World Idiots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

What is more, Iraq was as good a place as any to the US to invade for no other nation in that part of the world was as obvious in their distate for American foreign policy and American Influence. As obnoxious as the Iranians are, they are skilled at not pushing people into corners. Saddam, on the other hand, left the world with the choice of enforcing the UN terms by force, or for the UN to lose total relevence. Most of you think the UN has relevence, but without Bush actually holding Iraq to the terms of the 12 resolutions and the two that were passed leading up to the war, it has zero releveance.

So in conclusion, you cynics can say the Americans are self serviing boobs who had no business invading Iraq. Us more logical people look at it this way. If Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices, would he be a ressponsbile member of the world community? Would he have stopped killing 20000 plus members of his own nation to keep power? Would he cease to be a threat to the world's oil producing nations in the Middle East? Would he cease funding terrrorist networks who would kill any one of us for no other reason than we are from the west? Would Saddam Hussein respect the resolutions of the UN? Would the UN enforce fairly and evenly these resolutions in a manner that would dictate they actually mattered?

If you seriously can answer YES to any one of those above questions, you are living in a fantasy land. History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. WE can agree that the US has botched the "peace" in Iraq, but I think for most of you, it isn't concern for the common guy on the street that Iraq that is driving this, it is an open desire to see the Yanks get humiliated and embarassed yet once again.

Well, they have bit off more than they can chew, but unlike some of you, I put the blame on this on the feet of of a leader who would enslave and kill his own people, religious zealots who would kill or maim anyone in the cause of creating an Islamic world, and naive champagne socialists who are great at telling everyone how if everyone would just listen to their enlightened arguments, we could all disarm.

The title of this thread is apt, WORLD IDIOTS seem to abound....and while I will accept that Bush may be an idiot on a lot of levels, some of you shouldn't throw stone in glass houses....

---

Wow, you do like generalisations don't you. Since I haven't discussed this matter with you before I would like to know how you presume to know my opinions on this matter.

So you feel that Saddam was an active threat to his neighbours?

May I suggest you read the "Bush at War" series by Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) who had access to Bush and his inner circle during the immediate aftermath of 9.11 right through to the buildup of the war on Iraq.

In it you'll find that Bush was briefed by the CIA, State Department and the military that Iraq was a neutralised threat, that his armed forces were crippled through lack of parts, and the greatest danger facing the US and her allies in the region from Iraq was through the shooting down of US/UK aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Despite this, he chose to go ahead, seemingly because of a need to be seen to do something, anything about 'terror'.

So he killed thousands of his own civilians? Isn't it ironic that Saddam was finally executed for killings committed when he was a US ally? Where was this concern for his human rights abuses then? What about the other regimes right now that are doing the same?

BTW, please don't even try to suggest that maintaining no-fly-zones was more expensive than invading and rebuilding the country.

As for supplying terrorist groups that threaten the West, can you name the particular groups? IIRC most of the groups he funded were anti-Israel, compensating the families of suicide bombers etc, but none had conducted any attacks on US/EU targets or had shown any intention of doing so.

Your portrayal of the WMD situation is rather weak. That Saddam used it on the Kurds and Iranians and threatened to use it in Gulf War 1 is not proof that he retained it after the UN checks post war. Those UN inspections were not exhaustive, and there was obvious doubt that not all the WMD reserves had been destroyed, but neither was there any proof that the Iraqis had retained any.

The invasion of Iraq was counselled against by many of the countries you suggest Saddam was threatening, with Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt lobbying US envoys that Iraq would not turn out as the US hoped, that the risk of sectarian violence was incredibly high, that the Iraqi civil service, police and army would not turn up to work the day after capitulation as the Yanks were counting on.

The end result, which is ironic given that you agree that the US invasion was partly to secure oil supplies, is that the US has lost so much face with her traditional Arab allies in the region that they are beginning to turn to the Chinese and Russians in order to hedge their bets as to who will become the next powerbroker in the region. In doing so, the US has harmed the long term aspirations of its own oil companies in the region for years to come.

Dylan, you are not wrong with some of your assertions but I wont buy into your arguments totally.

I stand by the fact that Iraq could be a threat if left unchecked. Yes, the US has a handle on Iraq but at some point, America wanted to have a solution to Iraq, and they gambled on Saddam either coughing up the WMD's, proving to the world he didn't have them, or do neither and give the Americans the pretence to invade. Saddam is the idiot, he was playing poker with an empty hand. He was bluffing and playing a game he couldn't win.

Bob Woodward's take on the Bush administration is an interesting book, but I don't buy his knowledge is total and final. It wasn't just Mr. Bush that was driving this bus, Blair, the leadership in Spain and the Italians were anxious for a resolution to the Iraq question. Something made these nations nervous and many other nations signed onto this invasion. To just blame Bush for it is too easy and too simple.

Has the US harmed their influence in the Middle East? I don't think they had that much influence with Arab nations anyhow. The Arabs do what they want for not one of those nations is governed by a leader who seems to respect democratic principles. Some of them maybe sypathetic to Americans, or in the case of Kuwait, grateful still for standing up to Saddam the first time, but for the most part, the nations in this area don't really listen to American advice and counsel anyhow. They have no problem telling the Americans that they wont enter into a true lasting respectful relationship with Israel. They wont listen to Americans on freeing up their economic systems and allowing democratic reforms either. This Iraq adventure was seen naively perhaps as a chance to put a stamp on an Arab nation for democratic freedoms and insititutions. You are not surely going to suggest people in Iraq don't deserve to be free?

America's rep will recover. They have screwed up before, they have screwed this up, but if you are to stop and think about something, realize this. Bin Laden said he made the decision to attack America because they were in the holy land during the first Gulf War. He upped the ante when America didn't have the stomach for the fight in Somalia, and when 9/11 happened, you had to know that things were going to change in the Middle East. America gambled on their Iraq adventure, and if Iraq was on the way to a true democracy now, don't think for a second most of the Arab nations that are critical of America wouldn't be standing up and taking notice. The Arab world respects two things, the strong use of force, and not backing down.

The Yanks didn't use the force to keep a lid on things but at least they aint backing down. I think they have no choice now, they have to finish the job to some sort of conclusion. Not sure how that will happen, or many more will die, but they have no choice. To leave now would be criminal.

I do know this much. It amazes me the number of people who have invested their hearts and hopes on America getting their asses kicked in Iraq....this aint some football game....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Dylan, you are not wrong with some of your assertions but I wont buy into your arguments totally.

I stand by the fact that Iraq could be a threat if left unchecked. Yes, the US has a handle on Iraq but at some point, America wanted to have a solution to Iraq, and they gambled on Saddam either coughing up the WMD's, proving to the world he didn't have them, or do neither and give the Americans the pretence to invade. Saddam is the idiot, he was playing poker with an empty hand. He was bluffing and playing a game he couldn't win.

Bob Woodward's take on the Bush administration is an interesting book, but I don't buy his knowledge is total and final. It wasn't just Mr. Bush that was driving this bus, Blair, the leadership in Spain and the Italians were anxious for a resolution to the Iraq question. Something made these nations nervous and many other nations signed onto this invasion. To just blame Bush for it is too easy and too simple.

Has the US harmed their influence in the Middle East? I don't think they had that much influence with Arab nations anyhow. The Arabs do what they want for not one of those nations is governed by a leader who seems to respect democratic principles. Some of them maybe sypathetic to Americans, or in the case of Kuwait, grateful still for standing up to Saddam the first time, but for the most part, the nations in this area don't really listen to American advice and counsel anyhow. They have no problem telling the Americans that they wont enter into a true lasting respectful relationship with Israel. They wont listen to Americans on freeing up their economic systems and allowing democratic reforms either. This Iraq adventure was seen naively perhaps as a chance to put a stamp on an Arab nation for democratic freedoms and insititutions. You are not surely going to suggest people in Iraq don't deserve to be free?

America's rep will recover. They have screwed up before, they have screwed this up, but if you are to stop and think about something, realize this. Bin Laden said he made the decision to attack America because they were in the holy land during the first Gulf War. He upped the ante when America didn't have the stomach for the fight in Somalia, and when 9/11 happened, you had to know that things were going to change in the Middle East. America gambled on their Iraq adventure, and if Iraq was on the way to a true democracy now, don't think for a second most of the Arab nations that are critical of America wouldn't be standing up and taking notice. The Arab world respects two things, the strong use of force, and not backing down.

The Yanks didn't use the force to keep a lid on things but at least they aint backing down. I think they have no choice now, they have to finish the job to some sort of conclusion. Not sure how that will happen, or many more will die, but they have no choice. To leave now would be criminal.

I do know this much. It amazes me the number of people who have invested their hearts and hopes on America getting their asses kicked in Iraq....this aint some football game....

---

I say this with a great deal of respect to America and the many American people that I have had the pleasure of dealing with over the years in a business capacity.

My brother represents Australia at a well known Worldwide Forum that I wont name, where the USA has always had a strong presence. He recently related how things have changed at this delegation over the past few years. After 9/11 and the commencement of the Iraq War, the US delegates had a very strong presence and he said that the rest of the world had a lot of sympathy for the USA. Whenever the US delegates spoke about what was happening in the world and what the course of action should be, a certain amount of respect was given.

Fast forward to 2007 and the US representatives are now considered a ridiculous joke, representatives speak and the house erupts with laughter.

I dont know if invading Iraq was wrong or right. But I can tell you one thing, America's reputation on the World stage has been diminished to the point of it being a laughing stock. I don't know if you guys know the extent of it, or even care, but that is sad.

I do not wish this on a country that I dearly love and have so many wonderful associations, but surely, there must be a time where you sit up and say 'what have we done?"

Jaws
We can handle it just fine and I appreciate you kind comments. Sometimes there is a real unpleasant tough job to do and when someone does it ridicule could be very prevelant by those who don't have the balls to stand up. We will be fine and we will come through this in good shape. I just hope we move to isolate and reduce most foregin aid. We are kinda like a wife that leaves you. Get a replacement big boy!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

Jaws
We can handle it just fine and I appreciate you kind comments. Sometimes there is a real unpleasant tough job to do and when someone does it ridicule could be very prevelant by those who don't have the balls to stand up. We will be fine and we will come through this in good shape. I just hope we move to isolate and reduce most foregin aid. We are kinda like a wife that leaves you. Get a replacement big boy!!

---

Well I for one do hope that you guys come out OK in the end. I worry that the US has gone from a position of high respect to , well . . ..

Seriously,I am getting a little sick of everyone beating up on USA, it doesn't mean I agree with everything (or anything) they have done, but I think we need to take stock occassionally and recognise what a great country it is.

I've said before, some of the most kind hearted, generous people I have met in my life have been Americans, I have watched the whole Iraq thing the WMDs Saddam etc, I'm over it. I'm movin on.

This might be a little off topic, but it definitevily falls into the idiot category. Maybe the next time they'll play "Find the Nigger" so that they can wear cool white hooded robes and burn a cross in front of the university:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253902,00.html

"Find the Illegal"

The College Republicans at New York University held a "Find the Illegal Immigrant" event today.

The rules were rather simple — members of the club showed their NYU ID cards and they were deemed immigration agents for the day. Other club members wore nametags that read "illegal immigrant" and hid in a crowd. The person who successfully identifies the illegal won a free gift certificate.

The event caught the ire of college Democrats and in a press release sent out by the Democratic National Committee, they condemned the event, calling it quote "deeply offensive anti-immigrant," "racially divisive," going on to say, "College Republicans seem to have no shame in continuing to scapegoat and pinpoint immigrants for their own political gain."

Sarah Chambers, the president of the NYU Republicans denies the event is racist; rather it's a provocative attempt to spark debate on the issue of illegal immigration.

great job by the college- every citizen here needs to stand up and help us become vigilant in protecting our country. Get a visa or get the hell out of here. We have to register when we go to other countries so the requirement should be the same. We get deported right away without proper document and so should they!! end of story. Americans working in Mexico are required to have at least a FM3 (working passport) and all should be required to get the same if in our country. Most Americans honor the time restrictions when visiting other countries and mutual respect should be enforced.

Farrakhan in his last public speech. Happens sometime today and I can't wait. This should be a "Dooozy" I wonder if EKI is there?????