# Poor old America!!



## johnjames2010 (5 Jul 2004)

I was sickened yesterday to read Andrew Lynch's article on the front page of the Sunday Independant. The knowledge that people actually think like this man is bad enough but to have to endure this type of garbage when you sit down to read the papers on a Sunday afternoon is stomach churning. 

I found his point in relation to the lack of media coverage of Saddam's trial in comparison to the coverage of the activities in Abu Ghraib particularly frustrating. His point was that Human Rights breaches don't seem to impress the media unless they are carried out by American soldiers. Im not quite sure what exactly Mr. Lynch wants. Does he wish to be reminded of the atrocities carried out by Saddam Hussein and his Regime?? If so, I think there is something seriously wrong with the man. The world knows what a ruthless dictator Saddam was and the last thing anyone needs is to see 24hr coverage of his trial, with footage of the carnage and genocidal devastation he caused both in his own country aswell as in Iran and Kuwait, packed into the ad breaks. 

The sordid acts that took place in Abu Ghraib, however, was a new story. This was something the majority of the world would never have thought to happen. These soldiers were sent to Iraq with one main objective-To overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Regime and, hence, free the people of Iraq. These people were supposedly the "Good Guys". Nobody ever had such illusions about Saddam and his army. 

In my opinion this justifies the extra attention, if any, given to the breach of Human Rights by the Coalition forces in comparison with the trial of Iraq's former and brutal dictator. 

He also made a point of his disapproval of Radio five seven live's interview with an Iraqi exile who said he would not be surprised if Saddam was found dead in his cell in an effort to prevent him discussing his relationship with the CIA in the eighties at his trial. While this is merely speculation, I would be willing to bet that Mr. Lynch would have had no problem listening to an interview with an American official preaching about the presence of Nuclear Weapons before the invasion of Iraq. Which, coincidentally, turned out to be mere speculation !!

With people like Mr. Lynch writing articles like this on the front page of one of the biggest Sunday papers, its no wonder there are still people out there amongst the sane, who believe America have the God given right to invade any country they feel needs to be "Liberated".


----------



## YD (5 Jul 2004)

*Sindo sources from AAM*

A bit surprised myself, sort of stuff I post on AAM but then Gene kerrigam does a wonderful impression of piggy.


----------



## Guest (5 Jul 2004)

*Sindo sources from AAM*

If Andrew Lynch upsets you then you'd better give Mark Steyn on the Irish Times a wide berth! :eek 

www.marksteyn.com/


----------



## Advisor (6 Jul 2004)

*.*

I knew there would be an Al Quahida sympthasiser somewhere under the carpet.  You will be the first to squeal when yo do not have enoght oil to heat your house this winter, or to commute to and from your American owned factory.


----------



## piggy (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: .*

Hi Advisor,

I'm not going to pass any remarks on johnjames's post.

Needless to say I'm, not surprisingly, a little stumped by your remarks.

*I knew there would be an Al Quahida sympthasiser somewhere under the carpet*

Do you think that all dissenting voices are by default Al Queda supporters? That would probably mean that approxiamtely half the planet are Al Queda supporters!!! Certainly half the population of Ireland anyway. 

That's a pretty extreme view of the world isn't it?


----------



## purple (6 Jul 2004)

*Re.Poor old America!!*

%%WORD0% 10;





> His point was that Human Rights breaches don't seem to impress the media unless they are carried out by American soldiers. Im not quite sure what exactly Mr. Lynch wants.


 While I do not agree with the vehemence of his piece he does raise some interesting points. 
The media in this country, IMHO, is generally anti American and very anti George W Bush. While I don't like the man's policies I don't think portraying him as a one dimensional, Christian extremist half wit (as the Irish Times and RTE do) serves the Irish people well. He has views and values that I don't like but to accuse him of being evil or as bad as Sadam or Osama is idiotic. 
No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Sadam and his government were clients of soviet Russia.
No one points out that the UN found both a chemical and nuclear weapons program in Iraq in the early 1990's.

Do the anti war/anti America people ever note that the French sold Iraq a nuclear reactor that produced plutonium in the 1980's and the Israeli's had to bomb it to stop Iraq getting an A-bomb?

When has the Irish Times or RTE but America's conduct in the middle east in the 1980's into the context of the cold war where they were fighting totalitarianism in it's most oppressive and evil form?

The conduct of US troops in Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of America's invasion/liberation of Iraq. To comment on them in the context of the wider issue of US policy in the middle east is emotive and simplistic.
The trial of Sadam is much more important and should get much more coverage. That, to me, is a reasonable point and the fact that it doesn't shows the bias of the Irish media.


> its no wonder there are still people out there amongst the sane, who believe America have the God given right to invade any country they feel needs to be "Liberated".


There are few people who think that America had or has the God given right to invade whomever they wish but there are many people who think that the invasion of Iraq was not all bad.
What would have happened is the UN had stepped in two years earlier in Bosnia? 
What would have happened if Britain and France has kept their word in 1936 and gone to war with Germany when they occupied the sudatten (spelling?) land? Would the second world war the the cold war have been averted. A few hundred thousand deaths rather than 20 million?

It's not all black and white, try and see where the other guy is coming from. If we justify our views by rubbishing the person who disagrees with us we do ourselves a disservice since we avoid having to come to a truly informed position.

Ref. advisor's comments; As far as I am concerned that is just trolling.


----------



## piggy (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.Poor old America!!*

*The media in this country, IMHO, is generally anti American and very anti George W Bush*

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. 

*No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Sadam and his government were clients of soviet Russia*

Are you sure about this statement?

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

_Chemical weapons_
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/sto...S00158.htm


*No one points out that the UN found both a chemical and nuclear weapons program in Iraq in the early 1990's.

Do the anti war/anti America people ever note that the French sold Iraq a nuclear reactor that produced plutonium in the 1980's and the Israeli's had to bomb it to stop Iraq getting an A-bomb?*

You tend to always equate anti-war with anti-American purple and that's not always such a good idea IMO.
In relation to Iraq's secret Nuclear capabilities in the 1980's...they're not the only Middle Eastern country which has/had secretive weapons programmes of this nature.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...841377.stm


*He has views and values that I don't like but to accuse him of being evil or as bad as Sadam or Osama is idiotic*

Most sensible people wouldn't accuse Bush of being evil. However, most people who did not support the war do so on the grounds that it had little to do with freeing the Iraqi people, ridding the world of Saddam or even WMD.

*The conduct of US troops in Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of America's invasion/liberation of Iraq. To comment on them in the context of the wider issue of US policy in the middle east is emotive and simplistic.*

Commenting on the actions of US troops out of context is simplistic. Commenting on it in relation to how they are now viewed in Iraq or across the middle east has everything to do with America's position in the middle east.

*What would have happened is the UN had stepped in two years earlier in Bosnia? 
What would have happened if Britain and France has kept their word in 1936 and gone to war with Germany when they occupied the sudatten (spelling?) land?* 

These arguments are brought up again and again. You cannot automatically justify one war by pointing back in time to other wars. I can name plenty of unjust wars.

*Ref. advisor's comments; As far as I am concerned that is just trolling.*

Unfortunately, it's become the norm for topics like this. I sometimes wonder at the type of people who use this board and what motivates them to do this.


----------



## owensy (6 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Just to back johnjames up about his view on America, it make
me sick that people are so easly lead in this country, i recall on a few years ago when Bill Clinton arrived in Ireland while in the middle of the Monica scandal, the nation pack dublin city to see the man , it was almost a national holiday. Now after all the media hype from Pro-Arab sources we are out marching against USA for protecting their peoples lives. 9 / 11 must be very short in all you anti America activists... shame on you. If this happened in Ireland who would back us up.. the USA of course. For that fact most of this country is employed by USA owened companies.... makes me feel sick that people can abuse the States like that after 9 /11 . idiots thats all we are.


----------



## purple (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.Poor old America!!*

Piggy,


> No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Saddam and his government were clients of soviet Russia
> Are you sure about this statement?


I take your point, great link!
I was a bit vague, I was commenting in the context of putting him in power. Many people seem to think that the USA put him there in the first place. The US support for him in the 80's was in the context of trying to keep back communist backed fundamentalist Islam. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and all that. They never backed Saddam 'cause they liked his methods or thought he was a nice guy. 



> Commenting on it in relation to how they are now viewed in Iraq or across the middle east has everything to do with America's position in the middle east.


 I agree but the undertone in much of the Gene Kerrigan wing of the media is that you can equate the rights and wrongs of one with the other. That is nonsense! There is a lot wrong with the way America has behaving in Iraq but it is a separate issue from the way they behaved in Abu Ghraib.



> You cannot automatically justify one war by pointing back in time to other wars


 Again I agree. I make the point simply to ask people to but this whole sad affair in a world context and not view it from a simplistic cocooned western European stand point.

Many commentators have said that the world is a more dangerous place since the invasion of Iraq. The fact is that there are fewer Iraqi's dying now than there were two years ago. What those commentators should say is that the western world is a more dangerous place. 
We should not dress up self interest in the clothes of egalitarian concern for all our fellow man.


----------



## shnaek (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.Poor old America!!*

Owensy, there is a hell of a difference between a guy being unfaithful to his wife - which is no ones business but theirs - and a guy who leads a country to unilateraly attack another country.
Also Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - I don't know how this can be continually used as an excuse. I mean, the vietnamese don't say 'remember Saigon - so lets attack the US'
And I also believe that economics should be no reason to support a regime. By that rationale should we have supported Sadam if he had employed us all over here. 
One has to learn as much as one can from the facts and then apply them using the heart and the head.


----------



## Gene (6 Jul 2004)

*Other Sindo jems*

Did you see the bit about American investors getting jittery about investing in Ireland because of the rising SF vote. 

Their fears were vague but, according to the Sindo, they particularly took fright at this talk of "equality".

You can understand what they mean.  Equality is all very well for Iraqis but if that sort of thing caught on in countries they invested in, well that would be worrying.


----------



## OhPinchy (6 Jul 2004)

*..*

Owensy, I’m afraid I have to take issue with a number of your points:

I think the very fact that so many people are voicing their opinions against the current American foreign policy just goes to show that Irish people are not as easily led as you suggest, otherwise they would be towing the line of their government. A large number of people have issues with what the Bush administration have done and are exercising their democratic right to voice that opinion.

Surely you are not seriously comparing Bill Clinton’s transgression with the invasion of Iraq, which many people believe to be entirely unjustified as it was a pre-emptive strike based solely on false information (for this see Colin Powells speech to the UN just over a year ago where he insisted the information was accurate, and the recent speech in which he admitted that same information was entirely false. Now if that’s not a reason to resign I don’t know what is).

Clinton, while not perfect, had a much more tolerant foreign policy, and can also be credited with reaffirming Irish-US links. It was during his term that our great tiger began to roar, and he also did excellent work on the Northern Irish peace process. For this he was warmly welcomed in Ireland. Do you seriously have issues with this?

I believe Ireland showed great solidarity with America after the tragedy that was 9/11, as most Irish people have close ties with the US and wish it no harm. I myself am a big fan of the US, though I am strongly opposed to the Bush administration. This does not, repeat, does not, make me anti-American. While I am grateful for all that the US has done for Ireland, I cannot allow economics stand in the way of my principles which adhere to the notion that violence against another nation must be avoided unless an imminent threat has been proven beyond doubt. In the case of Iraq this was not proved. 

The Bush administration invaded Iraq based on evidence that has since been discredited. To say ‘Oh sorry we got that wrong’ is not acceptable as it would be to allow them a licence to do as they please without adhering to international law. The good guys can be wrong sometimes too, and in this case they were very wrong.

9/11 and Iraq are two entirely different issues, and no definitive link between the two has ever been proven. The main evidence the Bush administration based the link on was a supposed meeting of a member of Saddam’s administration, with an associate of Bin Laden in the Czech Republic I think it was. The FBI and CIA both discredited this evidence as they proved that Bin Laden’s aide was actually in the US at the time so the meeting never happened. However, one of the top guys in the NSA (can verify this, see Irish Times weekend section article a while back) commissioned a team of 4 analysts (yes, 4, how hush hush does that sound) to find links between Bin Laden and Saddam….their main argument for the link was based on this very same alleged meeting which their own security agencies had disproved! It is this ‘prove what you want to prove’ attitude that has made people like me anti-Bush. Not anti-American, just anti-Bush.

As for your ludicrous ‘media hype from Pro-Arab sources’, this is unsubstantiated slander. Try replacing it with ‘genuine concern from pro-humanitarian sources’ and you might be closer to the mark. As for you ‘idiots’ quote, I’m safe in the knowledge that doesn’t apply to me.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

*Now after all the media hype from Pro-Arab sources we are out marching against USA for protecting their peoples lives. 9 / 11 must be very short in all you anti America activists... shame on you*

owensy,

You sound remarkably similar to certain unregistered users who have in the past cast the same misguided stones at dissenting voices on this board.

Pro-arab sources and anti America activists??!!!!! :\ 

Let's put this in perspective for people shall we.

Would it make a difference if everyone on this board who opposed this war and all it stands for were American?

Let's look at what Americans feel then shall we? 

There have been many polls done in the States concerning the war.

In 2003 approxiamtely  supported the war.

That means that a year ago, half of America wanted this war and half didn't.

A year on and the majority of Americans are now standing against it, or believe they were lied to about it.

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/
[broken link removed]

So before you go accusing people of forgetting their ties with America, or of supporting Bin Laden, or listening to pro-Arab views (whatever that means) you should note that many Americans feel the same way - much as they did about Vietnam.


----------



## owensy (7 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Well done Piggy with you facts, but lets be honest after 9/11 was the whole of the United States not in favor of revenge which in turn means war. How would you feel if a family member or a close friend where killed by the most disgusting terror act of our time, would you want your country to stand idol and just let the Religious freaks who performed this act walk free around the world to strike again.

What do you think should have happened?

I know put you sandals on and walk around town in a peace march after almost 3.500 people dying in the most horrific circumstances... can you imagine having to jump from the twin towers rather than burn alive, imagine the fire fighters and police that died under a crushed building..

So America as a nation should of stood idol by should they?


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Owensy...can you tell us what tie Iraq had with 911 please?


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Other Sindo jems*



> You can understand what they mean. Equality is all very well for Iraqis but if that sort of thing caught on in countries they invested in, well that would be worrying.



I think the 'equality' they are afraid of is the socalist, levelling down, unworkable, utopian SF version of equality. Just what we need......


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> Owensy...can you tell us what tie Iraq had with 911 please?



There are coutries in the middle east the US needs to sort out. It would not be practical to do this with Saddam in power in the region. Therefore he had to go. He won't be the only one either.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

*There are coutries in the middle east the US needs to sort out. It would not be practical to do this with Saddam in power in the region*

Be that as it may, Iraq had no direct link or tie with 911.


----------



## YD (7 Jul 2004)

*Saddam's chutzpah*

Piggy,  Saddam, alone amongst world leaders, openly praised and celebrated the 9/11 atrocities.  What a nerve.:eek   Maybe he had nothin' to do with it but he obviously was under some illusion that world piggydom still protected him from the wrath of the righteous.  But the cold war ended 14 years ago.  America could now do what she had to do.  He got what he deserved.


----------



## Maceface (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> Needs to sort out



I put it to you that America should actually "be sorted out". People are going on about how terrorists are killing people all over the world.
True, this is babaric and of course something I am completly against (no doubt someone will cast me as a Bin Laden fan or something equally as stupid).
However, I want to raise an issue with how people are painting this to be simple black and white where America is mainly good and others are mainly wrong.
I say that they are all mainly wrong. America may not be going out killing people by bombs but they are killing innocent people by their policies. 
Look how countries around the world are kept in poverty by the tools of the big countries - the IMF, the World Bank, G8, and the various favourable trade agreements to "friendly nations".
How many farmers are dying around the world today because they can't afford to sell their products due to the subsidies the first world nations are giving their own people. 
What about the fact that because of this poverty, war lords take power from the people and oppress them. These countries are indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions.

America supports Israel - the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons and not be subject to inspections by independent inspectors.
America supports Saudi Arabia - a country run by dictatorship.

The simple truth is America (like most countries) will do what is in its own interests.

True there is anti-American feeling but until that is acknolwdged and the reasons for it understood, nothing will be solved.

I know why I don't like America:
-They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.
-Kyoto Protocol
-Guantanamo Bay
-Unconditional support of Israel 
-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
-Blantant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
-Bush (I really dislike him)
-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us. 
-The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)
-Their news coverage being so biased


Sorry, got a bit carried away there, but what I am saying is that if America can not see the point of views of others and do something to change that, then nothing will be solved.
Take away the reasons for hatred, and the extremists will be alone in the world. 

I am quiet happy for America to lead the world - just not run it!


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Saddam's chutzpah*

*Saddam, alone amongst world leaders, openly praised and celebrated the 9/11 atrocities. What a nerve*

YD,

That's a pathetic argument and you know it. Let's invade countries because they gloat when bad things happen to us! This administration has never claimed that they went to war for those reasons. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been killed by American soldiers. Women and children included.

Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!

Revenge is *not* a valid reason for war in this day and age. Actually, the reasons why America and Britain went to war are well docemented, and discredited too.

Over time and as it became more and more clear that WMD did not exist, they've tried to change their spin on it.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Maceface,

You're right on a lot of your points. It seems though on this board any criticism levelled at the US is called anti-Americanism. 

-Kyoto Protocol
-Guantanamo Bay
-Unconditional support of Israel 
-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
-Blantant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
-Bush (I really dislike him)
-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us. 
-Their news coverage being so biased

All of the above are valid points. Bush is responsible for a lot of them mind you. The truth is this whole argument, the entire War on Terror/ Iraq/ American foreign policy debate is a complex, many shades of grey argument, but people are unwilling to look at the facts, preferring to call any criticism anti-American or pro-Bin Laden. :\


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Note; I'm trying to see things from the perspective of the US in order to see their reasoning. I'm not quite sure though they are doing the best thing though. e.g they are supposed to have allies in Saudi, even though the terrorist threat is still strong there.

One thing I'm sure about is Al Quieda are a shower of facists who have nothing nice in store for you or me!


----------



## YD (7 Jul 2004)

*Piggy - gotcha*



> Over time and as it became more and more clear that WMD did not exist, they've tried to change their spin on it.


Without trawling (or is it trolling) over your very many postings on this matter, I feel sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you have asserted that this whole WMD thing was made up - the Wasp Warriors never believed a word of it - used it as an excuse.  

Now this latest piggy wisdom puts a quite different spin on matters - it says the WWs genuinely believed in these WMDs but upon the realisation that the intelligence was deficient they switched ground.  

That spin says Tony and George were perfectly right to invade Iraq based on their bona fide belief in the existence of Saddam's WMD.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Piggy - gotcha*

*Now this latest piggy wisdom puts a quite different spin on matters - it says the WWs genuinely believed in these WMDs but upon the realisation that the intelligence was deficient they switched ground.*

YD,

I have previously stated, in this thread in fact, that I don't believe that what we were told were the reasons for going to war, ie WMD, were indeed the real reasons behind this war.

I never stated that they believed any of it...just that those were the _official_ reasons for its justification.


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Hi Maceface
You make alot of valid points however;


> How many farmers are dying around the world today because they can't afford to sell their products due to the subsidies the first world nations are giving their own people.



We Europeans are far more to blame on this front as we give more subsidies



> Take away the reasons for hatred, and the extremists will be alone in the world.



How do we do this? apart from deserting Israel (BTW it was us europeans that put them there in the first place)


----------



## Maceface (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> We Europeans are far more to blame on this front as we give more subsidies


I do not dispute that fact, and many of my points while directed at the US are actually directed at all big first world countries.



> How do we do this? apart from deserting Israel (BTW it was us europeans that put them there in the first place)



I really don't believe that the man on the street in Kabul gives two hoots whether Israel exists or not. 
What he cares about is whether he has enough food and a nice home.
In many ways it is similar to the Nothern situation. Catholics were no longer treated as second class citizens and the general people will dissassociate themselves from the miltants.

I remember one of the first times I heard anti-American sentiment was when I was in Pakistan and the local people had a severe dislike for the Americans. One of the reasons for this was how American specials agents kidnapped a suspected terrorist from a town in the country and he was never seen of again. 
Can you imagine the reaction if America or even the UK had decided to assasinate anyone senior in the IRA. They would be turned into heroes for the cause (a la 1916 here)

America is only supporting Israel as there are very important Jews in America. Anyone wanting to become president needs their votes the same way as they used to need the Irish vote. See how the number of Irish is decreasing in America, the Northern situation is no longer seen as important as it used to be.

(BTW. Who cares who put them there. We were the ones called anti-Jewish when Brian Cowen spoke about the injustices facing the Palestinians with the barrier)

Imran Khan (the ex-cricketer) is a huge opponent of American policy in Pakistan and how they treat the normal person on the street.


----------



## purple (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Maceface;
Just to try and balance things here,

*-They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.*
Their entire culture is based on allowing people from other countries into theirs, giving them citizenship and allowing them to participate equally with other native born Americans.
We should look a bit closer to home when we talk about treating people as second class.

*-Kyoto Protocol*
I don't like that one either but their is a strong argument that the 40 or so billion that it will cost to implement could be better spent.

*-Guantanamo Bay*
I think that one is a huge mistake on America's part. Having said that if France or Britain did it no one would hear a word about it.

*-Unconditional support of Israel* 
George W is the first US president to publicly support a Palestinian state. He has tried to impose a road map for peace in Israel.

*-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)*
The UN is a joke. It is now at the stage the League of Nations was at in the 1930's.

*-Blatant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)*
Examples please. While the WMD issue may or may not have been lies it is not proven either way.

*-Bush (I really dislike him)*
I don't like him either but he has done more than anyone else to fight AIDS. Perhaps more than everyone else put together.
He has also cancelled massive amount of debt in the third world.

*-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).*
Just like you think the anti war/anti American people in this counter think they are?

*-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us.*
That's a bit simplistic, but in general I agree. Then so does every country.

*-The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)*
If you look up hypocrisy the definition should be "France".
They conduct nuclear tests, sink Greenpeace ships, send their troops into west African countries to protect their mining interests, sell a nuclear reactor to Saddam's Iraq, kill over a million Algerians in the 1950's trying to hold on to their colonies and then when their oil companies interests are threatened in Iraq they get all moralistic. The same oil companies that prop up the dictatorship in Burma, recognised as the most oppressive in the world by both Amnesty International and the UN.
Don't get me going about the French! 

*-Their news coverage being so biased*
Yes, but is it as biased as ours?


----------



## YD (7 Jul 2004)

*The Iraqi story according to piggy*

Piggy, tell me if I have got your argument correct, as follows:

1.  George Blair knew there were no WMD.

2.  They wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons- oil, revenge, to finish daddy's work, whatever.

3.  But to persuade their populaces they had to spin this WMD line.

4.  When, as they fully anticipated, the WMD didn't materialise they hoped to spin their way out of that.

Presumably these conspirators were shrewd enough to know that when the WMD lie was exposed they would face a popular backlash.

Both these men have one supreme goal - to get re-elected.  If the elections were last fall, this theory would at least hang together.  As it is they appear to have knowingly signed their own electoral doom.  As conspiracy theories go, this tops the implausibility list.

I feel certain that at least the better half of Tony Bush believed in the WMD thing.



> Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!


Piggy, this is the sort of wholly inappropriate metaphor which you accuse the trollers of.  Perhaps a closer analogy would be if Charlie Haughey had released a statement welcoming the Brighton bombings and that the only regret was that Mrs T escaped.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: The Iraqi story according to piggy*

YD,

Who is George Blair and who is Tony Bush?

*Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!*

I was being sarcastic :rolleyes   

*Presumably these conspirators were shrewd enough to know that when the WMD lie was exposed they would face a popular backlash.*

You might consider thinking about what I'm saying before jumping to wild conclusions too. Given that we know the intelligence was flawed, perhaps they did think they'd find WMD. I personally don't believe that it had much to do with their _real_ reasons for wanting this war. However, they needed a more plausible official reason to justify it. Even that official justification has faltered...yet no heads have rolled. They've just changed the spin so that no one is accountable.

Perhaps you might challenge some of the other posters who've posted on this subject throughout this thread YD. I'm not the only poster here y'know.


----------



## James (7 Jul 2004)

*......*

Piggy is a hippocrite and should be ashamed of herself


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ......*

Well said James. A lot of thought in that one. Welcome to the debate.


----------



## YD (7 Jul 2004)

*Pause to re-group*

Okay, piggy, that hangs together.  I still think Sadders asked for it.

No fun in trolling the others, piggy.  I'll be back when I think you have made another slip.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Pause to re-group*

*No fun in trolling the others, piggy. I'll be back when I think you have made another slip*

So then it's not the debate you're interested in at all...just trolling my posts?

All you succeed in doing YD is giving people more of an excuse to allow only registered users contribute to LOS.


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Pause to re-group*

The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that what people have a problem with is GB's personality more so than his actions. He does'nt have the charisma of Clinton / Blair / Ahern so he can't get away with it?

As has been already posted above, he's done more altruistic acts than most, but he's just not very good at being popular. 

BTW Does anyone else think the primtime interview was a comedy - not on him - on RTE


----------



## The Virus (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Pause to re-group*

Just coz' ur registered don't mean u can't troll. :lol :evil


----------



## OhPinchy (7 Jul 2004)

*...*

interesting that nobody in the above attacks on piggy's posts managed to address the issue that no evidence has been produced to prove a link between Iraq and Bin Laden/911 (well, no evidence that the Americans have not subsequently discredited themselves at least).

Saddam voicing support for the attacks on 9/11 was truly despicable, but only in the minds of the most extreme right would it be even a slight justification for invasion.

The dangerous issue is that we cannot simply allow the US to invade a country using evidence it slaps together, only for it to be disproven later when the deed has been done. (see Colin Powells speeches to the UN on this). The fact of the matter is, yes that Saddam is disposed is a good thing, but this should have been done through the UN. Having a self-appointed world regulator is not a safe situation. These things should be done with a UN mandate. Purple's point that the UN is now a joke is not true. It is severley weakened, but if the US and UK realise the error in their ways (surely it and the UK are to blame for undermining the UN's powers) and adhere to UN law in future, the UN will rise again.

Mmmmm, seems something is missing in the posts above - the small matter that was the invasion of Afghanistan. Nobody talks about this anymore. Some of the simplistic arguments above which choose to deride any arguments against the Iraq war by deriding those voicing them as bleeding heart liberals.

I am a realistic who feels war should be avoided where possible. However, I felt that the US was somewhat justified to take issue with the Taliban/Al Qaeda element in Afghanistan, as they could prove that these people were involved in the 9/11 attacks and posed an imminent threat. This also should have been done with a UN mandate, though. I felt that when they conjured up a flimsy justification for invading Iraq for supposedly similar reasons, they had taken things too far. The passing of time, and the discrediting of that flimsy justification, have proved me right.


----------



## Maceface (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Pause to re-group*



> -They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.
> Their entire culture is based on allowing people from other countries into theirs, giving them citizenship and allowing them to participate equally with other native born Americans.


I am not talking about the many people who they take in every year. Maybe I should have phrased it as "other countries and their people"


> We should look a bit closer to home when we talk about treating people as second class.


This point is irrelevant. We are discussing America here.



> -Kyoto Protocol
> I don't like that one either but their is a strong argument that the 40 or so billion that it will cost to implement could be better spent.


Would this not be the best way to spend 40 billion - saving the planet for future generations. Reason they won't sign up is because the big businesses in America who control the government all rely on the ability to polute. 




> -Guantanamo Bay
> I think that one is a huge mistake on America's part. Having said that if France or Britain did it no one would hear a word about it.


Again, as America is the biggest country in the world, they should be leading by example. How can they now seriously slate any other country on its human rights record when they are doing something equally as bad. (Also as a side note, on Morning Ireland last week, they were talking about that Iraqi jail and mentioned that most of the important prisioners are not there. They are in camps around Iraq where they don't have to allow the Red Cross to see them).



> -Unconditional support of Israel
> George W is the first US president to publicly support a Palestinian state. He has tried to impose a road map for peace in Israel.


So, he is giving an inch here. What is he actually doing about it. Does anyone disagree that there should be no Palestian state?



> -Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
> The UN is a joke. It is now at the stage the League of Nations was at in the 1930's.


I wouldn't go that far now, but the reason it is ineffective is because you have the worlds biggest country ignoring it. 



> -Blatant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
> Examples please. While the WMD issue may or may not have been lies it is not proven either way.


Do you remember the presentation Powell gave to the UN where he had arial photos of where they were manufacturing WMDs? Remember when he had "artist impressions" of mobile labs?
Remember the documents describing the Uranium from Niger, which turned out to be faked (I wonder who faked them).
What happened to all this evidence? 
I remember when Resolution 1441 was passed that Russia and France both stipulated at the time that this resolution was not a pass to go to war, just a pass for stronger action.
The idea that he was an evil dictator is the biggest load of baloney (spelling?). There are far worse people in the world than him (look at Africa) and yet we don't do anything about it.



> -Bush (I really dislike him)
> I don't like him either but he has done more than anyone else to fight AIDS. Perhaps more than everyone else put together.


I give him that. 


> He has also cancelled massive amount of debt in the third world.


Again, agreed, but it is not as though he was going to get the money back anyway. The countries can't even afford the interest, let alone the acutal amount they borrowed.



> -Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
> Just like you think the anti war/anti American people in this counter think they are?


I am both anti-war and anti-American (but only recently) and I would not say I am whiter than white.



> -Their attitude of either you are with us or against us.
> That's a bit simplistic, but in general I agree. Then so does every country.


That was almost the exact quote Bush said when he first mentioned the war on terror - either you are with us or against us.

I remember thinking at the time that if Bin Laden turned up in Dublin, what would we do. We couldn't hand him over to America as he would face the death penalty. 
Imagine what would happen if we decided to send him the the ICC? That would be funny!



> -The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)
> If you look up hypocrisy the definition should be "France".
> They conduct nuclear tests, sink Greenpeace ships, send their troops into west African countries to protect their mining interests, sell a nuclear reactor to Saddam's Iraq, kill over a million Algerians in the 1950's trying to hold on to their colonies and then when their oil companies interests are threatened in Iraq they get all moralistic. The same oil companies that prop up the dictatorship in Burma, recognised as the most oppressive in the world by both Amnesty International and the UN.
> Don't get me going about the French!


Again, just because one country does it, does not mean another country can. 
I was watching The O Reilly Factor on Fox News last week, and at the end of his program he told everyone to go to his web site and download a bumper sticker for their car which read "Boycott France".  I don't think I have ever heard Charlie Bird Say anything like that before.



> -Their news coverage being so biased
> Yes, but is it as biased as ours?


See above. 
Incidently, the New York Post ran a piece recently about the interview on PrimeTime by Bush. They applauded how it was conducted and asked why they don't take an approach like this in America as opposed to agreeing with everything Bush says.


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

Spin and porkers......true and obvious. I can't believe people are spending so much time on this point. Something else is happening while you're getting caught up in this bickering.
Nations have used this tool down through the centuries, its nothing new.


----------



## househunter1 (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Pause to re-group*



> Again, agreed, but it is not as though he was going to get the money back anyway. The countries can't even afford the interest, let alone the acutal amount they borrowed.




Letting them off the payments promotes irresponsibility which will be bad for the country in the long run


----------



## purple (7 Jul 2004)

*Re.maceface*

Maceface, you are making no attempt to be balanced in your comments, to view America and George Bush in the context of the would we live in or to judge her by the subjective moral standards of other nations.
The conduct of her detractors must be taken into account when deciding how much credence you give to their criticisms.


> if America can not see the point of views of others and do something to change that, then nothing will be solved.


 You could try that yourself there maceface.

I do not support the invasion of Iraq but it is about 60-40 against, as with most things in life it's not black and white.
To say it is is just intellectually lazy.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.maceface*

*if America can not see the point of views of others and do something to change that, then nothing will be solved*

purple,

As usual you offer balanced views to the debate which can only be a good thing.

However, what Maceface said above is correct and I used to harp on about it quite a lot. Until the US starts to seriously review their foreign policy then anti-Americanism will grow stronger and stronger, particularly in the Middle East.

It's very different for us over here. We only see firsthand the benefits of American investment etc...I'm sure your view might be very different if you were living in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Pakistan _(not *your* view, but the average view is what I mean)._


----------



## shnaek (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.maceface*

I have many good friends in America, I love American film and literature, I love American music. The American people are amongst the friendliest and most welcoming in the world. There are many things to love about America.  The sad thing is that it is no longer a democracy (Bush wasn't really elected), it is no longer free (Corporations run it) and the majority don't seem to care about that anymore. They are blinded by patriotism to the flag, when their real patriotism should be to the American Constitution.


----------



## purple (7 Jul 2004)

*Re.Piggy*



> However, what Maceface said above is correct and I used to harp on about it quite a lot


 I agree, I just don't like the shrill high moral tones being taken here. America is a great country, to be anti-American is to be anti democracy and anti-freedom.People who say they are anti American don't really know what they mean. 
To be anti George W Bush and the people in the shadows that run him is a very different thing. Piggy, you are anti Bush, we have had that discussion but for maceface to say he is anti American, not against their foreign policy in the middle east and/or elsewhere, just anti American full stop... that just dumb!
I have read other posts by maceface, he is not stupid by any means so I have to come to the conclusion that he is letting emotions get in the way of reason. I am sorry to sound so patronizing here but that's where a debate becomes an argument. Please spend a bit more time defining and targeting what you are actually against.


----------



## Redbhoy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.Piggy*

"America is a great country, to be anti-American is to be anti democracy and anti-freedom."

I dont think anybody would claim to be anti-American! Maybe anti-Bush Administration would be closer to the truth! 
America is not a democracy. And the Americans are far from free when you think of all their intelligence agencies who listen in on all comms, people getting flagged for purchasing certain products or books!
America is run by the major corporations these days and as Shnaek said, they are blinded by a misguided patriotism to their flag when they should be loyal to their Constitution!


----------



## owensy (8 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Fair point redboy.. you have finally shown some common sense. Still my question goes unanswered.

What if a foreign terror cell unleashed a huge act of violence and killed 3.500 people in our beloved country. What would you expect our government to do next?

Lets forget now about any IRA-British links. Surely you agree a country must take revenge.. and its not as easy just to pin point the terror cell, one must go after a whole infrastructure.. and unfortunately that involves innocent people being caught up.... just like all those in the twin towers were innocent.
I feel all these Arab terrorist are selfish animals because they fight for themselves and religion not there countries... excluding Palestine


----------



## Dowee (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> Surely you agree a country must take revenge.. and its not as easy just to pin point the terror cell, one must go after a whole infrastructure.. and unfortunately that involves innocent people being caught up.... just like all those in the twin towers were innocent.



That's a very simplistic view and it ignores the fact that it is generally a good idea to look at why you were attacked in the first place, and don't say it is "because they hate freedom and our way of life".


----------



## YD (8 Jul 2004)

*leaving piggy alone for a while*

Red (well named) please don't talk nonsense.  America not a democracy, America not free.  One of the greatest freedoms you can have is the freedom and indeed the werewithal to leave your country.  I hope you will admit that all Americans have the former and many have the latter (due to the superior economic performance of their system).

Surely the greates test then is ho many avail of this freedom.  If America was such an oppressive regime as you state we would all be setting up immigration controls against asylum seekers from that country.  Instead we all feel thankful if they run a lottery to let our less fortunate citizens join them.

I also sense, though I have no proof, that Iran doesn't have the same  chronic need to control immigration as the US.


----------



## James (8 Jul 2004)

*US*

Its a well known fact that Saddam used to ( when he was in power ) reward the families of suicide bombers financially.   The families of the bombers, not the families of the victims.   

He used genocide against the Kurds, in his own country.

He invaded Kuwait.

He operated a system of torture and execution to control his people, many of who lived in fear.

He had plans years ago for a supergun, to bomb Israel.

And Piggy still thinks the sun shines out of his ......, at least compared to the awful Americans.


----------



## purple (8 Jul 2004)

*Re.James*



> And Piggy still thinks the sun shines out of his ......, at least compared to the awful Americans.


 James, Piggy has not said that. In fact he had stated that Saddam's Iraq was worse than America in other posts. I disagree with many of his views and think he doesn't balance his opinions in the context of the realities of the world we live in, but you can't extrapolate that he thinks Saddam was great compared to America from what he had said here.
This is the problem with Letting off Steam; a lot of people slag off the person rather than debating the points being made.


----------



## Maceface (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Re.James*



> I agree, I just don't like the shrill high moral tones being taken here. America is a great country, to be anti-American is to be anti democracy and anti-freedom.People who say they are anti American don't really know what they mean.



I know what I mean when I say I am anti-American.
It does not mean I dislike the people. 
It does not mean I think everything they do is bad.

What it means is that they do a lot of really bad things and act as though there is nothing wrong with it and if anyone thinks there is, then there is just something wrong with them.

I don't know how you could say Anti-American is anti-democracy. That really is a huge presumption. By that reckoning, if I say I pro-China, then I am pro-Communism?
Same reasoning goes for anti-freedom.



> To be anti George W Bush and the people in the shadows that run him is a very different thing. Piggy, you are anti Bush, we have had that discussion but for maceface to say he is anti American, not against their foreign policy in the middle east and/or elsewhere, just anti American full stop... that just dumb!



I would like to disagree with that. It would not be correct to just put this at the door of Bush. It has been part of America for a long time. There entire foreign policy is imperialistic, but it is not just their foreign policy. It is the way as has been mentioned the big businesses run the country. The big oil and steel companies put Bush in power, but the same type of companies put past presidents into power. 
These companies are the ones who exploit workers in third world countries (Nike). They demand subsidies to protect them against foreign competition (the illegal steel tariffs).
They want to drill for oil in the Artic.
I really dislike their news reporting. It is just complete propaganda. I don't like the way the people suck all this in and believe it.
I don't like the way foreigners are fingerprinted when they go into the country, or the way America is forcing all countries to adopt new passports if they want to stay on the Visa waiver program. I don't like the way all J1 Visa applicants have to have an interview. 
I don't like the death penalty. In fact, America is 1 of something like 5 countries in the world to execute minors.
I don't like the way they say they have these great principals but yet they kidnap and torture suspected terrorists.
I don't like their gun culture. 
I don't like the way Hollywood takes true stories from the past and makes the heroes out to be American.

Therefore, to be anti-American is to be against a lot of what they are about. It is not against everything they are.

Little America does is for the good of anyone except itself. If they truely cared about other countries and people, they would have sorted out Africa a long time ago (BTW: That doesn't mean sending in the Army, it means working with the International community to bring peace and stability).

Purple, would you say you are anti any country? 
What about anti-Israel? anti-North Korea? anti-Iran? anti-Iraq last year?


----------



## Fadder Shamus (8 Jul 2004)

*Bravo Maceface*

I would like to add to the list of American abominations.

Murder of millions on unborn children.

Serial polygamy through revolving door divorce.

Hooked on pornography and spreading its poison through the accursed Internet.

Anti catholic as witnessed by only electing one in 40 and then assassinating him.

Anti catholic by trying to ban alcoholic consumption in the 20s.

Anti catholic especially througout the South where the KKK hold sway.


----------



## owensy (8 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Finally some when with cop-on "james". Just read his article posted above about the reign of terror Saddam inflicted on people. The whole issue of WMD is a issue that will run and run. I doubt any of you pro-Saddam people on this website can believe they never developed chemical weapons, because as we know they where used to wipe out almost a whole Kurdish city.
Again it baffles me how idiots can post messages on this website disagreeing with the coalition invasion of Iraq.. do you believe people where happy under Saddam in Iraq, he invaded and killed hundreds of Kurds and people in Kuwait, but still ignorant people on this board still want to slate the coalition invasion.

Ask yourself one question what did Saddam ever do for you?
I bet you can list of the number of things the USA have done for us personally or this country.


----------



## piggy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

owensy,

If you want to be taken seriously here at all please point out the _"pro-Saddam people on this website"_ with examples of where they said something to back this up.

Your posts don't seem to be very enlightened on the subject to be quite honest. Very simplistic arguments, not particularly based on anything that anyone's been saying either. Rather just the same old Saddam was bad, America is good yarn. Yet you refer to other posters as _"idiots"_ and _"ignorant people"_.

I'd suggest you back down on those points or even retract them or people here will just refuse to take anything you add to this debate very seriously from here on in.


----------



## Prometheus2 (8 Jul 2004)

I could'nt agree more Maceface. People seem to think it's impossible to be anti-America and if you are then you are racist. As mentioned already America is run by its major corporations. Therefore it is fair to say that America itself is like one big business. If you say you are anti-Nike or anti-Microsoft, etc, etc, it does'nt automatically mean that you despise each and every person that works for them. Just like if you say you're anti-America it does'nt mean you are a racist and you loath each and every American citizen. What it means is that as a whole you disagree with their actions and policies and more importantly with the way they treat others. 

I have seen, heard and read about too much of the damage that America, as a country, has done around the world to ever even consider myself pro-America. 

I like many things about America but I can say without hesitation that I am anti-America as I stand against the greedy self-centered corporation that is America !!

OH and before people like owensy and James get all excited at the prospect of accusing someone else of being a Saddam lover, my point of view does not give you the right to assume I am pro-Arab or pro anything else for that matter. Start reading people's posts and stop assuming things about them just because you have no valid points of your own !!


----------



## Maceface (8 Jul 2004)

Ownsy,

One quick point over why it was totally wrong to go into Iraq.

The spin at the moment is about how evil and bad Sadam was.
On that reasoning, we could then invade most African countries (and supposedly reasonable ones like Egypt or Libya who allow torture), North Korea, most Middle Eastern countries (including Israel for the way it treats Palestinians).
After we "free" all these countries of their oppressive regimes, we could then decide to invade China. Then how about Russia for what it is doing in Chechnya? Maybe then America for how it treats the people in Camp Delta?
Hell, lets invade ourselves for the way the Police treated the protesters on that May Day (or the way the Gardai mistreat people).
Where is the line?

The simple fact is that there is a line which the UN agreed upon. That line was crossed when Iraq was invaded for reasons no one still knows or agrees on.


----------



## owensy (8 Jul 2004)

*Poor Old America*

Macefree and Piggy your so much taken in by the current climate about how evil the United States are its starting to become a laughing matter, can you not read men, 
Your so far up Those anti America peoples a** it unbelievable, just think of all the evil things Saddam inflicted on his people and then come back and tell me Iraq is not a much better nation without FORMER ESTEEMED LEADER Saddam , not alone Iraq but the world.. 
its farcical that you feel this way about a dictator that gassed people.... Not even my friend George W Bush has done this act yet.
You need your own idea's man... not the current spin that is out their at the moment.


----------



## piggy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor Old America*

First off owensy, I've been talking about this war on this board long before it even began. It's previously been pointed out to you with cold hard facts that the majority of people across the world are against this war. The propoganda machine concerning this war, or spin if you want to put it that way, is very much on the side of the war.

Secondly, you're not adding anything to this debate bar some rather poorly made 'America good, Saddam bad' points. The world isn't that black and white. You also seem to lump all arguments that go against your own in the same boat. 

Until you address the points I made in my last post in reply to what you previously stated how can you expect anyone to take you seriously anymore?

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.


----------



## Redbhoy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor Old America*

www.indymedia.ie/newswire...y_id=65900

Interesting read about the reasons for invading Iraq- courtesy of IndyMedia!


----------



## Maceface (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor Old America*

Interesting article there Redbhoy.
I thought it as a bit of a justification for the war which is interesting considering this website was slated as being a bunch of arnachists on May 1st.

While it does talk about the positives of these reasons, which I completly agree with, it does not bother to mention the problems with going to war over these issues.

My problem with all of this is that there is now a precedent for pre-emptive war. Israel followed this by assasinating the Palestinians heads of Hamas, and no doubt some other countries will use this as a justification for going to war with another country in the future.

Ownsy, your not serious here are you?


----------



## The Virus (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Trolling*

Owensy is a troller, Owensy is a troller:lol :evil


----------



## Bush Admirer (9 Jul 2004)

*America*

I do not know who Owensy is but he / she makes good points.   It is typical of piggy to personally attack him.   The vast silent majority of people know America is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than Saddams Iraq, or  Bin Ladens view of the world.

I do not know why Piggy is so irritable , is not Ramadam over ?


----------



## cerebus (9 Jul 2004)

*trolling*

Yeah...owensy makes brilliant points for a 5 year old child.








:rolleyes


----------



## YD (9 Jul 2004)

*Maceface is a Troll*

Piggy, as a "friendly rival" let me advise you that MF is almost certainly trolling you.  He has set out a totally charicature anti-americanism, which you vehemently protest you do not share, and in which she herself almost certainly does not believe.  Yet she has exposed the unbalanced way in which you pounce on poor Owensy within minutes and yet you have singularly failed to denounce the lunatic fringe of your "side" as epitomised by MF.


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: America*

Sometimes I'm reminded of that Hans Christian Anderson story (I think) of the little elves and the shoemaker. You remember the one, where the elves used to come out at night? Except, in this case it's the trolls who come out at night on AAM.

*Piggy, as a "friendly rival" let me advise you that MF is almost certainly trolling you. He has set out a totally charicature anti-americanism, which you vehemently protest you do not share, and in which she herself almost certainly does not believe. Yet she has exposed the unbalanced way in which you pounce on poor Owensy within minutes and yet you have singularly failed to denounce the lunatic fringe of your "side" as epitomised by MF.* 

Friendly rival? What's that?
How do I know you're the same YD that posted on page one of this thread, or any other post for that matter? I have no proof of that. What I do have is written proof of a lot of rubbish that you've just posted.
Maceface is clearly not a troll. He has, in great detail, laid out his views on what he terms anti-Americanism to be. He has debated the topic reasonably and with a lot of analysis. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with him is an entirely different matter.
As for owensy's posts, I've challenged him twice now to back up the particular claims he's made or retract them. On both occasions he's declined. Making wild, unsubstantiated remarks in a thread will always, and should always be challenged. I was very careful not to attack anyone.
Your reference to Maceface consistently as 'her' also suggests you're just trolling by the way.

Y'see, here's the thing. It's pretty obvious to everyone who's  reading this thread, or any of the other threads on similar topics, that there's one guy, or maybe more who just really, really doesn't like hearing any anti-war commentary. Unfortunately, he or she has nothing of any consequence to add to the debate so instead relies on sad attempts to undermine the debate by calling people Bin Laden supporters, or fans of Saddam or saying you should be ashamed of yourself...or whatever drivel springs to mind.

Trolls are part and parcel of nearly every forum on the internet. I even came across them on sun's Java forum earlier today! They're motivated by many things I suppose. In AAM's case, I think it tends to be a dislike for anything that's anti-war or anti-George Bush. 

In your case YD, you have obviously nothing to add to this debate, other than to make some silly comment about Maceface's posts and (if you are the same person) trying to find some flaw in my argument, before slinking off into obscurity again. 
If you do have some points to make on this subject then make them. I have every respect for people who can stand up and argue a point, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. It takes intelligence and cop on to actually argue through points on a discussion board. It takes nothing to troll and says an awful lot about the level of that person's intellect and state of mind.


----------



## YD (9 Jul 2004)

*Piggy protesteth 2 much*

:eek


----------



## Maceface (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Piggy protesteth 2 much*

Piggy,

I appreciate your seeing that I am not a troll and I do think that maybe YD is calling me as it is the only way to get people to ignore my points.

YD (or is it Ownsy?), if you think I am trolling, please explain what I have said to give you that impression.

I have a point of view, and I am quite entitled to it!


----------



## YD (9 Jul 2004)

*Is MF a troll?*

Maceface, in a veritable tirade against America, as well as some bizzarre reference to looking for oil in the Arctic (so what) you also said:





> I don't like the way Hollywood takes true stories from the past and makes the heroes out to be American.


(give us a clue).  That post was either written from incredible anti-american bigotry, or was firmly TIC, to try and troll Piggy by exposing his onesided denunciations.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter. I apologise profusely if indeed it was the former.  I also apologise for suggesting that you may be female which piggy ,and presumably yourself being of like mind, regards as the ultimate slur.


----------



## owensy (9 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Just to clear a few things up.. Piggy and Maceface you both strike me as very intelligent men/women, more than my self even...

But can you honestly say that if your country was hit with an attack like 9/11 would not expect some retaliation? 
imagine it family members and friends.

Secondly in what nation and under what government would you rather live. A nation under rule of Saddam or a nation under Bush (who i am no fan).?

What country USA or Iraq have done more for the people of this country and the world.?

By no means are USA perfect far from it but in all honestly how can this anti American feeling stem from this nation, i feel we owe to much to them.

So lads put on your thinking fairly hat and be honest, SADDAM HAD TO GO !


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Is MF a troll?*

*Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like the way Hollywood takes true stories from the past and makes the heroes out to be American.
------------------------------------------------------------*

I would have thought it was obvious what Maceface was referring to.
I love the cinema and most of my favourite films come out of the US. Then again, they do pump out some awful rubbish too.

*That post was either written from incredible anti-american bigotry, or was firmly TIC, to try and troll Piggy by exposing his onesided denunciations. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter.*

So...you gave Maceface the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter...that you thought he was a troll!! How is that giving him the benefit of the doubt? :\ 

This is pretty poor stuff YD.


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

*But can you honestly say that if your country was hit with an attack like 9/11 would not expect some retaliation? 
imagine it family members and friends.*

Many people hoped that the US might take stock of their foreign policy after 911 and look at the roots causes of the hatred directed at them. They didn't. Regardless of that fact, retaliation after 911 was directed at the Taliban and Al Queda. No one argues that getting rid of them was a good idea. However, the war in Afghanistan has been divisive and has killed thousands of innocent civilians. Many more than were killed in the Twin Towers. That retaliation also has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

*Secondly in what nation and under what government would you rather live. A nation under rule of Saddam or a nation under Bush* 
I'm afriad I don't see the relevance of a question like this to be honest. Naturally I'd rather live in the States than under an oppressive regime like Saddam's. You seem to be confusing criticism of US foreign policy with some belief that we all loved Saddam. We didn't!

*What country USA or Iraq have done more for the people of this country and the world.?*

The US has obviously done more for the modern world than Iraq has...that's also not up for debate. Their sometimes atrocious foreign policy and propoganda in the case of clear breaches of international law, human rights and human dignity are.

*So lads put on your thinking fairly hat and be honest, SADDAM HAD TO GO !*
I agree...he did have to go...but the way he's gone has been stupid, ill thought out, illegal and damaging to world peace. Many people just want to point out that, although he's gone, they don't feel or believe that the coalition care all that much that Iraq is free of him.


----------



## owensy (9 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Fair points piggy but the most frustrating things is the way you comment on America's human rights atrocities, like have we not all seen Saddam's torture chambers in his prisons and the tailban treatment of women and men, living under the tailban must over shadow any human rights issue's that America ever committed in fairness....

I agree camp x ray is against all regulations but just consider what Saddam's men done to the Kurds.. Gassed them, his torture of the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language's up rising etc.. etc.. the shooting of men who played sport under the Afghanistan Flag... i feel the list is endless...

America is far from perfect but in terms of human rights i still think there well behind the lot discussed above.


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

The problem is we're talking about the sole superpower on the planet here.

There are many levels to this debate, the real reason for invading Iraq is one of them. Clear breaches of international law and the Geneva convention are some of the others.

I'm not arguing with you about Saddam or his people. However, it's not a valid argument to just say that US treatment of prisoners wasn't _as bad_ as Saddam's. Bush made that comment when he was hear, much to my amazement.

As I said, that is only a small part of all this. It's too simplistic to just say that Saddam is gone so the world is better.

It's a bit like me saying I don't like the way butter melts on my toast, and because you really like butter you say..."Well, I don't like toast. Butter wouldn't melt if it wasn't on hot bread". That's a light hearted analogy, but it demonstrates that to argue a point you need to look at the point being made first, then bring other issues into it...like the toast!!


----------



## Maceface (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> But can you honestly say that if your country was hit with an attack like 9/11 would not expect some retaliation?


There is no evidence that Sep 11 has anything to do with Iraq! 
Even if it had, isn't this just vigilantism?
If it is illegal for an individual to do this, then why should an entire country be allowed?



> Secondly in what nation and under what government would you rather live. A nation under rule of Saddam or a nation under Bush (who i am no fan).?


Bush and the US. I have never indidcated anything good about Saddam.



> What country USA or Iraq have done more for the people of this country and the world.?


Trick question? The US.



> By no means are USA perfect far from it but in all honestly how can this anti American feeling stem from this nation, i feel we owe to much to them.


Do we owe them? For what? I don't think they done very much for others out of the goodness of their own hearts. 
Sure, they give a lot of foreign aid to some countries, but so do we all. 
Specifically for Ireland, what have they done?



> So lads put on your thinking fairly hat and be honest, SADDAM HAD TO GO !


It is excellent that he is no longer in charge of Iraq. The only problem I have with the whole thing is the way America went about it.


----------



## househunter1 (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> Many people hoped that the US might take stock of their foreign policy after 911 and look at the roots causes of the hatred directed at them. They didn't.



The US for a long time followed an isolationist 'lets just mind our own business policy' and what happened?...... they got attacked by the Japs. They switched away from isolationism after realising their folly. 

What Al Qeida et al. despise is the western way, not strictly the american way, I think its fair to say. You and me Piggy....... are infidels. 

However lucky for you and me, our security bill gets picked up by american tax dollars. If Europe had to protect herself our taxes would be alot higher. (Example; if we sent our antiquated bombers in after Milosivec we would have turned the place into a car park).

Now I'm not strictly advocating US foriegn policy, I think theres sometimes a naievity there and a 'softer' power should be used in conjunction, but fundamentally I believe the US and americans are good people with good intentions and they deserve a bit of respect for that, along with some friendly advice.


----------



## YD (9 Jul 2004)

*MF*



> So...you gave Maceface the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter...that you thought he was a troll!! How is that giving him the benefit of the doubt?


Better to be a troll than a bigot, though maybe you don't agree.  Now who's selectively reading other's posts?


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

*What Al Qeida et al. despise is the western way, not strictly the american way, I think its fair to say*

I don't know an awful lot about Al Queda I'll admit...but a lot of their gripe has been with American interference and troops in the Middle East hasn't it.

*You and me Piggy....... are infidels.* 

Well, it makes a change to be called something else for a change  

*However lucky for you and me, our security bill gets picked up by american tax dollars*

Hmmm...I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. Europe could easily defend itself if need be. The French and British combined would have a formidable arsenal.
Also, aren't there Economic reasons for wanting to 'defend us' as you put it?

*but fundamentally I believe the US and americans are good people with good intentions and they deserve a bit of respect for that, along with some friendly advice.*

I've no doubt that America is full of good people. What I often doubt is their politicians and the companies behind them.
While the US has undoubtedly done a lot of good in the world, and in many ways helped shape modern society they have also been a part of a lot of destructive and immoral goings on in the world. I can give you plenty of examples of grave injustices and atrocities doled out by various US administrations long before Iraq or 911. Again, going back to the butter and toast analogy, that doesn't mean that other nations haven't done these things too...but the debate is focused on US foreign policy and the significance of their foreign policy as the sole superpower on the planet over smaller nations is clear.


----------



## Maceface (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*



> The US for a long time followed an isolationist 'lets just mind our own business policy' and what happened?...... they got attacked by the Japs. They switched away from isolationism after realising their folly.


Sorry, but this is very incorrect. The reason they were attacked by the "Japs" was because they were crippling the Japanese economy by not allowing oil through to them.



> What Al Qeida et al. despise is the western way, not strictly the american way, I think its fair to say. You and me Piggy....... are infidels.


I don't think it is really the "Western Way" they oppose, just more of the modern way. They were set up by the Americans in the 80s to help the fight against the spread of Communism when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.
Interestingly, there are another group of people who are against the modern world and all the "filth" that goes with it - the Amish.



> However lucky for you and me, our security bill gets picked up by american tax dollars. If Europe had to protect herself our taxes would be alot higher. (Example; if we sent our antiquated bombers in after Milosivec we would have turned the place into a car park).


I agree with Piggy here. Europe is well capable of taking care of itself. Sure, we (Ireland) don't have any real way of defending ourselves, but that is what makes international institutions such as the UN all that more important to us.



> Now I'm not strictly advocating US foriegn policy, I think theres sometimes a naievity there and a 'softer' power should be used in conjunction, but fundamentally I believe the US and americans are good people with good intentions and they deserve a bit of respect for that, along with some friendly advice.


Well, we agree on something. I do have respect for a lot of what the country does, and I do not have a single problem with any normal American person. My issue is with the American institution and what it is doing to the world.
I wish we could give them some friendly advise, but for some reason, they don't want to hear it.

I do think Tony Blair has a lot of anwering to do with what has happened recently. We are all too aware in this country of what happens when you fight fire with fire. Look at the state of the North in the 70s. It never solves anything. 
We have all learned a lot about terrorism in this country, and I think we know that the best way to defeat it is to isolate the people causing the attrocities.

Even so, I would still like to make the distinction that Iraq and Sep 11 are in no way linked.


----------



## Prometheus2 (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

I think the point is simple here. So allow me to simplify it for those who cannot seem to grasp it and resort to branding anti-war opinions as pro-Saddam opinions

Saddam Hussein and his Regime were bad. Bad for Iraq, Bad for the Middle East and Bad for the World.

9/11 ( which, for those of you who insist on trying to relate it to the Iraq situation even though they could not be any further separated) was horrendous. Osama and the suicide bombers are Bad. 

This is obvious and nobody here has tried to deny any of these facts.

What we are trying to say is that there are reasons for these actions and whether they are justified or not America have to reconsider their foreign policy. 

If you kill your enemy, his family will seek revenge. If you treat people with respect you won't have so many enemies !!!


----------



## Maceface (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Prometheus2 for president!


----------



## owensy (9 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

Maceface i wonder are you Prometheus in disguise just like johnjames is...... sad men ... pitty you cant fight your own battle without resorting to using more than one and in the case of Prometheus more than two user names......

Your points of view mean nothing on this website... like mine to i hear ya say, but at least i fight my own battle with one user name....


----------



## Prometheus2 (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

Owensy just to let you know I don't involve myself with trolls like you. You have not put forward one reasonable argument on this or any other thread. 

Piggy has challenged you on two occasions to back up your ridiculous views or retract them. On both occasions you have failed. 

I don't know if you are a person of low intelligence or if you just get a kick out of throwing accusations around. 

Either way I am getting sick of your foolish comments. If you cant bring anything worthwhile to the debate then Im not going to bother with you. I can only speak for myself but I imagine Im not the only one who is rapidly losing patience with your childish nonsense !!


----------



## Prometheus2 (9 Jul 2004)

Oh and by the way Owensy why don't you take a look at the Posting Guidelines for AAM. Especially no. (16)

www.askaboutmoney.com/posting.html


----------



## YD (9 Jul 2004)

*Double Standards*

Hold on a minute, Prome, down off your high horse.

Piggy is for ever accusing opponents of multiple AAM personna.  You might not the same as piggy - though being registered is no guarantee - you certainly have the exact same style - accuse the oppponent of trolling, being of low intelligence, not adding to the debate, and being a few of other people at the same time.

BTW I am not owensy.  I do have different pseudonymns for AAM but I carefully tailor each pseudonymn to the subject matter.  As YD/Yankee Doodle I contribute to the Iraq/US debates but I use no other front for that purpose.


----------



## owensy (9 Jul 2004)

*Poor old America*

As stated by Pom.. some of my points are foolish but they come from the heart....  i fight my own battles and dont need to make my self feel better by backing my self up under a different user name....

Well done YD.. and no you are not me... 

Get a life boys and use one user name.


----------



## Maceface (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

I have one username. I am no one but MaceFace.
I have no idea who these other people are in real life, nor do I care. 
Believe or not, its your choice, but hosestly, I don't really care.


----------



## piggy (10 Jul 2004)

*Re: Poor old America*

owensy,

You're quite entitled to your opinions and the whole idea of this forum is so that we can debate differing views. But if you make outrageous claims about other posters then you have to expect to be challenged. The 'pro-Saddam' comments being a case in point.

I've learnt from some bad experiences that just getting into an unconstructive slagging match with someone merely brings the debate down or closes the thread (ie a mod locks it). I'd suggest at this stage that if this bickering continues for much longer that that's exactly what will happen. 

If you disagree with some of my points, or Macefaces, or Prometheus2's then disagree with them in a reasonable fashion. Challenge people on their opinions, but do it in such a way that gives them an opportunity to respond in a civil manner.


----------



## OhPinchy (10 Jul 2004)

*...*

From reading this debate it seems to me that the posters who supported the war on Iraq see the matter as a simple questions: 
A)which is better the US or Iraq?
B) which is better Iraq with Saddam or without?

For me the answers here are A) the US and B)without Saddam, and I think you will find that most anti-war and anti-Bush people would say the same.

However, none of these posters has defended the manner in which the US went about doing these things (i.e. unilaterally and based on dodgy evidence - see latest US Senate Intelligence Committee report).

The issue is not simply choosing the lesser of two evils. The fact that the US went about it as the lesser of two evils is the problem I have with them....they could have gone through the right channels (i.e. the UN) and resolved things in a manner that would have allowed them to be the good guys, and not just the lesser of two evils.


----------



## OhPinchy (10 Jul 2004)

*...*

oh and by the way, what is trolling? this debate is being ruined by the bickering which should stop. One user one username please. Can a moderator please step in to verify the IP addresses or something to tell us if the posters above were duplicating usernames as the debate is suffering as a result of the allegations?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jul 2004)

*Can a moderator please step in to verify the IP addresses or something to tell us if the posters above were duplicating usernames*

While it is not possible to say for certain that somebody is using more than one alias, as I have already mentioned  _Prometheus2_, _owensy_ and _johnjames2010_ are all posting from the same IP address. This could mean that they are the same person or else different individuals sharing a common proxy server etc. Posting under different aliases is not necessarily a problem as long as it is not abused to stoke up controversy or for other nefarious purposes.


----------



## Zeus (10 Jul 2004)

*And Irish foreign policy is?*

Always amazed to read on this site the plethora of critiques concerning non-Irish foreign policy matters on an Irish financial forum.  

How about a shocking change of course. Any of you prolific net-trawling America-bashers care to describe and critique, if possible, any aspects of Irish foreign policy?  I'd be interested in knowing just what it is, for starters.  

And for the record, I haven't posted for a good while and I always use the same name.


----------



## YD (10 Jul 2004)

*Legality of Iraqi invasion*

The anti-brigade often refer to the illegality of the Iraq invasion (not so piggy to be fair, he couldn't give a damn if it was legal or not).

In March 2003 there was some doubt that the invasion would be internationally legal - a cause of some concern to law abiding nations like the US/UK.  After months of painstaking legalising through the UN the US/UK were on the verge of getting a certain UN clearance for the invasion.  Then, oops, what do you know, France was going to veto it.  It is an unfortunate feature of the international world order that a country with 1% of its inhabitants can veto the majority.  In these circumstances the US/UK with many, many allies embarked on the invasion with an uncertainty hanging over its theoretical legality.

That uncertainty was removed when the British attorney general after careful consideration reported to the British Dail that in his opinion it was legal.  I suggest that the British DA is far more qualified to pronounce on these matters than the contributors to AAM.


----------



## Shrink (10 Jul 2004)

*Trolling*

Ohpinchy asks





> oh and by the way, what is trolling?


Experts are of course divided on the matter.  Some or all, but necessarily all, of the following symptoms can be detected in a chronic troll:

1)  Stalking of other contributors on sites like AAM.

2)  Making heavily sarcastic arguments simply to rile opponents.

3) Rambling on with meaningless and unfunny posts to attempt to close down a topic.

4)  Dual or even multiple personna on sites like AAM.

It is this last which  has caused some observers to speculate that there is a connection between trolling and scychzophrenia.  

Studies have shown that trolling knows no barriers between class, race or  creed.  However, there is very strong evidence to suggest that women are less likely to troll than men.

It is impossible to tell at this stage whether there is a genetic disposition to troll as websites have only been available for a few years though some suggest that satiricists such as Jonathan Swift were secret trolls.

Thankfully these days the stigma of trolling has largely disappeared and people are more inclined to come out and admit their disease, for disease it is.  I personally have been known to troll, who in this AAM community can honestly say they haven't?


----------



## piggy (10 Jul 2004)

*Re: Legality of Iraqi invasion*

*The anti-brigade often refer to the illegality of the Iraq invasion (not so piggy to be fair, he couldn't give a damn if it was legal or not).*

I think you'll find that I've mentioned the illegality of this war numerous times.

[broken link removed]
*The "law" in this case comes primarily from the United Nations Charter, which the United States has traditionally asserted binds this country. Under the Charter, member countries are authorized to use force in only two circumstances: Chapter VII, Article 42 authorizes the Security Council to "take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." And Article 51 authorizes the use of armed force in self defense. Those are the only two grounds for use of military force under international law.*

See also...
www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm


*That uncertainty was removed when the British attorney general after careful consideration reported to the British Dail that in his opinion it was legal.* 

I think you'll find that it wasn't as a lot of International lawyers have spoken out since that he got it wrong, or was pushed into making that decision. It's very much a divisive subject and has seen much debate in the media since the start of the war.
*
I suggest that the British DA is far more qualified to pronounce on these matters than the contributors to AAM.* 
Which is why I refer you to the few articles that I picked out above.


----------



## Zeus (10 Jul 2004)

*Legality*

Piggy, 

kindly tell us how you would propose to "legally" remove a serial killer who also happens to be in charge of a nation?  And while you're at it, what legalities, if any, were observed in the removal of Hitler?  Hint: The UN and World Court didn't exist until after WW2.


----------



## piggy (12 Jul 2004)

*Re: Legality*

*what legalities, if any, were observed in the removal of Hitler?*

I don't see the point in this question as the UN didn't exist at this time. However, largely because of people like Hitler Article 51 of the UN charter "authorizes the use of armed force in self defense" which if it had previously existed would have clearly given the International right to stop Hitler. No one 'removed' him by the way. He shot himself.

According to international law and the UN charter, this war was arguably (and I believe) illegal. 

Britain took their country to war on the basis of WMD. Now they know that intelligence was wrong. Whether the intelligence for the war was there before anyone thought about it or whether the war was built around whatever evidence they could patch together to justify it is something we will never conclusively know...however there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the US and UK were just looking for anything they could lay their hands on to justify the war to their people and to the UN.
Farcically, neither leader will fall on his sword over what is possibly the biggest blunder in modern history.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Jul 2004)

*.*



> kindly tell us how you would propose to "legally" remove a serial killer who also happens to be in charge of a nation?



Well we had our chance when bush visited Ireland last month. (Just get the gardai to arrest him - there were enough of them!)


----------



## Zeus (12 Jul 2004)

*Legalities*

So Piggy, you would have supported the killing of Hitler and/or his SS stormtroopers who invaded and brutalised much of Europe despite the absence of universally recognised laws that were not codified until after WW2? 

Just what was your position on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his 8 year war on Iran?  What laws were applied then that prevented ?  Tens of thousands died at his hands but can you recall much international outrage and protests in the streets?  I don't.


----------



## piggy (12 Jul 2004)

*Re: Legalities*

*despite the absence of universally recognised laws*

I don't really see where you're going with this argument? So what? We didn't have universally recognised laws back in the 15th century either!!

*Just what was your position on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his 8 year war on Iran?*

I was about 15 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I don't think I had any thoughts on the subject.
Let's not bring up Iran shall we.

*Tens of thousands died at his hands but can you recall much international outrage and protests in the streets? I don't.*

Possibly because the UN was doing something about it, thus negating the need for people in the Western world to campaign about it.


----------



## Zeus (12 Jul 2004)

*Laws*

The point, Piggy, is what would YOU suggest be done to prevent or stop a dreadful atrocity like the one that took place for 8 years between Iran and Iraq.  Would you accept that whatever the UN may have done, 8 years is a bit long to come up with a solution?


Please read my post on Sudan and tell us what you'd do right now to help those suffering souls!  The UN is dithering  as men, women and children are being raped and butchered. I'm trying to understand the mindset that would demand "laws" be examined before moving a finger to help.  

At 15 you didn't have any thoughts on the brutal invasion of Kuwait?  I see.


----------



## piggy (12 Jul 2004)

*Re: Laws*

*The point, Piggy, is what would YOU suggest be done to prevent or stop a dreadful atrocity like the one that took place for 8 years between Iran and Iraq*

Well...it might've been a good idea not to arm Saddam with chemical weapons for a start. 
There are many ways to try to stop wars, through politcal discussion. It doesn't always work mind you.
However, this is a separate argument entirely to the present Iraqi war.

*At 15 you didn't have any thoughts on the brutal invasion of Kuwait? I see.* 

Correct, I hadn't many views on anything political at 15. Whatever my views were at the time I'm sure I can't remember. I was probabaly more interested in girls. How did you feel about world politics when you were 5? :\   
Whenever you want to get back to topic that'd be great.


The Sudan situation is very different to the Iraqi situation. I'm guessing that you're using it as an argument for UK/US intervention/war in Iraq...many people don't believe that the war had anything to do with freeing Iraqi people from tyranny.


----------



## Maceface (12 Jul 2004)

*Re: Laws*

I think you guys are being a bit unfair here. 

I think people are trying to make out that America was justified in what it done because the UN wasn't going to agree.
Why is this? America is part of the UN and if things aren't being done in the UN, America has to accept some responsibility.
A couple of months before the war started, Blair wanted another resolution passed to justify the war to his own party. 
Do people remember when it looked like it was going to fail and he said he would put it before the security council and have it voted on anyway. They reckoned they would get the 8 votes needed. At the last minute it was pulled as it turned out no one was going to approve the use of force - not even the Pakistanis who are big supporters of America who even gave them use of the bases for the invasion.

To not get the agreement of the temporary member of the council shows you that something really is wrong.
Luckily Ireland left the council a few months before this vote was due as we voted with the Americans the entire time because we were afraid that if we went against the large nations, we would not be invited to sit on the council again.

As for the Iran, Iraq conflict, this was a war between two separate countries where Iraq had the support of the West. This is the complaint that many people had but just like WW2, I don't think anyone really knew at the time the atroctities which were being commited.

As for Sudan, of course nothing will be done because it is not in the interests of anyone to go in there. 
What should happen is the UN should go in with a peace keeping force to stop the volience. This is very different than what happened in Iraq as the Sudan is run by a lot of different war lords, not a brutal dictator. You could say Zimbabwe is a lot closer to Iraq, but of course, what happens there? - the English expel them from the Commonwealth for a year.

I agree with piggy - there are laws there for a reason. As I mentioned before, where would you stop. We could decide to invade tens of nations as their leaders are doing evil things to their citizens (which you could say is almost every country).

If the UN is failing, there is a very small number of countries responsible for this - namly the permanent members of the council (actually, not even the Chinese as they mainly abstane from issues not directly related to them).


----------



## OhPinchy (13 Jul 2004)

*...*

The points made in this thread that the UN had lost credibility by dithering in approving the invasion of Iraq now appear even more laughable when you consider the findings of the US Senate Intelligence Committee released on Friday.

Countries like France, wanted hard proof to justify the invasion. Its naieve to suggest that if real substantial evidence had been produced to say Saddam had chemical, biological or nuclear capability and the intent to use it, that France and others like it would not have sanctioned the invasion, which could then have been accurately described as pre-emptive.

How well all the 'naysayers' and 'anti-americans' look now: they were RIGHT - there was NO evidence to justify the war, and what flimsy evidence there was has now been resoundingly discredited.

The Bush administration had a hunch (and some hankering for some oil money) and went about proving that hunch correct instead of objectively assessing the situation. The report proves a 'proove me right' attidude was used by George Tenet in the CIA. Its a pity the report doesn't have the edge to really tell us where Tenet's motives came from: all that is known is that Donald Rumsfeld took the unprecedented step of visiting the CIA in Pentagon at the time...what did he say?

This is the danger of allowing a country to act unilaterally. The UN has now been vindicated for not sanctioning the war and its creditability should be restored also. The good cop got it wrong, end of story.

When you allow a country to act unilaterally


----------



## Zeus (13 Jul 2004)

*Sudan*

The UN is calling Sudan the world's worst humanitarian crisis and yet it seems unable to intervene or even agree on using the time-tested and powerful tool called sanctions.  When will Ireland declare its neutrality on this one?

[broken link removed]
template=story_full&id=664844E5-D754-4A6F-8C49-230E8DB49E74

Now, Piggy states: 

"There are many ways to try to stop wars, through politcal discussion."  

Can you provide an example or two where this has happened?  And would you suggest it be applied to Sudan?


No, I'm not at all suggesting the UK/US were justified in invading Iraq by simply commenting on this crisis.  But in both countries you have horrific brutalities occuring while stuffed shirts in Europe debate on when to have the next meeting.  What has been learned from Rwanda is that dithering kills and yet inveterate America-bashers simply cannot allow for the use of force anywhere in the world because it would compromise their anti-war, anti-America posturing.  So let's get back to the point, Piggy.  Just what would YOU do to help these pitiful souls in Sudan?


----------



## piggy (13 Jul 2004)

*Re: Sudan*

*So let's get back to the point, Piggy. Just what would YOU do to help these pitiful souls in Sudan?*

First of all, that's not the point. I believe you opened another thread on this board to talk about Sudan.

Secondly, I really don't understand why you continuously want to engage me in this conversation. Maceface has already made some good points and a reasonable suggestion about what should happen, ideally.

If you've been following this entire thread you'll probbaly have read my butter and toast analogy. You seem to be creating some tenuous link with Sudan and Iraq, for the life which I can't see the connection.
Just because people are opposed to pre-emptive war in Iraq, because they feel it was done out of greed, does not mean that they cannot see the injustices happening in a country like Sudan and the need for International involvement post haste.
I'd suggest it'd be a good idea to argue the points being made by people as opposed to trying to stir something up which hasn't even been referred to.


----------



## piggy (14 Jul 2004)

*A senior US intelligence official on the War on Terror*

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3891133.stm


----------



## surprised (15 Jul 2004)

*Iraq + Piggy*

Two days ago Piggy wrote 

"I was about 15 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I don't think I had any thoughts on the subject.
Let's not bring up Iran shall we."

It says a lot about Piggy, when at the age of 15, he or she did not have any thoughts on such a major world event.   Piggy was going on 16 at least during the first Gulf war, and "Piggy" did not have any thoughts on same ??  

This from a person who has such strong and definite thoughts on world affairs now. 

Not only has the poor child been brainwashed, but she / he does not realise they have been brainwashed.


----------



## piggy (15 Jul 2004)

*Re: Iraq + Piggy*

Nice troll surprised.


----------



## purple (15 Jul 2004)

*Defined positions*

Firstly I am the registered purple, I'm a local user and I'm on holidays (and can't remember my password!).

A lot of good points have been made over the last few days, mixed in with the bickering. When I started posting on AAM I got into a few of those sort of tit for tat slagging matches with piggy but the beauty here is you can read back over the thread and it's like having a transcript of a verbal row; it shows how stupid you are being. Piggy is right about that, if we can't stick to the point and lay off the slagging/trolling then this thread will be, and deserves to be, locked.  
There seems to be a tendency by both sides here to fit the other side into a neat definition of what they consider a "Pro bush" or "anti War" person to be.
I am both anti this war and anti Bush's policies in the middle east. There are some things he deserves huge credit for, AIDS funding and debt relief are the two that spring to mind. I would like the anti war camp to tell me if they consider those who oppose their views to be pro war? think about that;who the hell is pro war?! 
It's like the pro life campaign, are those who oppose them pro death? Or do they agree with the proposition that this war was necessary, just as the pro choice (another broad stroke) people are in favor of a person having the scope to make a hard decision in a hard situation?  

As for the points that have come up over the last few days;
The UN now being in the clear.
The UN is still a shambles. They are doing nothing in Sudan, just as they did nothing in Rwanda where the population dropped from around 7 million to about 2.5 million in 100 days. 800 thousand to 1 million dead, just as they did nothing in Bosnia 'till the USA through NATO stepped in. George Bush's neo conservatives are filling the void left by the total lack of leadership by the UN. That, IMHO, is what everyone should be scared by.

Scope,
Some posters have used America's past transgressions as a stick to beat them with in this current conflict while at the same time not accepting the relevance of other countries actions when morally contextualising this war. 
That hardly seems fair.

WMD's in Iraq
Did anyone really think that's why this whole thing happened? but to be fair they had them in 1990. They had them in 1993 when the weapons inspectors went in and they tried in 1995/6? to restart their nuclear programme. The inspectors in these cases were European and Australians. 

Legality of the war,
Why should a totalitarian state like China have a veto over the rest of the world? Don't say it's because they represent a billion people, they do not. They are a police state. It's just a point to ponder, we all need to continuously reexamine why we think the way we think.
None of us are all right or all wrong here.


----------



## Maceface (15 Jul 2004)

*Re: Defined positions*

An interesting aside to a point Purple made. 
In yesterdays paper it gave the amount each major country has spent combating AIDS.
America was something like $500M. What I found interesting was UK was about $250M and Ireland was $40M.
Per person, that means Ireland is the greatest contributor. Maybe we should be saying how great Bertie is and how he has done so much


----------



## piggy (15 Jul 2004)

*Re: Defined positions*

*I would like the anti war camp to tell me if they consider those who oppose their views to be pro war? think about that;who the hell is pro war?!* 

Hi purple. Hope you're enjoying your holiers.
Yes...you're right. I wouldn't consider anyone to be pro-war. I think by pro-war people generally tend to mean pro-this war happening in the first place. It's incorrect though and perhaps I nor anyone else should use that terminology in future without clarifying it.

*The UN is still a shambles*
Agreed...but we need to strive to make it stronger again because without it we'll be left with powerful countries making decisions on their own based on their own political ends. Send in the UN peacekeepers to Sudan now, I say.

*Some posters have used America's past transgressions as a stick to beat them with in this current conflict while at the same time not accepting the relevance of other countries actions when morally contextualising this war. 
That hardly seems fair.*
I'd gladly leave America's past indisgressions alone to further this particular debate...the problem is people keep bringing up stuff like the Iran Iraq war as some sort of justification for getting rid of Saddam now. If we keep delving into Saddams past we see the face of the US administration staring back at us and waving.

*WMD's in Iraq
Did anyone really think that's why this whole thing happened?*
Absolutely not no. But then it's what was sold to the world as justification for this war. 

*we all need to continuously reexamine why we think the way we think.
None of us are all right or all wrong here.*
Never a truer word was spoken. If we don't constantly re-examine our own thought process we risk blocking out anything that scupers our own point of view, making debate a meaningless prospect.


----------



## Purple (20 Jul 2004)

*UN shambles nothing to do with America*

Hi piggy, thanks, the holliers are great.
This is off topic so apologies in advance but the following shows how useless the UN, and Kofi Annan in particular, is in Africa.
In  Rwanda in January 1994, some months before the genocide, a Canadian Major General called Dallaire was the head of UNAMIR (The UN force in Rwanda at the time). He had a high level informant in the government of President Habyarimana’s MRND party. Habyarimana had been in power for close to 30 years and was being forced by the post cold war west to hold free election. He and his wife, (who it is said was the real power  as her family ran the north west of the country) had developed a "Hutu power" movement over years and were carefully laying the groundwork for the genocide that followed. 
The contact that major general Dallaire had gave him information about the hoards of weapons in Kigali (the capital) which was a weapons free zone according to the UN. This informant also gave information about the teams of killers who had been placed around the city to kill Belgian soldiers and officials in order to make Belgium withdraw it’s troops.
Dallaire wanted his contact protected and he wanted to raid the weapons stores. He sent a fax to Kofi Annan, who was in charge of peace keeping in the UN at the time, requesting  clearance to carry out his plans but Mr. Annan told him to share his information with Habyarimana as he must not know what his men had planned. Dallaire did this and no UN people were killed, just 800,000 Tutsies. 
In May 1994 Annan told a senate hearing in Washington DC that "Our commanders in the field, whether in Bosnia or Somalia, have been very reticent about using force". Why did he not mention Rwanda?

If only the Americans had been there maybe the population of Rwanda would not have gone from just under 7 million to just over 2.5 million in 100 days. 800,000 dead and 3.5 million refugees. Not to mention tens of thousands of hutus killed be the victorious Tutsi dominated rebel army that swept habyarimana’s government aside. All the UN’s talking did was stop anyone who cared from doing anything in time and all the hand wringing and high moral stances by us Europeans doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in the real world beyond the warm safe blanket that Uncle Sam wraps around us. 

Was America right to invade Iraq? 
Probably not.

Des anyone in Europe or Ireland in particular have the right to sit in judgement on them? 
Definitely not.   

By the way, the Belgians bare a huge responsability for what happened in Rwanda as they had ruled their colony by dividing two tribes that had lived in relative peace and deliberately fostering racial hatred.
They also killed between 1 and 5 million people in the Congo at the turn of the century. 
Nice people.

The French also sold arms to the Rwandan hutu government right through the genocide….as I have said before; don’t get me going about the French. 

Sorry about the essay/rant, bye!


----------



## Maceface (20 Jul 2004)

*Re: UN shambles nothing to do with America*



> Des anyone in Europe or Ireland in particular have the right to sit in judgement on them?


Most certainly we do. 
If we won't, who will?



> The French also sold arms to the Rwandan hutu government right through the genocide….as I have said before; don’t get me going about the French.


Who sold arms to the Iraqis during the Iran Iraq war?


----------



## purple (20 Jul 2004)

*Who are we to judge the US?*

Maceface wrote;
"Who sold arms to the Iraqis during the Iran Iraq war?"

To list a few; the Americans, the British (whom Irish subcontractors supplied), the French and the Dutch.
We profit directly and to a much larger extent indirectly, from the international arms trade. The Iran Iraq war was, amongst other things, a proxy war between America and the Soviet Union. It was also an attempt to reign in Islamic fundamentalism. That doesn’t make the arming of Iraq by us in Europe and the Americans right, rather it shows why we did it. But you are quite right, we have blood on our hands there. 
The arming of the Hutu power movement in Rwanda was done for no other reason than to make money.
The sending of French foreign legion troops to Liberia, where they killed God knows how many, was for no reason than to protect the French owned diamond mines.
The sinking of Green peace’s ship the Rainbow Worrier was for no other reason than to stop them interfering with Frances illegal nuclear tests in Polynesia . Tests, by many European powers, which since the 1950’s have killed an estimated 55 million people (UN). The USA conducted most of it’s tests on it’s own soil, as did the USSR.   
The financial and military support of the government of Burma, the most oppressive in the world according the Amnesty international and the UN, is done for the sole purpose of allowing French oil companies  to continue to rape the country.
They are FAR worse them the Americans. Their motives are far more selfish and their public stances on world events are far less honest. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Don’t get me going about the French. 

Quote; "if we won’t, who will?"

I am sure you would agree that a murderer should not sit on the jury of a murder trail or a rapist on a jury of a rape trial, or should they act as Judge.  We are no less guilty of the crimes that we accuse the USA of as we profit just as much as they do from their actions. The next time you say a hospital wing should be opened, a school refurbished or a public sector pay rise given remember that the engine of this economy, and the tax revenue that goes with it, is American inward investment. Our moral indignation does not extend so far as to reach our pockets. To me that makes us worse, we are like the Germans during the second world war who said the mass murder of the Jews was terrible but still moved into the houses of deported families.

So I would ask again; who are we to judge the US?


----------



## Maceface (20 Jul 2004)

*Re: Who are we to judge the US?*

Yes, the West supplied the arms to the Iraqis. They also gave arms to Bin Laden. 
Everyone is doing it and the French is by no means the worst.



> So I would ask again; who are we to judge the US?


Well, I ask you again, if we don't, who will?

I think you are very wrong in what you are saying about the economy. No American company sets up here for anything other than economic reasons. It is our cheap labour costs and taxation which draws them here. 
They have no loyalty to this country except for the money they have already invested in their setup. If the costs went up, they would leave. They are doing Ireland NO favours!

How can you say we are like the Germans in WW2? 
Is it because I drink Coke or listen to American music?

I really don't your rant!


----------



## toot toot (20 Jul 2004)

*purple's post*

hi purple, well done on your last post.


----------



## piggy (21 Jul 2004)

*Re: Who are we to judge the US?*

*I am sure you would agree that a murderer should not sit on the jury of a murder trail or a rapist on a jury of a rape trial, or should they act as Judge. We are no less guilty of the crimes that we accuse the USA of as we profit just as much as they do from their actions. The next time you say a hospital wing should be opened, a school refurbished or a public sector pay rise given remember that the engine of this economy, and the tax revenue that goes with it, is American inward investment. Our moral indignation does not extend so far as to reach our pockets. To me that makes us worse, we are like the Germans during the second world war who said the mass murder of the Jews was terrible but still moved into the houses of deported families.

So I would ask again; who are we to judge the US?*

The difference being purple that we are ordinary citizens. The ordinary people of America who oppose the war benefit economically from oil for instance from Iraq. That doesn't make them complicit in that war. That doesn't *not* give them the right to oppose the war and George Bush's policies. In the same way, we, as Irish citizens have every right to oppose this war and any injustice we see fit. We are not like the Germans in WW2. That's a ridiculous comment.

By your logic here and in your remarks in the Sudan post we should just sit back and whatever goes on in the world we should just accept and be grateful for whatever economic benefits we receive from being friends of the US. Is that what you believe? I don't think it is...but it's what's coming across.

By the way, if we're like the Germans in WW2 does that then make the Americans Nazi's? I doubt it does to be honest. These constant WW2 references when talking about modern politics are becoming a little jaded. WW2 is important in that it very much helped define the latter half of the 20th century...but so did previous wars...dating as far back as the 14th century. These are very different times we live in now and the threats that humanity faces are not as clear cut as the Germans coming over your wall. I sometimes think that AAM is riddled with Dad's Army


----------



## Pedro (21 Jul 2004)

*Piggy*

Hi,

I would like to ask why vacant opinion is deemed worthwhile in this discussion? Last post case in point.

Thanks


----------



## piggy (21 Jul 2004)

*Re: Piggy*

Pretty sad stuff Pedro. I see you *still* have nothing of any value to add to the debate. You must carry around a lot of resentment towards me in your everyday life.


----------



## Patriot (23 Jul 2004)

*Utter pants*

P Quote " These constant WW2 references when talking about modern politics are becoming a little jaded. WW2 is important in that it very much helped define the latter half of the 20th century...but so did previous wars...dating as far back as the 14th century. These are very different times we live in now and the threats that humanity faces are not as clear cut as the Germans coming over your wall. I sometimes think that AAM is riddled with Dad's Army"

Piggy dating back as far as the 14th century , why stop there?. You opinion here is totally blase , you are no doubt a well seasoned AAM pococurante , only a fool disregards history as it is the footprint of the future.

Yes we live in different times (stating the obvious) but the lessons never change and reading the historical background and lessons has never been so important , not only the accounts but the literature and the philosophy that was created from the backgorund of our cultures.If only those here cared as much about their own country and it's troubles. But then again Piggy like a true philistine its just not latte? 

A more pertinent quote to the Israeli situation traverses across many of today's battles "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".


----------



## diablo (23 Jul 2004)

*Pants*

Time to wheel out the same creaky old defences Piggy!

Patriot is: 
                  a) a hell bent Piggy hater whose post is purely motivated by pure Piggy hate
                  b) the same person as all the other Piggy haters
                  c) a troll

Then, the second salvo:
                  a) why don't you address my point (insert random nebulous opinion)?
                  b) I amn't wrong about anything I said becuase I never state anything factual
                  c) this is a debate defined on my terms so if you refuse to comply with any of my repeated Chinese-water-torture requests for clarification - I win.


----------



## piggy (23 Jul 2004)

*Re: Utter pants*

*Piggy dating back as far as the 14th century , why stop there?. You opinion here is totally blase , you are no doubt a well seasoned AAM pococurante , only a fool disregards history as it is the footprint of the future.*

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm personally a little tired of the constant analogies between the War in Iraq and WW2. As far as I'm concerned they're chalk and cheese.

*But then again Piggy like a true philistine its just not latte?* 
:lol  In what way am I a true philistine?

*A more pertinent quote to the Israeli situation traverses across many of today's battles* 
I thought this post was about America?
*

Time to wheel out the same creaky old defences Piggy!*
I wonder what would motivate you to write a post like that? Hmmm....


----------



## jemm (23 Jul 2004)

*Re: Utter pants*



> You're entitled to your opinion.



How very magnanimous. 

Unfortunately however it is yours which is suspect.


----------



## piggy (23 Jul 2004)

*Re: Utter pants*

*Unfortunately however it is yours which is suspect*

In what way is it suspect?

Let's be honest shall we. You don't like me which is what this is all about. All this is really about is having a go at me. If you want to point out what you find suspect in any of my views I'll gladly talk you through them openly and honestly.


----------



## rainyday (23 Jul 2004)

*Re: Utter pants*

The thread is now about Piggy - not about America. If you want to discuss Piggy, please do so offline via private message or email.

Thread locked


----------

