NationStates Jolt Archive

Sweden allowed in 70,000 Iraqis seeking asylum and is now shutting its doors. They complain that other countries in Europe aren't taking enough. The Bush Administration is allowing ONLY 7000, but only 800 have come. We started this war, we certainly should allow unlimited Iraqis without anything beyond basic admittance procedures.

Fass, you meet an Iraqi exiles?

LInk (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_iraqi_refugees)

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Sweden, which has welcomed far more Iraqi refugees than has the U.S. or the rest of Europe, said Friday that it is tightening its asylum rules and will forcibly deport Iraqis who are denied refuge.

The announcement marked an abrupt change in the relatively lax rules that had made Sweden a safe haven for thousands of Iraqis fleeing the chaos in their homeland.

"Sweden used to be positively unique. Now they've joined the rest of the gang," said Bjarte Vandvik, Secretary-General of the European Council of Refugees and Exiles.

More than 18,000 Iraqis have arrived in Sweden seeking asylum since 2006, the highest number in any European country.

The Bush administration announced in February it would allow up to 7,000 Iraqis into the U.S. by the end of September. Fewer than 800 have been allowed in so far.

Many of the refugees in Sweden have joined existing Iraqi communities in Sodertalje, south of Stockholm, and the southwestern port city of Malmo. Although they have generally kept a low profile and have been widely welcomed by Swedes, the influx has raised concerns over strains on Sweden's generous social benefit system.

The government has repeatedly complained that other European countries aren't doing enough to shoulder the burden.

About 80 percent of asylum applications by Iraqis were approved in Sweden last year, but immigration officials said that number would drop as more stringent rules are enforced.

Previously granted asylum based on the general turmoil in their homeland, Iraqis now must show that they face specific threats of violence if they are sent back, Sweden's Migration Board said.

"The consequence will probably be that fewer asylum seekers will be granted asylum in Sweden," said Dan Eliasson, director-general of the Migration Board.

The board also said it would start forcibly deporting Iraqis whose asylum applications are rejected, which runs against recommendations by the U.N. refugee agency.

"Those who are rejected should return voluntarily," said Deputy Judge Joakim Hugoson, a legal adviser at the Migration Board. "But if he or she doesn't do that the board will hand over those cases to the police for a forcible return."

The move sparked furious protests from refugee rights activists and Iraqi immigrants.

Tony Saliba, head of the Syriac Orthodox church in Stockholm, said forcibly returning asylum-seekers to Iraq "is equal to giving them a death penalty."

Lars Gustafsson, a lawmaker for the Christian Democrats — one of four parties in the center-right government — called for changing existing laws to stop the immigration authorities from adopting the stricter asylum rules.

The Swedish Migration Board said it was compelled to adopt the tighter rules after reviewing rulings this year by the country's highest immigration court. Those dealt with cases that had already been rejected by the board, but officials said they offered new guidelines that would affect many of the 10,000 cases currently awaiting decisions.

The court's "interpretation of the migration law, which guides us, means that the general situation (in Iraq) does not automatically lead to asylum, but the applicant must cite individual reasons," Eliasson said.

Iraqi refugees in Europe are a fraction of the nearly 4 million people displaced since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Half of those remain inside Iraq, having fled their homes and possessions to avoid suicide bombings, death squads, abductions and other violence. The other 2 million have found refuge in neighboring countries, mainly in Syria and Jordan, making Iraqis the largest group of asylum seekers worldwide.

I'm curious how many the UK has let in.

We're always hearing from news outlets such as the Daily Mail how we're being over run by darkies and I figure we're probably being just as harsh as the US on people displaced by a war we started.

I'm curious how many the UK has let in.

We're always hearing from news outlets such as the Daily Mail how we're being over run by darkies and I figure we're probably being just as harsh as the US on people displaced by a war we started.

The Daily Mail has the credibility of Tony Snow and Fox News. And I figure you're right.

I'm curious how many the UK has let in.

We're always hearing from news outlets such as the Daily Mail how we're being over run by darkies and I figure we're probably being just as harsh as the US on people displaced by a war we started.I can't tell you how many Iraqi asylum seekers the UK has allowed into the country so far, but in the first quarter of this year the UK rejected over 80% of all claims. Of those that where allowed to remain in the country only 36% were granted refugee status.

from http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/44e96c842.pdf page 23.

edit: Oh yes, and the UK has even forcibly deported many asylum seekers back to Iraq.

Nice message; you're not good enough to come here to seek asylum but you're good enough for target practice back home thanks to the political and civil unrest our asinine foreign policies have caused.

I sincerely hope the UK has admitted none. There is no good reason for us to do so, given that, as a nation, we did not want the Iraq war.

Where is the 70,000 in the article? All I see is 18,000 since 2006. Is there something I am missing in the article?

Also want to note US international net immigration from 2000-2005 is 7,649,510.

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2006-04.xls


While according to this, Swedish international net immigration is 31,686 from 2000-2005 for Iraqi's. Taken from this Swedish immigration statistics site.

http://www.scb.se/templates/Publikation____162440.asp

However I may not be reading this site right because I do not read Swedish this appears to be net immigration of non-nordic peoples from 2000-2005 are 222,839.

Edit: I did find information on how many Iraqi born immigrants were in the US in 2000 which is 90,000 I could not find the stats for 2000-2005.

I sincerely hope the UK has admitted none. There is no good reason for us to do so, given that, as a nation, we did not want the Iraq war.

The UK got involved in the war nonetheless. It's not a problem to you, Chris, because you ENJOY seeing them die for being brown. Sweden has been showing way more honor than the UK has.

The US lets in more immigrants from South and Latin America though. How come Sweden isn't stepping up and letting in more of those people. Is it because they are a bunch of racist who hate the Hispanic people?

The US lets in more immigrants from South and Latin America though. How come Sweden isn't stepping up and letting in more of those people. Is it because they are a bunch of racist who hate the Hispanic people?

No, it's because South and Latin America are closer to the US than they are to Sweden. It doesn't change the fact that, after raping Iraq, the US should accept most, if not every last one, of whoever leaves the place to escape said rape.

The US lets in more immigrants from South and Latin America though. How come Sweden isn't stepping up and letting in more of those people. Is it because they are a bunch of racist who hate the Hispanic people?

Is that the fault of Sweden or because there are less people from South America seeking to immigrate there?

The Coalition fucked up the war so the Coalition should take the majority of asylum seekers until Iraq is in a stable position once again, however that'll probably take decades...

Is that the fault of Sweden or because there are less people from South America seeking to immigrate there?

No it is not. However the US allows a set amount of people in a year. It is mostly from Latin nations. They tend to fill the quota up quickly. So the article is just a political jab without any context and I question the number that the original OP stated vs the stats I found online.

No it is not. However the US allows a set amount of people in a year. It is mostly from Latin nations. They tend to fill the quota up quickly. So the article is just a political jab without any context and I question the number that the original OP stated vs the stats I found online.

It is a political jab, maybe, but it still has a basing in the fact that special efforts should be given to provide asylum from a country which is producing so many immigrants as a result of the actions of the US (Among others)

The Coalition fucked up the war so the Coalition should take the majority of asylum seekers until Iraq is in a stable position once again, however that'll probably take decades...

So with that rationalization then let's look at other areas of the world. How far back do we want to go? I mean colonial Africa was set on it's current course years ago by the Europeans. So should the vast majority of Africans only go to Europe? The Spanish was largely responsible for some of the ineptness of South America and Latin America centuries ago. Should we then divert Mexicans and the rest of Latin America to Spain? I mean fair is fair isn't it?

It is a political jab, maybe, but it still has a basing in the fact that special efforts should be given to provide asylum from a country which is producing so many immigrants as a result of the actions of the US (Among others)

The US does allow for immigration as they did for Vietnam and Cambodia during the end of action in SE Asia. I am a bit older and can remember well the flood of SE Asians into the US at the time. We as in the US does take people from all over that are escaping political persecution. However under immigration rules there has to be a good reason for immigrating under asylum rules. Persecution by the home government and or religious persecution. Seeing how Iraq is a Muslim nation and has a freely elected government the two major reasons are moot. Therefore Asylum under those circumstances would not be permitted.

Also according to the statistics I found only 31,686 Iraqi's immigrated to Sweden from 2000-2005. That is only on average 6k+ a year. Which in the grand scheme of things is nothing. Therefore I think this OP article is bullshit to say the least.

The UK got involved in the war nonetheless. It's not a problem to you, Chris, because you ENJOY seeing them die for being brown. Sweden has been showing way more honor than the UK has.

Ignoring the personal slight, Sweden can afford to accomodate Iraqi migrants. Not only is its welfare state larger, and more efficient, than that of the UK, but its population is lower.

Moreover, I feel no moral compulsion to aid the Iraqis, irrespective of the role played by a Labour prime minister in the war. He has never represented my views, did not represent the views of the UK when acceding to invasion in March 2003, and hence, I see no good reason for Britain to suffer for Blair's myopia.

The US does allow for immigration as they did for Vietnam and Cambodia during the end of action in SE Asia. I am a bit older and can remember well the flood of SE Asians into the US at the time. We as in the US does take people from all over that are escaping political persecution. However under immigration rules there has to be a good reason for immigrating under asylum rules. Persecution by the home government and or religious persecution. Seeing how Iraq is a Muslim nation and has a freely elected government the two major reasons are moot. Therefore Asylum under those circumstances would not be permitted.

Also according to the statistics I found only 31,686 Iraqi's immigrated to Sweden from 2000-2005. That is only on average 6k+ a year. Which in the grand scheme of things is nothing. Therefore I think this OP article is bullshit to say the least.

Does the limit in place for the number of Iraqi immigrants include asylum seekers? If so does that mean that once the limit is reached you can't get in no matter what your reason? I'm not entirely clear on the whole issue so I can't really decide how I stand on this but it's an interesting debate

Could sectarian violence be an example of religious persecution?

You have to make sure to take into account the percentage increase in population that would entail though to make a comparison between the contribution of the US and that of Sweden.

Moreover, I feel no moral compulsion to aid the Iraqis, irrespective of the role played by a Labour prime minister in the war. He has never represented my views, did not represent the views of the UK when acceding to invasion in March 2003, and hence, I see no good reason for Britain to suffer for Blair's myopia.

Heh, but you don't mind having Iraq suffer for it. How versatile your so-called morality is.

Heh, but you don't mind having Iraq suffer for it. How versatile your so-called morality is.

Fuck morals. If one of Iraq and the Uk must be civil war wracked, terrorist suffused shit hole, rather them than me.

Fuck morals. If one of Iraq and the Uk must be civil war wracked, terrorist suffused shit hole, rather them than me.

So at one point you invoke morals as an argument and then straight after you go for the "Fuck morals" point of view?

And invading Iraq stopped a UK civil war how?

So at one point you invoke morals as an argument and then straight after you go for the "Fuck morals" point of view?

And invading Iraq stopped a UK civil war how?

I did not refer to morality. Can't see any reason why I would do in a political debate to be honest.

In any case, don't be a pedant. For those of you unable to make an intelligent inference; I'd rather Iraq be a shithole, than have thousands of Iraqi asylum seekers compromise my quality of life.

Ignoring the personal slight, Sweden can afford to accomodate Iraqi migrants. Not only is its welfare state larger, and more efficient, than that of the UK, but its population is lower.

Moreover, I feel no moral compulsion to aid the Iraqis, irrespective of the role played by a Labour prime minister in the war. He has never represented my views, did not represent the views of the UK when acceding to invasion in March 2003, and hence, I see no good reason for Britain to suffer for Blair's myopia.huh? What? Go back to logic 101 private school boy.

Two similar countries should be able to accomodate a similar proportion of refugees. Ergo, a larger population should be able to accomodate more refugees as an absolute figure.

And the accepting of refugees is not conditional on whether you supported the action that lead to their status. It would be like the police refusing to assist you because they don't support government policy.

If you saw a hit and run incident would you ignore the victim because you don't support people who 'hit and run'?

Seriously, where you come up with this stuff?

Fuck morals.

I think that about sums up your argument, and every other piece of drivel you've ever blurted out on this forum.

If one of Iraq and the Uk must be civil war wracked, terrorist suffused shit hole, rather them than me.

Ooh, a strawman constructed of false dichotomy. Your first statement showed your Stalinistic, bigoted and wannabe-sociopathic political views, while this one shows your ineptitude at debate. Good work!

Poor Chris.

I did not refer to morality. Can't see any reason why I would do in a political debate to be honest.

In any case, don't be a pedant. For those of you unable to make an intelligent inference; I'd rather Iraq be a shithole, than have thousands of Iraqi asylum seekers compromise my quality of life.

Do you, by any chance, vote BNP?

Sweden should be rewarded. I hearby present these to Sweden.

http://www.clipartheaven.com/clipart/sports/cartoons_(d_-_q)/medals.gif

I did not refer to morality. Can't see any reason why I would do in a political debate to be honest.

In any case, don't be a pedant. For those of you unable to make an intelligent inference; I'd rather Iraq be a shithole, than have thousands of Iraqi asylum seekers compromise my quality of life.
Yes, because a couple thousand Iraqi immigrants is going to make a huge difference to your quality of life in a country with a population of sixty million.

Do you, by any chance, vote BNP?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12227929&postcount=17

Which was followed up by...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12227955&postcount=20

And does Sweden have a problem with illegal immigration as it is? Sweden is a developed country surrounded by other developed countries.

We are a developed country with a mass of not so developed country directly to the south of us, and they come by the wagonload into our country with or without our permission.. The last thing we need is more.

And does Sweden have a problem with illegal immigration as it is? Sweden is a developed country surrounded by other developed countries.

We are a developed country with a mass of not so developed country directly to the south of us, and they come by the wagonload into our country with or without our permission.. The last thing we need is more.

The UK is a developed country surrounded by developed countries and plenty of people would say we have an immigration problem

The UK is a developed country surrounded by developed countries and plenty of people would say we have an immigration problem

I suppose. And don't get me wrong, I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the Iraqis. It just seems to me that there's just got to be some better solution than further increasing our own internal problems.

I'm not entirely sure about the rest of the UK, but my area is full of asylum seekers. I'm not particularly bothered that they're here, nor do I hate them. However, as much as I am for a mix of cultures, our local Asda does sound more like Heathrow airport than an English supermarket. My area is, don't shoot me if I am wrong, verging on over-population. We have accepted many immigrants in the past, both asylum and the 'normal' kinds.

I can also see what Chris means. The version where his words haven't been stretched a mile long. Anybody would take the 'rather them than us' approach. It's human nature. To deny that, you'd have to be really determined, or plain stupid. It does sound rather insulting, but let's face it, everybody thinks it. If you'd prefer to be in a war-torn country, regardless of who started it, I'm sure that there are many homes available, I hear that the locals have moved to Sweden.

Yes, because a couple thousand Iraqi immigrants is going to make a huge difference to your quality of life in a country with a population of sixty million.

Excluding the fact that it would more likely be a couple of hundred thousand, you'd be surprised. We've already been rated as one of the countries with the lowest morale. What with knock-on effects and so forth, we can't afford to lose more.

The UK is a developed country surrounded by developed countries and plenty of people would say we have an immigration problem
There are a few differences. Sweden has a much lower population density than the UK, 20/km^2 to 243/km^2. I know that not all of Sweden is habitable, but that is a major difference.

Excluding the fact that it would more likely be a couple of hundred thousand, you'd be surprised. We've already been rated as one of the countries with the lowest morale. What with knock-on effects and so forth, we can't afford to lose more.
What on earth does immigration have to do with morale? Admittedly, a bigot like Chris might feel unhappy with anyone of non Anglo-Saxon stock in his country, but I doubt - as was claimed in to post I was addressing - a few thousand immigrants would hamper the UK's quality of life. If it does effect morale, then it's our problem, not theirs.

Fass, you meet an Iraqi exiles?

Yes, several have been "shuffled" through the hospitals I've been stationed at as part of the asylum process. The things I've heard first hand from them of the atrocities committed by the insurgents and the USA/"Coalition of the Willing" military, they could make your sleep quite uneasy... and people on these boards have the gall to then attack me for not buying their crap about how the USA military is so honourable - go figure! Due to privilege, though, I cannot share the stories, but similar ones are available on many places on-line to be found by those interested, or sadly ignored by those who wish to turn a blind eye and pretend they have something to be proud of.

I don't know how to feel about this immigration authority decision, though - I have supported a generous asylum policy and generally think that we should do what we can to help people, but I am torn in the sense that yet again other countries have to deal with the USA's numerous clusterfucks, as usual, and am starting to think that our obligation is quickly approaching sufficiency. Then again, it is wrong to hold the shortcomings of the USA and her minions against the Iraqi people, so I would hope against hope that something can be done to alleviate their tremendous and unimaginable suffering.

I too have met Iraqi exiles. I live in one of the poorer districts in my town, and we have a lot of immigrants here. Mostly Africans, but a lot from the middle east as well. The only one I've really talked to, however, fled already during the Iraq-Iran war. He was very pro America, actually. He was always talking about how he wanted the US to get Saddam. And crush Iran while they were at it. And about how much he loved "bonking" with his wife. Fun guy, that.

It does seem like Sweden takes in an awful lot of immigrants, but it could just be that they all end up in relatively few places. I don't mind as long as they work, but that goes for people born here as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12227929&postcount=17

Which was followed up by...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12227955&postcount=20

I was just joking.

*Runs to get some wheat for the Iraqis*

So the recent surge of sectarian violence is entirely the fault of America? Sorry, that's not right. The problems facing Iraq now are problems that had been festering for years under the surface of Hussein's tyrannical regime. You can blame shitty policy for allowing the underlying problems to resurface in a wave of carbombs and threats of civil war, but you can't blame America for those underlying problems and also try to punish America by demanding it import Iraq's population. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The Daily Mail has the credibility of Tony Snow and Fox News. And I figure you're right.

Considering Tony Snow used to work for Faux News, that's redundant.

So the recent surge of sectarian violence is entirely the fault of America? Sorry, that's not right. The problems facing Iraq now are problems that had been festering for years under the surface of Hussein's tyrannical regime. You can blame shitty policy for allowing the underlying problems to resurface in a wave of carbombs and threats of civil war, but you can't blame America for those underlying problems and also try to punish America by demanding it import Iraq's population. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Very well, but the ones that freed it were the US, not to mention that the US put Saddam there to begin with. Think of it this way: A bad cut is bandaged. A moron opens it up before it's healed, causing it to get infected. The moron may or not have opened the cut, but it still caused the infection on a cut the moron KNEW was there. Would it have the same effect on healthy skin? No, but the moron knew there was a cut there, not healthy skin. Thus, yes, the moron's fault. And the moron has to either fix it or make reparations. Same thing.

Very well, but the ones that freed it were the US, not to mention that the US put Saddam there to begin with. Think of it this way: A bad cut is bandaged. A moron opens it up before it's healed, causing it to get infected. The moron may or not have opened the cut, but it still caused the infection on a cut the moron KNEW was there. Would it have the same effect on healthy skin? No, but the moron knew there was a cut there, not healthy skin. Thus, yes, the moron's fault. And the moron has to either fix it or make reparations. Same thing.

No, Saddam being a political genius put him in power, the circumstances surrounding his rise not withstanding.

Your analogy is also flawed: you assume that Iraq, like a bad cut, would naturally get better over time. That's wrong, utterly, utterly wrong. Not to mention that apparently the one who was cut is a bigger moron for not getting another bandage and/or going to the doctor.

The fact remains that those problems would have risen to the surface eventually in a civil war with either a domestic or foreign impetus because there was no mechanism that would have healed tensions otherwise. With all that being the case, importing all of Iraq's people (thereby further damaging the economy of both nations, violating immigration quotas, ect.) does not solve the problem, it's just a way for angry people to get back at the United States because they don't agree with every aspect of its foreign policy.

Also, thank you for ignoring the deaths of thousands of troops, both American and Iraqi, that have been trying to fix things in Iraq since the toppling of Hussein. It makes everyone who has lost a loved one feel really good.

No, Saddam being a political genius put him in power, the circumstances surrounding his rise not withstanding.

Your analogy is also flawed: you assume that Iraq, like a bad cut, would naturally get better over time. That's wrong, utterly, utterly wrong. Not to mention that apparently the one who was cut is a bigger moron for not getting another bandage and/or going to the doctor.

The fact remains that those problems would have risen to the surface eventually in a civil war with either a domestic or foreign impetus because there was no mechanism that would have healed tensions otherwise. With all that being the case, importing all of Iraq's people (thereby further damaging the economy of both nations, violating immigration quotas, ect.) does not solve the problem, it's just a way for angry people to get back at the United States because they don't agree with every aspect of its foreign policy.

Also, thank you for ignoring the deaths of thousands of troops, both American and Iraqi, that have been trying to fix things in Iraq since the toppling of Hussein. It makes everyone who has lost a loved one feel really good.

The soldiers chose to be there killing. The civilians didn't choose to be there dying.

The soldiers chose to be there killing. The civilians didn't choose to be there dying.

Course they did. There was a great big box on the recruitment form that said "I WANT TO GO TO IRAQ AND DIE TRYING TO PROTECT MY COUNTRY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME STABILIZING ANOTHER!" I totally forgot about that.

Also failing to take into account the tensions are caused by two CIVILIAN groups in a single country is a rather big mistake I'd think.

Course they did. There was a great big box on the recruitment form that said "I WANT TO GO TO IRAQ AND DIE TRYING TO PROTECT MY COUNTRY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME STABILIZING ANOTHER!" I totally forgot about that.

And, pray tell, what exactly were they protecting their country against? Also, was the country not stable before the soldiers went strolling there?

And, pray tell, what exactly were they protecting their country against? Also, was the country not stable before the soldiers went strolling there?

Against the enemies of the state.

No, it wasn't. We've been over this. Iraq being quiet under Saddam does nothing but underscore how horridly unstable things were given the methods he was forced to use.

Against the enemies of the state.

No, it wasn't. We've been over this. Iraq being quiet under Saddam does nothing but underscore how horridly unstable things were given the methods he was forced to use.

I think you need to be more specific than that

Against the enemies of the state.

Not only there weren't any in Iraq, you also just showed your true colors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

I think you need to be more specific than that

Oh, it's quite worse than that. Do check the link.

Oh, it's quite worse than that. Do check the link.

Poor choice of phrase indeed I agree

Not only there weren't any in Iraq, you also just showed your true colors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

No, that's called realizing what the army is for.

Are armies deployed because the leaders want to have happy-happy fun time in a country far away from home? No. Armies are deployed to protect the interest of the state.

How is this relevant to the thread at hand again? I seem to remember you being wrong on several issues (Saddam's rise to power, false analogies, ect), and also espousing punishing the United States because you blame them for issues that have been plaguing Iraq since its formation.

I think you need to be more specific than that

No, I don't. Iraq was perceived to be an enemy of the state (it was, though totally unable to actually _do_ anything), and the army was deployed. That's what the army is there for.

Poor choice of phrase indeed I agree

Word choices usually reflect thoughts.

No, that's called realizing what the army is for.

Are armies deployed because the leaders want to have happy-happy fun time in a country far away from home? No. Armies are deployed to protect the interest of the state.

How is this relevant to the thread at hand again? I seem to remember you being wrong on several issues (Saddam's rise to power, false analogies, ect), and also espousing punishing the United States because you blame them for issues that have been plaguing Iraq since its formation.

So it's not to protect you from the enemy of the state but to protect your interests?

No, I don't. Iraq was perceived to be an enemy of the state (it was, though totally unable to actually _do_ anything), and the army was deployed. That's what the army is there for.

It wasn't able to actually do anything? Then what about all those WMDs?

It wasn't able to actually do anything? Then what about all those WMDs?

Red herring. The debate is NOT about what got us into Iraq but why America ought to be a refuge for every Iraqi who hates their shithole of a country which is being made worse by tensions between two religious groups.

No, that's called realizing what the army is for.

Are armies deployed because the leaders want to have happy-happy fun time in a country far away from home? No. Armies are deployed to protect the interest of the state.

How is this relevant to the thread at hand again? I seem to remember you being wrong on several issues (Saddam's rise to power, false analogies, ect), and also espousing punishing the United States because you blame them for issues that have been plaguing Iraq since its formation.

Indeed, you only seem. Because, for me to be wrong against you, I'd have to stoop pretty low. Because Bush sr. himself knew that toppling Saddam would open the can of worms that was - indeed - opened. Also, was not Saddam supported by the US? Or was it Rummy's evil twin shaking his hands in that photo? Finally, what right do you have to protect interests on things that DON'T BELONG TO YOU?

So it's not to protect you from the enemy of the state but to protect your interests?

There is a problem with this, why?

Your interests are threatened, your country is tied to your interests, therefore your country is threatened.

It's not hard to grasp.

There is a problem with this, why?

Your interests are threatened, your country is tied to your interests, therefore your country is threatened.

It's not hard to grasp.

Because those "interests" don't BELONG to you. Unless you are perfectly fine with being mugged, I suggest you rethink that.

Red herring. The debate is NOT about what got us into Iraq but why America ought to be a refuge for every Iraqi who hates their shithole of a country which is being made worse by tensions between two religious groups.

Because these tensions were freed by the actions of the USA.

There is a problem with this, why?

Your interests are threatened, your country is tied to your interests, therefore your country is threatened.

It's not hard to grasp.

Ah but the problem I have is that it is not admitted. Just say you're there for monetary reasons rather than the whole "To spread Democracy and Freedom" crap (and by you I mean the US).

Red herring. The debate is NOT about what got us into Iraq but why America ought to be a refuge for every Iraqi who hates their shithole of a country which is being made worse by tensions between two religious groups.

Because those two religious groups were not a threat to eachother before the US began screwing with things. There is a potential for explosion with a stick of dynamite but until someone lights the match it isn't going to happen. The person who lights the match is to blame

Because those "interests" don't BELONG to you. Unless you are perfectly fine with being mugged, I suggest you rethink that.

And I suggest you get back to the debate at hand while also not building up a strawman made of fail.

This has to do with countries, not individual agents. Countries act in their interests, they always have and always do. That's why we went into Iraq, with that established how about you answer the question or do I accept your concession the next time you try to bait me with another red herring?

And I suggest you get back to the debate at hand while also not building up a strawman made of fail.


The debate is currently based around whether the US is responsible for the wave of refugees. It's very important to the debate

Because those two religious groups were not a threat to eachother before the US began screwing with things. There is a potential for explosion with a stick of dynamite but until someone lights the match it isn't going to happen. The person who lights the match is to blame

Wrong. They have always been a threat to one another, the only reason why it didn't explode prior to 2003 (at least, it did not persist as long) is because Saddam Hussein's reign of terror kept it in check. Do you suggest governments ought to oppress their people to keep them in control?

Ah but the problem I have is that it is not admitted. Just say you're there for monetary reasons rather than the whole "To spread Democracy and Freedom" crap (and by you I mean the US).

Supposition: America is in it for the money.

Proof: America has spent untold billions trying to stabilize a country while also failing to gain any profit from the oil sitting under Iraq's soil.

Oops, looks like the money angle isn't as concrete as you'd like it to be.

Wrong. They have always been a threat to one another, the only reason why it didn't explode prior to 2003 (at least, it did not persist as long) is because Saddam Hussein's reign of terror kept it in check. Do you suggest governments ought to oppress their people to keep them in control?

I'd prefer if people would refrain from using overly dramatic phrases. I wouldn't suggest that Saddam Hussein was in any way a good force but the US still has to accept responsibility for the wave of refugees. No matter what their reasons are for going in this is shouldn't be left at the doors of countries who had no influence on this whatsoever

Supposition: America is in it for the money.

Proof: America has spent untold billions trying to stabilize a country while also failing to gain any profit from the oil sitting under Iraq's soil.

Oops, looks like the money angle isn't as concrete as you'd like it to be.

So the US just went to spread Democracy and Freedom at no benefit?

And I suggest you get back to the debate at hand while also not building up a strawman made of fail.

This has to do with countries, not individual agents. Countries act in their interests, they always have and always do. That's why we went into Iraq, with that established how about you answer the question or do I accept your concession the next time you try to bait me with another red herring?

So you ARE fine with some other country mass-murdering your countrymen for THEIR interests then. Okay.

As for they being responsible, it WAS their choice to be there. That's what we are discussing.

The debate is currently based around whether the US is responsible for the wave of refugees. It's very important to the debate

No, it's not. It's a great way to derail things by discussing America's intelligence fiasco when they entered the country, it's not a great way to prove America ought to be a harbor for refugees because we just so happen to be there.

No, it's not. It's a great way to derail things by discussing America's intelligence fiasco when they entered the country, it's not a great way to prove America ought to be a harbor for refugees because we just so happen to be there.

It's not a coincidence that you are there at the exact same time as there is an increase in refugees

I'd prefer if people would refrain from using overly dramatic phrases. I wouldn't suggest that Saddam Hussein was in any way a good force but the US still has to accept responsibility for the wave of refugees. No matter what their reasons are for going in this is shouldn't be left at the doors of countries who had no influence on this whatsoever

I don't care for your preferences. It was what it was: a reign of bloody terror against his own people.

No, the US doesn't, at least not full responsibility. At the end of the day the US was the last straw, but it wasn't the only one.

No, it's not. It's a great way to derail things by discussing America's intelligence fiasco when they entered the country, it's not a great way to prove America ought to be a harbor for refugees because we just so happen to be there.

No, it's because you INVADED there and CREATED the situation that made the country unstable. It was a gunpowder barrel before, but the WAR was the spark.

It's not a coincidence that you are there at the exact same time as there is an increase in refugees

The coincidence being the underlying domestic tensions and our arrival. Does it need to be spelled out?

I don't care for your preferences. It was what it was: a reign of bloody terror against his own people.

No, the US doesn't, at least not full responsibility. At the end of the day the US was the last straw, but it wasn't the only one.

So there was an escalation of sectarian violence previous the invasion?

The coincidence being the underlying domestic tensions and our arrival. Does it need to be spelled out?

Insinuations of stupidity aren't the best way to argue your point.

Coincidence implies that you had no influence on the events

So you ARE fine with some other country mass-murdering your countrymen for THEIR interests then. Okay.

As for they being responsible, it WAS their choice to be there. That's what we are discussing.

No, I'm not. I'm fine with countries acting out of self-interest because hey, that's how the system works. Strawman denied.

Yes, we chose to go to Iraq, the reasoning not withstanding there we are. Does that mean we should accept wave after wave of refuges trying to escape problems that had always been there? No, it doesn't.

No, I'm not. I'm fine with countries acting out of self-interest because hey, that's how the system works. Strawman denied.

Yes, we chose to go to Iraq, the reasoning not withstanding there we are. Does that mean we should accept wave after wave of refuges trying to escape problems that had always been there? No, it doesn't.

Those problems were always there? Then why did refugees choose this time to leave?

No, I'm not. I'm fine with countries acting out of self-interest because hey, that's how the system works. Strawman denied.

Yes, we chose to go to Iraq, the reasoning not withstanding there we are. Does that mean we should accept wave after wave of refuges trying to escape problems that had always been there? No, it doesn't.

Well, so you DO mean you're fine with a country invading and pillaging your resources ACTING OUT OF SELF-INTEREST.

It DOES mean that you should accept wave after wave of refuges trying to escape problems that YOU CREATED.

Insinuations of stupidity aren't the best way to argue your point.

Coincidence implies that you had no influence on the events

Totally missing the point isn't the greatest way to debate either.

You saying that America created a country, populated it with two groups, one a clear majority over the other, and built in antagonists sentiments between the two? Holy shit America is the greatest country, and greatest magician EVER!

Totally missing the point isn't the greatest way to debate either.

You saying that America created a country, populated it with two groups, one a clear majority over the other, and built in antagonists sentiments between the two? Holy shit America is the greatest country, and greatest magician EVER!

No, we're saying that America saw a country in those conditions, KNEW it was in those conditions and destroyed the only thing preventing those conditions from reaching their logical conclusion.

It's 1 a.m so i'm off to bed. I'll pick up tomorrow if there is any need to. Have fun guys :)

No, we're saying that America saw a country in those conditions, KNEW it was in those conditions and destroyed the only thing preventing those conditions from reaching their logical conclusion.

So you're glad then that Saddam was oppressing his people?

That's what you're implying.

The supposition is that America ought to allow every refugee that wants to leave Iraq in, that it's not doing anything to stabilize a bad situation, and that somehow America is the cause for everything that's going on underneath the surface of Iraq.

None of it's true, not a damned bit of it.

So you're glad then that Saddam was oppressing his people?

That's what you're implying.

The supposition is that America ought to allow every refugee that wants to leave Iraq in, that it's not doing anything to stabilize a bad situation, and that somehow America is the cause for everything that's going on underneath the surface of Iraq.

None of it's true, not a damned bit of it.

I wasn't happy when Saddam was oppressing his people, and I'm not happy now that the US are. Nice strawman though, do you try to pull this crap with whoever disagrees with the bloodshed?

As for the cause for the tensions resurfacing violently due to destabilization, yes, yes the US are it. And I never said the US isn't trying (incompetently as it may) to re-stabilize the situation it destabilized.

However, the US broke it, the US should fix it. Including by allowing in the refugees its invasion created.

I wasn't happy when Saddam was oppressing his people, and I'm not happy now that the US are. Nice strawman though, do you try to pull this crap with whoever disagrees with the bloodshed?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12854734#post12854734

The US destroyed the one thing keeping the country together. You think this is bad, therefore you think that Saddam's methods of oppression were a good thing. That's your logic, not mine. Don't like it? Don't say it.

As for the cause for the tensions resurfacing violently due to destabilization, yes, yes the US are it. And I never said the US isn't trying (incompetently as it may) to re-stabilize the situation it destabilized.

No, the US is not. The tensions exist because of the cultural mechanics that operate in the middle east. They are tensions that predate the current situation by a long stretch of time. The US didn't create them.

However, the US broke it, the US should fix it. Including by allowing in the refugees its invasion created.

It was always broke. The US is trying to fix it regardless of that fact, but allowing anyone who wants to leave to come over here isn't a solution.

However under immigration rules there has to be a good reason for immigrating under asylum rules. Persecution by the home government and or religious persecution. Seeing how Iraq is a Muslim nation and has a freely elected government the two major reasons are moot. Therefore Asylum under those circumstances would not be permitted.
Seriously? You are joking aren't you?

There is no civil war going on over there? There is no religious persecution?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12854734#post12854734

The US destroyed the one thing keeping the country together. You think this is bad, therefore you think that Saddam's methods of oppression were a good thing. That's your logic, not mine. Don't like it? Don't say it.



No, the US is not. The tensions exist because of the cultural mechanics that operate in the middle east. They are tensions that predate the current situation by a long stretch of time. The US didn't create them.



It was always broke. The US is trying to fix it regardless of that fact, but allowing anyone who wants to leave to come over here isn't a solution.

Saddam was a horrible person, but I am HOPING to believe that you're intelligent enough to know the expression "lesser of two evils". By YOUR logic, Bush sr. would also be happy Saddam was there, since he didn't want to topple Saddam. I'm not arguing that the tensions didn't exist, I'm arguing that the US allowed it to explode by entering a war of choice. As for those forcibly displaced by YOUR war, you owe it to them to give them a place. So, either allow them in or pay other countries to do so.

Also, by your logic, since Saddam was a bad thing, a worldwide epidemic that killed everyone INCLUDING SADDAM would be a good thing.

You shouldn't take on much better opponents than yourself.

Seriously? You are joking aren't you?

There is no civil war going on over there? There is no religious persecution?

When I said that I am speaking in context of what the US government determines as political and religous persecution. Not what I personally believe. I do believe there is a low grade civil problem with religious persecution going on between Shiites and the Sunnis.

Saddam was a horrible person, but I am HOPING to believe that you're intelligent enough to know the expression "lesser of two evils". By YOUR logic, Bush sr. would also be happy Saddam was there, since he didn't want to topple Saddam. I'm not arguing that the tensions didn't exist, I'm arguing that the US allowed it to explode by entering a war of choice. As for those forcibly displaced by YOUR war, you owe it to them to give them a place. So, either allow them in or pay other countries to do so.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, and arguing that Saddam was LESS evil is absurd. Torture, murder, extortion, mass oppression: how is that any less evil than a civil war pray tell?

No, that's not my logic at all. That's you being frustrated because you don't have a left to stand on here. Bush Sr. left Saddam in power for a myriad of reasons: That didn't mean he thought Saddam being in power was good, that I agree with Bush Sr., or that your analogy in any way makes sense.

The US did allow it to explode, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened anyway, or that the US knew this calamity would befall them or that they're not trying to stop it.

That's just dumb. Horribly, horribly dumb. People are leaving now because they have a choice to, that doesn't mean America has to harbor them because you disagree with our foreign policy. (I also like how you ignore what mass migration out of a country can do to both the country of origin and the destination, good job there).

Also, by your logic, since Saddam was a bad thing, a worldwide epidemic that killed everyone INCLUDING SADDAM would be a good thing.

...

The strawman is so obvious I'm surprised you're not blushing in embarrassment. Your analogy makes no sense, in no way is that my logic, that's you making an absurd statement again, and that's the best response to it that you'll get out of me.

You shouldn't take on much better opponents than yourself.

I haven't yet, it seems.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, and arguing that Saddam was LESS evil is absurd. Torture, murder, extortion, mass oppression: how is that any less evil than a civil war pray tell?

No, that's not my logic at all. That's you being frustrated because you don't have a left to stand on here. Bush Sr. left Saddam in power for a myriad of reasons: That didn't mean he thought Saddam being in power was good, that I agree with Bush Sr., or that your analogy in any way makes sense.

The US did allow it to explode, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened anyway, or that the US knew this calamity would befall them or that they're not trying to stop it.

That's just dumb. Horribly, horribly dumb. People are leaving now because they have a choice to, that doesn't mean America has to harbor them because you disagree with our foreign policy. (I also like how you ignore what mass migration out of a country can do to both the country of origin and the destination, good job there).



...

The strawman is so obvious I'm surprised you're not blushing in embarrassment. Your analogy makes no sense, in no way is that my logic, that's you making an absurd statement again, and that's the best response to it that you'll get out of me.



I haven't yet, it seems.

I was against the invasion for many of the same reasons Bush sr. was. So you'll either accuse us BOTH of seeing Saddam as "good" or you'll accuse neither. As for the destination, you broke it, you FIX IT. And yes, that WAS your logic: You claimed I supported Saddam because I dislike the way the US went about this whole fuck-up. I didn't, I just can't help but notice that the monthly death toll right now is about 2 to 3 times the one when Saddam was in power. Abu Ghraib, until recently, was functioning JUST LIKE it was in Saddam's era. Run by US soldiers. Since you don't believe in the least of two evils, you surely must think that the world being destroyed would be a good thing, seeing as it would rid the world of evil. Just like toppling Saddam was a good thing, since it got Iraq rid of a tyrant, never mind that it's now a war-ravaged wasteland and has destabilized the entire region.

And yes, you have. The fact that you can't even analyze an argument without accusing an opponent of supporting a dictator shows it.

I was against the invasion for many of the same reasons Bush sr. was. So you'll either accuse us BOTH of seeing Saddam as "good" or you'll accuse neither.

Really? What were the reasons for not going into Iraq? You've been wrong about most things pertaining to this debate so I'm curious as to what you're referring to. I will also accuse you of seeing Saddam as good because that's what you said. Sorry but I've not seen a record of Bush Sr. saying the same thing.

As for the destination, you broke it, you FIX IT. And yes, that WAS your logic: You claimed I supported Saddam because I dislike the way the US went about this whole fuck-up. I didn't, I just can't help but notice that the monthly death toll right now is about 2 to 3 times the one when Saddam was in power. Abu Ghraib, until recently, was functioning JUST LIKE it was in Saddam's era. Run by US soldiers.

No, no it wasn't. That's called building a strawman at best, but in your case it's probably called being a downright dishonest liar. You said you supported Saddam because the only thing keeping Iraq stable was Saddam, America took him out, you think that's bad. You said it, deal with it.

Abu Ghraib was being run ineptly as a prison, not as a torture facility. Saddam's run of AG was far worse than what transpired with the American Marines, the death toll in Iraq was just as bad if not worse (where numbers are even known at all) under his regime; or did you forget about the chemical weapons he used against his own people, summary executions and etcetera? Sorry, the US isn't engaging in those activities.

Since you don't believe in the least of two evils, you surely must think that the world being destroyed would be a good thing, seeing as it would rid the world of evil. Just like toppling Saddam was a good thing, since it got Iraq rid of a tyrant, never mind that it's now a war-ravaged wasteland and has destabilized the entire region.

No, I don't, because your entire analogy is one of the dumbest things to have ever been read by my eyes.

Lesser of two evils: acceptable in pragmatic situations and perhaps in certain ethical problems, but it is not a blank moral check. Your entire use of the concept was also flawed and absurd, hence my pointing it out.

It hasn't destabilized an entire region that was already unstable. It showed the world how unstable Iraq was underneath, nothing more nothing less.

And yes, you have. The fact that you can't even analyze an argument without accusing an opponent of supporting a dictator shows it.

No, it means I'm debating someone who either hits Jack Daniels before typing up a post, or someone without the faintest grasp of history, logic, and politics. I'm going to bank on the later for right now.

Isn't it also amazing that in Sweden they'll get free medical care, child care for their children, welfare to help them get onto their feet etc, in the US they'd get zipo, you'd think the least they should get is asylum and good care from the nation that has screwed their nation to hell.

Isn't it also amazing that in Sweden they'll get free medical care, child care for their children, welfare to help them get onto their feet etc, in the US they'd get zipo, you'd think the least they should get is asylum and good care from the nation that has screwed their nation to hell.

People can get "welfare" here in the states. I know in my area you can get subsidized housing, food stamps and basic medical from the state. This is of course is if you are poor. It is simply a myth that you can't get help from the government.

Abu Ghraib was being run ineptly as a prison, not as a torture facility. Saddam's run of AG was far worse than what transpired with the American Marines, the death toll in Iraq was just as bad if not worse (where numbers are even known at all) under his regime; or did you forget about the chemical weapons he used against his own people, summary executions and etcetera? Sorry, the US isn't engaging in those activities.


Fascinating View on Abu Ghraib there. A shame that the General who investigated it said that it was "systematic" when he reported to congress, and says a great deal more here.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

Theres also the problem of detailed discussions about how to torture without being legally prevented from doing so, or arrested for its pratice, outlined here with named officials, quotes etc.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html

As for "executions", dissappearnces...it would seem thats all been subcontracted out, if the story of this man is anything to go by.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6535359.stm

And then theres the whole "black site" business.

The UK got involved in the war nonetheless. It's not a problem to you, Chris, because you ENJOY seeing them die for being brown. Sweden has been showing way more honor than the UK has.

Research on the internet some of the issues Sweden has been having because of their honorable allowing in people who do not have the same view of their culture. Search "sweden arab immigrants blonde" and read. Moslem arabs have a fundamentally different of world. It is imcompatible with typical western views of democracy and government.

People can get "welfare" here in the states. I know in my area you can get subsidized housing, food stamps and basic medical from the state. This is of course is if you are poor. It is simply a myth that you can't get help from the government.

As a degreed Canadian Immigrant to the US, I was required to get an American sponsor that would take financial responsibility for me in the event I couldn't find work or got hurt or whatever. I don't know what I could have done to get welfare during my probationary period. I assume now that I've been a permanent resident for 15 years I should be ok with getting welfare, but I'm not about to test it.

No, I don't. Iraq was perceived to be an enemy of the state (it was, though totally unable to actually _do_ anything), and the army was deployed. That's what the army is there for.


If Iraq was perceived to be "an enemy of the (US) state", then why did the British say "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." in a Prime Ministerial briefing in July 2002?

And then this .....
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Research on the internet some of the issues Sweden has been having because of their honorable allowing in people who do not have the same view of their culture. Search "sweden arab immigrants blonde" and read. Moslem arabs have a fundamentally different of world. It is imcompatible with typical western views of democracy and government.

Not all Muslims. Like I said before in this thread, before it turned into complete shit, I've met Muslims and they all seemed to be OK people, and one of them was very pro-west. I don't think he mentioned religion to me even once.

That said, we do have problems, but I think I have a pretty good idea of why that is. First, immigrants end up in certain areas, whether by choice or not, and these areas tend to be poorer. Secondly, it seems you can't even mention culture related problems without being dismissed as a racist, and it's very difficult to solve a problem you can't talk about.

We need to be very firm with immigrants that we do things certain ways here in Sweden. They, like everyone else, need to obey the law and work to support themselves. If they can't do that, they don't belong here.

So you're glad then that Saddam was oppressing his people?
Oppression is bit harsh term for Saddam's reign - And it wasn't an unilateral campaign: The Kurds were considered rebels (just ask Turkey), and the rivalling muslim factions certainly didn't want to hold peace without it being practically forced upon them.

You must also remember that Saddam's Iraq was among the most secular and liberal islamic nations of the region and he also kept Al Qaeda from gaining strength & supporters in the area. Status achieved by & through strength.

In comparison the casualty & refugee figures of 'liberated Iraq' are much, much higher, so which party - Coalition vs Saddam Hussein - is actually the worse of two evils?

All in all, I have a strong suspicion that the cultures & countries in the region aren't ready for democracy and individual freedoms as we idealize them...Infact the situation is somewhat comparable to the situation in Balkan Barrel a decade ago or Gaza strip of today: Too many ethnicities and agendas crammed to same lot fighting for same resources, land & upper hand in power struggle will lead to violence unless peace is kept through force.

Fuck morals. If one of Iraq and the Uk must be civil war wracked, terrorist suffused shit hole, rather them than me.

Yeah, refugees and asylum seekers have been involved in a lot of terrorist attacks.

Wait, no... that's wrong, isn't it?

We need to be very firm with immigrants that we do things certain ways here in Sweden. They, like everyone else, need to obey the law and work to support themselves. If they can't do that, they don't belong here.Better hope you fellow swedes don't see this, you're gonna get hanged for writing that! :p That's the feeling we get in Denmark atleast. whenever we hear about the trouble you guys have with your immigrants, your politicians just deny it and say that danes are racist. It has come to a point where I just consider Sweden a social experiment, since your culture is pretty similar to ours, the biggest difference being that you as a country is unable to talk about problems regarding immigration. Hope it doesn't blow up in your face though, even if we are bitter enemies!:p

Knew that there had to be atleast some swedes opposed to the total transformation of Sweden into the islamic state that it seems some politicians are trying to create. Now you just need to let your voices be heard.

As a degreed Canadian Immigrant to the US, I was required to get an American sponsor that would take financial responsibility for me in the event I couldn't find work or got hurt or whatever. I don't know what I could have done to get welfare during my probationary period. I assume now that I've been a permanent resident for 15 years I should be ok with getting welfare, but I'm not about to test it.

You did it the normal way. Yes you do have to have a financial sponsor. However when someone applies for asylum and gets it in the US the government is your financial sponsor. That is how it works here. The welfare system that I spoke of is for citizens and some of the programs are for permanent residents(the step before citizenship).

Bullshit flamebait snip.

Then kindly explain to me where is the absurd. What caused more damage, Saddam or the war? At what point in time there was a bigger civilian-killed-per-day ratio? And prove I said Saddam is good or you'll be further revealed as a liar that will slander people to win an argument. As for debating, kid, you are unable to make two posts without including ad hominem in one, unable to grasp the faintest concepts behind cause and consequence, and incompetent enough to contradict yourself every three posts, invoking morals and espousing an immoral view shortly afterwards. If you want me to narrate the mistakes you have made so far in this argument, I can, but you'll be begging me to stop before I'm halfway done!

Knew that there had to be atleast some swedes opposed to the total transformation of Sweden into the islamic state that it seems some politicians are trying to create. Now you just need to let your voices be heard.

From the dictionary:

Islamic State (noun): 1 - a state governed with Muslim law in mind;

2- (Conservative slang) : A state in which more than two brown people live.

Yeah, refugees and asylum seekers have been involved in a lot of terrorist attacks.

Wait, no... that's wrong, isn't it?

Yes. Yes it is.

Then kindly explain to me where is the absurd. What caused more damage, Saddam or the war? At what point in time there was a bigger civilian-killed-per-day ratio? And prove I said Saddam is good or you'll be further revealed as a liar that will slander people to win an argument. As for debating, kid, you are unable to make two posts without including ad hominem in one, unable to grasp the faintest concepts behind cause and consequence, and incompetent enough to contradict yourself every three posts, invoking morals and espousing an immoral view shortly afterwards. If you want me to narrate the mistakes you have made so far in this argument, I can, but you'll be begging me to stop before I'm halfway done!

Let's see: Saddam's war with Iran. Chemical agents used against his own people. War in Kuwait. Pan Arabism. Oppression of his own people. Torture. Continual violations of no-fly zone regulations. Saddam was worse, duh.

The current violence is known as an 'underlying' problem, ie: something that exists regardless of things as they happen on the surface. We've been over it already. You don't like it, you ignore it.

I already proved it, do you in actuality like him? I hope not, but that's what you implied, that's what you said, and that's where your logic leads us. It's not my problem if you say something like that and have an issue with my pointing it out. That's your problem for ever saying it in the first place.

I've yet to contradict myself pal, I've been on the same stint since I got here: Prove all your substantiations true (US is responsible for everything in Iraq, ect), and maybe you'll have a case. Till them, I'm fine continuing to sit at my desk pumping out replies that take all of two minutes without having to google anything because nothing you say makes a lick of sense.

If Iraq was perceived to be "an enemy of the (US) state", then why did the British say "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." in a Prime Ministerial briefing in July 2002?

And then this .....
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Because perception is a reality only in the subjective sense.

Because perception is a reality only in the subjective sense.

Spare me the crap. Theres no mention of a perception of a "threat to the State" a "clear threat to the US" or anyone else for that matter. Why?

In addition you've failed to address the points I raised in message 94.

Let's see: Saddam's war with Iran. Chemical agents used against his own people. War in Kuwait. Pan Arabism. Oppression of his own people. Torture. Continual violations of no-fly zone regulations. Saddam was worse, duh.

The current violence is known as an 'underlying' problem, ie: something that exists regardless of things as they happen on the surface. We've been over it already. You don't like it, you ignore it.

I already proved it, do you in actuality like him? I hope not, but that's what you implied, that's what you said, and that's where your logic leads us. It's not my problem if you say something like that and have an issue with my pointing it out. That's your problem for ever saying it in the first place.

I've yet to contradict myself pal, I've been on the same stint since I got here: Prove all your substantiations true (US is responsible for everything in Iraq, ect), and maybe you'll have a case. Till them, I'm fine continuing to sit at my desk pumping out replies that take all of two minutes without having to google anything because nothing you say makes a lick of sense.

Number of dead people under Saddam: About 3 times smaller than current number of dead people.

No, you didn't prove it. To prove it you'd have to pull out a quote of mine saying that Saddam was a good thing as opposed to "bad but beats the war-ravaged wasteland the US turned Iraq into".

You claimed to support morals and then supported immorality in the same thread. You have yet NOT to contradict yourself.

You're a bad joke.

Spare me the crap. Theres no mention of a perception of a "threat to the State" a "clear threat to the US" or anyone else for that matter. Why?

In addition you've failed to address the points I raised in message 94.

It was perceived to be a threat. Whether it was an ACTUAL threat was a different discussion altogether and not exactly the one Bush paid much attention to.

Because they're irrelevant and not worth my time. You want to compare AG under the US to Saddam, go ahead, but you better have a mountain of proof that can equate the two.

Let's see: (.....)a lick of sense.


Who dissolved the majority of Iraqs infrastructure...not only the Army, but the various state companies keeping the place running.....?

From my experience working and studying in Norrköping (City of some 110 000 people on the east coast of Sweden, 8 biggest city in the country or somesuch) going from door to door to inform people how to properly sort their trash: The immigrants are very polite, but they throw their trash everywhere! It's a complete mess. Master Gore will not be pleased... ;)
I can't really tell how many Iraqies lives here, we have always had a large immigrant population in this city as far as I can remember (From Chile, Iran, former Yugoslavia etc). True, there are some areas with a larger concentration of immigrants, but in general they are quite evenly spread out in the rest of the city.
There is alot of them, but that is hardly a bad thing considering most fast-food places and restaurants are run by them. We'd have such a dull food culture without them. One can live only so long on meatballs and falukorv :(

It was perceived to be a threat. Whether it was an ACTUAL threat was a different discussion altogether and not exactly the one Bush paid much attention to.


Why doesnt the document say that the US "perceived" Iraq to be a threat?
Why -given the fact that the Brits were the main US ally - do they not state it was an actual threat?


Because they're irrelevant and not worth my time. You want to compare AG under the US to Saddam, go ahead, but you better have a mountain of proof that can equate the two.

Well, we were starting with systematic torture of suspects, so I suggest you go back and get a reading.......

Number of dead people under Saddam: About 3 times smaller than current number of dead people.

Really? Do those casualty figures that you vaguely 'cite' (pull out your ass) include ever violent act Saddam ever committed? Did it recover ever document pertinent to such a study? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

No, you didn't prove it. To prove it you'd have to pull out a quote of mine saying that Saddam was a good thing as opposed to "bad but beats the war-ravaged wasteland the US turned Iraq into".

I didn't quote out of context. Those were your anger-filled words and they said something dumb. Your problem buddy.

You claimed to support morals and then supported immorality in the same thread. You have yet NOT to contradict yourself.

Hrm, really? Provide a quote or something and we'll see.

You're a bad joke.

Too bad you equate debating serious political issues with stand up comedy.

Why doesnt the document say that the US "perceived" Iraq to be a threat?
Why -given the fact that the Brits were the main US ally - do they not state it was an actual threat?

Why are you still here trying to debate this? Oh yes, because you want to imply that we went to Iraq to "GET US SUM A DA BLAK GOLD JIM!" or something else as dishonest without actually saying it. Too bad I'm not biting.



Well, we were starting with systematic torture of suspects, so I suggest you go back and get a reading.......

Nope, still irrelevant since you didn't offer any proof of the implication. You only repeated what I said from an entirely different angle.

Who dissolved the majority of Iraqs infrastructure...not only the Army, but the various state companies keeping the place running.....?

Nearly 30 years worth of warfare between various states.

Really? Do those casualty figures that you vaguely 'cite' (pull out your ass) include ever violent act Saddam ever committed? Did it recover ever document pertinent to such a study? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.



I didn't quote out of context. Those were your anger-filled words and they said something dumb. Your problem buddy.



Hrm, really? Provide a quote or something and we'll see.



Too bad you equate debating serious political issues with stand up comedy.

1- Unless you substantiate your claims that I said Saddam was GOOD, I have no obligation whatsoever to prove mine. What about providing ONE quote of mine in which I said Saddam was good?

2- I don't equate. Debating is usually not a joke. Debating with you is.

Why are you still here trying to debate this? Oh yes, because you want to imply that we went to Iraq to "GET US SUM A DA BLAK GOLD JIM!" or something else as dishonest without actually saying it. Too bad I'm not biting..

So despite your claim that the US attacked because of its perception of a threat, you're unable to explain why theres no mention of this in documentation leading up to the war, and why there seems to be no indication that Saddam could pose a genuine threat....

Why aren't you able to defend your own claims?




Nope, still irrelevant since you didn't offer any proof of the implication. You only repeated what I said from an entirely different angle.

Yabba, yabba. Go back and explain why the General investigating send that it was systematic and why various legal counsels and the vice-president spent so much time discussing ways to legally torture people.

1- Unless you substantiate your claims that I said Saddam was GOOD, I have no obligation whatsoever to prove mine. What about providing ONE quote of mine in which I said Saddam was good?

I did that already. It's not my fault if you forgot. And you are under such a burden because tu quoque is a fallacy bucko; my action or lack thereof is not an excuse for your own behavior unless you're a sheep.*

*Keeping in mind that I still reject your assertion that I've yet to prove anything.

2- I don't equate. Debating is usually not a joke. Debating with you is.

Indeed, whoever thought that logic could be this hilarious! Haha!

So despite your claim that the US attacked because of its perception of a threat, you're unable to explain why theres no mention of this in documentation leading up to the war, and why there seems to be no indication that Saddam could pose a genuine threat....

Why aren't you able to defend your own claims?

Because it was perceived to be a threat, regardless of the evidence against it. We've been over it, the entire world has been over it. Stop bringing it up as if the discovery of Bush's selective view of evidence is new, because it's not.



Yabba, yabba. Go back and explain why the General investigating send that it was systematic and why various legal counsels and the vice-president spent so much time discussing ways to legally torture people.

Because Marines are inept when it comes to running a prison, as I said in the post you felt like quoting oh so long ago.

Considering Tony Snow used to work for Faux News, that's redundant.

Now that's funny.

Nearly 30 years worth of warfare between various states.


Nope. "Governor" Bremmer and a good number of volunteers from the various right wing thing tanks...(largely because they couldn't get anyone else).

I did that already. It's not my fault if you forgot. And you are under such a burden because tu quoque is a fallacy bucko; my action or lack thereof is not an excuse for your own behavior unless you're a sheep.*

*Keeping in mind that I still reject your assertion that I've yet to prove anything.



Indeed, whoever thought that logic could be this hilarious! Haha!

1- No, you didn't prove. What you attempted to do was to claim I support Saddam when I clearly stated that the invasion caused more damage than he did (not that he was good) in order to cause a knee-jerk reaction of the audience. You failed even at that. Also, Iraq had an infrastructure in 2001.

2- You can reject whatever the hell you want to reject. Won't help you, but by all means reject.

Because it was perceived to be a threat, regardless of the evidence against it. We've been over it, the entire world has been over it. Stop bringing it up as if the discovery of Bush's selective view of evidence is new, because it's not. .

But the documentation does not state that the US viewed Iraq as a threat. Why?


Because Marines are inept when it comes to running a prison, as I said in the post you felt like quoting oh so long ago.

How is that related to the report detailing systematic abuse, and the other detailing the legal framework which was arranged by the Vice President of the US so that kind of thing could take place ?

Nope. "Governor" Bremmer and a good number of volunteers from the various right wing thing tanks...(largely because they couldn't get anyone else).

And, you fail. Iraq's infrastructure (that which was lucky enough not to get annihilated in all of Saddam's various wars) was lacking in quality, was in some cases never refurbished, and was oh yeah, destroyed in nearly thirty years of warfare between various states. Including the US which has spent billions trying to restore and rebuild the shattered country, with success in some areas and none in others.

And, you fail. Iraq's infrastructure (that which was lucky enough not to get annihilated in all of Saddam's various wars) was lacking in quality, was in some cases never refurbished, and was oh yeah, destroyed in nearly thirty years of warfare between various states. Including the US which has spent billions trying to restore and rebuild the shattered country, with success in some areas and none in others.

And the state companies who would normally repair these....? That semi-state/state infrastructure? What happened to them? "Governor" Bremme dissolved them. Only 2% of the related repair work was then awared to Iraqi firms, the rest to US multinationals.....and o what a job they've made of it.

But the documentation does not state that the US viewed Iraq as a threat. Why?


I don't know, and I don't really care. Unless you can find me a quote of Bush saying that "Iraq is not a threat to the united states." I will continue to not care about Bush's inability to be objective with evidence that disagrees with him.


How is that related to the report detailing systematic abuse, and the other detailing the legal framework which was arranged by the Vice President of the US so that kind of thing could take place ?

Because Marines being inept at being prison guards historically leads to abuse of prisoners.

Everything else is a red herring, I Was talking about AG, not Gitmo.

And the state companies who would normally repair these....? That semi-state/state infrastructure? What happened to them? "Governor" Bremme dissolved them. Only 2% of the related repair work was then awared to Iraqi firms, the rest to US multinationals.....and o what a job they've made of it.

Those state companies that were wholly unable to do so you mean? Jesus what a crime against humanity.

What does any of this matter? Oh yes, it's another implication we went in for the green, because mentioning that America is rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure with private contractors is the only thing that lends to.

I don't know, and I don't really care.
.

So you can't explain why the closest US ally doesnt state at any stage that G Bush views Iraq as a threat to the US?



Because Marines being inept at being prison guards historically leads to abuse of prisoners.

Everything else is a red herring, I Was talking about AG, not Gitmo.

If you read the information I provided you see that it actually covers both.
Try reading it.

Those state companies that were wholly unable to do so you mean? Jesus what a crime against humanity.

What does any of this matter? Oh yes, it's another implication we went in for the green, because mentioning that America is rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure with private contractors is the only thing that lends to.

How could they be judged incapable if they were dissolved before the reconstruction began? And given the "work" of the US contractors, they haven't really proved they are capable.....

So you can't explain why the closest US ally doesnt state at any stage that G Bush views Iraq as a threat to the US?

I can: Bush didn't like evidence that disagreed with his ideas, or his staff disagreed. Or the CIA had evidence that contradicted British sources.

It's been explained. We all know Bush wasn't objective. I'll not beat this dead horse with you any long.


If you read the information I provided you see that it actually covers both.
Try reading it.

I did, I don't care. AG and Gitmo are not equatable and not what I was discussing.

Fail.

How could they be judged incapable if they were dissolved before the reconstruction began? And given the "work" of the US contractors, they haven't really proved they are capable.....

Because they neither had the means, man power, or intelligence to do so as evidenced by their incompetence during Saddam's regime.

The work of US contractors is being hindered by security problems, not because they are inept.

I can: Bush didn't like evidence that disagreed with his ideas, or his staff disagreed. Or the CIA had evidence that contradicted British sources.

It's been explained. We all know Bush wasn't objective. I'll not beat this dead horse with you any long..

But why doesn't the documentation say that Bush was (1) convinced it was a threat(2) perceiving it as a threat but they didn't think so or (3)that Iraq actually was a threat?



I did, I don't care. AG and Gitmo are not equatable and not what I was discussing.


You dismissed AG as an aberration, thus it is what we are discussing. Secondly, the various machinations of the VP, amongst other things, clearly show it to be linked and part of an overall approach.



Because they neither had the means, man power, or intelligence to do so as evidenced by their incompetence during Saddam's regime.

The country had none of the amount problems that were later witnessed post invasion, so that cleary isn't true. Do you have any statements linked to the dissolution to show that they were explicilty dissovled for reasons of incompetence?


The work of US contractors is being hindered by security problems, not because they are inept.

Its because they are not only inept, but corrupt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html

Now that's funny.

That so makes sense, his question time with the media so reminds me of Hannity and co.

From the dictionary:

Islamic State (noun): 1 - a state governed with Muslim law in mind;

2- (Conservative slang) : A state in which more than two brown people live.An islamic state is what it will end up as if the politician keep bending over to the radical muslims in Sweden. Sharia has already been used by swedish courts in a marriage dispute between a muslim man and his wife.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/islamic-law-used-by-secular-swedish.html

This is the essence of the Sweden that we see in Denmark, exemplified by Helle "Hamas" Klein, political editor of Sweden's largest newspaper Aftonbladet: "If the debate is going to be about whether there are problems with immigrants, we don't want it." That attitude is just horrible, and will see Sweden being a place akin to Isreal with religious and racial violence and terrorism. The religious and racial violence they already have, but it will get far worse in the years to come if they don't make a dramatic change soon.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman50506p3.htm

An islamic state is what it will end up as if the politician keep bending over to the radical muslims in Sweden. Sharia has already been used by swedish courts in a marriage dispute between a muslim man and his wife.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/islamic-law-used-by-secular-swedish.html

This is the essence of the Sweden that we see in Denmark, exemplified by Helle "Hamas" Klein, political editor of Sweden's largest newspaper Aftonbladet: "If the debate is going to be about whether there are problems with immigrants, we don't want it." That attitude is just horrible, and will see Sweden being a place akin to Isreal with religious and racial violence and terrorism. The religious and racial violence they already have, but it will get far worse in the years to come if they don't make a dramatic change soon.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman50506p3.htm
I give both sources a -5 on the credibility scale.