans like they did.

Were it not for foreign fighters and former Baathist thugs who refused to accept that their old monopoly on power is over we could have started to do something...as it is we're so busy trying to maintain security at the expense of trying to resolve every other thing..at least on this we agree.

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.

magnificent diplomatic skills King George

De Villipen can have his UN, now thought worthless by a bunch of America, and we'll have our war.

magnificent diplomatic skills King George

De Villipen can have his UN, now thought worthless by a bunch of America, and we'll have our war.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Very good, just what the US needs now, no help.
Thank you for demonstrating how correct my earlier post was.
You do know do you that the UN has more than the US, UK and France in it?
You carry on blindly following King Georges orders. 32 Americans have died in Iraq since the weekend thanks to his illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation. I won't belabour the Iraqi dead because people like you aren't interested. Still, it seems you're not bothered by American / coalition deaths either. I'm sure the mothers of the American dead (since King Georges spectacular and 'very brave' landing on the deck of that carrier) thank you and your fellow travellers.

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

It's got nothing to do with moral convenience. The damage is done. It is up to the murdering invaders to find a solution to the problems they created. I seem to remember a lot of people and countries offering advice and good counsel before the Americans smashed their way into Iraq. I seem to remember that advice being thrown back in the faces of the French, Germans and Russians (they do know a bit about history and diplomacy you know) with insults. I can't blame the Iraqis for resenting the foreign domination and I can't blame the rest of the world for sitting back and enjoying watching the US and UK sink into a self-made morass of incompitence. Smashing an inferior nation into the ground is relatively easy, the US is showing the world just how difficult the occupation is. And the world is letting the coalition roast.

Very good, just what the US needs now, no help.
Thank you for demonstrating how correct my earlier post was.
You do know do you that the UN has more than the US, UK and France in it?
You carry on blindly following King Georges orders. 32 Americans have died in Iraq since the weekend thanks to his illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation. I won't belabour the Iraqi dead because people like you aren't interested. Still, it seems you're not bothered by American / coalition deaths either. I'm sure the mothers of the American dead (since King Georges spectacular and 'very brave' landing on the deck of that carrier) thank you and your fellow travellers.
I'm sure. Any more assumtions you want to make about me? Do you have a big fancy strawman stored up for the next post? If so, please share, mmkay? http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/hug.gif

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

It's got nothing to do with moral convenience. The damage is done. It is up to the murdering invaders to find a solution to the problems they created. I seem to remember a lot of people and countries offering advice and good counsel before the Americans smashed their way into Iraq. I seem to remember that advice being thrown back in the faces of the French, Germans and Russians (they do know a bit about history and diplomacy you know) with insults. I can't blame the Iraqis for resenting the foreign domination and I can't blame the rest of the world for sitting back and enjoying watching the US and UK sink into a self-made morass of incompitence. Smashing an inferior nation into the ground is relatively easy, the US is showing the world just how difficult the occupation is. And the world is letting the coalition roast.

Oh yeah...the French and Germans with their history of wars of conquest and wars against each other know oh so much bout diplomacy, ahuh...and the Russians..they're tainted by the fact that they're out 20 billion dollars in oil contracts they had with the Saddam regime.

And calling my sons (both of whom served the first year there, now they're in other duties) "murdering invaders" is oh such an insult..then you all but blatantly ignore the REAL murderers..or would you have rather we put Saddam back on his perch so he can reopen his rape rooms that his sons used and the mass graves of his murdered people go unavenged?

[
Oh yeah...the French and Germans with their history of wars of conquest and wars against each other know oh so much bout diplomacy, ahuh...and the Russians..they're tainted by the fact that they're out 20 billion dollars in oil contracts they had with the Saddam regime.

And calling my sons (both of whom served the first year there, now they're in other duties) "murdering invaders" is oh such an insult..then you all but blatantly ignore the REAL murderers..or would you have rather we put Saddam back on his perch so he can reopen his rape rooms that his sons used and the mass graves of his murdered people go unavenged?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Many coalition soldiers have killed innocent men, women, children and babies. If your sons took part then they are murderers. Official sanctions from the gangster Bush regime doesn't make them any less so. Your idiot retort about Russia was indeed part of the point I was making. Read again.
You cannot justify the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killings by democratic nations on the basis of Sadaams dirty regime. If you want to continue down that road, let's go to China, North Korea, Syria etc. Hold on, most of the others can hit back can't they. So.........we practise diplomacy there right?

Your facts are a tad bit off...We haven't bombed them prior to the Gulf War 2 since the first Gulf War, but we did in accordance with UN Resolutions enforce with other nations a No-Fly Zones, the purpose of which was to deter Saddam from killing his own people, you remember those mass graves of his right?...


You mean Clinton DIDN't Bomb baghdad in '98? (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/iraq.strike.05/) or in 93? (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/iraq.strike.05/) Or on many other instances as well? Sorry - but sorties over Iraq beyond the scope of the no-fly zones (which, incidentally, were never part of the ceasefire agreement after the first gulf war) were very common.


The UN ran the Food for Oil program which was corrupted, not by the US but by other nations.

Agreed. And naturally to investigate this corruption from the Iraq side of things they have apointed Chalabi to the task. You remember him, the guy who was convicted of fraud in Jordan and who's group was instrumental in feeding false intel to the CIA for years? The guy who provided the supposed witness to the mythical mobile WMD labs, and the witness turns out to be the brother of one of his staffers?

There's an investigation I'll believe the results of....



But while you're bashing us..care to explain to the Kurds who lost over 5000 people in one gas attack that taking out Saddam wasn't right, that the brutal conquest of Kuwait and liberation from Saddam wasn't right, that the founding of mass graves, innocent victims ofhis sadistic purges and political executions wasn't justified in taking out Saddam?

So why didn't we do that at the time? When the kurds were crying for help and the US blocked condemnation of the attacks in the UN and instead sent spanking new helicopters to Iraq to help Saddam in his attacks on them?

I'm not saying it's not a reason to hate Saddam. I'm saying that helping him do it then, and then using as a reason to invade the country 15 years later is hypocritical.


And in the beginning they DID welcome us as liberators..but they expected us to do the dying..and then willy nilly they wanted us gone.

No. the Kurds have had de-facto control of their country since the no-fly zone was instituted. They want to maintain that atuonomy. They know they will not get it under US occupation. They figure the sooner the marines are gone the sooner they can press for their own homeland.

Let's not forget - the Kurds liberated good parts of the north for the US. They were the first ones into Kirkuk kickin Ba'athist butt long before the Marines got there. So don;t claim that they expected not to have to do their part to earn their freedom.

Fact is though - this is not the freedom ethey want. You may not like that, but imposing your own brand of freedom on a people does not make them free. They have to determine that for themselves. We can help up to a point, but in the end you cannot force freedom on someone. Because if it is forced it is not free.

-Z-

[
I'm sure. Any more assumtions you want to make about me? Do you have a big fancy strawman stored up for the next post? If so, please share, mmkay? http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/hug.gif
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Not really. You aren't important to me.

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
We got rid of Saddam!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But you let him do whatever he did for the past few decades?
That was under a different administration!!!! Give us a cookie!!!!

Talk about morally convienent. :lol:
Shut up!!! We saved France!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But that was under a different administration.
....Give us a cookie!!!!

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
We got rid of Saddam!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But you let him do whatever he did for the past few decades?
That was under a different administration!!!! Give us a cookie!!!!

Talk about morally convienent. :lol:
Shut up!!! We saved France!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But that was under a different administration.
....Give us a cookie!!!!
How 'bout low-carb cookies? Wouldn't want Salishe on a sugar high... :D

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
We got rid of Saddam!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But you let him do whatever he did for the past few decades?
That was under a different administration!!!! Give us a cookie!!!!

Talk about morally convienent. :lol:
Shut up!!! We saved France!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But that was under a different administration.
....Give us a cookie!!!!
How 'bout low-carb cookies? Wouldn't want Salishe on a sugar high... :D
Yes. It should be a special diet cookie with extra vitamine-C, B and D.

So you can't offer up anything else in the way of constructive criticism that might actually DO something..all you wish to do is to bash our efforts... how morally convienent of you.
We got rid of Saddam!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But you let him do whatever he did for the past few decades?
That was under a different administration!!!! Give us a cookie!!!!

Talk about morally convienent. :lol:
Shut up!!! We saved France!!! Give us a cookie!!!
But that was under a different administration.
....Give us a cookie!!!!
How 'bout low-carb cookies? Wouldn't want Salishe on a sugar high... :D
Yes. It should be a special diet cookie with extra vitamine-C, B and D.

I'm laughing..oh it's too rich for my blood..you men of educated nuances in speech and mirth....enough with the childish cookie garbage..one plain fact stands out in my mind...the world didn't do a damn thing for the various despots in this world...and while the deal may very well end up benefitting the US...at least we finally DID something..

'we finally did something'

That makes it all right. Something...just anything really.

USA always does the right thing. After exhausting all other possibilities.

I'm laughing..oh it's too rich for my blood..you men of educated nuances in speech and mirth....enough with the childish cookie garbage..one plain fact stands out in my mind...the world didn't do a damn thing for the various despots in this world...and while the deal may very well end up benefitting the US...at least we finally DID something..


Psssst, Salishe, still toasting you know: to democracy!!!
Ever known a campaign from (will post the non English version of the people ) a coalition of "Sjhites, Soeniten and Koerden" for freedom against fascism? Man you don't know how I toast on democracy and against the Hitlers or Bushes of our time.

If ya want we can toast together but then you've got to quit Nazism, anti semitisme and anti muslim behaviour, wich is much for your small rooky, 16 year old republican brain.

Still toasting, GO Freedom, GO! (and keep me toasting to ya!!! :D :D :D )

Eigenlijk moet je gewoon eens leren wat demokratie inhoud, het gaat verder dan je eigen goedgevulde Halliburton onderdrukingsportefeuille :wink:
Simpele idioten zoals jij zullen het echter nooit verstaan. Bloedsnuiven moet een harde republikeinse drug zijn. Ooit al een andere taal geprobeerd?

Salishe, je bent een sukkelaar die het presteert van op een maand zoveel tijd te hebben dat hij 600X kan posten. Wie ben jij om mij te zeggen (1000 posts op 1jaar, zie Mods waarom niet onder naam vanwege error) dat ik veel tijd heb.

Je verliest zoals je anti alles en bloeddorstige soort steeds verliest....

Tja je bent ook maar een domme US puber :twisted:

Apparently in their third of the country, business is booming, they have a relatively stable political enviroment, democratic freedoms, and from what I've been told..extremely friendly to Americans and their involvment in Iraq.

I say "Screw You" to the Sunnis and the Shiites..ungrateful bastards..we liberate them from a ruthless dictator who murdered their sons and fathers, raped their daughters and sisters and mothers, and gave preferential treatment to a particular religous ethnicity, and then when the hard part is over and we've eliminated the threat of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard from their midst..now they want to stand up and say "Go home now"..so I say...fine..we'll just move our personnel, equipment, and our MONEY to the Kurds..I'm sure they'll be far more appreciated of our efforts to bring democratic institutions to their people.

But if they want either an iron-fisted one party system (the Baathist Sunnis who were given that preferential treatement under Saddam), or a theocracy led by Imans (the Shiites)..I say let them...go ahead..we tried, you didn't want us or anything to do with our form of freedom (ok, that is generalizing..but I don't hear the majority of Iraqis condemning these actions of the minority either)..so I say..UN..here is your chance..you wanted the job..oh that's right..one attack on your compound and you lit out of here like a bolt of lightning..but if you want the job back, you're welcome too it..see if the UN will fork up the expenses of security and administration.

Ok..official rant over...you may now return to whatever you were doing.

You really are brilliant Salishe, sometimes I find it hard to believe that such wisdom can reside in the brain of a mere 60 year old, I would say you are wise beyond your years.

O wise one, I must point out a couple of tiny little flaws in your proposal, I beg of you to forgive me:

-The UN taking over the mess the USA made would be...a tiny bit unreasonable in light of past events.

-Since the Kurds live in a tiny little part of the country on the border of Iraq and make up about 12% of the population, this would mean admitting that the USA has made a terrible mess and is leaving with it's tail between it's legs.

-Giving 12% of the population ALL the resources and leaving the rest of the country in a state of civil-war after having bombed the crap out of its infrastructure means only one thing: When the USA turns it's back (and it will, it always does), those 12% are in REAL trouble...Why?
Simple logic: They would have what the rest of the country needs and they would be massacred. The people of Iraq would be quite resentful of them.

-This would also mean giving up the search of "Weapons Of Mass Destruction®" . Don't you believe they exist? :P

-What would be the USA's justification for staying on a small part of Iraq's border and nowhere else? Search for nuclear bombs? Believe me, if the kurds had them, they would have used them by now.

-Would there be any guarantee that the Kurds wouldn't use the opportunity to take revenge on the Sunni's ?
Nope...None whatsoever. (I realize that this would probably not be an issue worth considering in your weird uninformed little mind...but it would be to most people)

-Leaving a country in turmoil after having attacked it and after drawing Al-Qaeda presence there, this would be inviting a brand new 9/11© attack on America.


Consider these points o wise one.

Salishe does make one point that I think is worth exploring. Iraq as it stands currently is not a natural amalgamation. It was a combination of ethnic groups forced together by the British Empire and has only held together with any sort of stability when there was a repressive regime in place.

So why not give in to what seems to be fate? Let's have three states--a Kurdish one in the north, a Sunni one and a Shi'a one. Let them divide as they probably would given their own options. Of course, that would mean we couldn't have a puppet government controlling all the natural resources, and we don't want that (sarcasm there).

Salishe does make one point that I think is worth exploring. Iraq as it stands currently is not a natural amalgamation. It was a combination of ethnic groups forced together by the British Empire and has only held together with any sort of stability when there was a repressive regime in place.

So why not give in to what seems to be fate? Let's have three states--a Kurdish one in the north, a Sunni one and a Shi'a one. Let them divide as they probably would given their own options. Of course, that would mean we couldn't have a puppet government controlling all the natural resources, and we don't want that (sarcasm there).

Great idea!. Then it won't be a "civil war", it will be boring old "normal" war.

The reason why the US went to war is because we couldnt trust Saddam. If anyone here even bothers to read the UNSCOM chronology located at the UN Website from 91-98(when they were told to leave by Saddam, or else) one would realize that through deciet and strong arm tactics Saddam was up to something major. Now it is completely possible that before the war in Iraq Saddam had WMDs. However as Saddam stalled for time it may also be possible that he himself destroyed said weapons in order to discredit the US. It is completely possible that Saddam did not believe the US would invade Iraq and would have let the inspections run their course. However this was not the case, Bush did invade and it is unlikely that the US will find WMDs.

People continue to use this arguement as an "I told you so" type deal. My response to that is, "So what?" You can not find my definative proof that Saddam wasnt attempting to develop WMDs. However there is plenty of proof that he was. Including his brother-in-law who fled to Jordan and snitched on Saddam to UNSCOM inspectors, who found hidden weapons caches in areas they had previously searched. As for these accusations of the US bombing the crap out of Iraq for the past 12 years, complete and utter BS. Go find an after action report on the matter. Aircraft patroling the no fly zone were equipped with a mix of Air to Air Missiles and Anti-Radiation missiles, for the use against radar which could track them. This meant that coalition aircraft were targeting radar and SAM Sites which engaged them.

Lets not forget folks that Saddam had placed a bounty for anyone who could shoot down a coalition aircraft to collect. When the US did resort to bombing Iraq on a large scale(it happened twice during the Clinton Admin) it was after Saddam ejected UNSCOM. And even then it was limited in scope to Cruise Missile strikes against military targets. Now some of you are obviously gonna say but what about the US bombing of Iraq durning the first Gulf War? Again I say to you, "So what? Notice that part of a War on the end of Gulf?" The Iraqi's were far more brutal with their targets than we were. Has the Persian Gulf even recovered fully from the ecological damage caused by Saddam? Which ya know could be the damn reason for the high cancer rates, all the burning black smoke which would have been blown into Southern Iraq by winds coming off of the Persian Gulf, and not DU rounds.

Also, the Sunnis have a reason to be mad, they went from controlling the country for about 40-50 years to having lost all of that power to the US in the span of a month. They have all due reason to be a sore angry loser. The Shiites are mad at the US because the elder Bush did not provide any support to the Shiite uprising against Saddam which with limited air strikes against Republican Guard units, and air cover to destroy Mi-8 Hinds could have prevailed without the involvement of US troops until after Saddam was disposed of. We dropped the ball on that one, I'll admit. Hind sight bias though. Bush probably thought Saddam was to weak to handle the rebellion at the time and that was a mistake that falls on the shoulders of the intelligence community.

Now as to why we didnt do something to stop Saddam back in the 80s, well children, I'm not sure if they teach you guys this in school or in other countries, but what was going on in the world was this thing called the Cold War. For christ sakes, the Soviets did stuff that frankly surpass even the worst things the US has done in the past. But the left all blames the US because the US is still standing. But that isnt the point, the point is, we didnt say anything to Saddam then because 1)We just had to deal with an OPEC embargo, we didnt want another and 2)We were using Saddam at the time as much as we were using the Iranians hoping they'd wipe each other out and make the world a much better place.

[
Oh yeah...the French and Germans with their history of wars of conquest and wars against each other know oh so much bout diplomacy, ahuh...and the Russians..they're tainted by the fact that they're out 20 billion dollars in oil contracts they had with the Saddam regime.

And calling my sons (both of whom served the first year there, now they're in other duties) "murdering invaders" is oh such an insult..then you all but blatantly ignore the REAL murderers..or would you have rather we put Saddam back on his perch so he can reopen his rape rooms that his sons used and the mass graves of his murdered people go unavenged?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Many coalition soldiers have killed innocent men, women, children and babies. If your sons took part then they are murderers. Official sanctions from the gangster Bush regime doesn't make them any less so. Your idiot retort about Russia was indeed part of the point I was making. Read again.
You cannot justify the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killings by democratic nations on the basis of Sadaams dirty regime. If you want to continue down that road, let's go to China, North Korea, Syria etc. Hold on, most of the others can hit back can't they. So.........we practise diplomacy there right?

This is absurd. Do you really believe any soldier goes out to kill civilians purposefully? Have you ever been in combat? Ever held a weapon in a firefight while orders are being yelled and everything is in slow motion yet, you can't make out every target? Ever been in a cockpit of an F-18 unsure of what the hell is down below but still had your CO tell you its a go? Mistakes happen and innocent people get killed in war. Unlike some regimes, the U.S. makes sure that those who purposefully violate the Rules of Engagement pay. Several marines and army personnel have been discharged for abusing prisonners and other misconduct. Gangster Bush? Elected by the people and sanctioned by the constitution. Nobody gives a damn whether you like the regime there.

There is no such thing an illegal invasion of another state. War is not legal or illegal. It doesn't fit into any of those terms. All those other nations are fine examples of regimes commit acts reprehensible to most western democracies, but, one uses force wisely. In this instance, force was used to subdue Saddam's Iraq. Now if even MORE force had been used, most of the problems we have now wouldn't be happening.

[
Oh yeah...the French and Germans with their history of wars of conquest and wars against each other know oh so much bout diplomacy, ahuh...and the Russians..they're tainted by the fact that they're out 20 billion dollars in oil contracts they had with the Saddam regime.

And calling my sons (both of whom served the first year there, now they're in other duties) "murdering invaders" is oh such an insult..then you all but blatantly ignore the REAL murderers..or would you have rather we put Saddam back on his perch so he can reopen his rape rooms that his sons used and the mass graves of his murdered people go unavenged?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Many coalition soldiers have killed innocent men, women, children and babies. If your sons took part then they are murderers. Official sanctions from the gangster Bush regime doesn't make them any less so. Your idiot retort about Russia was indeed part of the point I was making. Read again.
You cannot justify the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killings by democratic nations on the basis of Sadaams dirty regime. If you want to continue down that road, let's go to China, North Korea, Syria etc. Hold on, most of the others can hit back can't they. So.........we practise diplomacy there right?

This is absurd. Do you really believe any soldier goes out to kill civilians purposefully? Have you ever been in combat? Ever held a weapon in a firefight while orders are being yelled and everything is in slow motion yet, you can't make out every target? Ever been in a cockpit of an F-18 unsure of what the hell is down below but still had your CO tell you its a go? Mistakes happen and innocent people get killed in war. Unlike some regimes, the U.S. makes sure that those who purposefully violate the Rules of Engagement pay. Several marines and army personnel have been discharged for abusing prisonners and other misconduct. Gangster Bush? Elected by the people and sanctioned by the constitution. Nobody gives a damn whether you like the regime there.

There is no such thing an illegal invasion of another state. War is not legal or illegal. It doesn't fit into any of those terms. All those other nations are fine examples of regimes commit acts reprehensible to most western democracies, but, one uses force wisely. In this instance, force was used to subdue Saddam's Iraq. Now if even MORE force had been used, most of the problems we have now wouldn't be happening.

Steven Seagal, is that you?

[one uses force wisely. In this instance, force was used to subdue Saddam's Iraq. Now if even MORE force had been used, most of the problems we have now wouldn't be happening.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Indeed, force should be used wisely. It hasn't this time because where no threat existed to the US and the west, it now does.
And again, the whole point of invading Iraq......illegally.......was supposed to be to remove WMD. Only since the invasion has the mantra been ongoing 'we removed an evil regime'. Okay, remove the North Korean regime, the Chinese regime, several African regimes. Sorry, I wasn't thinking, they can fight back or don't have oil.

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

As in what?..

Salishe does make one point that I think is worth exploring. Iraq as it stands currently is not a natural amalgamation. It was a combination of ethnic groups forced together by the British Empire and has only held together with any sort of stability when there was a repressive regime in place.

Yes, yes. Your right. They should be annexed by Turkey.

[

This is absurd. Do you really believe any soldier goes out to kill civilians purposefully? Have you ever been in combat? Ever held a weapon in a firefight while orders are being yelled and everything is in slow motion yet, you can't make out every target? Ever been in a cockpit of an F-18 unsure of what the hell is down below but still had your CO tell you its a go? Mistakes happen and innocent people get killed in war. Unlike some regimes, the U.S. makes sure that those who purposefully violate the Rules of Engagement pay. Several marines and army personnel have been discharged for abusing prisonners and other misconduct. Gangster Bush? Elected by the people and sanctioned by the constitution. Nobody gives a damn whether you like the regime there.

There is no such thing an illegal invasion of another state. War is not legal or illegal. It doesn't fit into any of those terms. All those other nations are fine examples of regimes commit acts reprehensible to most western democracies, but, one uses force wisely. In this instance, force was used to subdue Saddam's Iraq. Now if even MORE force had been used, most of the problems we have now wouldn't be happening.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

My word, what a tantrum.
No, I have never been in combat and neither have you. Your Hollywood / X-Box descriptions of warfare don't impress very much. But I do have relatives who have fought and do fight.
If every Brit and US soldier who has killed or wounded an innocent civilian was 'punished' and sent home, there wouldn't be much in the way of an occupation force left.
You're right, nobody gives a damn whether or not I approve of the current situation. I trust you're not saying that I haven't as much right as the next man or woman to express my views and concersn.
You may recall that the Brits declared war on a beligerant, invading Nazi Germany. That was legal. You may recall that the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour. That was legal.
You may also recall the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and Singapore, the Nazi German attack on Poland, the Nazi German attack on the Soviet Union. They were illegal. Look it up.
I would say that most reasonable people would say that the attack on the Twin Towers was illegal. That nice Mister Bush wants us to believe that the attack on Iraq was legal. You gonna argue with the American government?
You spout the dreary crap that force (murder) was and is being used to subdue Sadaams Iraq. By whos authority? Afghanistan had the approval of the UN and was deemed legal. Not Iraq.
That nice bunch that run America assured us all that Sadaam had WMD and that they represented a 'clear and present danger'. Well, they were either wrong or lying. Not even domestic American and British approval would have been forthcoming had Bush and Blair said 'We're off to get rid of that naughty Sadaam and give peace and joy to the Iraqis'.
This whole butchers shop of a war was based on lies lies lies.
You turn a blind eye to the lies that our leaders tell if you wish.
I'll tell them they're liars and look for some less deceiptful people to represent me if I can.

This is absurd. Do you really believe any soldier goes out to kill civilians purposefully? Have you ever been in combat? Ever held a weapon in a firefight while orders are being yelled and everything is in slow motion yet, you can't make out every target? Ever been in a cockpit of an F-18 unsure of what the hell is down below but still had your CO tell you its a go? Mistakes happen and innocent people get killed in war. Unlike some regimes, the U.S. makes sure that those who purposefully violate the Rules of Engagement pay. Several marines and army personnel have been discharged for abusing prisonners and other misconduct. Gangster Bush? Elected by the people and sanctioned by the constitution. Nobody gives a damn whether you like the regime there.
You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns. They don't realize that being a soldier in any self-respecting army is first of all about discipline, that soldiers are being taught the code of conduct until it is carved in their brain so deep it becomes a natural instinct, and that the code of conduct is not a kill-them-all, but a set of strict rules that do not allow killing innocents for the fun of it. These "human rights activists" operate under assumption that soldiers are more likely to be guilty than not simply because they are soldiers- as if soldiers are somehow less human than other people.
I think it comes from the alienation between the army and the society as a result of the army service being strictly volunteer. With all it drawbacks, mandatory draft does have some good sides, after all...

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.

Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

As in what?..


Bloody server...Sorry about the 6 posts...

I pointed out some tiny little things wrong with your proposal, I was waiting for you to answer...

[
Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

you add nothing but macho crap. see a doctor mister delusional

*waiting for Salishe to answer...*

Keep on waiting a 16 year old (sometimes he is 51 then 61) that only quotes himself. Like you all know, he was so busted with his age and he don't get offenced when the boy or jobless person (no offence with thatà says that you have a lot of time because you post a lot, the kid posted a lot in one month. No working person can follow his junkmail. he should shame, not for his extreme right anti human behaviour but for his lies on NS.You all know that he was busted a lot of times and counterspoke himself.

Voor onze Salishe klootzak zegt dat ik fouten in het Engels schrijf wil ik hem er nogmaals op wijzen dat we deze discussie kunnen verder zetten in neutrale talen: Duits of Frans bv. maar onze domme jongen kent uiteraard slechts 1 taal, waarmee hij met zijn weigering, zoals steeds bewijst de fascistische republikeinse navelstaarder te zijn. Voor de NL taligen hier, het is steeds leuk om te zien wat hij van dit maakt met zijn vertaalprogrammaatje :wink: Echt grappig, heb hem ook al Spaans voorgesteld maar onze dummy is een monolinguist :wink: Europeanen tegen VS mensenrechtenschendingen, verenig u en wees trots dat we nee zegden (B, Fr, P, Irl, D, De NL meerderheid in NL, No, ZW, Fin enz...; wij zeggen NEEN! tegen klootzkken als W. en de US Hitlerjugendjongen Salishe)

[
Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

you add nothing but macho crap. see a doctor mister delusional

Excuse me?...Tuminiaa stated that he didn't view any other military personnel as evil butchers...only American ones...and you have the gall to chastise me?...And I guess I would be viewed as macho...never been viewed as some pencil necked-geek with a superiority complex just because their GPA was higher then mine. I'm a simple man...I served with too many good men of honor and character to let someone who has never bothered to serve himself call into question the character of US servicemembers.

I don't like this idea. When you intervene in another nation, particularly to this kind of degree, you have a moral obligation to restablize it. If the US were to pull out or change allegiance in some way, it would totally invalidate any arguments from moral or humanitarian grounds. Moreover, it would make the entire war a terrible failure, and doom these kinds of interventions for quite some time. While I don't necessarily support this war, I think the world community does need to be aware that dictators like Hussein cannot be tolerated. If the war in Iraq fails, I doubt we will see the kind of actions and pressures I believe we need to help the world as a whole.

[
Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

you add nothing but macho crap. see a doctor mister delusional

That is normal for a 16 year old Bush lover. You are way to intelligent to lose your time with another Anthrus (= banned )puppet; I know from people that know his IT adress that he is the same, so just ignore him or watch FOX or Leni Riefenstahl (still more artistic) for the same Mc crap :wink:

I don't like this idea. When you intervene in another nation, particularly to this kind of degree, you have a moral obligation to restablize it. If the US were to pull out or change allegiance in some way, it would totally invalidate any arguments from moral or humanitarian grounds. Moreover, it would make the entire war a terrible failure, and doom these kinds of interventions for quite some time. While I don't necessarily support this war, I think the world community does need to be aware that dictators like Hussein cannot be tolerated. If the war in Iraq fails, I doubt we will see the kind of actions and pressures I believe we need to help the world as a whole.

You have a point . If the "coalitian" stops and leaves the mess they created, it will be even more total chaos. No doubt, it will be civil war. But it is the "coalition" responsabillity to take out the hated (now even by the Shihites) US and install the UN that is more speciallised in peacekeeping and nationbuilding. Seems that all other nations in Iraq are less hated then the US. You know why? They know: more tact and less opressive and less civilian death. Ask the people, they like the Britts (what can we say with "like" :cry: ) more then the US.

Leave it to the UN, BTW will take a lot of goodwill to get the specialists (German, French, Belgian and other more neutral states in there) Don't know how those nations will send their specialist in while the US is still around and stupid.

Pax pro totto!

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

[
Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

you add nothing but macho crap. see a doctor mister delusional

Excuse me?...Tuminiaa stated that he didn't view any other military personnel as evil butchers...only American ones...and you have the gall to chastise me?...And I guess I would be viewed as macho...never been viewed as some pencil necked-geek with a superiority complex just because their GPA was higher then mine. I'm a simple man...I served with too many good men of honor and character to let someone who has never bothered to serve himself call into question the character of US servicemembers.
Eeeh..hello. I´m not Tumaniaa. And character in the US army? Good one. :lol:

Coq au vin Jaune salves all the problems in the world. I saw this today, I had a couple of Oregon people and a couple of Lebanon people at my table (they came from the Bekaa valley and had a Chateau Musar from there with them). Great discussion they had about "making the world a better place".
In the end, (it were allready nice people like most in the mountains) they managed to find peace in th eworld. I heared it while washing the plates and afterwords we drunk my wines (from the house, the second wine of Chateau Margeaux: Pavillon Rouge 1983, a great Margeaux year) and we found that it was easy to solve the problems that the world has now. People want peace and raise their children, they all want, also in Iraq, wether they are Suniten Kurd or Shihite. But we don't have to force our form of life via nations, we have to rebuild things via the best instrument we have, the conglomerate of nations and people: The UN.

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

Hello Simkaria, should have been here, Het was zeer lekker!! En de klanten waren tof en vredelievend (US en Libanezen). Soms denk ik dat lekker eten helpt voor een betere wereld, noem me naief maar heb nogmaals gezien dat goede mensen van overal zijn.

BTW, benieuwd aan het wachten op de Standaard en De Morgen die ik met een dag later krij hier. Gehoord dat lijstnummers in B. uit zijn (niet belangrijk) maar dat de commentaarstukken in beide vernietigend zijn voor de VS in Irak.

Eigenlijk moet ik al lang slapen want ik moet straks ontbijt maken :?

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

Hello Simkaria, should have been here, Het was zeer lekker!! En de klanten waren tof en vredelievend (US en Libanezen). Soms denk ik dat lekker eten helpt voor een betere wereld, noem me naief maar heb nogmaals gezien dat goede mensen van overal zijn.

BTW, benieuwd aan het wachten op de Standaard en De Morgen die ik met een dag later krij hier. Gehoord dat lijstnummers in B. uit zijn (niet belangrijk) maar dat de commentaarstukken in beide vernietigend zijn voor de VS in Irak.

Eigenlijk moet ik al lang slapen want ik moet straks ontbijt maken :?
Bah, een goede yank? Nou ja. Het is mogelijk. Misschien...maar het is vooral leuk om ze op de stang te jagen. En dat is echt niet moeilijk. Kijk maar om je heen.
Eeeh tja. Dan moet je maar gaan ronken he? Als je voor het ontbijt moet zorgen.

BTW. America SUCKS!!!! DOWN WITH THE US TIRANNY!!!

[
Really..you must live a sheltered life...I've known South Korean Marines that'd sooner turn you into mulch then look at ya...Aussie SAS who'd bounce you just to see where you land...French Foreign Legionairres who were in all likelihood just shy of prison before the Legion took them in. Spanish soldiers who'd knife you for the money in your pocket. South African Zulu's who wouldn't hesitate to take a machete to you because you're white.

Yeah..if you think all American military personnel are evil butchers then you definitely need to get out more.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

you add nothing but macho crap. see a doctor mister delusional

Excuse me?...Tuminiaa stated that he didn't view any other military personnel as evil butchers...only American ones...and you have the gall to chastise me?...And I guess I would be viewed as macho...never been viewed as some pencil necked-geek with a superiority complex just because their GPA was higher then mine. I'm a simple man...I served with too many good men of honor and character to let someone who has never bothered to serve himself call into question the character of US servicemembers.

wtf???

When did I say that???

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

Hello Simkaria, should have been here, Het was zeer lekker!! En de klanten waren tof en vredelievend (US en Libanezen). Soms denk ik dat lekker eten helpt voor een betere wereld, noem me naief maar heb nogmaals gezien dat goede mensen van overal zijn.

BTW, benieuwd aan het wachten op de Standaard en De Morgen die ik met een dag later krij hier. Gehoord dat lijstnummers in B. uit zijn (niet belangrijk) maar dat de commentaarstukken in beide vernietigend zijn voor de VS in Irak.

Eigenlijk moet ik al lang slapen want ik moet straks ontbijt maken :?
Bah, een goede yank? Nou ja. Het is mogelijk. Misschien...maar het is vooral leuk om ze op de stang te jagen. En dat is echt niet moeilijk. Kijk maar om je heen.
Eeeh tja. Dan moet je maar gaan ronken he? Als je voor het ontbijt moet zorgen.

BTW. America SUCKS!!!! DOWN WITH THE US TIRANNY!!!

Weet wat je bedoeld, maar deze mensen (slapen op 5m. van me in kamer 2) zijn echt tegen Bush en veel meer op golflengte van B, Fr en D.
We mogen niet generaliseren, ook niet op NS want dan duwen klootzakken als puber Salishe ons in een hoekje waar we niet thuis horen. Moest mijn Engels zo goed zijn als het jouwe, ik gaf er idd nog veel hardere motten op. Maar zit nu al 8 jaar in Fr en mijn (slecht voor hen) Engels wordt door Republikeinen vaak aangepakt om hun zinnetje mee door te drukken. Stel hen steeds voor om in een van mijn andere (ook neutraal voor hen ) talen verder te gaan.
Mmmm wat hebben we als Vlaming in de kast dat ik goed beheers: Duits, Frans, NL (uiteraard)....Je bent al een intelectueel in de VS als je meer dan een taal spreekt. Makkelijk voor ons maar spijtig genoeg moeten we het in hun taal doen.

Jij bent de jonge generatie en ge doet het goed (ik hoop wel dat je ook je Frans onderhoud, dank zij dat woon ik nu hier, nog steeds belangrijk en als Vlaming krijg je gratis de francophone wereld in de mond gegoten, n'oubliez jamais!).

Trots op je posts en je verweer :wink:
Sven

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

Hello Simkaria, should have been here, Het was zeer lekker!! En de klanten waren tof en vredelievend (US en Libanezen). Soms denk ik dat lekker eten helpt voor een betere wereld, noem me naief maar heb nogmaals gezien dat goede mensen van overal zijn.

BTW, benieuwd aan het wachten op de Standaard en De Morgen die ik met een dag later krij hier. Gehoord dat lijstnummers in B. uit zijn (niet belangrijk) maar dat de commentaarstukken in beide vernietigend zijn voor de VS in Irak.

Eigenlijk moet ik al lang slapen want ik moet straks ontbijt maken :?
Bah, een goede yank? Nou ja. Het is mogelijk. Misschien...maar het is vooral leuk om ze op de stang te jagen. En dat is echt niet moeilijk. Kijk maar om je heen.
Eeeh tja. Dan moet je maar gaan ronken he? Als je voor het ontbijt moet zorgen.

BTW. America SUCKS!!!! DOWN WITH THE US TIRANNY!!!

Weet wat je bedoeld, maar deze mensen (slapen op 5m. van me in kamer 2) zijn echt tegen Bush en veel meer op golflengte van B, Fr en D.
We mogen niet generaliseren, ook niet op NS want dan duwen klootzakken als puber Salishe ons in een hoekje waar we niet thuis horen. Moest mijn Engels zo goed zijn als het jouwe, ik gaf er idd nog veel hardere motten op. Maar zit nu al 8 jaar in Fr en mijn (slecht voor hen) Engels wordt door Republikeinen vaak aangepakt om hun zinnetje mee door te drukken. Stel hen steeds voor om in een van mijn andere (ook neutraal voor hen ) talen verder te gaan.
Mmmm wat hebben we als Vlaming in de kast dat ik goed beheers: Duits, Frans, NL (uiteraard)....Je bent al een intelectueel in de VS als je meer dan een taal spreekt. Makkelijk voor ons maar spijtig genoeg moeten we het in hun taal doen.

Jij bent de jonge generatie en ge doet het goed (ik hoop wel dat je ook je Frans onderhoud, dank zij dat woon ik nu hier, nog steeds belangrijk en als Vlaming krijg je gratis de francophone wereld in de mond gegoten, n'oubliez jamais!).

Trots op je posts en je verweer :wink:
Sven
Eeeh nee. Ik spreek geen Frans. Afgezien van een paar zinnetjes. Alleen Nederlands, Engels en Duits. Zit erover na te denken om misschien ook eens Spaans te leren. Ik zit hier nu al een tijdje op NS en na een tijdje werd ik een beetje moe ervan om met die lui op een logische, redelijke wijze te debatteren. En dus maak ik ze nu vooral zwart, met generalisaties en al, dat is ook veel lolliger. :lol:

You see, this is one of the perception problems that many Western pacifists that have never been in the army suffer of. They think of soldiers as evil people, professional butchers who joined the military so they could kill more and with better guns.
Well, I've never been in the army. But thats not the way I percieve soldiers. Only the American ones.
Because American soldiers are less human than the rest?
You got it.

Hello Simkaria, should have been here, Het was zeer lekker!! En de klanten waren tof en vredelievend (US en Libanezen). Soms denk ik dat lekker eten helpt voor een betere wereld, noem me naief maar heb nogmaals gezien dat goede mensen van overal zijn.

BTW, benieuwd aan het wachten op de Standaard en De Morgen die ik met een dag later krij hier. Gehoord dat lijstnummers in B. uit zijn (niet belangrijk) maar dat de commentaarstukken in beide vernietigend zijn voor de VS in Irak.

Eigenlijk moet ik al lang slapen want ik moet straks ontbijt maken :?
Bah, een goede yank? Nou ja. Het is mogelijk. Misschien...maar het is vooral leuk om ze op de stang te jagen. En dat is echt niet moeilijk. Kijk maar om je heen.
Eeeh tja. Dan moet je maar gaan ronken he? Als je voor het ontbijt moet zorgen.

BTW. America SUCKS!!!! DOWN WITH THE US TIRANNY!!!

Weet wat je bedoeld, maar deze mensen (slapen op 5m. van me in kamer 2) zijn echt tegen Bush en veel meer op golflengte van B, Fr en D.
We mogen niet generaliseren, ook niet op NS want dan duwen klootzakken als puber Salishe ons in een hoekje waar we niet thuis horen. Moest mijn Engels zo goed zijn als het jouwe, ik gaf er idd nog veel hardere motten op. Maar zit nu al 8 jaar in Fr en mijn (slecht voor hen) Engels wordt door Republikeinen vaak aangepakt om hun zinnetje mee door te drukken. Stel hen steeds voor om in een van mijn andere (ook neutraal voor hen ) talen verder te gaan.
Mmmm wat hebben we als Vlaming in de kast dat ik goed beheers: Duits, Frans, NL (uiteraard)....Je bent al een intelectueel in de VS als je meer dan een taal spreekt. Makkelijk voor ons maar spijtig genoeg moeten we het in hun taal doen.

Jij bent de jonge generatie en ge doet het goed (ik hoop wel dat je ook je Frans onderhoud, dank zij dat woon ik nu hier, nog steeds belangrijk en als Vlaming krijg je gratis de francophone wereld in de mond gegoten, n'oubliez jamais!).

Trots op je posts en je verweer :wink:
Sven
Eeeh nee. Ik spreek geen Frans. Afgezien van een paar zinnetjes. Alleen Nederlands, Engels en Duits. Zit erover na te denken om misschien ook eens Spaans te leren. Ik zit hier nu al een tijdje op NS en na een tijdje werd ik een beetje moe ervan om met die lui op een logische, redelijke wijze te debatteren. En dus maak ik ze nu vooral zwart, met generalisaties en al, dat is ook veel lolliger. :lol:

En dus maak ik ze nu vooral zwart, met generalisaties en al, dat is ook veel lolliger. :lol:

Groot gelijk, poets weederom poets, die gastjes doen met ons net hetzelfde. Dus waarom zouden we ze niet es in hetzelfde sopje wassen :D

BTW, Faut vraiment apprendre ton Français, appres tout, t'es Flamand comme moi. Et c'est pour ça que les Hollandais et US sont jaloux envers nous. Eh, nous sommes comme même ceux qui parlent le plus des langues en Europe. C'est pour ça qu'on demande beaucoup des Flamands pour des fonctions internationnales.

"Ge kintj natierlek oeik Oilsjters lieren klappen, mor das graalek moeilek" :wink: