The Iraq War (1 Viewer)

[onebytwo]

Just quote a name muhammad and surely at least 5 of those suicide bombers must have that name. It is more important for me to memorise names of my classmates than those suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq.

it is important to know the full names of your enemy, considering you support a war with a completely fabricated pretext

 

[littlewing69]

"ALL TERROISTS ARE MUSLIMS, BUT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERROISTS"

IRA gunman: Allahu Akbar!

 

[banco55]

And NOT America.



The Civil War is between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. They HATE eachother, and have been fighting for alot longer than the American's have been in the country. Sunni's and Shi'ites were fighting in Lebanon before the 1982 Israeli invasion, the same shit has happened in Iraq.

A case could be made that the US has helped the Civil War occur, with all the secular and terrorist violence that has occured, but to say that are the single catalyst, is obsurd and naive.

Agreed the only thing that keeps the lid on the various arab groups from killing each other was the fact that Saddam was willing to kill anyone who got out of line. The same thing applies in Syria and Egypt.

The US's main failing was giving the Iraqis too much credit. The US officials would meet with the westernized Iraqi exiles and think these people are sane/reasonable, believe in democracy etc. They never seemed to realize that the westernised exiles they were talking to were very much the exception to the rule. Probably 2/3 of Iraqis are functionally illiterate, live in poverty, do what their imam/tribal leaders tell them and make borat look enlightened. The fact that half of them are married to their cousins probably hasn't helped much as far as the average IQ goes.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

it is important to know the full names of your enemy, considering you support a war with a completely fabricated pretext

And what is use of those full names? I support a war that liberate 19 million Iraqis from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. Machiavelli is the way to go!

 

[littlewing69]

The US's main failing was giving the Iraqis too much credit. The US officials would meet with the westernized Iraqi exiles and think these people are sane/reasonable, believe in democracy etc. They never seemed to realize that the westernised exiles they were talking to were very much the exception to the rule. Probably 2/3 of Iraqis are functionally illiterate, live in poverty, do what their imam/tribal leaders tell them and make borat look enlightened. The fact that half of them are married to their cousins probably hasn't helped much as far as the average IQ goes.

Cute. They're just too primitive to understand Bush's brilliant foreign policy.

 

[onebytwo]

Here is a video clip taken by US soldiers in Iraq. I think they are very kind that they gave water to the thirsty kid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

the iraqis had a stable flowing water supply prior to the war.....so much for liberation

i think it would be very kind if you rolled over and died

 

[onebytwo]

And what is use of those full names? I support a war that liberate 19 million Iraqis from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. Machiavelli is the way to go!

so that when the coalition forces try to capture/kill these terrorists, they can know who to cross off. do they even do that? or do they just shoot the shit out of everybody?
"im the most powerful person in the world, and im going to kill everyone, those people, what are their names?, doesnt matter, drop bombs and kill"

 

[banco55]

Cute. They're just too primitive to understand Bush's brilliant foreign policy.

They're too primitive full stop.

 

[littlewing69]

They're too primitive full stop.

Where do you get your talking points from? O'Reilly? Coulter?

This whole 'they're too backwards to help' line is quite a fad amongst the rednecks in the States. It's a nice out for the Right. Just pathetically shifting the blame from the obvious incompetence and downright stupidity of the architects of this war. Laughable really. They said the same thing during Vietnam.

 

[sam04u]

If it happen on such a large scale then why cant you give us any evidence. If the US was more worried about publicity fall out it can cover up Abu Gharib abuse as well, it chose not to, because US have transparent system unlike in most islamic countries. Congressional hearings and investigations also prove that it was an isolated incident happening at lower level of the military. Democrats are just as curious as you and everyone else to know what the military had done and they knew they could use it as ammunition against George Bush in the congressional elections. If you are so sure about it provide us evidence that those abuse like the one at Abu Gharib happened at other prisons.

It's hard to find an unbiased source for what is going on in Iraq and that's why many people are trying aduously to get various sources to make and informed decision. (such as Al-Jazeera)

Who should the evidence be given by? Reporters generally are denied access into Iraq and you would consider all the non-jewish/non-american sources to be biased. You also don't speak arabic so it would be useless. Anyone with UBI Television (formerly known as Tarbs) can acess Nile News and hear of many horrendous stories. Again as a devout Jew you would discredit this information and say; "Is that what they teach you in mosques" It's not your fault though, I guess you are unable to see the broader picture here. Here is a report from Amnest International, again their own sources are limited as the U.S DF will not insure or ensure their safety. (Is it because they don't want the world to know what injustices occur in Iraq? You decide for yourself.)

In this report, Amnesty International focuses on another part of the equation, specifically its concerns about human rights abuses for which the US-led MNF is directly responsible and those which are increasingly being committed by Iraqi security forces. The record of these forces, including US forces and their United Kingdom (UK) allies, is an unpalatable one. Despite the pre-war rhetoric and post-invasion justifications of US and UK political leaders, and their obligations under international law, from the outset the occupying forces attached insufficient weight to human rights considerations. This remains the position even if the violations by the MNF that are the subject of this report do not have the same graphic, shock quality as the images that emerged in April 2004 and February 2006 showing inmates being tortured and humiliated by US guards at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison and Iraqi youth being beaten by UK troops after they were apprehended during a riot. The same failure to ensure due process that prevailed then, however, and facilitated - perhaps even encouraged such abuses – is evidenced today by the continuing detentions without charge or trial of thousands of people in Iraq who are classified by the MNF as "security internees".

The MNF has established procedures which deprive detainees of human rights guaranteed in international human rights law and standards. In particular, the MNF denies detainees their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court. Some of the detainees have been held for over two years without any effective remedy or recourse; others have been released without explanation or apology or reparation after months in detention, victims of a system that is arbitrary and a recipe for abuse.

Many cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in facilities controlled by the Iraqi authorities have been reported since the handover of power in June 2004. Among other methods, victims have been subjected to electric shocks or have been beaten with plastic cables. The picture that is emerging is one in which the Iraqi authorities are systematically violating the rights of detainees in breach of guarantees contained both in Iraqi legislation and in international law and standards – including the right not to be tortured and to be promptly brought before a judge.

Amnesty International is concerned that neither the MNF nor Iraqi authorities have established sufficient safeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment. It is particularly worrying that, despite reports of torture or ill-treatment by US and UK forces and the Iraqi authorities, for thousands of detainees access to the outside world continues to be restricted or delayed. Under conditions where monitoring of detention facilities by independent bodies is restricted – not least, due to the perilous security situation – measures which impose further limitations on the contact detainees may have with legal counsel or relatives increase the risk that they will be subject to torture or other forms of abuse.

Amnesty International is calling on the Iraqi, US and UK authorities, who both operate detention facilities where persons detained by the MNF are held, to take urgent, concrete steps to ensure that the fundamental human rights of all detainees in Iraq are respected. In particular, these authorities must urgently put in place adequate safeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment. This includes ensuring that all allegations of such abuse are subject to prompt, thorough and independent investigation and that any military, security or other officials found to have used, ordered or authorized torture are brought to justice. It includes too ensuring that detainees are able effectively to challenge their detention before a court; the right to do so constitutes a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment, and is one of the non-derogable rights which states are bound to uphold in all circumstances, even in time of war or national emergency.(2) http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140012006

Because US is superpower and have the right to intervene in any country at its own pleasure, like it or not it is a convention held by stronger nations since immemorial, and 19+ million iraqis wanted US to invade their country and liberate them from Saddam Hussein.

NO, just because the US is a superpower that does not give them the right to invade another country and steal it's oil. There is protocol which is enforced by the United Nations and if a war is justified then one will happen. The War on Iraq is nothing more than a hoax to steal the Iraqi oil.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm
Plans to pay for the War with Iraqi Oil? Sounds suspicious to me. Either way, by taking out Sadaam Hussein, making contracts for American Oil companies and securing oil for the United States it's pretty obvious what they've done. (Secured oil for themselves in the future.) They would have know if there was any WMD and they should have left after they found out their wasn't. (But, they didn't and this shows their true intentions.)

You wanted them to rebuilt the country, you wanted them (US) to protect the iraqis, you wanted them to help rebuilt mosque, you wanted them to help recruit soldiers and built more reliable security force for iraqis and now you wanted them to leave as soon as they found out there was no WMD. There is NO coherence in your argument whatsoever. All you did is bitching here and there in random motion.

No, I wanted to them to fuck off out of Iraq and forget about their Oil. But, since they claimed that now they want to remove a dictator, which isn't in their Interest it shows that all they wanted was to steal the oil or secure it for their future. If they really wanted to build a democracy in Iraq then YES. They HAVE to rebuild what they've destroyed. Iraq doesn't need the U.S to do more than calm down the tensions, they have the worlds most valuable commodity to rebuild their country and they don't need the U.S help. If the U.S had fucked off sooner than later this civil war wouldn't have broken out. Their intentions are shown.

Another example of how you flip flop on your stand towards killings of innocent people. So it is perfectly fine for you to let Serbian troops muder tens of thousands of Albanina muslims in Kosovo because the UN will not let foreign intervention because of Russia's veto on any resolution against Serbia. Kosovo Albanian muslims lives are perhaps not so valuable for arabs muslims because they are not arab? No wonder albanian muslims despised other islamic countries in their indifference while genocide were committed against them. It was and is always USA theat came to the rescue of the needy, regardless of religion, race or colour.

No, you dipset. My stance towards the killing of innocents is unilateral. I do not justify the deaths of any civilians. Unless, they are not commiting crimes or need to be stopped to protect others. (That means, I would not justify that Genocide but again protocols need to be followed so that things such as ww2 and the holocaust never happen again.) However, if the U.N disagrees then the U.S intervention should not occur. Where was the U.S when Rwanda needed international help? Where were the U.S when the Lebanese needed help from the Israeli terrorists? It seems the U.S has very selective feelings about particular situations and only when it's in their interest or the interest of the Jews.

 

[banco55]

Where do you get your talking points from? O'Reilly? Coulter?

This whole 'they're too backwards to help' line is quite a fad amongst the rednecks in the States. It's a nice out for the Right. Just pathetically shifting the blame from the obvious incompetence and downright stupidity of the architects of this war. Laughable really. They said the same thing during Vietnam.

Not quite. I'm sorry you are suggesting that a country (I use the term loosely) that is still organized along tribal lines, has very low educational attainment and a serious problem with religion fundmentalists is an advanced country that's well suited for democracy? i don't think it's being racist to suggest that the culture of a country matters when determining what sort of political system you are going to end up with. It's no accident that the Arab countries are backward and undemocratic just like it's no accident that Australia, Canada, US and UK have enjoyed uninterrupted democracy for more than a century. I don't see the US army in cairo or syria and they are both backward shitholes ruled by dictators. What's their excuse?

 

[banco55]

Fair game. BUT.

Egypt is ruled by President Mubarek. A supporter of PEACE, especially between Israel and the leaders of the OPTS. NOT A DICTATOR

Syria is ruled by President Bashar al-Assad. While they are a less peace loving country, they are again, not under the control of dictators.

I don't think anyone seriously believes either leader was elected in remotely fair elections. They had elections in Iraq remember but Saddam used to win 95% of the vote. It's generally thought that the Muslim brotherhood would win fair elections if they were held in Egypt which is why the west seeks mubarak as the lesser of two evils.

 

[littlewing69]

Not quite. I'm sorry you are suggesting that a country (I use the term loosely) that is still organized along tribal lines, has very low educational attainment and a serious problem with religion fundmentalists is an advanced country that's well suited for democracy? i don't think it's being racist to suggest that the culture of a country matters when determining what sort of political system you are going to end up with. It's no accident that the Arab countries are backward and undemocratic just like it's no accident that Australia, Canada, US and UK have enjoyed uninterrupted democracy for more than a century. I don't see the US army in cairo or syria and they are both backward shitholes ruled by dictators. What's their excuse?

I agree entirely. The region is ill-suited for the liberal democracy we feel is the best form of government.

It's despicable, however, to blame the failure of the US invasion of Iraq on "backwardness", on the part of the Iraqis at least. It's not their prerogative to live up to our cultural values. We invaded the poor bastards, we wreaked havoc on their country, and we have failed to provide what we promised. In all likelihood, our venture will fail in entirety, and Iraq will descend into absolute chaos, if it has not already. To my mind, it is American backwardness, then, to blame, for thinking that democracy is some sort of commodity to be launched at all and sundry. McDemocracy.

That sort of Wilsonian naivete is the real cause of Iraq's present woes.

 

[banco55]

I agree entirely. The region is ill-suited for the liberal democracy we feel is the best form of government.

It's despicable, however, to blame the failure of the US invasion of Iraq on "backwardness", on the part of the Iraqis at least. It's not their prerogative to live up to our cultural values. We invaded the poor bastards, we wreaked havoc on their country, and we have failed to provide what we promised. In all likelihood, our venture will fail in entirety, and Iraq will descend into absolute chaos, if it has not already. To my mind, it is American backwardness, then, to blame, for thinking that democracy is some sort of commodity to be launched at all and sundry. McDemocracy.

That sort of Wilsonian naivete is the real cause of Iraq's present woes.

I agree the invasion was handled unbelievably incompetently but even a perfectly executed post war plan is highly unlikely to have been sucessful. But I also believe that it's infantalising to suggest that the Iraqis have no control over their own destiny. The sunnis didn't have to start killing shiites by the dozen etc. that was a concious decision on their part.

Still I guess when in the future when the arabs complain about how the west gives various kinds of support to the autocrats who rule the region we can in good conscience tell them: because you are a backward, barbarous people who warrant no better.

A character in syriana put it well: "[SIZE=-1]Do you want to know what we think of you 100 years ago you were living in tents cutting each others head off and thats exactly where you are going to be in another 100 years"[/SIZE]

 

[sam04u]

I agree the invasion was handled unbelievably incompetently but even a perfectly executed post war plan is highly unlikely to have been sucessful. But I also believe that it's infantalising to suggest that the Iraqis have no control over their own destiny. The sunnis didn't have to start killing shiites by the dozen etc. that was a concious decision on their part.

Still I guess when in the future when the arabs complain about how the west gives various kinds of support to the autocrats who rule the region we can in good conscience tell them: because you are a backward, barbarous people who warrant no better.

A character in syriana put it well: "[SIZE=-1]Do you want to know what we think of you 100 years ago you were living in tents cutting each others head off and thats exactly where you are going to be in another 100 years"[/SIZE]

Fuck you, who are you calling a barbarian? I can't believe you don't see the very genocide which occurs in your idolised U.S where over 18,000 are killed yearly. It's the people not the religion or the race. Quit being incompetent, it has nothing to do with the religion, they're conservative by choice. What makes you think what you have is so much better? It's not like that sort of stuff doesn't happen all over the world, just the other day a pedophile who had sex with a 13 year old was released on 9-months suspended sentence. Where do you Ask? Here in Australia. Also, a man who beat his 5-month old baby to death was sentenced in prison for 9-years, ofcourse that's not considering good behaviour, and parole which are options still open.

I can go on, and on and on. I also don't think public toilets would be shut down because of Homosexual swingers having sex in public. I admit the economy in the middle-east is pretty crap, but it's because they don't produce anything besides oil. It's also because of the lack of food. If it was in their control though, they could triple or double the cost of Oil and the world would either have to suffer or accept the high prices. But, when a country in the middle east decides to have any control over its commodity they get threatened by the United States.

I think Banco55 is Aryan Jew.

 

[banco55]

I sure as hell hope you never represent ANY Australian constituants in parliament.

I'm not the one who's delusional enough to think Mubarak and Assad aren't dictators. I suppose you think the leaders of the USSR were also democratically elected.

 

[banco55]

Your reading comprehension can't be very good. The wikipedia thing you quoted about Syria states quite emphatically that Syria is not a democracy.

The USSR's consitution had all sorts of stuff about elections, democracy etc. but they were as much a dead letter in the USSR as they are in egypt.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Reporters generally are denied access into Iraq and you would consider all the non-jewish/non-american sources to be biased.

Reporters are allowed to be embedded with US soldiers and allowed to film such as the filming of a US soldiers killing wounded terrorist inside a Mosque in fallujah and later broadcasted world wide. If they were restrictive like most islamic countries they will not let journalists travel with them. And one of the worlds most reliable news source BBC is in UK and AFP is based in France.

beaten by UK troops after they were apprehended during a riot.

beat the rioter to blue! and a single incident!

Many cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in facilities controlled by the Iraqi authorities have been reported since the handover of power in June 2004. Among other methods, victims have been subjected to electric shocks or have been beaten with plastic cables.

Facilities controlled by Iraqi authorities NOT US or UK! treatment of prisoners in Iran and Syria are equally worse and how about you cry about the plight of those?

War on Iraq is nothing more than a hoax to steal the Iraqi oil.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm
Plans to pay for the War with Iraqi Oil? Sounds suspicious to me. Either way, by taking out Sadaam Hussein, making contracts for American Oil companies and securing oil for the United States it's pretty obvious what they've done.

Still no proof, that article said US considered using the oil revenue to cover war cost, but hey theres no proof that US used oil revenue and Iraqi Oils are controlled by Iraqi Oil Ministry not by US troops.

No, I wanted to them to fuck off out of Iraq and forget about their Oil.have the worlds most valuable commodity to rebuild their country and they don't need the U.S help. If the U.S had fucked off sooner than later this civil war wouldn't have broken out.

yeah you wanted them out and in and out and in and out and in LOL, they don't need US help to rebuilt yet you want US to rebuilt Mosque to promotr peace , as if mosque represent unity or something. Now you said they dont need US help? Perhaps they still need US Army engineer corps architech skills to built a new mosque in Gothic Style to promote peace

My stance towards the killing of innocents is unilateral. I do not justify the deaths of any civilians. Unless, they are not commiting crimes or need to be stopped to protect others. (That means, I would not justify that Genocide but again protocols need to be followed so that things such as ww2 and the holocaust never happen again.) However, if the U.N disagrees then the U.S intervention should not occur. Where was the U.S when Rwanda needed international help? Where were the U.S when the Lebanese needed help from the Israeli terrorists?

Actually your stance towards killings of innocent is POLYlateral lol, for you, UN protocols are more important that the lives of tens of thousands of albanian muslims killed in Kosovo by serb or 3 million bangladeshi killed by Pakistanis. You would wait and watch them die in tens of thousands because the UN cannot agree on intervention. Those who really care the lives of millions of innocent people would set aside UN bureaucracy and intrigue and act on their own to save lives such as US led NATO did in Kosov and as India did in Bangladesh. In Rwanda, maybe they are following UN protocols and wait for UN clearance as you wished to please you because they knew you are going to complain that US intervene without UN authority. What do you want US to do in lebanon? To fight Hizbollah terrorists? Why would US care for the lives of terrorists and its supporters?

the iraqis had a stable flowing water supply prior to the war.....so much for liberation

Iraq was a tropical rain forest with abundant rainfall before the war too was nt it?

 

[onebytwo]

Still no proof, that article said US considered using the oil revenue to cover war cost, but hey theres no proof that US used oil revenue and Iraqi Oils are controlled by Iraqi Oil Ministry not by US troops.

No article is necessary to prove the war is for oil.
The neocons in the US have openly stated that they needed to secure oil reserves.
In the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) or the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" they clearly stated that the US should be "endevouring to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region" and "to prevent the emergence of a new rival". they also claim they needed to "secure access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"

 

[onebytwo]

You are assuming the war is for oil. It doesn't mean that it is.

im not assuming anything, wolfowitz and his neocon friends said so. i think we can confidently deduce that when they say they will "secure access to raw materials like persian gulf oil" then once they have gotten involved in the "persian gulf" it will be for oil