my perennial message to the war mongers of hippyland

so..

any more poison to be drained from this site?

 

so how come theres so much self righteous propoganda here?

 

tell me your view of the iraq war

 

well i dont actually, basically, when it comes right down to it, give a shit what happens in iraq just so long as i dont have to go there, and as long as there arent a load of hyped up, hypocritical, muslims chanting and trying to plant bombs in london. Why should I give a toss who gets killed so long as it aint me and my family? It aint my war, I gain absolutely nothing from it. Now the iran war is different, cuz you see - there I really dont give a toss if the west accidentally pressed some big red buttons and launched a few thousand megatons of crap at iran, because 1) it would make some good tv, 2) it would remind the world that we dont live in an ideal world, its all about survival, 3) I dont live there

 

yep , but not for too long

 

Are you serious sentient or just not wishing to get into anything here - as i have seen that you think this thread is not very good.

 

No - I'm pretty serious - I just want to start telling the truth - I mean really - how many people actually give that much of a toss whats happening in iraq and the middle east in general, beyond the fact that its just something else on the news and is a point of discussion for all you budding tacticians and antigov people? The average person really doesnt care what happens who gets killed so long as its not them. Just as long as its a news broadcast and not a life changing event for them they really only talk about the war and sympathise with anti war sentiments because they dont give a toss one way or the other so they may as well take the easy route out

 

I appreciate what you are saying - that is how i felt in 2003. I have started giving a toss because it effects me in many ways and informs other aspects of how i think about political partys and the wider world. To be honest i have just spent more time around people that have a opinion - so i have attempted to form my own.

I think most people give a toss about what is going on in the world [in general] even if it is not specific.

So i doubt i will be seeing many thought provoking opinions [possibly apart from this last post] on the events in Iraq or what others feel about it - from you - any time soon ?. That is a shame.

For me this is not so - i imagine it is not true for many here. Though many use it as justification to denounce actions taken by our troops etc etc . - again i can appreciate what you are saying.

Gee whiz you are a cynical person . Though again i see where you are coming from. It is the easier way out to be [anti war] - though i sometimes respect people that are that way inclined. The vast majority of people i imagine feel the way you have expresed yourself in your last post. I just think it is a little unfair for the majority of people here.

 

at somepoint commonsense takes over and all the lies told to you start looking as hollow as they are.

 

You make up your mind or alter your mind to how you percieve events - yes. It is imho a combination of prejudice and information gathered plus a willingness to change your views. That ultimately shapes your minds eye of events.
I have altered my perception of events twice so far. I willing to alter my perception again. Though it is unlikely as nothing new has been added [recently] to my understanding of events - to warrant it. Maybe i am being stuborn but maybe i have finaly made my peace with how i feel about this.

Guy - I think we have agreement that you are against all war - fair play.
Imho this colours your POV and you will never see events from my perspective.
As does how my morale compass - colour my POV of events.
I have no problem with you thinking whatever you like - i'll take onboard the glimmers of imho unbiased information you add to the conversation. You certainly add a touch of depth to these forums - when you are not insulting people *Giggle*.

Guy - I do appreciate that you do have to judge politicians by what they say and how you percieve them. I have had moments when i have been disulusioned by [what you would call the warmongers] have had to say - that is healthy imho.

 

war in defence only, is in my opinion acceptable.

protecting your life and liberty from an aggressor who is determined to damage you is acceptable. if you were walking down the street and were it would be unnatural to just stand there and allow yourself to be killed or seriously injured.

it is the twisting of what constitutes defence that worries me. an offensive defensive is questionable. wholesale bombing of civillians is not acceptable and most importantly not adhering to a rules of engagement leads you down a blind alley.

there are easier ways to defeat an enemy rather than causing widespread havoc and chaos. the events of the now in the middle east sends ripples into the future. from a moral perpsective most people given the facts understand that iraq is a lie.

afghanistan is a problem - as the leaders of the state at the time were involved with a direct attack on american soil, itself an act of war. what interests me is this were attacks made by america against afghanistan before 911 i suspect so.

from whats happened since the invasions it would be better to

1 establish a line of containment
2 pull out

 

Imho every other process was attempted but failed. 'Defence' was supposedly the rationale behind 'attacking' Iraq - i think we would be here for a very very long time debating if that is true or not - the fact is that IS what the rationale was - DEFENCE [when you boil it all down].

I can't be most people as i do not think it was a lie - just what the majority of people accepted to be the truth at the time - only the arrogant have 20-20 vision. That is obviously the crux of our opinions on the matter - i think we have all gone through that one enough.
.

Imho we went to war on acount of UN resolutions - nothing to do with a direct attack on anybodys soil [as such].

How can they 'establish a line of containment' ?

Imho
1.Iraqi goverment/troops gain the monopoly of violence
2. Our troops pull out

 

the taliban were hand in hand with osama, supporting terrorist activity as a state doesn't come without risk, something no doubt the americans and taliban have come to learn the hard way. it wasn't so long ago the americans supported a cuban chap plant a bomb on an airliner. the un gave no green light to america at any point, they just didn't say much when america invaded they still didn't say much when america invades other peoples countries, so much for the leader of the free world.

 

Yeah i appreciate once upon a time OBL worked ''hand in hand'' with the Americans. That was a long time ago - his ideology has altered over time - now he is ''our'' enemy. His world view for ''peace' no longer is the same as ''ours''. I think it was within this thread that i said - i think we are at war with ideologies. We do not support his current world view or what he is currently doing.

They did - they formulated the resolutions that got us to this point. They have written a ''new'' mandate for Iraq. They do say a lot when we ''invade'' other countries or to put it more accurately - follow through on UN resolutions. Follow through in certain countries once the goverment of that country allows us to do something.

 

i think the ideology of the un died a long time ago
nowadays it just does what america says - it makes some apologist mumblings
it says one thing and does another, this is why the un is being targeted by resistance groups.

 

sure, the U.N. is a puppet in yankee hands, who denies this is blind or in mala fide or both.

 

Well if we look at the UN objectively and unbiasdly maybe we could meet in the middle ground - i know i do not look at them in a unbiased way - that is for sure. I'm not to sure about you.

It does innumerable things that greatly benefit the world but i agree it sometimes speaks with a fork tongue. On the subject of the legality of the Iraq war - the secterary general was mumbling ''If you wish''. Neither a YES or NO [as far as the legality was concerned]. That was not bowing to anybody especialy the US. It was still the incorrect response from a person of his stature.

Behind the scenes http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html the whole issue was debated and debated. At the end of the day imho the end result was that Saddam did fail in his obligations. It does all boil down to that imho.

The UN is possibly being targeted because these groups are NOT resistance groups thay are extremists - even if i accept some groups target the UN with their furore and are not extremists it has more to do with them wishing for power themselves and not speaking for the wishes of the masses.

 

the people didn't want saddam but neither did they want an invader, the best thing the yanks could have done was get out quickly within weeks after repairing as much as they could. the looting wouldn't have happened if they had distributed as many goodies as possible. it would have been alot cheaper in the long run to have shipped in some new furniture/ appliances like tv's /satellite tv / electricity etc. with all this stuff people would have been too preoccupied to bother fighting each other.

not all is lost

for the americans to win iraq the best thing america could do is

establish a parameter, split each section of society from each other, which they are doing now

get as many western products into iraq as possible, furniture etc as i've mentioned before, cars, tv's etc and leave

personally i feel an end point has been reached with iraq. iraq to me has developed into a full blown ethnic cleansing operation by america and its allies. attacking iraq was illegal, afghanistan could have been handled more astutely.

america will continue to attack more islamic states.

 

Weeks ? - mmm they may have been able to fix a few pot holes in that time.

I should not laugh but that is funny - if only they had done that. Come on - you can not believe that ?. Yeah possibly some of the looters would have been happy - what about the insurgents who have a political bent - a new TV and all is sorted ?.. hahahaha . It would be nice if that was all it took.

Where are they doing this ? - are you talking about the barrier that is going up deviding Bagdhad ?. That is not a bad idea - but to encircle every community - not a wise move. In any case a lot of Iraq is stable - it is only certain provinces that need more help than others.

A more functioning economy - yeah that will help. Jobs etc. The only problem is those political / ideological insurgents do not give a toss about having a job or providing a job for their fellow Iraqi - if they wanted stability and a environment that peace could thrive - then they need to recognise that the coalition are their and they are attempting to help not hinder Iraqi progress. Unfortunatly some people will never believe that is the case - and buy into your way of thinking [ethnic cleansing etc etc].

Oh come on where do you get the idea of ''ethnic cleansing'' on OUR part that is ridiculous.

I can't buy into your notion America is attempting to do what you suggest - it is just ridiculous.

 

Why is the Prime Minister of Iraq against it then?

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=070422192322.wlyq3c7o.php