What's good for the American economy is good for the world's economy. Have we not learnt anything from the wall street crashes? :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Printable View
What's good for the American economy is good for the world's economy. Have we not learnt anything from the wall street crashes? :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
A fixed election to get bush into power and tens of thousands of people killed because Bush is an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Yeah, sounds like a great democratic moment :(
well, some people can see the good that came from this war: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...ml_video=84325
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263504,00.html
Iraqis: McCain Market Visit Simply 'Propaganda'
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
BAGHDAD — Iraqis in Baghdad said Tuesday that U.S. Sen. John McCain's account of a heavily guarded visit to a central market did not represent the current reality in the capital, with one calling it "propaganda."
Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances at the Shorja market that the Republican congressmen visited on Sunday, said the Republican congressional delegation greeted some fellow vendors with Arabic phrases but he was not impressed.
"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," he said. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."
Thamir said "about 150 U.S. soldiers and 20 humvees" accompanied the McCain delegation.
yeah, and mccain then said that it was all peaceful in iraq..... something like "the market is nice and safe"....
And had any one senator stood up and backed the Black Electoral Caucus (who disapproved to the results and its congressmen said so) than there would have been a forced recount. And yes, when you look at the actual votes tallied, Gore did win, and by a considerable margin - CNN says 80,000 votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
on a comedy show (daily show) there was an interview with gore but there were some parts that were edited out. the next day the host decided to show the parts that were edited and the one part he asked gore if 9/11 would have happened if he had been president. gore just sat there and stared at the host dead in the eyes and said nothing. it actually sent chills down my spine....
the same senators have no problem standing up and demanding democracy for other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrentJackson
What I've read is that it took al Qaeda 9 years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks. No president could have stopped them (well, maybe George Bush Sr. if he had changed the course of US foreign policy).Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenSchwinn
Indeed :up: So much for a democratic voting system :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by BrentJackson
i heard that if you wear your seatbelt, it makes it harder for aliens to steal you away in their ship!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The Sydney morning herald ran a good article last weekend on the hard life of an American in Iraq holed up in one of the former palaces in the green zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Makes for interesting reading.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/par...761751665.html
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/..._470x287,0.jpg
Yes, especially since Saddam was accused of living in a palace in luxury while the Iraqi people suffered.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
Even the dinner table conversations follow a similar protocol that was probably used under Saddam's rule when even the walls had ears:
"In conversation at their tables, they observed an unspoken protocol. It was always appropriate to praise "the mission": the Bush Administration's campaign to transform Iraq into a peaceful, modern, secular democracy where everyone, regardless of sect or ethnicity, would get along. Tirades about how Saddam had ruined the country and descriptions of how you were going to resuscitate it were also fine. But unless you knew someone really, really well, you didn't question American policy over a meal."
I know it's subtle, but I wonder when will the Americans take the hint and leave. It should be obvious that they have worn out their welcome:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264860,00.html
Demonstrators Mark 4th Anniversary of Baghdad's Fall
Monday, April 09, 2007
BAGHDAD — Tens of thousands marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall.
The rally was called for by powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government.
A day earlier, the renegade cleric issued a statement ordering his militiamen to redouble their battle to oust American forces and argued that Iraq's army and police should join him in defeating "your archenemy."
On Monday, demonstrators marched from Kufa to neighboring Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route.
Some at the rally waved small Iraqi flags; others hoisted up a giant flag 10 yards long. Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."
Of course they'd say that Eki. Muqtada Al-Sadr will be a big shot in Irag and will probably in the middle of one heckuva war.
I find it incredible when people talk of Blair and Bush in the same way they talk about Saddam. Do these people really think they are in the same league?!
I think a lot of people seem to forget how bad Saddam was. Without him incharge, and out of the picture, that alone means the war wasn't a complete waste of time money, and most importantly, lives.
To those people who think we should withdraw the troops, and yet go on about how we've wrecked the Iraqi's lives, should stop and think about things. Whether going to war was right and wrong, you have to take responsibility for your actions, and try and make it right. Walking away half way through a job, because it's getting tough, is not the responsible way to do things!
You can't go and invade a country, cause chaos, turn it upside down, and then just walk off!
You should think about that before you invade. What did they expect would happen? They were told there would be chaos and mayhem but they didn't believe or care.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I agree completely with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
However, two wrongs don't make a right.
Are you trying to say that because it was wrong to invade a country, you should just leave it in the chaos you caused? Or do you agree with me that you should stay and sort out the mess you created?
As I said previously, forget about whether it was right or wrong to go there in the first place - you can't change history. What do you do now? Stay and take responsibility for you actions, or run away and leave the country in a mess which you created?
I say you should do as the people of that country want you to do. Right now it seems that many, maybe even the majority, of both Sunni and Shiia Iraqis want the occupation forces out. I don't think the presence of the American military necessarily helps the situation, because they seem to be viewed as a common enemy to the Iraqi sects and a reminder of the humiliation the Iraqis went through when they lost the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I'm not sure if thats the case everywhere in Iraq. But as I say, I'm not sure! If you have any source, reliable and not biased preferably I'd be interested in reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I don't think governments or leaders should necessarily do what the majority of it's public want. As generally the public aren't as well informed of the consequences of such actions. My understanding is the iraqi politicians agree with the way the coalitian troops are going about things in terms of staying put until the infrastructure is set up.
I don't see how the loss of all the coalitian troops will help situations. It would mean there would be no one policing the country. Things are very bad at the moment, but it would be even worse without anyone policing the area. Some say that there are only bombs and fighting because they are attacking the americans, but basically when they leave they will be attacking the iraqi soldiers/police who have been working with the americans.
I guess our views differ in that I believe you should take responsibility and sort it out, rather than just walk away, which as you say is what you think they should do :)
I guess at the end of the day neither of us are in a position to state which way is better.
I couldn't agree more :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
George W has stated that American troops won't leave Iraq until it is established as a demorcratic country. Is that what the Iraqi people want? Has anybody actually asked them what they want, either before the war or now?
Perhaps a referendum is in order? It would also give the US/UK forces a decent excuse to get out.
Isn't that common sense though? It's like do you have to ask a child whether they want to eat or starve? Though maybe you would rather starve if you had to go through significant pain to have something to eat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
I think the way the iraqi celebrated when Saddam was toppled suggests they were happy Saddam was beaten. What the Iraqi's don't like is all the violence and fighting, which is dragging on.
I don't think Iraqi's oppose having democracy. Though it's debateble whether they would have wanted Saddam beaten to get to a democracy, if they knew they would have to go through all this fighting. But I don't think it's in question that they want to be a democractic country, but at this cost? That's a question I don't have the answer too. Have you heard otherwise? :)
I'll grant you the fact that the majority of Iraqi people celebrated when Saddam fell, but as I've explained before, he could have been 'taken out' by the SAS in 1991 and I have no doubt that the same could have been achieved this time around with the billions of dollars, thousands of troops and 10's of thousands of civilian and military casualties.
America, and the UK, seem to be hell-bent on making Iraq into a western country, with western ideals and a western style government buty has anyone actaully asked them if that is what they want? Maybe they do? Maybe the one thing they all dream of is to be just like those in the west? Then again maybe it's the last thing in the world they want?
As for pulling out when thwe job is only half done? How can we be sure to what degree the task is complete? Does anyone actually know what the task is in the first place? Is it to make Iraq a peaceful and democratic country? If it is then our troops will never leave, and all the time they are there there will be no peace.
If I remember correctly the original reason for the illegal attack on Iraq by coallition troops was to remove the threat os WMD's. Well we didn't find any so we decided to remove the bloke in charge, to stop him pressing the button, just in case he'd hidden them all under his bed. We've done that, and got rid of most of his family and sypathisers too, so I say job done. Now get our troops out of their country and let them do the rebuilding that they need to do.
I think this is a crucial point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was obvious for all to see, but a lot of people seemed to realise rather late in the day — more precisely, when they realised that getting rid of him would suit their current agenda. As someone who cares passionately about human rights, but also doesn't believe in unnecessary military intervention, I find the human rights justification for the conflict pretty sickening. Why weren't George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al pressing for Hussein to be removed from power when his regime was actually committing the human rights abuses that are always cited nowadays?
The conflict in 1991 was, in my view, justified because of the invasion of Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein had been killed or removed from power in the course of that war, I for one would have found it acceptable (I was young at the time, but can say that with the benefit of hindsight). It would also have prevented the human rights abuses on the part of his regime that followed. There is no doubt that more than one definite opportunity existed to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the 1991 campaign. The question must be asked as to why. Maybe the coalition at the time feared that it would lead to the sort of instability that we see in Iraq today, but the aftermath of the 1991 conflict was, in its own way, just as damaging and chaotic as a result of leaving him in power. Getting rid of him in 2003 cannot be justified merely on the basis that we should have done so in 1991 but failed to do so.
People always go on about American and Britain. Can we not forget the coalitian troops is made up of 60 different nations or something ridiculous! I think Iraqi's want to live in a democratic country, without a civil war going on. I think it's common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
John Boulton has said just recently that once there is the infrastructure in place for Iraqi soldiers/police to be able to police themselves, and govern themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start. That is when the task is done I'm guessing :)
It was only in this country where WoMD were talked about as the main cause for going to war. In America this wasn't a big deal. Bringing an end to Saddam, and ending the threat of a potential dictatorship who would happily use nuclear weapons to kill people in his nation was given the reasons for going to war over there.
As I've said, your attitude of - we've got rid of Saddam, so lets get out, is irresponsible. We've created chaos in Iraq, so now it's our responsible to sort it out. It's called taking responsibility for your actions I believe.
Blair and Bush have messed up by going to war in the first place, but they should now try and sort out the mess they've created
:)
That hardly matters when one considers how the push for war was led by the US and UK. They, the US in particular, are by far the 'dominant partners' in the whole venture.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
But how many nations contribute a significant number? I'm sure many of them are just have a dozen 'advisors' or diplomats. AFAIK only the USA and UK have troops on the ground in any numbers.
But there comes a point where the very presence of foreign troops is exactly what's creating the 'mess' in the first place. What if the only way to sort it out is to get out?Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
If thats the only way for the violence to stop - then I guess that's what needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
However I don't think the idea of leaving a country with no proper infrastructure is the way forward. I think the coalitian have a job to do in making sure the country is ready to cope with the potential violence, when it loses around (250,000?) troops who are currently trying to keep the peace and fight out the remainder of Saddams 'troops'. As more and more iraqi's are trained to police the country, they should slowly start taking over the coalitian soldiers duties.
Can you imagine the gap being left if all coalitian troops left. I really don't see how that would solve all the problems.
Regarding the fact the US and UK lead the war, my point that another 60 (is it 62?) nations backed the war, suggests a large number of prime ministers/presidents agreed with it, even if the general public tend to be against it (though they were for it before the war started).
It's not that simple. There are many different groups fighting each others and the coalition, not just remainder of Saddam supporters. There are various Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
It won't solve all the problems, it will stop any further loss of life between the coalition troops though. Put yourself in their place, how would you feel being attacked by those very people you came in to 'rescue'.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
The biggest problem top be solved cannot be solved until coalition troops pull out because they are the biggest problem to too many Iraqi's. I'm not saying that if we pulled our troops out by the end of this month that everything would suddenly return to normal in Iraq, far from it in fact, but keeping coalition troops there only adds to the problems Iraq faces in the future.
So far we've been there four years, how much longer should it take? At what point do we say 'OK, everything's alright now, lets bring our troops home'? How many more troops and civilians have to die?
I would suggest when George W. Bush feels Iraq is safe enough to go on his annual vacation there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Exactly, so who would be the guys trying to keep the order if all the coalitian troops pulled out at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
They would simply all fight each other, and the iraqi's soldiers (how many are there now? maybe 1/5 of the way there?) trained by the americans/british etc, would be trying to do the job which over a quarter of a million american soldiers couldn't do.
How exactly would that help? Apart from obviously cut the lives lost of Americans and coalitians. But it was them who caused this mess. Surely they should take responsibility.
But it was the coalitian troops (not them individually, but their 'leader') who caused the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
I wouldn't ever put myself in that situation because of what is happening. I wouldn't want to be trying to 'rescue' people who were trying to kill me at the same time, and didn't want me there.
As I stated earlier, John Boulton has stated that when the infrastructure is in place for the Iraqi's to govern and police themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start leaving.
And I know you say that it's the coalitian troops causing a lot of the fighting, because they are trying to get them out of Iraq, but then answer my question I've put to Eki. In the end it's a lose lose situation isn't it? So you got to pick the way which is best long term, which is making sure Iraq can cope with these criminal, gangs, terrorists etc without the coalitian, and then leaving. Rather than leaving tomorrow and letting the terrorists etc take control of Iraq, or have 4 different groups fighting each other for control - basically a civil war
The fighting between the various Iraqi factions won't suddenly stop when the coalition forces leave, the only thing that will stop is the loss of life within the coalition forces.
We could stay there another 20 years, train millions of Iraqi's to be police and army, but it won't stop the civil war from happening. The various factions are making it fairly clear now, with almost daily car bombs and attacks on their own countrymen, that there is serious conflict between there individual beliefs and wants.
All we are doing is wasting money and lives in a country that is making it very clear that it doesn't want us there. Yes we made the mess, and shouldn't have done so in the first place, but we've done all we should do, it's now time to leave.
That's fair enough. I see where your coming from completely.
I guess it's a difference of opinion, neither of us know which is the best way.
I'm not saying that training up millions of Iraqi's will mean there won't be any fighting. However I do think, considering it was us who caused the mess they are in, it is our responsibility to make sure they have some sort of infrastructure in place to try and cope with the continued violence, so they can have some hope of sorting it out, rather than leaving them with absolutely no hope of dealing with the problems ahead once the coalitian troops leave Iraq.
I don't think your way of pulling them out ASAP is taking responsibility for your (not you personally of course) actions. Even if it is the easy option, and most popular one, doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
Each to their own :)
There was an opinion poll among the Iraqis on what kind of democracy they want. The Saudi-Arabian kind of democracy was the most popular, the Iranian kind of democracy was second and the Western kind democracy was third.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Any thoughts on who would keep the order if the coalitian troops pulled out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Who would try and control the Saddam supporters, Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc...??
:) :)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
Red Cross: Iraq situation 'ever-worsening'
POSTED: 5:55 a.m. EDT, April 11, 2007
GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The situation for civilians in Iraq is "ever-worsening," even though security in some places has improved as a result of stepped-up efforts by U.S.-led multinational forces, the international Red Cross said Wednesday.
It is difficult to determine the numbers of people killed in shootings, bombings and military operations, but the overall picture of what is happening the country has been steadily deteriorating, with numbers of refugees swelling, medical staff fleeing and other problems growing, a key official said.
"It is clear that the security situation has improved in certain instances," especially in southern Iraq, said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC.
But the central region, including Baghdad, remains greatly affected, despite American efforts to secure the capital.
"Whatever operation that is today under way, and that may be taken tomorrow and in the weeks after, to improve the security of civilians on the ground may have an effect in the medium term," Kraehenbuehl told reporters. "We're certainly not seeing an immediate effect in terms of stabilization for civilians currently. That is not our reading."
He said it was so dangerous for Red Cross workers to move around in Baghdad, however, that "we don't have on a day-to-day basis a full picture of absolutely every situation."
Kraehenbuehl spoke in releasing a new ICRC report titled "Civilians Without Protection: The ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Iraq."
"The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population," said the report. "Every day dozens of people are killed and any more wounded."