# How the hell did Bush get back in??



## soc (4 Nov 2004)

I'm sorry but I have to ask!!!

I mean, EVERY person that I have ever spoken to about the election prior to election day wanted Kerry to win - even Americans visiting here were ashamed of Bush, and hoped that he would lose the election.  What the heck did he do to win?? 

Is it only the rich and simple folk that voted??  

I'm sorry but I'm peeved that he got in - I can't believe we've got to put up 4 more years of him!  :mad 

I just needed to vent my frustration somewhere!

soc


----------



## car (4 Nov 2004)

*kerry*

It was mentioned during the week that 90% of republicans are in favour of the war, 80% of democrats are against it, everyone else is just scared of terrorists.  As Bush is perceived to be more capable a defender of the country then Kerry, theres your answer,

I would say that its the americans country not ours or anyone elses.  He won not just the collegiate vote but the majority vote too so thats incontestable this time round as well.  

If youre annoyed at the fact that bushs tactics of preemptive strikes have heightened the chances of a terrorist strike in the first place, have a read of chomskys  pirates and emporers  to get a better understanding of whats going on in the world.  

I know you said that you dont know americans here who were up for bush, but on questions and answers the other night, there were americans in audience who were asked who they were up for, theyed all voted for bush by absentee proxy, so maybe we're all missing something.


----------



## Dan The Man (4 Nov 2004)

*kerry*

"I would say that its the americans country not ours or anyone elses."

As much as we may deny it, the vote for the American president is the vote for the world leader!

Fact is, he won because more people wanted him to be preseident than didn't.

I also have the feeling that maybe the movie Farenheit 9/11 worked in his favour, too much adversity seems to have turned the full circle.

Looks like we will just have to get on with it!


----------



## Rabbit (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: kerry*

It amazes me that we have such an anti-Bush - if not anti-American  lobby in the media in this country.     They try to tell us the whole world almost is against Bush.    Not so : he is broadly approved of in places like China, India etc etc

Anyway, I am glad that Bush got in.   The west is a safer place than if Kerry got in.   Kerry was even against the FIRST gulf war - the one to liberate Kuwait - at the time, despite a UN resolution backing the war.   He changed his mind on it since.    

Democracy is great, lets hope the US helps make Iraq the first democratic Arab country.


----------



## Madonna (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: Bush*

Lads, this also happened in Oz.  The opposition made the fatal mistake of thinking the chattering classes and the street protesting loonies represented a majority anti Iraq war sentiment.  

Kerry made a grave grave error in being anti war.  The progress of the war is not popular with anyone but the majority of right minded citizens in Oz and now in the USA have shown that they know that the responsible thing to do is to continue with the job.  

This bodes very well for Tony Blair's electoral chances.  He can safely ignore the liberal lefty pseudo intellectual anti American lobby - they make a lot of noise but not a lot of sense.


----------



## Joe Nonety (4 Nov 2004)

*.*

If Europe got to vote for him he'd be lucky to get 10% of the vote. But that matters little.
The main reasons he got elected were
(1) Religion.
He's got strong religious faith and bases his policies on that e.g. opposition to gay marriage, banning the cloning of embryos for stem cell research, etc. This meant religious people came out to vote for him in record  numbers.
(2) Strong hispaniac vote.
(3) He plan to lower taxes appealed to everyone.
(4) Security. The American people feel safer in their homes at night knowing Bush is fighting the war on terror and it matters little that its misguided and unjust.


----------



## Rabbit (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

The pro Bush vote in Europe would definitely be more than 10%.   There are some religous people in Europe too, like it or not, not that this is the issue.

What matters most is that he got most of the votes where in counts - in the U. S.   The war on terror is not unjust and misguided, it is regimes like Saddam Husseins and Bin Lades which were unjust and misguided.


----------



## purple (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

It wasn't just that America wanted Bush, it was that America didn't want a pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro human embryo stem cell research east coast liberal who's wife is a billionaire. That's just not what most Americans stand for. 
Hillary Clinton won't get in next time either, she is hated by the Bush/Republican base and is seen as too much of a liberal.


----------



## Dan The Man (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

Thank God the rugby season is back!


----------



## Chrisb (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*



> "Don't underestimate Hilary. Outside of New York she's not that well liked (supposedly), but just wait til we've had four more years of Bush and the economy degenerates even more and the Clintons wheel out the marketing men to bolster Hilary. I think Hilary could stand a chance (if she can appeal to ultra-conservative America)."



I can't see Hilary appealing to 200000 unemployed steal workers in Ohio, that's not gonna happen. And all those conservatives, especially male, who vote republican because they always have, will definitely not change their mind. 

The only thing that might get the republicans out is 4 more years of economic disaster and a good democratic contender; I would suggest Wesley Clark. Democrats will have to start campaigning now and not in 3 1/2 years to make sure that people can make educated decision rather than one blinded by fear of terror/Saddam/etc.

On the bright side: 4 more years of stupid faces, Bushisms and mocking stupid yanks (this is not a generalization).

Dan The Man, I agree, no more politics, just Rugby.


----------



## EAMONN66 (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*



> stupid yanks (this is not a generalization).



why not?


----------



## Joe Nonety (4 Nov 2004)

*.*

Hilliary Clinton hasn't a snowball's hope of being the Democrat nomination. We all saw what even having a female running mate has done to a candidate.
Hilliary is one of only 13 women in the Senate. So there's no hope is there of a female president not for at least 50 years anyway.


----------



## piggy (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

How many female MP's were there in Britain in 1979?


----------



## Chrisb (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*



> Quote:
> stupid yanks (this is not a generalization).
> 
> 
> why not?



Good point, how can 59 million people be so stupid?

There still are some decent, intelligent and very frinedly Americans. Seems like alot of them are leaving the country though.


----------



## ninsaga (4 Nov 2004)

*Re:Bush*

George Dubya Bush... In Cork he'd be known as a Langer 

(all together now)...

a Langer
a Langer
..in Cork he'd be known as a Langer


----------



## N0elC (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

Bush's overt homophobia, and his antediluvian views on women's rights to control their fertility means that the liberal agenda in the US, and consequently the rest of the English speaking world, has been pushed back decades.


----------



## piggy (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

Just to re-itterate my earlier post from this morning...

*Bush won the election for many reasons:*

(1) Kerry was a terrible candidate. America's answer to John Major. Edwards (although young) would have made a much better opponent. Kerry also ran a crappy campaign.
(2) Bush ran his politics of fear ticket to the T.
(3) Bush managed to appeal to and rally together all the fundamentalist Christians.
(4) The republicans ran a very tight campaign.
(5) America obviously decided that they'd miss the monkey faces and those eloquent speeches far too much.

purple, you made a point in another post which is right on the button. You summed up precisely what it means to be anti-Bush. Osama Bin Laden must be celebrating with some glee today in his cave. Things could not be going any better for him were he trying.
This is why America is so split over this. Expect more fear politics, more terrorism than we've had before and an ever widening rift between America and the rest of the world over the next four years.


----------



## michaelm (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*



> Bush's overt homophobia, and his antediluvian views on women's rights to control their fertility means that the liberal agenda in the US, and consequently the rest of the English speaking world, has been pushed back decades.


I do not wish to defend Bush but in general many many people would disagree with the notion that having a pro-life stance is antediluvian.


----------



## N0elC (4 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

Unfortunately, that's why Bush got back in.

He preyed on people's desire to impose their own moral code on others. Whether or not you agree with a woman's right to choose, you have no right to impose that view on a woman with an undesired pregnancy.


----------



## michaelm (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*



> Whether or not you agree with a woman's right to choose, you have no right to impose that view on a woman with an undesired pregnancy.


In fact the opposite is true. Pro-life people view the destruction of the unborn as the killing of human life and are obliged to impose that view.  That is why this is such a contentious issue.


----------



## purple (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

A friend who lives in Atlanta posed the question which would be worse for America, 4 more years of Bush or someone else who was just as bad?
....it's academic now but it's still a hard one to answer.

Good post Michaelm; sums it up.


----------



## redstate (5 Nov 2004)

*opinion direct from America*

Today I received an email from an American friend.  As aone of a rare species in the Midwest, a Democrat, the scale and depth of he disappointment at Bush's re-election was clearly evident.  She implored nonAmericans to realise there are many, many normal, right-thinking Americans alive and well there.  Forlorn, she expressed some hope that Hillary Clinton might renew Democrat hopes in 2006.  I myself, for some of the reasons already expressed in this thread, think that's not cut and dried.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

It is true that Bush won a huge victory in the democratic election this week. It is also true that many people hate him. With Bush there is no room for a middle ground. He is not a diplomatic man.  He says it himself - you vote for him and you know what you are voting for. His view is black and white. He does not seek to muddy his decisions with thought or meditation. He has a view and he sticks to it. 
So the reason that he is so unpopular in many places is that it is known what he stands for and what he stands for isn't liked. Simple as that.
It really depends on what your view of the world is. 
If you believe it is right to strike first, then you think like Bush.
If you believe that the UN is not worth continuing, then you think like Bush.
If you believe that there is a place for religious belief in the running of a country, then you think like Bush.
If you believe that Osama Bin Laden is not delighted to have Bush in the whitehouse, then you think like Bush.
If you believe that Global warming is not an issue, then you think like Bush.
If you believe in black gold, then you think like Bush.
And there are many more things I could add here. These are divisive issues, and unfortunately, as the debate between michaelm and N0elC has shown, there is no room for middle ground here. 
Personally I have no time for the politics of fear, or for the pre-emptive strike. Neither were good in the playground and neither are good on the global stage.


----------



## ninsaga (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: opinion direct from America*



> Personally I have no time for the politics of fear, or for the pre-emptive strike. Neither were good in the playground and neither are good on the global stage


...

..which leads me to...did anyone catch the documntary on (BBC I think) on Wed night, called 'The Power of Nightmares'...basically depicting that Al Quieda are not the advanced long reaching organisation that the political powers would have us believe. As such it is the fear element that the US instills in people that drives the electorate....

ninsaga


----------



## Rabbit (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

After 9/11, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombing, etc etc surely it is wise to do what you can to gaurd your country against attack ?    Otherwise, after the next atrocity, the same programme makers will be asking why did the government not do more to prevent it?   You cannot have it both ways.

As regards the pre-emptive strike, yes it was that, but it was also a case of finishing the job that should have been finished a decade earlier - the first Gulf war.

Anyway, its great Bush got back in. He is the only one to stand up to / go after Bin Laden.   He is a brave man , in charge of a great country , in a world where cowardly countries like France will only sit on the fence and watch.


----------



## Asimov (5 Nov 2004)

*BBC*



> did anyone catch the documntary on (BBC I think) on Wed night, called 'The Power of Nightmares'...basically depicting that Al Quieda are not the advanced long reaching organisation that the political powers would have us believe. As such it is the fear element that the US instills in people that drives the electorate....



Yes, the program surmised that Al Qaeda was a fiction.

But it also postulated that what was really at work is AN IDEA. The idea that has been implanted in the minds (quote) of young male muslims everywhere (unquote) that they must support and partake in the global jihad against the West.

Now - that to me is a much more worrying analysis than the 'isolated Al Qaeda nutter' theory postulated by many commentators (and GWB). 

It goes against the theory that fundamentalism in the Islamic community is rare or isolated.

So this TV program, which set out to defuse the fear of radical Islam...replaces it with a much deeper and more divisive scenario...that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!

Gee WHIZZ!!


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: BBC*

*It goes against the theory that fundamentalism in the Islamic community is rare or isolated.

So this TV program, which set out to defuse the fear of radical Islam...replaces it with a much deeper and more divisive scenario...that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!*

Actually, I don't know if that theory does exist (that fundamentalists are few and far between). There are over a billion Muslims on this planet. The vast majority are NOT terrorists. I don't think anyone doubts that Al Queda have a following in the Middle East (and abroad). The question is what is the rest of the world doing about it.
Do we help matters when we call this war a "crusade"? George Bushes word, not mine. How would that make you feel if you were Muslim - even a moderate one?
Carpeting bombing Iraq & Afghanistan- that's gotta help matters right? That'll shut those terrorists up for sure! 

I deplore violence of any sort. It makes my skin crawl. But it's not that hard to understand the mentality behind a lot of it. We carpet bomb Middle Eastern countries and kill thousands of Muslims and then some radical religious freaks decide to murder our innocents in return...so...we decide we need to do some _more_ carpet bombing just to make sure we stop them...and so on.

There's no doubt that terrorism is a threat. Both the Al Queda type and the George Bush type. The question is how do we deal with it. A simple man might say - I know, let's democratise the Middle East - whether they like it or not.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: .*

Very good post shnaek.


----------



## davido (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: BBC*

You're going to get into trouble for that one Piggy.  Don't you know that trying to understand terrorists practically makes you one? 
I think the "war" is a crusade between fundamentalists of two religions.  Osama Bin Laden is trying to impose a fundamentalist muslim belief on the world through violence and the US under Bush is trying to impose a fundamentalist christian belief on the world through violence/politics.  Both sides are not simply fighting a war on the principles of justice.  Osama views the west as the biggest obstacle in his power struggle and GWB views the Middle East as a convenient foil for his plans.    He didn't need 9/11 to happen to start his "crusade".  He started it much earlier by appointing radical christians as the US representatives to the WHO, by appointing them to the Texas courts, by appointing the freak Ashcroft as his Attorney General etc.   



> A simple man might say - I know, let's democratise the Middle East - whether they like it or not.



A simple man has already said this.....


----------



## YD (5 Nov 2004)

*I give up*

Piggy, davido and all piggyists, you will be glad to know that I am giving up this debate FOR EVER.  

The clincher has been the thrust of your posts in this thread which can be summed up as follows: "George Bush is every bit as bad as Osama Bin Laden".  

Very balanced, I am sure, but absolute horse****, bull****, pig****; whatever type of manure you prefer to use.  

To all piggyists, if you really believe GWB and OBL are equals in evil, have you really thought what the world would be like if they swapped places.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: I give up*

*The clincher has been the thrust of your posts in this thread which can be summed up as follows: "George Bush is every bit as bad as Osama Bin Laden".*

Child like understanding of what was said.


----------



## car (5 Nov 2004)

*terror*

from pirates and emporers...
St. Augustine describes a confrontation between King Alexander the Great and a pirate whom he caught. Alexander the Great asks the pirate, "How dare you molest the sea?" The pirate turns to Alexander the Great and says, "How dare you molest the whole world? I have a small boat, so I am called a thief and a pirate. You have a navy, so you're called an emperor."


----------



## purple (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: I give up*



> There's no doubt that terrorism is a threat. Both the Al Queda type and the George Bush type.





> Osama Bin Laden is trying to impose a fundamentalist muslim belief on the world through violence and the US under Bush is trying to impose a fundamentalist Christian belief on the world through violence/politics


With points like this are being made it's not hard to see why YD draws the conclusions he does. To equate George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden is offensive to over half of America and far more simplistic and biased than many here are accusing the American people of being.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: I give up*

*With points like this are being made it's not hard to see why YD draws the conclusions he does*

YD rarely gets _any_ point being made. He prefers to call everyone "piggyists" when he doesn't understand or want to try to understand where they're coming from.

*To equate George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden is offensive to over half of America and far more simplistic and biased than many here are accusing the American people of being.*

Except that I'm *not* equating the two. I'm merely _trying_ to make the point that we view Muslim fundamentalist terrorism as terrorism but carpet bombing of thousands of innocent people as freedom and/or democracy.

Many Americans see George Bush as a terrorist btw.


----------



## Chrisb (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: terror*

I read some where once: "It's only terrorism if you don't have an airforce to deliver the bomb."

People all over the place a re so afraid of terrorists, why? There is a higher chance to die of cancer, or in a traffic accident, or unprovoked attack; even if you were living in New York in 2001!!!
I don't see a war on cancer, or crime, etc.

It's all fear politics at it's best, just like Nazi Germany. Here's a quote by Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

As the saying goes, all we learn from history is that it repeats itself.


----------



## Madonna (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Trying to understand piggy*

It is sad that we have lost YD for good, he made a lot of sense, a bit off the wall on occasions but one can understand his frustrations.



> Except that I'm not equating the two. I'm merely trying to make the point that we view Muslim fundamentalist terrorism as terrorism but carpet bombing of thousands of innocent people as freedom and/or democracy.


Piggy,  I am sure this hangs together at some logical level but to me it reads extremely contradictory.

More seriously, your persistent assertion that the US is "carpet bombing thousands of innocent people" is grossly irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Trying to understand piggy*

Doesn't it go against the spirit of these forums to use multiple users within one post?


----------



## N0elC (5 Nov 2004)

*Multiple users*

True piggy, which is why posting should be restricted to registered users only, with each username being linked to a unique e-mail address.

This wouldn't make it impossible for users to circumvent the system, but it'd make it a whole lot easier.

It'd certainly cut down on the amount of trolling going on


----------



## Asimov (5 Nov 2004)

*Trying to understand Piggy*



> Actually, I don't know if that theory does exist (that fundamentalists are few and far between).



Now hang on Piggy, you can't have it both ways!! 
Which is it going to be? On one thread you tell us the majority of muslims are peaceniks, and on the next you say the fundamentalists may not be all that 'few and far between'. 
Make your bleedin' mind up willya?



> There are over a billion Muslims on this planet. The vast majority are NOT terrorists.


No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!
Where are the peaceniks Piggy? Why aren't they out marching against militant Islam?



> I don't think anyone doubts that Al Queda have a following in the Middle East (and abroad). The question is what is the rest of the world doing about it.


Finding and killing them.



> Do we help matters when we call this war a "crusade"? George Bushes word, not mine.


Several points here.
I (as an average private western secularised citizen) do not see this as a CRUSADE. Nor do any of my friends or family. I don't think GWB sees it as a CRUSADE either, even though he trips over his tongue on a daily basis.

The word CRUSADE is a highly abused one. It can mean anything from going hard after drug dealers (a Crusade against drugs) to invading Jerusalem and killing all non-Christians (a Medieval Crusade). 
Which do you think is the most common intent in the term nowadays? If you really think its the latter....you need your head examined.

As to how muslims interpret the word...I myself have big problems with the term JIHAD, which in reality canb be used in exactly the same ways as the word Crusade. It can have highly offensive Global meaning as well as a totally innocuous Personal meaning.
Since many muslims insist that the Personal form of the word is the one I should accept, then I expect them to accept the peaceful meaning of the word Crusade on equal terms.




> Carpeting bombing Iraq & Afghanistan- that's gotta help matters right? That'll shut those terrorists up for sure!



My God! Thats so weird! The hardline muslim on Today FM used the exact same phrase...CARPET BOMBING.
Even Matt Cooper pulled him up on that piggy. What a lie, and what a cunning and weasel way to attempt to poison the debate.
Absolute Rubbish! 

The remainder of your comments just went downhill from there, so I won't bother even addressing them.

Suffice to say, rather like Sinn Fein being voted IN, and like the Nice Treaty being voted OUT (1st time), the election of GWB goes to show that your liberal left lie is not being swallowed by the majority of people round the West and that (wheteher you like it or not) the majority sees the world differently to you.

There are some interesting times ahead for the mainstream Left and Centre parties in the Western world.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Trying to understand Piggy*

*Now hang on Piggy, you can't have it both ways!!
Which is it going to be? On one thread you tell us the majority of muslims are peaceniks, and on the next you say the fundamentalists may not be all that 'few and far between'.
Make your bleedin' mind up willya?*

I thought I made my point quite clear. There are over a billion  Muslims in the world. I never used the word peaceniks. There are undoubtedly a relatively large number of fundamentalists. I have absolutely no idea what that number is mind you. Perhaps a few thousand. Perhaps less. Who knows?

*No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!
Where are the peaceniks Piggy? Why aren't they out marching against militant Islam?*

Perhaps you could clear something up for me Asimov so that I can have some idea as to what your views are. Have you previously posted on AAM as ElCid?


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2004)

*Wake up*

Just because the majority hold a certain view doesn't mean it is the right one. The Nazis were voted into power in Germany. Can we say that democracy had spoken and thus this was a good thing?
There are few enought truths in this world, but when we boil off all the nonsense there are a few things that we can say for certain - one of them being that we have to be good to each other and treat others as we would like to be treated. 
It is so easy to sit here and postulate on the way of the world. Do the Bush supporters have the courage of their convictions - would they sign up for a term of service in Iraq if called upon to do so? Or are they happy for others to do the dirty work and they can then believe what their leaders tell them about it all without seeing it with their own eyes?


----------



## Asimov (5 Nov 2004)

*Trying to understand Piggy*

No you never used the word peaceniks. I did. Because that is a good word for what you describe the majority of muslims to be. 
You say its just a few thousand? But the BBC program mentioned earlier suggests its far more than that piggy because its potentially every young male muslim. That would be several million then, wouldn't it.

Are you trying to wriggle out from under the issue by digression into usernames? Thats weak. 
Stick to the topic.



> we have to be good to each other and treat others as we would like to be treated.



Tell it to the beheaders.



> are they happy for others to do the dirty work.



America has a standing army. The people who join do so voluntarily. If every one of the Americans who supported GWB chose to 'do their own dirty work' (as you'd put it) then you would INDEED be able to call THAT a CRUSADE. 

The Islamists on the other hand have no standing army, and no legitimacy, and they chose to 'do the dirty work' of their JIHAD in Madrid, and the WTC, and kidnapping and beheading. 
Are you telling me you admire them for that?

I think you do. 
Shame on you.


----------



## piggy (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Trying to understand Piggy*

*Are you trying to wriggle out from under the issue by digression into usernames? Thats weak. *

No...I'm trying to figure out if you and ELCid are one and the same. You have every right not to tell me...but given that ELCid has repeatedly espoused rather alarming extreme views, which are now beginning to come across in your posts about Muslims I just thought you might lay it on the line as to how you _really_ feel about Muslims. 

*Are you telling me you admire them for that?

I think you do.
Shame on you.*

shnaek would be as well to ignore this comment. I'll say right now, without quibble, that I doubt very much he does _admire_ any form of murder. I can't really see why you'd even suggest such an absurd thing.

Sorry for speaking on your behalf shnaek.


----------



## Madonna (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Withdraw that outrageous assertion*

Piggy, if you are to be treated with any credibility, withdraw that outrageous claim that the US is carpet bombing thousands of innocent civilians.  How can you possibly believe that?  Do you forget that the US, besides having its own standards, is actually answerable to Iraqis.  Maybe they are puppet Iraqis but they couldn't possibly accept the wanton genocide of their fellow innocent citizens that you allege.

As with Asimov, I note that when I previously drew your attention to this outrage, your response was to accuse me of not playing by the spirit of the "names game".  That is gobsmacking.

YD


----------



## piggy (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Withdraw that outrageous assertion*

There's nothing outrageous about it. How many thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been killed by the coalition?

How do you think they were killed?


Posting under more than one user name within the same post  is backing up your own views while appearing to be from someone else.


----------



## piggy (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Withdraw that outrageous assertion*

Or perhaps you'd rather read about what really goes on in these wars - direct from the mouths of American soldiers.

[broken link removed]

This is the war we don't hear about over here.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Withdraw that outrageous assertion*

*withdraw that outrageous claim that the US is carpet bombing thousands of innocent civilians. How can you possibly believe that?*

Even Sky has reported this. Look, they're at it again.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13245928,00.html

Daisy-cutters and DU are not joke either.

The US is killing innocents, including children. That's what happens in war, and why war is so naughty.


----------



## Madonna (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Answering the piggy*



> How many thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been killed by the coalition?


I have already answered this - about 500 i.e. half a thousand.  500 too many in one sense, of course, but we are unfortunately a long way from a world were dictators are brought to heel and terrorists made to desist over a game of chess.


> How do you think they were killed?


The image you portray is of indiscriminate genocide.  Carpet bombing is by definition indiscriminate and is used by the US against troop formations as in the first Gulf War, where the risk of collateral civilian casualties is either minimal or non existent.  The vast majority of civilian deaths are I believe truly collateral to focussed attacks against military/insurgent/terrorist targets as approved by the interim Iraqi administration.


> Posting under more than one user name within the same post is backing up your own views while appearing to be from someone else.


Piggy, can I recommend that you advertise in the personal columns for a sense of humour.

As to the stories of individual US soldiers, why are you so prepared to accept these without question when you proclaim such a worldly wise disdain for mainstream reportage?  Has Al Jazeera reported the "carpet bombing of 1,000s of Iraqi civilians"?

YD


----------



## piggy (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Answering the piggy*

*I have already answered this - about 500*

That's just ridiculous. What do you base this figure on?

I suppose we shouldn't believe US soldiers. We shouldn't believe all the reports that come out of Iraq daily. If it goes against what you believe - that this is a nice clean war where only a few hundred people have been killed then I suppose there's just no point in taking any of it seriously.

Depleted Uranium!! What's that? That's just a figment of leftie imagination. Same with cluster bombs. XXXAnotherPersonXXX posts a perfectly reasonable link to Sky which tells a similar story. You just don't want to hear it.

I was going to post a link to a website earlier on and put a warning on it but decided it would be in extremely bad taste. It shows a picture of a young Iraqi girl being held in her fathers arms after bombing in Baghdad. Most of her limbs were blown off.

I'll tell you what Madonna - do you promise to come back here and apologise when it finally comes out just how many innocent Iraqi's were killed. Women and young children. Blown to small pieces. Soldiers told to light up civilians. Why would you even doubt this is going on when we now know what went on in Vietnam. As XXXAPXXX said, this is war. This is what goes on. 
Will you come back here then and admit that you were wrong when, undoubtedly the true horror of what went on in Iraq begins to trickle out bit by bit?

BTW, that's one soldiers harrowing account fo what is going on in Iraq. There have been many, many more.


----------



## elderdog (6 Nov 2004)

*Depleted Uranium!!  - that reminds me*

Did any of you know that each 747-100 and 747-200 aircraft carried approx 1000kg of DU for airframe balance ?  

All damn fine unless it gets hot when it is rather toxic.

Anyone remember an El Al cargo 747 that went down due to overloading when taking off from Amsterdam ?

Landed on a block of flats complete with full load of fuel. The area became a mini Chernobyl. Cancer black spot, deformed births The Lot.



By the way, a lot of you dont seem to understand what war is. How many of you were out of short pants during :

(a) Korea ?

(b) Vietnam ?




eDog


----------



## shnaek (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Answering the piggy*

Piggy - no problems on speaking on my behalf. It is a ridiculous comment and I laughed out loud when I read it. 
I made my point and made it clearly enough. If others want to put some old rubbish in there and then say that I said that, I mean, what can I do about that? The same old crap went on during the witch hunts.

I must also comment on an earlier post by Rabbit who said


> He is a brave man , in charge of a great country , in a world where cowardly countries like France will only sit on the fence and watch.



I believe Ireland was the one sitting on the fence. France actually opposed the war, as it is entitled to do.


----------



## Madonna (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Answering the piggy*

Piggy, I am nearly twice your age so I am not as naive as you purport.  Yes, war is horrible and even the unquestionably "good" wars such as WWII against the Nazis has tales of undescribable evil by even the White Hat Guys.

Abu Garhaib (sp?) was a big shock to me but in all this mess one has to retain perspective.

I'll tell you that, rather than apologise, if it transpires that America and its allies has wantonly commited genocide of 100,000 Iraqi innocents then I will change my mind and place GBW in the same monster class as OBL.  I will also despair of the whole of the civilised world from Russia to the UK to France yeah even to Pakistan who are not raising a whimper against this genocide.

I suspect that the reverse is not true.  That if it transpires that the levels of civilian deaths are much smaller than you seem to want to believe and that these were the truly collateral result of reasonable force against legitimate targets, given the circumstances, then I doubt whether it will change your view that GWB is an oilmongering war criminal one jot.


----------



## Asimov (6 Nov 2004)

*War*

Piggy there is a very simple solution to this whole conflict.

The US defeated the Iraqi army militarily, fair and square.

The US President declared major hostilities to be over.

The US has allocated billions of dollars, and sent in the people to rebuild the country.

I firmly believe the US is not interested in stealing Iraqs oil, or in colonising Iraq. That is not the American way. They've paid for their oil all along and will continue to do so.
America wants to install a Western friendly DEMOCRATIC government in Iraq and then get the hell out of it. There are other fish to fry.

Meanwhile the insurgents, foreign terrorists and supporters of the ex-dictator, have carried on a guerilla war which is costing the lives of many of their innocent countrymen.

The SIMPLE SOLUTION is for them to recognise the war is over, lay down their weapons and go home.

If they continue to fight then they are utterly and completely responsible for bringing death and destruction on their own people.

Did you support the IRA bombing campaigns?
Do you think it aided progress to a United Ireland?
Do you think the terrorists in Iraq are likely to succeed where the IRA didn't?
If the Iraqi insurgents really cared about the death and destruction they are bringing down on their own people they would give it up.

Don't blame the US for whats happening. The time for blame is over and the time for solutions is here.
The Iraqi insurgency is not the solution...it is the problem.


----------



## Dan The Man (6 Nov 2004)

*Answering the piggy*

Pig I think you're right, I think Asimov and Rabbit is the same, anyhow I've ignored both.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: War*

*Did you support the IRA bombing campaigns?
Do you think it aided progress to a United Ireland?*

Like it or not, the IRA bombing campaigns did aid progress to a united Ireland. It mightn't have been the nicest way of doing things, but it was effective.


----------



## Asimov (6 Nov 2004)

*Bombing*

We do not have a United Ireland. 
You must live on a different planet!

Dan, I don't know who Rabbit is, but since there is now a requirement to register to post here I can't see how I can have two identities.
Are you so lost for a counter argument that this is the best you can do? Don't waste peoples time with such inanities. Thats Piggys job.


----------



## Marie (6 Nov 2004)

*War*

"I firmly believe the US is not interested in stealing Iraqs oil, or in colonising Iraq. That is not the American way. They've paid for their oil all along and will continue to do so.
America wants to install a Western friendly DEMOCRATIC government in Iraq and then get the hell out of it. There are other fish to fry.

Meanwhile the insurgents, foreign terrorists and supporters of the ex-dictator, have carried on a guerilla war which is costing the lives of many of their innocent countrymen."

Reading the comments put me in mind of the reports which Elizabeth I's Lord Lieutenants of Ireland were sending to London around 1490 that the Irish were savages with bizarre customs dressed in animal skins, eating their own young and devoid of law and culture.  Though the purpose of Elizabeth's decimation of the Irish was to "settle" the land with Scottish soldiers who had fought for the realm in the European wars, and though in the circumstances "resistance" by the indiginous Irish was rather predictable, these efforts to stay alive and keep their farms was represented in the despatches as attacks upon the good progressive "civilisation".  In Ireland for 500 years what were described by the Crown as "insurgents, foreign terrorists and supporters of the ex-dictator" (the High King of Ireland in this case) carried on a guerrilla war which has cost the lives of many of their innocent countrymen".

Might it have been better to simply (as is being suggested for Iraq)  let Cromwell have the island as they had weapons and monarchy? Is the idea of such a response a true representation of basic human nature?


----------



## Asimov (6 Nov 2004)

*History*

You gotta be kiddin, right?

Surely the difference is obvious?

The US has no intention of 'planting' Iraq with Americans!

I doubt if many Yanks would fancy the idea of giving up their rather comfortable lifestyles to go live in a s**thole like Baghdad. I know I wouldn't.

Must say I'm rather surprised at the ammount of support the IRA has around here!


----------



## Marie (6 Nov 2004)

*History*

*The US has no intention of 'planting' Iraq with Americans!

I doubt if many Yanks would fancy the idea of giving up their rather comfortable lifestyles to go live in a s**thole like Baghdad. I know I wouldn't.

Must say I'm rather surprised at the ammount of support the IRA has around here!*

Asimov - As an historic example of what is currently possible Great Britain colonised and subsequently maintained an astonishing amount of remote foreign territory - including India and vast tracts of the African subcontinent - with  very small resources numerically through "hearts and minds" and enculturation - phrases frequently used in the media in relation to the coalition's occupation of Iraq.

The peasants whose lands were seized in 1600 were farmers, not IRA members or sympathisers.  Suggesting that shopkeepers, businessmen and women, farmers, dentists etc. anywhere might have strong feelings of resistance on waking up one morning to be told they are now "ruled" by Washington is a reference to human nature and human response and is not an endorsement of terrorism in any place or time.

My posting was in response to the suggestion that the Iraqis are somehow responsible for the invasion of their country by the United States of America and the U.K.


----------



## OhPinchy (7 Nov 2004)

*interesting link*

Here's an interesting link to a breakdown of US States by IQ rating and who they voted for....intriguing stuff!

attenuation.net/files/iq.htm


----------



## Rabbit (7 Nov 2004)

*Re: History*

What rubbish , you cannot be serious.  As the population of the US  is so big , this is much more extreme than even claiming Cork and Kerry have an average IQ on 89, and voted SF, and Antrim has an average IQ of 110, and voted DUP. 

To get back to Iraq, foreigh terror groups are exploiting Iraqi civilians for their own ends , against the coalition forces. The US wants peace , the UK wants peace, they want to establish free elections and be out of there.     Did you know there was another election last week.   It was in Afghanistan, and it was successful.    If it were not for the US and UK, the Taliban would still be in control there, allowing Bin Laden free reign to run terror training camps etc.  Perhaps the likes of Piggy and Marie would prefer if this were still the case ?

By the way Marie, stop whining about the injustices done by the Brits 400 years ago.   They done much good as well, in times which were not perfect anywhere in the world.  At least they are standing up to oppression now in the past century better than many of the other old colonialists eg France and Spain - who stood up to ( and defended others from ) the Nazi in WW2 , the  Russians in the Cold War, Saddam after he invaded Kuwait , etc?


----------



## Asimov (7 Nov 2004)

*IRA*

But Marie, the IRA grew out of the grass roots resistance movements that opposed the plantation of Ulster (circa 1600) and the occupation of this island by the Brits! 

Their lineage can be traced back beyond the United Irishmen and Wolffe Tone in the 1790's, all the way to the 1642 attempt by Owen Roe O’Neill and a small army from Spain to kick the Brits out.

This fact raises uncomfortable questions. 

Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.

Or do you think that there should in fact be limits to this perpetual resistance...as the IRA themselves seem to have concluded? 
If so, why not in Iraq?

I'm not familiar with your own shade of politics, but normally the liberals on this BB (the type of people who jump to criticise the US) would also be right quick to damn the IRA and all their works.

So, as I said before, it will be interesting to see you struggle with the dilemma you've now presented yourself with...on the one hand terrorism (Iraqi resistance) is only to be expected, therefore condoned in a way...and on the other hand (the IRA) it is condemnable under all circumstances and cannot EVER be rationalised or excused under any circumstances.

So which is it?

Please someone explain this dichotomy to me...I'm fascinated to know the difference.


----------



## Rabbit (8 Nov 2004)

*Re: History*

Its not a question of which is it. Both are / were wrong.
The IRA did not have the support of most of the Irish people.
The insurgents in Iraq do not have the support of most of the Iraqi people.  Full stop.


----------



## Asimov (8 Nov 2004)

*IRA*

Hi Rabbit. Replying to my post might confuse Dan the Man, he thinks we are one in the same. :lol 

I'm not sure your answer reflects what Marie said.
Maybe its what she _meant_ though.
Perhaps you should allow her to answer for herself?

However I agree with your comment, and I'm sure most people would too...given that the alternative is a position of pure hypocrisy.

I suppose everyone will therefore gladly join me in wishing the US forces every success in the upcoming assault on the terrorist stronghold in Fallujah, and in calling for the insurgents to lay down their guns first to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

_Dons tin hat and retreats to bunker._


----------



## piggy (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: IRA*

*Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.*

I'd be very surprised if that was Marie's point.

I think you need to differentiate between the Old IRA and the splinter group of the 1960's.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iri...he_Old_IRA

As for support that the Republican movement had, it was widespread.

"However public opinion shifted gradually, initially over the executions without due process of 16 senior leaders--some of whom, such as James Connolly, were too ill to stand--and people thought complicit in the rebellion. As one observer described the drawn out process of executing the leaders of the rising, it was like watching blood seep from behind a closed door. Opinion shifted even more in favor of the Republicans in 1917-18 with the Conscription Crisis, when Britain tried to impose conscription on Ireland to boost its World War I war effort."

But this debate is not about the IRA. Marie is merely drawing a comparison. You're looking at Iraq purely from a Western perspective, but it's not happening in the West. It's happening in the Middle East. When you begin to _try_ to look at it from their perspective then you might begin to understand the point Marie was making.


----------



## georgewbush2 (10 Nov 2004)

Love of freedom and democracy
Christian ideals
Caring loving father
God on my side
Straight shootin' son of a gun

thats why


----------



## Marie (10 Nov 2004)

*why Bush?*

*Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.

Or do you think that there should in fact be limits to this perpetual resistance...as the IRA themselves seem to have concluded? 
If so, why not in Iraq?*

Asimov - If we go back to the invasion of Iraq by the coalition (USA and UK) this was objected to at the time (by Hans Bick and  by Koffe Annan to name but two) as unprovoked and unjustified aggression.  Diplomacy and the work of the Weapons Inspectors was de-escalating the Iraq "problem" which all would agree was one Saddam Hussein, who is a brutal, ruthless and autocratic tyrant.  However - and most importantly - he ruled Iraq at a specific historic moment of transition from tribal to centralised state system, and that's a tricky business!

Bush and Blair tried to sell the invasion of Iraq as (1) a necessary pre-emptive strike to prevent the free world being blown up by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which did not exist); (2) a defense of the freedom, justice and equality of the Iraqi people who were being "freed" from the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

However - and this was the point of my allusion to the Irish precedent - the Iraqi people themselves were not consulted before Iraq was to the amazement of the entire world who watched on T.V. and were aware Bush and Blair had no mandate from their respective nations and no evidence base justifying their attack.  Thus summarily occupied by foreign soldiers ("infidels" who did not respect the holy places or know anything of their language or culture) the Iraqis watched their energy resources commandeered by the occupying forces, their ruler (however unsavoury he was, he WAS their head of state!) removed and imprisoned as a war criminal, followed by their freedom of movement severely curtailed, their jobs lost as the infrastructure was supplanted by Saddam Hussein's enemies driven abroad in establishment of the regime.  To their protests at the "invasion" they were told it was "war".  Then at the discretion of Bush and Blair, the "war" was declared "over" as abruptly as it had begun.......since when they have continued to have to stand by and watch their homes and cities flattened by bombs, their families and neighbours killed........

So my point in response to a posting which suggested the Iraqis should now submit and throw down their weapons before more people were killed was this.  If you are aggressively attacked and outraged and violated, if the attacker goes so far that death is almost preferable to how awful life has become, if you have been a shopkeeper or a teacher or a mother and your life has been upended for reasons you cannot understand and not of your making........you then take up (not lay down!) arms because you have nothing further to lose; everything has already been lost.  This is big trouble........and by he looks of things Iraq is going to be very big trouble and the coalition is now outpaced by events in what is turning into a long-drawn-out guerrilla resistance!

One of many analogies from history which came to mind was the Irish situation at the beginning of the Plantation which other posters have picked up very ably.

The Iraqis were not insurgents, terrorists, when the coalition entered the country.  They will be before the coalition leaves.  Bush and Blair have created this and my posting was taking issue with the view that the Iraqis themselves had somehow created the mayhem.  This inversion of truth is being manufactured and manipulated by the media and what were short months ago ordinary people going about their lives are now gunmen, thugs and enemies of freedom connected somehow with Isama Bin Laden (who many of them - like many of us - had never heard of until the 9/11 terrorist attack).

If I'm defending anything Asimov, I'm defending peoples right to not be embroiled in murder and mayhem not of their making or choosing.


----------



## Marie (10 Nov 2004)

as a postscript, perhaps Bush "got back in" because the USA needed to manufacture some backyard far away into which to deposit the excess of aggression fear and frustration in which it now drowns.  Iraq, Afghanistan, in fact anywhere with "different" values will do as a receptacle for this, and Bush is the "act-don't-think" agent for this?


----------



## Rabbit (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: why Bush?*

President Bush got back in because the majority of votors in the most powerful country on earth wanted him to.  They know freedom is precious because they have fought so hard for it in the past.  If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian.  The Americans established their own standard of living, they did not get it from anywhere else , by way of grants or factories from bigger neighbours.   

As regards the IRA, they certainly do or did not have majority support in this island, any more than the insurgents / terrorists have popular support in Iraq.  In 1915, the IRA was booed on the streets of Dublin.  Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA.   The US, UK , Polish, Australian etc troops are in Iraq at the request of the govt. there, until free and fair elections are held.   This is what most Iraqis want.   Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK.      Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (10 Nov 2004)

> If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian.



I have heard variations of this so frequently. It must be such an insult to those (non-American) soldiers who did fight in WWI & WWII.


----------



## Dan The Man (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: why Bush?*

a shto luchelas pruski?


----------



## piggy (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: why Bush?*

*Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK. Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.*

You have the most black and white view of the world I've ever seen.
Do some Googling for victims of the bombing campaigns in Iraq from 1991 to the present day. Many of the pictures of children with most of their limbs missing will turn your stomach.
One form of murder does not outweigh another form.


----------



## Asimov (10 Nov 2004)

> I think you need to differentiate between the Old IRA and the splinter group of the 1960's.



Are you splitting hairs Piggy?

Its important to differentiate? 

WHY? 

Is one terrorist more legitimate than another terrorist? 
Who decides their legitimacy? 

Let me play Devils Advocate for a moment.....

The 'modern' IRA (your 'splinter group') came about as a result of persecution and disenfranchisement in NI. Persecution that didn't finish when the ROI had secured independance for itself. 
The fact that you (or anyone in the ROI) doesn't agree with the IRA  is myopic and beside the point. They had widespread support in the areas and communities that were sufferring persecution. I know because I lived there and experienced it first hand. Were the nationalists of NI to simply sit down,shut up,and fade away because you were alright Jack? 

By the standards outlined by Marie _(...you are aggressively attacked and outraged and violated... the attacker goes so far that death is almost preferable to how awful life has become... your life has been upended for reasons you cannot understand and not of your making...)_ the modern IRA had a perfect right to resist, and were, by her standards, entitled to fight!

The 'Old' IRA carried on a murder campaign to further their aims. What makes them different from the modern IRA? The fact that they were succesful?

The point I'm making is...if you DO think the Iraqi insurgents are legitimate, then you legitimise the IRA, and ETA, and the Red Army Faction, and all the other nutjobs who choose to take up arms and murder indiscriminately.

Be honest with yourselves....maybe you truly believe that terrorism is excusable when the provocation is sufficient?

It reminds me of that old GB Shaw story.
He's in a train carriage with a very attractive young lady. He asks her...'my dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?'
She smiles and says..."well, for a million pounds... yes!"
So he asks, 'would you sleep with me for ten pounds?'. 
To which she replies angrily...'What do you think I am, a prostitute?'
'We've already established that' says Shaw, 'now we're just haggling over the price'!

What is the price of your principals on terrorism?
If you can see an excuse for it *at all* then you have accepted the principal and now all you are doing is haggling over the body count.

I detect a whiff of ambivalence, if not glee at seeing Americans getting a good hard kicking.


----------



## piggy (10 Nov 2004)

*if you DO think the Iraqi insurgents are legitimate*

There's a subtle differnce between understanding why something naturally exists and legitimising it.

*f you can see an excuse for it at all then you have accepted the principal and now all you are doing is haggling over the body count.*

What's the difference between terrorists killing innocents and governments killing innocents?

The point I want to make here is that I see no difference between those in Iraq killing (call them what you will) and American soldiers killing. The spin might be different but the result is the same. But then you might hold a different view if you believe that the British and Americans are there to bring freedom, democracy and the Amercian way to the poor people of Iraq. Frankly I don't.


----------



## Maceface (10 Nov 2004)

very Good Post Asimov.




> President Bush got back in because the majority of votors in the most powerful country on earth wanted him to.


Makes me wonder where you put China in that list. I think in a war between the two, the US would be hammered.
Economically, China is getting there. In fact, the US would be in big trouble if China changed to link their currency against the Euro instead of the dollar. 
The US would also be in big trouble if the price of oil was linked to the Euro, but with the close Saudi ties in the current administration, I don't think that is likely. 



> They know freedom is precious because they have fought so hard for it in the past.


I am sure the people of central and South America would have a different opinion to that. 
They done very little that was not in the interests of themselves. Full Stop!
A matter of fact, one of the few things I think they done for the good of the world with nothing in return is the Marshall plan, but I could be wrong, because they got to open loads of military bases in return.



> If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian.


I am sick of posting about this issue that it was not just down to America that the war was won by the Allies. If Hitler didn't attack Russia after their truce, the Germans probably would have won. They did attack, the Russians entered the war, opened a new front. The Germans were being hammered by the sheer number of Russians, and therefore, it is not just the Americans which won the war.
As  for speaking Russian? When did the Russians ever invade anywhere west of a few hundred miles of Poland?
Why would we be speaking Russian?

[quote/The Americans established their own standard of living, they did not get it from anywhere else , by way of grants or factories from bigger neighbours.[/quote]
No, they established their way of living because of the gun. Did you know that Iraq was the most technologically advanced nation in the 1100's (until Khan destroyed it).
America, and the West in general had the biggest guns so invaded anyone they could.



> As regards the IRA, they certainly do or did not have majority support in this island, any more than the insurgents / terrorists have popular support in Iraq. In 1915, the IRA was booed on the streets of Dublin.


and a year later when the leaders of the rebellion were killed, the Irish public stood behind them.
I am also sure (asimov?) in the late 60's, early 70's, the IRA were supported by almost all nationalists in the North, and therefore a majority there?



> Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA.


I don't know about that. I know we had a lot of men die in WW1, but I am not that sure about WW2. Either way, the IRA weren't paying people to be members, unlike the British army, so you just can't compare.



> The US, UK , Polish, Australian etc troops are in Iraq at the request of the govt. there, until free and fair elections are held.


The Iraq government? You mean the American puppet who used to work for the CIA.

Do you think there will be free and fair elections? They have already banned certain people from standing.



> This is what most Iraqis want. Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK. Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.



The place is bordering on civil war, just like we were 80 years ago.
Just because their skin colour and beliefs are the same, and they want the West out of their country does not make them the same people. 

History will be the judge, as long as it is not whitewashed by the American media.


----------



## Asimov (11 Nov 2004)

> There's a subtle differnce between understanding why something naturally exists and legitimising it.



Yes Piggy....so subtle that it is here that the lines become blurred beyond all recognition. 

To give you an example...I had an old uncle back in Belfast who, like you, said that he 'understood why the IRA existed'. He 'understood' when they carried out the La Mon bombings. He 'understood' when they carried out the mass bombing of Belfast on Bloody Friday.
He 'understood' when they murdered Airey Neave, and when they bombed the Guards in Hyde Park, or the shopping center in Warrington.

Like you and Marie, he was able (in his mind) to separate his desire for freedom and his love of the IRA 'Freedom Fighters' from their brutality and murderous actions...because even though he didn't AGREE with all they did... he *UNDERSTOOD* it. 
This ambivalence is widespread in this country, and especially in the North. 
It helped to perpetuate a pointless war that cost thousands of innocent lives. 



> The point I want to make here is that I see no difference between those in Iraq killing (call them what you will) and American soldiers killing.



Yes, because like my old uncle you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. 



> The spin might be different but the result is the same.



The result is the same...dead people. 
But the INTENT is the difference Piggy. 
From your perspective a terrorist is as legitimate as a uniformed soldier fighting on behalf of a democratically elected government.... if only because you UNDERSTAND the terrorist but DON'T understand the actions of a soldier.
Thats a prescription for anarchy.



> But then you might hold a different view if you believe that the British and Americans are there to bring freedom, democracy and the Amercian way to the poor people of Iraq. Frankly I don't.



They are there...right or wrong...and the alternative to the 'Pax Americana' is Islamic fundamentalism and more tyranny. I'll take US democracy over that any day...even if it has to be imposed.

As someone who was brought up in NI and lived through the war there, and lost innocent friends and relatives, I can tell you that whatever you think of some Iraqi's rights to resist, and however much you 'undestand' their terrorism, you are forming your opinions at a safe remove, and you don't have to live with the consequences of that mindset. You don't risk death on the streets of Iraq.

Your 'understanding' provides succour to terrorism.

One day this will all be sorted out around a negotiating table...as is happening in NI now, and you will have to live with your share of the responsibility for the thousands that were killed unnecessarily because the terrorists felt they had a sympathetic audience, even in the west, from people like you. 

Maceface, thanks for your plaudit, I hope you realise we have differing views though.


----------



## Marie (11 Nov 2004)

*As someone who was brought up in NI and lived through the war there, and lost innocent friends and relatives, I can tell you that whatever you think of some Iraqi's rights to resist, and however much you 'undestand' their terrorism, you are forming your opinions at a safe remove, and you don't have to live with the consequences of that mindset. You don't risk death on the streets of Iraq.

Your 'understanding' provides succour to terrorism.

One day this will all be sorted out around a negotiating table...as is happening in NI now, and you will have to live with your share of the responsibility for the thousands that were killed unnecessarily because the terrorists felt they had a sympathetic audience, even in the west, from people like you.* 

Asimov - I respect that your perspective comes from intimate experience of living in a divided community and through dangerous times.

Some issues and debates are so important and urgent as to demand detailed factual historic knowledge, statistics and contributions from different perspectives, and to be carefully considered in quiet places.  E-mail forums can sometimes be too much of "sound and fury, signifying nothing" to fit the requirements of that deep debate.

So a caveat!  I am very interested in this freedom/violence issue but feel in this present forum there are limits on what can be achieved and communicated and I am aware of how much must be censored and "deleted unsent" in the present discussion.

Implicit in your most recent post is the issue of _legitimacy_ and perhaps the exchanges here are a disagreement over what constitutes legitimacy.Is it "the people" or "the (official, elected) leadership".  If one believed that the leader (whether Saddam Hussein, Bush, Ahern, Chirac, Putin) has authority and legitimacy to declare war (or peace!) then the (natural, species-specific) self-preservative response of individuals or groups (e.g. the  father who elects to ward off attackers to protect his threatened children, the Town Mayor or priest who rallies the people in the Mexican town to defend the community from the bandits etc.) is problematised since by definition they are in the followership/servant relationship to the legitimate authority, local warlord or whatever and "should" conform, even if that conformity involves their own destruction.

Perhaps where one stands on _that_ determines whether the current actions of the Iraqi people in - say - Falluja -  are tenable and categorised as understandable or as terrorism/insurgency.

A corollary is your remark that the coalition forces are in Iraq so the game must go on.  Again, your position is (if I have understood you correctly?) that whether this is "good" or "bad" "right" or "wrong" is not debatable since their deployment in Iraq is legitimated by elected leaders (Bush and Blair).

I now understand why we are talking at cross purposes as my concept of the relationship of elected leader and "the people", elected leader and decisions of state, and the role of public and private opinion and pressures of all kinds (including, in our times, media pressure for sensationalism!) is very different to what I now begin to understand your views on authority to be.

It's late, it's a weekday so too tired to go further with this now but will post again (hopefully!) tomorrow.


----------



## Rabbit (11 Nov 2004)

In reply to "Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA."


Someone said "I don't know about that. I know we had a lot of men die in WW1, but I am not that sure about WW2. Either way, the IRA weren't paying people to be members, unlike the British army, so you just can't compare."

I think they should check their facts.   In one small west of Ireland county thousands volunteered to serve in WW1 alone.
Many more served in WW2.   However, those who were part of the British forces kept a low profile by and large when they returned to Ireland, for reasons which we will not go in to here.   However, I think we do owe them a hell of a lot, as many gave their tomorrows so we can have our todays.    

As regards the point that if it were not for the Americans we would be speaking German or Russian, someone made little of this.     It is not an insult to other countries who fought in defeating oppression.   They know they played their part as well. The British and Aussies for example have a proud history, but they could not have defeated Hitler and the Japanese without the Americans.  Likewise, the cold war. 
The first Gulf war was fought by these same countries for the liberation of Kuwait.  If they advanced on Bagdad then, the Kurds may not have been gassed by Saddam.   The west is right in finishing off the job now and establishing democracy in Iraq.


----------



## Asimov (11 Nov 2004)

Marie, late as it is, I want to reply to you.

As regards the 'legitimacy' of States declaring and waging war...in a democracy the people get the government they voted for. In America the people have just re-confirmed their choice, so like it or not, under the democratic system President Bush has both the legitimacy and backing of *his people* through the democratic process.

Given Americas leadership role in the world, and its economic and military power, then it is a simple fact that this power will be brought to bear to protect and further the interests of the US - and among those interests is a free and peaceful Middle East. 

Most of the time (happily for us) US interests have been coincident with our own (as Bertie knows only too well) and have been pursued in a generally reasonable manner, given their ability to obliterate troublesome enemies at the mere push of a button.

The Iraqi people were *never* given any say in the policy or government of their country, and if the men you propose as 'freedom fighters' in Iraq have anything to do with it...they *never will* have any say. That to me means that although it was a sovereign state, it had far less legitimacy than the US has, and it will never have any in the future if the terrorists prevail.

As a yardstick of legitimacy I think the democratic system is the best we have.

I personally don't agree with Americas invasion of Iraq. I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money.

Some might say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam! 
I guess that would have depended largely on how 'well-in' with the Saddam regime an individual Iraqi was. 

The people of Iraq were dying by the million under Saddam.
Meanwhile he was building palaces.

I believe it was up to the Iraqis to instigate 'regime change' if they wanted it. But there was a strange shortage of 'Iraqi freedom fighters' in Saddams day. 
Of course we now know that Saddam had far fewer scruples than the Yanks when it came to dealing with trouble makers.

In a way the Iraqis are sufferring the cost of their own political inertia.

I believe the Yanks were naiive, both as a Government and as a people, and were egged on by emigre Iraqis (like Chalabi) who convinced them they'd be welcomed by the people of Iraq. 

However, given that the Americans went ahead and invaded, then yes, my view is that they are there now for the long haul, like it or not, because the alternative is unnacceptable. That is a marque of their sense of responsibility for their actions (which are costing them dearly) rather than some perverted Empire Building exercise. Whatever your views on America under Bush, at least they'll not be taking the easy option and doing a runner, as many others would in the same circumstances. 

What I just cannot get my head around is how sane individuals in this country can nod their heads toward these terrorists and say 'yes, we told you so, its perfectly understandable, they're just fighting for their freedom'...while the same people would condemn Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness for once having done the very same things in this country. And done it with a lot of support too.

I ask again...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*Yes Piggy....so subtle that it is here that the lines become blurred beyond all recognition.

To give you an example...I had an old uncle back in Belfast who, like you, said that he 'understood why the IRA existed'. He 'understood' when they carried out the La Mon bombings. He 'understood' when they carried out the mass bombing of Belfast on Bloody Friday.
He 'understood' when they murdered Airey Neave, and when they bombed the Guards in Hyde Park, or the shopping center in Warrington.

Like you and Marie, he was able (in his mind) to separate his desire for freedom and his love of the IRA 'Freedom Fighters' from their brutality and murderous actions...because even though he didn't AGREE with all they did... he UNDERSTOOD it. *

It's very difficult to hold any sort of reasonable debate with you Asimov when you insinuate that I in any way condone violence. I don't. 
When I talk about the difference between understanding and legitimising it's very simply this. People were shouting from the rooftops before the invasion that if the British and Americans went into Iraq they'd open hell's gate. It's as simple as that. We all knew what would happen. That's an understanding of what's going on. 
As I've had to previously state an untold number of times for your benefit - I DON'T CONDONE ANY VIOLENCE.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*What I just cannot get my head around is how sane individuals in this country can nod their heads toward these terrorists and say 'yes, we told you so, its perfectly understandable, they're just fighting for their freedom'...while the same people would condemn Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness for once having done the very same things in this country. And done it with a lot of support too.*

You can't understand how people would raise arms against an invading force that had killed thousands of your countrymen in bombing campaigns and if we're to believe the stories coming out from soldiers - that they're gunning down innocent civilians too?
It's not about 'I told you so'. That's something you have in your head. It's not about being happy to see any of this going on. Again, that fits into the nice little box that calls anyone who oppose this war anti-American. Everyone knew what was going to happen. Look at what happened in Vietnam as an example. Look at that history and what the Americans thought would happen before they invaded and what actually happened.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*Given Americas leadership role in the world, and its economic and military power, then it is a simple fact that this power will be brought to bear to protect and further the interests of the US - and among those interests is a free and peaceful Middle East.*

A lot of people would disagree with that last statement. This current President's view towards the Palestinians might be used as a yardstick.

*As a yardstick of legitimacy I think the democratic system is the best we have.*

Forcing democracy on a country actually goes against what democracy stands for.

*I personally don't agree with Americas invasion of Iraq. I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money.*

What about the massive loss of Iraqi life? Do they not count? Are they not as important as Americans?

*Some might say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam! *
For the record, I don't.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*    Quote:The point I want to make here is that I see no difference between those in Iraq killing (call them what you will) and American soldiers killing.



Yes, because like my old uncle you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier.*

Incorrect. I can tell the difference quite easily. I think you need to let go of this problem you have with your uncle. I'm not your uncle. I don't condone or support ANY violence.
I can understand just wars. There is little that is just about this war and the way a lot of those soldiers have behaved I see little difference between their acts and the acts of terrorists.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*As regards the point that if it were not for the Americans we would be speaking German or Russian, someone made little of this*

They probably did so because...ahem...the *Russians* fought _against_ Hitler in WW2. You might like to look that one up.


----------



## purple (11 Nov 2004)

I have to say I agree with Asimov here. 
I think his last post is on the marque; if you "understand" the people who will disarm police officers, tie them up and then shoot them in the back of the head then you have to "understand" the IRA. That sort of understanding goes hand in hand with the horse c**P that is talked on LOS and in this country in general about the Palestinians and Israel.
Thank God that the murdering terrorist dictator that has held them back for the last 30 years is dead. 

By the way Piggy if it wasn't for the Americans we would all be speaking Russian, the only reason they didn't enslave the rest of Europe in 1945 is because the USA and Britain invaded on D-day not to stop Hitler because he lost the was when the snows started to fall on the Russian front, but to stop the Russian advance across Germany.
The dropping of the H-bomb on Japan was to end the war in the Pacific before the Russians invaded China and got their hands on warm water Pacific ports as well as resource rich Manchuria.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*if you "understand" the people who will disarm police officers, tie them up and then shoot them in the back of the head then you have to "understand" the IRA. That sort of understanding goes hand in hand with the horse c**P that is talked on LOS and in this country in general about the Palestinians and Israel.*

purple,

Your desperately misinterpreting my understanding of terrorism/insurgency (call it what you will).
An understanding of something is as simple as recognising that every action has an equal but opposite reaction. I also "understand" why the IRA formed and why they splintered in the 60's etc etc...that doesn't mean I condone what they did. I understand why terrorism is growing in Chechnya...but I don't condone the actions of what they did recently in Beslan. Not for one second. In the same breath I don't condone the way the Russian government is holding Chechnya in a death grip - murdering it's people queitly.
So - I understand why there are many many factions working in Iraq (working for different goals - be they money, hatred of America and the occupation or islamic fundamentalism). They exist. Whether you agree with them or not they exist for a reason. Not to understand them is to turn around and stick your head in the sand. 
It's far too easy to call them terrorists and point out what some of them have done while all the time ignoring what the coalitions legitimate soldiers have also done - and what our legitimate, democratcially elected governments have done too.
For (hopefully) the last time I deplore both forms of violence. I am not trying to be anti-American...I'm merely trying to balance the equation. Cutting off people's heads is just as disgusting as dropping a bomb on a house where a family lives and the father has to search through the rubble the next morning to find his children's body parts. The difference from our point of view in the West is that we see the terrorists every day but we're rarely shown the horrors of this invasion.
You cannot understand the one without understanding the other.


----------



## Asimov (11 Nov 2004)

Piggy you continue your circular argument.

You UNDERSTAND why terror exists and (are against it - and all violence you said). 
But you can...
*....understand how people would raise arms against an invading force that had killed thousands of your countrymen in bombing campaigns and if we're to believe the stories coming out from soldiers - that they're gunning down innocent civilians too?*

The scenario sounds just like NI Piggy, and the vast majority of people in *this* country *cannot *understand it, because it was pointless Piggy.

So what is the relevance of _your_ understanding?
Is it merely a semantic point you wish to make? 
You understand - but don't condone? Is that it?
Fine.
Where does that leave us in the real world...I mean who cares? 
Why should we care about the fine semantic cartwheels you've turned in your own head to justify your understanding of terrorists (but not their violence - heaven forbid)? 

Your 'understanding' makes no difference to the US, less to the terrorists, and none to me.

*Forcing democracy on a country actually goes against what democracy stands for.*

That would be the purists viewpoint. But they 'forced' democracy on Afghanistan and it seems to be working very well. 

*What about the massive loss of Iraqi life? Do they not count?*

As I said already Piggy (read the posts please) the Iraqis were dying by millions already under Saddam. Yes they matter. But I think they could have dealt with Saddam themselves and saved America the trouble.

*This current President's view towards the Palestinians might be used as a yardstick.*

This current President took over from a President who went to great lengths to encourage a peace deal in Palestine. 

Clinton set up the Oslo Peace Talks and stayed involved with the peace process right up to the point of a potential settlement. 

That settlement was 99.9% agreed by both sides, but Araffat walked out when he couldn't get his own way over ownership of Jerusalem. 

He held interviews afterward in which he told the world that the intifada would now start up again. 
The result of that was as UNDERSTANDABLE to me as TERRORISM is to you. 

The Israelis reacted to the violent Intifada by electing a hardliner - Sharon...his clampdown escalated the violence further...suicide bombings against civilians started (you understand WHY Piggy)...further repression followed, including the destruction of Araffats compound, his house arrest, and the effective end of the Palestinian authority...this enraged muslims worldwide and gave Osama and his cohorts the green light to attack anyone associated with Israel, specifically America....the result was 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and of Iraq by a newly elected American President who also chose to take a 'hardline' .

So you see Piggy, the whole thing can be distilled down to Araffats destruction of the Oslo accord. 

HE opened the gates of hell (as you so dramatically put it) and now he is about to enter them himself. Good riddance. 

He, more than any other single man, was responsible for plunging the world into all this chaos and bloodshed. 
He's the Ian Paisly of the Middle East, and like Paisley he dragged down the hopes and desire for peace of millions of people...even his own people...all because of personal arrogance and bigotry.

So don't blame Bush for the consequences we see now, any more than you blame the terrorists for the war in Iraq.
Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

If you can UNDERSTAND one concept you can easily grasp the other.

It seems to me that you certainly DO come at this from only one side of the equation. You only UNDERSTAND one side of the issue in fact.

Finally Piggy, I recommend you try to restrict yourself to ONE posting at a time...you just appear hysterical when you flood the thread.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

You do a fantastic job of twisting people's words Asimov. Well done.

*So what is the relevance of your understanding?
Is it merely a semantic point you wish to make?
You understand - but don't condone? Is that it?
Fine.
Where does that leave us in the real world...I mean who cares?
Why should we care about the fine semantic cartwheels you've turned in your own head to justify your understanding of terrorists (but not their violence - heaven forbid)?*

Actually, the point (in relation to these threads) to understanding terrorism, or freedom fighting, or insurgency, or any violence for that matter is extremely important. Unless you understand why something exists you can't deal with the facts properly. That is the relevance of it. 
The sniping sarcasm about me not condoning violence - what was the point in that?

*Your 'understanding' makes no difference to the US, less to the terrorists, and none to me.*

If you don't understand then I suggest you should stop asking then.

*That would be the purists viewpoint. But they 'forced' democracy on Afghanistan and it seems to be working very well. *
That remains to be seen.

*But I think they could have dealt with Saddam themselves and saved America the trouble.*
Except that America didn't have to! But then your viewpoint on that largely depends on whether or not you believe the bullsh*t about why they went in in the first place.

I could talk about Palestine and Israel but it's too broad a subject to get into here.

*It seems to me that you certainly DO come at this from only one side of the equation. You only UNDERSTAND one side of the issue in fact.*
I'm not surprised that it seems that way to YOU. It doesn't alter the fact that I'm quite caable of looking at both sides of the coin - just that I choose to highlight the parts of the argument that I do.

*Finally Piggy, I recommend yopu try to restrict yourself to ONE posting at a time...you just appear hysterical when you flood the thread.*
Back to your childish insults again I see. Whenever you grow up please feel free to post again.


----------



## purple (11 Nov 2004)

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you here Piggy but do you think it was right to force democracy on Germany in 1945?
After the initial resistance do you think the German people were better off than under a dictator?

I understand why the terrorists do what they do as well piggy but I also condemn it outright. To keep saying that we must understand the why's (and you are right, we must) makes you sound equivocal in the face of brutal murderers.
I also don't think you can equate the behavior of the US forces with the actions of car bombers and be-headers.

The US responds to the actions of the terrorists, not the other way around.
The US may kill civilians when it targets the terrorists, the terrorists target the civilians.


> I'm quite capable of looking at both sides of the coin - just that I choose to highlight the parts of the argument that I do.


 Please highlight the other side to show this then.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

purple,

I'll deal with the rest of your post when you answer these questions please. 

*I also don't think you can equate the behavior of the US forces with the actions of car bombers and be-headers.*

Why do you think this? What about Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanemo Bay?
Is a car bombing any different to bombing civilians? If so I'd love to know how. Have you ever compared the carnage after a car bomb with the carnage after cluster bombs have been dropped. Read a bit about what cluster bombs and depleted uranium does to civilians and then tell me that it's any different to car bombing.

*The US responds to the actions of the terrorists, not the other way around.*

Hmmm...by invading Iraq. Saddam was a lot of things. I've already made my views on him very clear. Was he a terrorist? He was certainly a cruel and vicious dictator...but not a terrorist (by what we understand one to be). So - when the Americans were bombing civilians - were they responding to the acts of terrorists? Remember, from Clubman's earlier posting in the Iraqi dead post - the IraqiBodyCount have estimated between 14 and 16 thousand dead.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
These are verifiable deaths from reports. So - one can easily surmise that the figure will probably be higher.

As for looking at this war from both sides of the coin - well, the other side of the coin (for me) is that the US are there now and must deal with the mess they're in. Full stop. Actually, I don't see that they have a choice.
I cannot look on this war as being a just war - if that's what you want me to say. That would just be lying to mysef.
There are a lot of myths which surround this war and all wars. I don't pretend that I'm right about everything. Perhaps I have some of my facts or understandings wrong. But I think that believing that America is fighting this war for the reasons as espoused by George Bush is very naive.

I've already posted one US soldiers experience in Iraq. That was a ten year veteran, who's experince of killing innocent civilians on a daily basis left nothing to the imagination. Abu Ghriab gave us a small glimpse into the real horrors of war. I think it's naive to believe that soldiers act like gentlemen in a war zone.


----------



## Asimov (11 Nov 2004)

*What about Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanemo Bay?*

Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives. Abu Ghraib would have been a holiday camp compared to what I would do to them. The fact that the US military put its people on trial over that, and then jailed them was further evidence that the Yanks do try to use restraint and proper process.

The west has its hands tied behind its back in this war by the system of civil and human rights we operate under. 

The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!  

*Is a car bombing any different to bombing civilians? If so I'd love to know how. Have you ever compared the carnage after a car bomb with the carnage after cluster bombs have been dropped.*

Ahhh...so carnage is all relative?
My carnage is worse than your carnage?

To answer your question...I've seen the aftermath of several car bombs. They are every bit as effective as cluster bombs on the people standing near them.

*Read a bit about what cluster bombs and depleted uranium does to civilians and then tell me that it's any different to car bombing.*

The difference AGAIN _(sigh)_ is that the terrorist who plants a car bomb does so with the INTENT to kill innocent bystanders in a civilian area.

Cluster bombs were designed as a battlefield weapon and are intended to kill enemy fighters on the open battlefield. 
They have NEVER been used against civilians on the streets of Iraq because it would be an unconscionably stupid way to use that weapon. 
Laser guided bombs have been used against specific targets in urban warfare in Iraq. But 'cluster bombs' and 'carpet bombing' sound much more SEXY terms, don't they Piggy?

*when the Americans were bombing civilians - were they responding to the acts of terrorists?*

When the US began bombing Baghdad they accurately targetted the Iraqi leadership and their infrastructure using precision weapons. They DID NOT target civilians. Here is a link to a series of 'before and after' images showing exactly that...Saddams villas and ministries destroyed, neighbouring civilian buildings totally untouched. 
So much for carpet bombing.
Satellite Images

*Remember, from Clubman's earlier posting in the Iraqi dead post - the IraqiBodyCount have estimated between 14 and 16 thousand dead.*

In a war innocent people get killed... for instance over 3,000 Americans were killed in ONE DAY on 9-11. 

Your estimate puts Iraqi deaths at around 15,000 over the 20 months to date?

In *4 days* of bombing of Belgrade by the Nazis in April 1941 - 17,500 civilians were killed!

The Iraq bombardment started in March 2003. 
The highest estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths for that month (mainly soldiers) was *586*. 
[broken link removed]

On the first night of bombing in Baghdad I can find evidence of only 3 deaths in the city according to YOUR website: [broken link removed] _(Scroll to bottom of that page)_
The three (estimated) deaths were all associated with the bombing of government buildings.

If the US didn't care about Iraqi civilian casualties then the numbers would have been very different.


----------



## piggy (11 Nov 2004)

*Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives*

I see. 
This hatred of these people of course blatantly ignores the innocent people who are being held there - some of whom have been released after over two years - with stories of horrific treatment at the hands of their capture including sexual humiliation. Where have we heard that one before?

*The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!*

I've already made my stance on violence quite clear and in particular my disgust at this sort of treatment of foreigners and Iraqis alike.

*hhh...so carnage is all relative?
My carnage is worse than your carnage?*

No. It's not. My point on that was quite clear.


*To answer your question...I've seen the aftermath of several car bombs. They are every bit as effective as cluster bombs on the people standing near them.*

I see. But that's exactly what I'm saying. What's your point then?

Widespread use of cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons and napalm.
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_de...efault.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm
www.globalsecurity.org/or...iraq01.htm


----------



## purple (11 Nov 2004)

In the weeks leading up to D-day about 50,000 French civilians were killed by allied bombardment. 500 US marines were killed the day after D-day by shells from US ships.
The French accepted this as it was in the context of the fight for their freedom.
The US went into Iraq to protect their economic interests. That's it, nothing else.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

> After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are.



Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.
I didn't realise that they had actually been found guilty of anything.

There was me thinking that it was just a concentration camp.


----------



## purple (12 Nov 2004)

People are talking about yard sticks here.
Wars are brutal and savage and those that suffer most are civilian non combatents. Using the yard stick of every war for the last 200 years the Americans are a model of restraint and humanity.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

purple, are you suggesting that American Troops somehow have 'human nature' removed from them as part of their training?

Has the American military dractically changed from the days of the Vietnam war when they were napalming villages? (That's not so long ago)

The main difference here is we only see what the media wants us to see - war faught with surgical precision. I suspect the reality is far more gruesome.


----------



## purple (12 Nov 2004)

Hi AP,
Vietnam was no worse than any other war, we just saw more of it. All war is gruesome and savage and surgical strikes with bombs that weigh half a tonne still kill lots of people.
I am suggesting that the European view is that the lies and torture and heart break and overwhelming grief that go with this war is in any way unique is false. This war, with all it's faults, is being conducted no worse than (and probably better than) any other war.
As I have said before the case for the legality of the war is not strengthened of weakened by the actions of the troops on the ground. On that issue they score quite well.
The real world can be a cold and brutal place. The reality is that cold and brutal people shelter us from it. The Romans didn't let the legions into Rome because they were barbaric killers and didn't belong in the soft civilised city that they protected. 
Little has changed.


----------



## Marie (12 Nov 2004)

Asimov wrote at 10.07 on 10/11/04:-
*As someone who was brought up in NI and lived through the war there, and lost innocent friends and relatives, I can tell you that whatever you think of some Iraqi's rights to resist, and however much you 'undestand' their terrorism, you are forming your opinions at a safe remove, and you don't have to live with the consequences of that mindset. You don't risk death on the streets of Iraq.

Your 'understanding' provides succour to terrorism.

One day this will all be sorted out around a negotiating table...as is happening in NI now, and you will have to live with your share of the responsibility for the thousands that were killed unnecessarily because the terrorists felt they had a sympathetic audience, even in the west, from people like you.*

Asimov - I wonder if you have any theories as to why George W. Bush, intolerant of what he felt to be the slowness of the work of the UN Weapons Inspectors led by Hans Bick, did not propose sorting his differences with Saddam Hussein out around a negotiating table?.........why he chose instead to "open the gates of hell"?

The answer to this has much to do with the issue raised in a number of posts on what constitutes legitimate leadership, statesmanship and humanity and I look forward to your response.


----------



## shnaek (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: interesting link*

Deleted post from family member


----------



## Rabbit (12 Nov 2004)

Marie, you clearly do not understand the type of person Saddam Hussein was or the type of regime he led.   Do you not know anything about his past history?   You cannot negiotiate with someone like than any more than you negiotate with the hostage takers in Iraq.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: interesting link*

Rabbit, there didn't seem to be any problems negotiating with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.


----------



## Rabbit (12 Nov 2004)

They were more innocent times, long before Gulf War One, the gassing of the Kurds, the Muslim threat and 9/11 etc    Anyway , two wrongs never would make a right, and America is correct to learn from past mistakes rather than basing their policy on past mistakes.


----------



## shnaek (12 Nov 2004)

> Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives. Abu Ghraib would have been a holiday camp compared to what I would do to them. The fact that the US military put its people on trial over that, and then jailed them was further evidence that the Yanks do try to use restraint and proper process.



This is a very telling post. Full of hatred. Some of these people in Guantanamo are only guilty of living in the wrong place, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time - namely Afghanistan - a place which you hold up as a fine example of democracy. How many Afghanis have you spoken with to confirm this view? Surely you formed this view through thorough investigation of the facts, by consulting all data from all sides and reaching a reasonable conclusion?
Also, having observed you attacking Piggy about his stance on violence I find it quite repugnant that you speak of Abu Ghriab and refer to it as a holiday camp compared to what you would do to them. There are few enough things that seperate us all from animals, and one of those things is respect for the lives and wellbeing of others. This is not simply an emotional position. We have laws on war, and the treatment of prisoners of war. 
Do you respect the law, Asimov? If so, how can you condone Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? 
If not, then what the hell are the allies fighting for? Is the law not a fundamental part of any democracy?



> The west has its hands tied behind its back in this war by the system of civil and human rights we operate under.



Our system of civil and human rights are what makes us free. Do not be so eager to stamp them into the ground. People have fought and died for them. They are the very things we cherish, and must convince others to cherish also, by doing the right thing, so we can say to these people to DO AS WE DO, not as we say to do.



> The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!



We have constraints because we value our lives, our culture and our society. Without constraints there is chaos. Survival of the fittest. Without constraints, what are we offering the people of Iraq?


----------



## Asimov (12 Nov 2004)

Lets start back there with...Piggy!



> I could talk about Palestine and Israel but it's too broad a subject to get into here.



Well I'm not surprised you want to avoid that subject Piggy. You're pretty quick to blame it all on the Yanks, but when some counter arguments are presented you run away.

And you say it "..remains to be seen" if democracy works in Afghanistan?
Man...its already working! They just held FREE, FAIR and *PEACEFUL* democratic elections in the country and elected a democratic leadership. Anyone who attempts to depose that democratic government is no 'freedom fighter' as you would call them, but terrorists and criminals. 

I just had a look at all those links you provided.
Did you actually read the texts you propose to defend your points with? They seem to run counter to your own argument!
Let me demonstrate:

[broken link removed]


> "With JSOW (Cluster Bombs) we can attack *SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] from well outside the threat rings and destroy rather than suppress" the target,* a Navy document notes. In other words, years of bombing in Iraq have had less than spectacular results of Iraq’s air defenses and the U.S. military is looking for some way of causing more permanent damage to the country's military capabilities. On average 5 percent do not detonate.



So the US military defines the target of JSOWs as military installations - not personnel! And in no place in that article does it say that the US has ever used them to TARGET civilians. The 5% fail rate of detonations is the cause of rare civilian casualties after the fact. Civilians walking into target areas afterward and picking up unexploded munitions. 
That can happen with any kind of explosive weapon Piggy. Perhaps you've heard, but they still have to carry out mine clearing and bomb disposal from First and Second World War munitions!
95% detonation rate is very high, and accuracy is better than you get with your average terrorist car bomb.

Piggylink


> American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.


And your problem with this is....????


Regarding Depleted Uranium. This is a heavy metal used to tip certain armour piercing shells. Those shells are highly succesful in killing Tanks, hardened bunkers and Armored weapons. They are a key weapon therefore in battlefield warfare. 
The uranium tip emits low level radiation (that is - Alpha radiation) - which also forms the background radiation we live with every day, and which is also emitted by common appliances in the home such as TVs. 
According to Prof Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University who carried out the EU study:  
"I don't think there is any reason to be afraid - in the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell" !!
BBC Article

Anotherperson:


> Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.


I believe trials are starting - with Moussaoui, the 20th WTC hijacker who missed his flight. I guess they'll all get a fair trial in the end. I'm not sure they deserve it personally. I hope Moussaoui gets the death sentence he richly deserves.

Marie:


> Asimov - I wonder if you have any theories as to why George W. Bush, intolerant of what he felt to be the slowness of the work of the UN Weapons Inspectors led by Hans Bick, did not propose sorting his differences with Saddam Hussein out around a negotiating table?.........



Actually Marie, if you would just read my posts you'll already know that I did not support the invasion of Iraq...I'll remind you....."I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money." (pg 4 11/11/04 1:33 am).
I'd have just let the Iraqis stew under Saddam, and encouraged him to continue fighting the Iranians. 
Much more productive to see them killing each other.
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson..."I don't see why young American boys should be doin' for the Iraqis what they oughtta be doin' for themselves."

Shnaek:
I think I've answered your point in what I've written above. 
Our system of rights works when people respect the system from both sides. The animals caught fighting out of uniform would have just been summarily executed in past wars. Shot as spies or saboteurs. Unfortunately we don't do that any more. Instead we give them clean clothes, food, a bed and a fair hearing. And we then let them go to attack us again!



> U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.


[broken link removed]

I have a deep and abiding hatred of people who creep around in the dark, stabbing in the back, planting bombs that are INTENDED to kill civilians, murdering innocent men by gruesome evil decapitations, always hiding their face and fading away when faced with an opponent who will fight them standing up and face to face. 
They aren't 'freedom fighters' - they are bullies and cowards!

I would love to be one of those Marines in Fallujah getting real payback from those s**ts. What a pleasure that would be, to put a bullet in one of them myself.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

> The uranium tip emits low level radiation (that is - Alpha radiation) - which also forms the background radiation we live with every day, and which is also emitted by common appliances in the home such as TVs.



Did you not learn about alpha radiation in school? Alpha sources are not the nicest things to inhale or ingest. 



> Anotherperson:
> 
> Quote:Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.
> 
> I believe trials are starting - with Moussaoui, the 20th WTC hijacker who missed his flight. I guess they'll all get a fair trial in the end. I'm not sure they deserve it personally. I hope Moussaoui gets the death sentence he richly deserves.



Guilty until proven innocent. American justice!
These people have been locked up for years.


----------



## Asimov (12 Nov 2004)

He's as guilty as hell. A trial is superfluous.

As to the rest of them...better locked up than running around Fallujah, eh? The poor dears might get hurt by a nasty American.

PS...I recommend you don't inhale or ingest your TV. Likewise stay out of Iraqi tanks and bunkers during wartime.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

> PS...I recommend you don't inhale or ingest your TV



Eh? I don't own a TV.

Are you suggesting that DU is 100% safe, and inhaling the dust is harmless?


----------



## Asimov (12 Nov 2004)

I'm suggesting that if you are close enough to an exploding Depleted Uranium tipped shell to inhale it...you're already dead. 
Shouldn't have been in that Iraqi tank, should you, silly person.

PS Get a TV, tune it to FOX News and rip the knob off! :lol


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (12 Nov 2004)

Asimov, you don't have to be right next to a DU shell on impact to experience the effects of DU. The DU breaks up and goes into  the air so everyone gets a chance to breathe some in.


----------



## Asimov (12 Nov 2004)

> According to Prof Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University who carried out the EU study: "I don't think there is any reason to be afraid - *in the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell"* !!



So don't dig you garden either...you'll breath in Alpha radiation and contaminate the neighbourhood.

Are you suggesting the cessation of use of all DU tipped shells? Is there any international agreement on this? Or do you just want *Americans* to stop using them unilaterally? Do the Russians use them? Did the Iraqis or Iranians use them? Would they use them if they had them?

You live in a Utopia where everyone fights fair and war is clean and clinical.

Dream on.


----------



## Maceface (12 Nov 2004)

*Asimov - are you trolling?*

Don't talk about Fox News. It has to be the most biased one sided pieces of trash ever to be broadcast. It is a lot  more biased than Al Jazeera ever was.

BTW. A question I often asked, and will ask again.

What has Iraq ever done to America? 

I am not talking about how bad they are or what they *might* do, but what DID they do?


----------



## Asimov (12 Nov 2004)

Gee, you have a short memory.

Saddam invaded Kuwait. An ally of the US and a friendly peaceful country. 

When the US asked him politely to leave...he refused. 

When the Americans went there to throw him out - he set his army on them, killing lots of Americans and Kuwaitis. 

And when he was beaten, his retreating army tried to burn Kuwait to the ground. 

That about started it.

Any other questions?

The Fox News comment was a joke by the way...ha ha.
Lighten up.

Then again...since you mention Al Jaz...the two are equal and opposite. I doubt you've ever watched Al Jaz for more than a few minutes. Are you a fully paid up subscriber?


----------



## Maceface (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: Asimov - are you trolling?*



> Gee, you have a short memory.



What are we talking about here?

I know what started the whole thing, and I know how evil the entire regime was, and how many people must have died under Saddam, and how the normal Iraqis hate him, and how he was just a ganster.
I agree with all that, but wasn't this all settled 13 years ago when sanctions were placed on them until they rid themselves of WMDs. 
They were no threat to anyone. 
An American  Bush supporter recently told me that it was better to fight on the streets of Baghdad than the streets of New York. 
My point is that I *think* we can assume that Iraq had no WMDs. If they had, either they would have used at least one, or they would have been found. With 130k Americans with billions of dollars of the most advanced equipement, whether it be satellites, or spy planes, I find it hard to believe that he had anything dangerous any more.
Even the rifles/handhelp weapons of the army was no match for them. 
There is no way Saddam and Bin Laden were ever making deals together. They never would because they hate what each other stands for.

If we know this now, then I am very sure the American intellegence knew it two years ago!

The point is (another one), that Iraq invaded Kuwait on some trumped up charge of it stealing one of its oil-fields, and was kicked out. 
By the start of the war they were of no threat to anyone. Two-thirds of the country was under the American/British control anyway.

Why not give the weapons inspectors more time?
Why not spend a tiny fraction of the cost of war on more inspectors?

If he didn't comply with the demands, then surely the CIA could just assinate him? If he dies, the country opens up and there is no need for war.



> Then again...since you mention Al Jaz...the two are equal and opposite. I doubt you've ever watched Al Jaz for more than a few minutes. Are you a fully paid up subscriber?


I have only ever seen the news stories carried on Western Channels, but no way are they equal!

I would defer to the experts on this. John Simpson stands by that claim strongly. A point he even made about it was that Al Jazeera often gave time to broadcast stories and debates of why the Americans should attack Iraq. 
I have never seen (and yes I do occassionally watch it) Fox be anything except pro-American. 
I have seen that O Reilly do, what I would call, incite hatred of France. I could not believe how he went on how we should avoid everything French and how you can download anti-French bumper stickers from his web site. This was only a couple of months ago!


----------



## davido (12 Nov 2004)

*What did Iraq do to the US?*



> Saddam invaded Kuwait. An ally of the US and a friendly peaceful country.


Iraq invaded Iran, not an ally of the US and not a friendly, peaceful country.  That invasion led to the US supporting Iraq - the invasion isn't the problem, it's who gets invaded?


----------



## Asimov (13 Nov 2004)

*Re: Asimov - are you trolling?*

Must I keep repeating myself?...read my previous posts...


> Actually Marie, if you would just read my posts you'll already know that I did not support the invasion of Iraq...I'll remind you....."I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money." (pg 4 11/11/04 1:33 am).


 Is that clear enough?



> Iraq invaded Iran, not an ally of the US and not a friendly, peaceful country. That invasion led to the US supporting Iraq - the invasion isn't the problem, it's who gets invaded?



Yeah!! Right ON!! That was when the US had a sensible policy of ensuring their enemies kept on killing each other instead of American kids. 
Unfortunately Bush let 9-11 and the anger of the nation go to his head. He should've just stepped up the arms supplies to both sides and continued goading them to obliterate each other. I liked that policy a lot.

As for John Simpson praising Al Jazeera, I've Googled for 10 minutes but can't find any such quotes from him. I'm sure you can provide a link?
Not that I'm doubting you by the way, because I did find a BLOG by someone who quoted Simpson as also having said that 





> ".... he thought Bin Laden had a "beautiful face" and, when commenting on Islam, that the horrible wailing coming from mosques was "such a beautiful sound".



I'm sure you are also aware that at the beginning of the war Simpson was travelling on a road near Mosul when an American aircraft attacked his convoy, killing some of his escorts and almost killing him too.
I guess John has good reason to dislike America, so he's probably not the most unbiased reporter himself. 

When an Islamic terrorist wants to get some publicity for his latest decapitation video (snuff movies...hard core porno) he just hands it into his friendly local Al Jaz station and he can be confident of having his 15 minutes of fame broadcast to the world. Thats real Public Service Broadcasting.


----------



## elderdog (13 Nov 2004)

*.*

"I'm suggesting that if you are close enough to an exploding Depleted Uranium tipped shell to inhale it...you're already dead. 
Shouldn't have been in that Iraqi tank, should you, silly person."


Well Trollismov it aint like that

Read what the Brit MOD have to say

[broken link removed]


A sample :

Reference 17. TAB 21/3107 – Clearance of Armoured Fighting Vehicles. The third
TAB concerns the clearance of Armoured Fighting Vehicles and lists DU as one of a number
of risks inherent in this task. The TAB references the other related TABs and the AERs, as
well as JSP 392. The TAB recommends an initial assessment for the presence of DU and
describes the recommended equipment for this task. When engaged in the clearance of
Armoured Fighting Vehicles, the TAB recommends that EOD operators wear a service
respirator and a full NBC suit as well as two pairs of gloves until the presence of DU is
positively discounted. The reliance on a service respirator is in recognition of the greater risk
faced by specialist EOD staff when entering or working for protracted periods in vehicles hit
by DU rounds.

i.e. Similar routine to that followed in the Pharma manufacturing industry when cleaning toxic areas

Nice !  eh ?


----------



## Chapman (13 Nov 2004)

*Asimov trolling?*

One of the silent probable majority reading along (and enjoying it mostly for Asimov's perspicacity and good humor).  To some others: Please don't resort to name calling, especially when it's a fog of a name like "troll"!


----------



## Asimov (13 Nov 2004)

*Avoiding Army Radiation Claims....*

Of course, while there's any risk at all (even .000001%) soldiers should be told to wear lots of protection! 
All over.

And don't forget the earplugs too! 

Keeps those pesky lawyers at bay - y'know.

Thanks Chapman. My one and only fan.


----------



## Marie (13 Nov 2004)

*?*

Asimov - Unfortunately two beautifully crafted scintillatingly-intelligent ripostes "deleted" themselves as I'm having problems sending (get the message "All fields must be filled in"......then screen goes blank).  Will try again later after the grocery-shopping.


----------



## Marie (13 Nov 2004)

*legitimate leadership war "terrorism"*

The system seems to be letting me post again now!

Asimov - You had made it clear you were not in agreement with Bush sending troops to Iraq on the grounds that it costs young American lives, but that as they were now there they should take out the insurgents/terrorists.  You have also been explicit on your position regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists by the US soldiers.  A number of posters quote breach of international agreements on treatment of prisoners and your response has been (to paraphrase) that they deserve it by dint of being terrorists/insurgents.

You hold me culpable and suggest I have blood on my hands for my attempts to understand the position of Iraqis currently fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq - specifically Falluja. You conflate attempts to understand the complex and deadly dynamics currently unfolding on the global stage with sympathy and agreement with murder and mayhem - which is not my position.

The original questioner was bewildered as to why Bush was re-elected to the US Presidency and I wondered if you had any theories on why Bush - arguably the most powerful world leader with the security of (probably?......the munitions experts on this thread will doubtless confirm!) the deadliest and biggest array of armaments, chooses to go invade a minor player such as Iraq rather than "get around the table" (which in a previous post you rightly say must in the end happen).

I have a theory about why Bush chose killing over talking but am interested to hear other views.  

Evoking 9/11 cannot have been the provoking event or the American warships would have set off for the Gulf immediately. "Weapons of mass destruction" were not the provoking event as the thorough work of the Weapons Inspectors had revealed none and Saddam Hussein's vaunted "army" turned out to be a couple of thousand scared and confused young men who surrendered within days of the invasion. 

Why couldn't (or wouldn't?) George Bush meet with Saddam Hussein within the full panoply of the international diplomatic community with the full support and backing of the UN which such an initiative would have automatically received?


----------



## Asimov (13 Nov 2004)

*Re: ?*

I don't think I can answer your question Marie because I'm not in possesion of all the facts...any more than you or the rest of the world are. 

By that I mean - we don't know what kind of negotiating went on behind the scenes. There are rumours that Saddam was communicating directly with the White House through intermediaries in the Middle East. 

We also know that Bush offerred Saddam and his family the option to leave the country.

I'm pretty sure that if he'd taken that option he could have found sanctuary somewhere, given the ammounts of money he had embezzled from his people, which was safely salted away abroad no doubt. 
Even Idi Amin managed to find someone to take him in (the Saudis...wonderful people).

But that wasn't in Saddams nature.
Maybe he actually thought the Americans would back down, or he could drag things out longer, or even that he could actually WIN a war against them.
Wrong on all counts.

Ultimately I guess the time for talking to Saddam was over. The decision had been made (right or wrong) that he was going down. 

He had proved himself to be an able procrastinator up to then and I think the US had had enough of his faffing around. 

The UN resolutions were toothless without US backing.

I'm sure Bush's personal animosity came into this too...I've already said so. Saddam laughed at Bush Snr from the safety of Baghdad when the Americans stopped at the Iraqi border in GW1. He even tried to have Bush Snr assasinated. 
I guess it was partly personal too!

Thats where I part company from the decision to invade.

The US has been able in the past to 'influence' regime change in other countries. I'm thinking particularily of the way they encouraged a coup in the Chilean army, ousting (and killing) Salvador Allende and replacing him with Pinochet (the coup leader).
Whatever your opinion of that episode I think it would have been a better way to deal with Saddam.

I'm sure they tried. But it seems Saddam had a tighter grip on his army and his people than Allende had. Thats no surprise.

The world of international politics is a dirty one. The actions of the US in many cases (as with Chile) has been completely self centred and often hypocritical. But that is the natural state of nations. All nations act in their own national self interest - ALWAYS. 

Anyone who thinks Britain, France, Germany or indeed Ireland always act 'fairly' or 'reasonably' on the international stage is just being sadly naiive. In the case of this country (a nominally neutral state) look at the governments decision to grant US warplanes landing rights at Shannon, against the will of a large part of the population, and arguably in contravention of our so called 'neutral' status.

The future round table talks that will finally smooth the road to democracy in Iraq would never have been possible with Saddam in power. He was a dictator, and had to go before any such outcome could be possible.

My method would have been different, thats all.


----------



## Marie (14 Nov 2004)

*legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

_*Ultimately I guess the time for talking to Saddam was over. The decision had been made (right or wrong) that he was going down. 

He had proved himself to be an able procrastinator up to then and I think the US had had enough of his faffing around. 

The UN resolutions were toothless without US backing.

I'm sure Bush's personal animosity came into this too...I've already said so. Saddam laughed at Bush Snr from the safety of Baghdad when the Americans stopped at the Iraqi border in GW1. He even tried to have Bush Snr assasinated. 
I guess it was partly personal too!*_

Asimov - *now* we're cooking!  The above is far closer to the mark than anything posted on this thread so far and gets away from the _myth_ being manufactured by the right wing in the USA that America is engaged in the moral crusade of "ridding the world of evil".

Iraq is just a convenient theatre of war - distant and "other" (not like US) in which personal and corporate dysfunction are played out.

The craziness is that actions based on the phantasies of Bush and Hussein (Bush as deluded, hubristic and ruthless as Hussein, Hussein as vulnerable to seeing things that are not there as Bush) are being carried out in theirs, yours and my name by people who are _not_  deluded and _not_ genocidal and the world has never been such a dangerous place.

Anyone who is not very afraid at this moment is either dead or hasn't understood the facts, because we are just at the beginning of this horror.  Bush's public statement after the death of Arafat was that if he is offering Palestine his "help" to become "democratic" and if they don't accept this "help" he does not think they will get anywhere.

Is it paranoid to hear this as a threat?  Or do I hear this as a threat because of what the USA is now about as it transforms into a totalitarian military state led by God's emissary on earth, George Bush?  "God bless America" indeed! and god help the rest of the world!


----------



## Asimov (14 Nov 2004)

*Re: ?*

Hmmm...thats a pretty apocalyptic vision of the future Marie. I hope you're wrong, for all our sakes.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (14 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

This is what happens when there is an imbalance of power. Maybe China might be a suitable replacement for the old USSR?

Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining. I won't have to worry about paying off the mortgage


----------



## Asimov (14 Nov 2004)

*An Alternative Scenario*

An Alternative Scenario...The Palestinians elect a new president who is free of the Paisleyite stubborness of Arafat.

Peace talks are called by Bush and the suicide bombings and Intifada are halted.

Sharon continues his disengagement from Gaza. All land seized by Israel since 2000 (the Oslo Accord) is returned to the Palestinians.

The original peace deal is resurrected and the stumbling block of Jerusalem is dealt with by making it an Open City.

The Palestinians are given full autonomy again and they exercise this responsibly, clamping down on extremist elements.

In Iraq I don't see things going so well. I believe the current chaos is masking a virtual civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. I would lay money on the chance that it will split into three states, Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan...or somesuch. I think it would be an excellent outcome too.
Divide and conquer!

After that, peace breaks out across the muslim world, all is happiness and light, Osama blows his brains out in frustration and Zarkawi gets beheaded by his landlord when he misses his third months rent.

Allahu Akhbar.


----------



## Marie (15 Nov 2004)

*legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

Asimov - I love it!  :lol


----------



## Maceface (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: An Alternative Scenario*



> As for John Simpson praising Al Jazeera, I've Googled for 10 minutes but can't find any such quotes from him. I'm sure you can provide a link?


Asimov, can you please find my apparent quote where I said John Simpson praised Al Jazeera. *I never said that!*
No can do with the link. It is in one of his books.



> I'm sure you are also aware that at the beginning of the war Simpson was travelling on a road near Mosul when an American aircraft attacked his convoy, killing some of his escorts and almost killing him too.
> I guess John has good reason to dislike America, so he's probably not the most unbiased reporter himself.


So, anyone who has had been wronged in any way by America can not be unbiased?
Maybe you should read what he says before you push aside his comments.



> When an Islamic terrorist wants to get some publicity for his latest decapitation video (snuff movies...hard core porno) he just hands it into his friendly local Al Jaz station and he can be confident of having his 15 minutes of fame broadcast to the world. Thats real Public Service Broadcasting.


Yes, Al Jazeera show the terrorist videos it receieves. I don't think it is right, but Arab television in general does show this stuff. Remember, without them, we would never see the pictures of the children in the hospitals or hear about the two markets being bombed by the Americans during the war and trying to blame the Iraqis.

What else in interesting is that when they showed the POWs, and interviewed them, the Americans claimed it was against the Geneva convention (it wasn't). When the American stationed showed the Iraqi soldiers being searched and handcuffed, or even humiliated in Alu Grabi prison, nothing is mentioned of that.
Now, I am not a fan of Al Jazeera, but I do think when you have one biased side of the equation, you need to have someone on the other to even it up. This station does that.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*I just had a look at all those links you provided.
Did you actually read the texts you propose to defend your points with? They seem to run counter to your own argument!
Let me demonstrate:*

Link - aka PiggyLink!
[broken link removed]

" News media reports last week that 50 percent of the weapons fired at Iraqi military installations missed their so-called aimpoints obscures a more disturbing facet of the Feb. 16 attack: The U.S. jets used cluster bombs that have no real aimpoint and that kill and wound innocent civilians for years to come....

... The 1,000 pound, 14-foot-long weapon carries 145 anti-armor and anti-personnel incendiary bomblets which disperse over an area that is approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide. In short, this weapon, which Quigley describes as a "long-range, precision-guided, stand-off weapon," rains down deadly bomblets on an area the size of a football field with six bombs falling in every 1,000 square feet. So much for precision....

... Already this month, there has been one Iraqi civilian death and nine injuries from unexploded cluster bomblets, presumably all left over from the 1991 Gulf War. On Feb. 20, Agence France Press (AFP) reported that a shepherd was wounded near Nasiriyah in southern Iraq when an unexploded bomblet detonated. On Feb. 15, Reuters said two Iraqi boys in western Iraq, also tending sheep, were injured by a cluster bomblet. On Feb. 9, AFP reported a child was killed and six others were wounded by sub-munitions near Basra....

... February, it seems, is a fairly typical month for cluster bombs inflicting damage on innocent civilians....

Link - aka PiggyLink
www.globalsecurity.org/or...iraq01.htm

""Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]"

Depleted Uranium kills civilians.
[broken link removed]

"In this year's war on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactive arsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers, along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. The real extent of injuries, chronic illness, long-term disabilities and genetic birth defects won't be apparent for five to 10 years...

...A LONG-TERM PROBLEM

The impact of tons of radioactive waste polluting major urban centers may seem a distant problem to Iraqis now trying to survive in the chaos of military occupation. They must cope with power outages during the intense heat of summer, door-to-door searches, arbitrary arrests, civilians routinely shot at roadblocks, outbreaks of cholera and dysentery from untreated water, untreated sewage and uncollected garbage, more than half the work force unemployed, and a lack of food-- which before the war was distributed by the Baathist regime.

But along with these current threats are long-range problems. Around the world a growing number of scientific organizations and studies have linked Gulf War Syndrome and the high rate of assorted and mysterious sicknesses to radiation poisoning from weapons made with depleted uranium....

...At a roadside vegetable stand selling fresh bunches of parsley, mint and onions outside Baghdad, children played on a burnt-out Iraqi tank. The reporter's Geiger counter registered nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation. The U.S. uses armor-piercing shells coated with DU to destroy tanks....

...U.S. POSITION: NO CLEAN-UP

While the U.K. has admitted that British Challenger tanks expended some 1.9 tons of DU ammunition during major combat operations in Iraq this year, the U.S. has refused to disclose specific information about whether and where it used DU during this yearcampaign. It also is refusing to let a team from the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) study the environmental impact of DU contamination in Iraq. 

If you want to understand DU more read this...
[broken link removed]


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*



> So, anyone who has had been wronged in any way by America can not be unbiased?



No, I didn't say that. I wasn't in fact making a moral judgement of Simpsons motivations, just an observation of what they probably are. Your comment seems to infer you have no problem with him (or anyone) having such a bias...but the thing is, he's a journalist and you are getting your 'truths' from him.

As for Al Jazeera. You are right. The Western media rarely show footage of mutilated children. Its a matter of personal judgement whether you think that is 
1) An intentional cover up, or 
2) The Western medias usual reluctance to show the true horrors of war.

I would guess that most people on this site haven't seen one of those beheading videos either. Perhaps the Western media should show those too...as well as images of mutilated children. 
Perhaps, in fact, it should be MANDATORY viewing for all.

I'm interested to hear your views on this.

I personally think that most people couldn't cope with either, because most people can't handle death in its most gruesome and pornographic form. There'd be uproar.
I also think that sawing some innocents head off with a blunt knife while they scream and drown on their own blood - is hardly a glorious revenge for the accidental deaths of civilian Iraqis. For me, its actually kind of counter-productive. It makes me want to see Fallujah (where these atrocities were carried out) bombed into brick dust.

Panorama showed a brilliant documentary last night on the genocide in Darfur. 
Titled *The New Killing Fields* it showed first hand evidence of massacres of children, rapes and murder, forced eviction from the land and the starvation of the Darfur people by Arab militias supported directly by the Sudanese government and its army and airforce.

When the reporter went to the British government to ask why it hasn't intervened, a british politician stated that they couldn't - because the Sudanese government had called on the Jihadists of the muslim world to come and fight for Islam if the Brits or Yanks got involved.

We've heard it before, and nobody doubts its happening, right?

Wrong!

I had the opportunity to watch a lot of Al Jazeerra TV a few weeks back on a trip to SE Asia. 
I was amazed at their take on the same story...they blamed the village farmers of Darfur for starting a rebellion against the Sudanese government, showed no evidence of atrocities against civilians, but spent lots of time focussing on the Sudanese governments attendance at 'peace talks' in Nigeria at which the 'rebels' were 'obstructive'.

So, thanks to Al Jazeera, the Non Western world sees Darfur as an uprising against the legitimate Sudanese government, and a cunning plot by The West to invade muslim lands!

They are every bit as biased as any western media when it comes to defending their own Muslim version of the facts.

_Postscript:
U.S. Marines found the mutilated body of what appeared to be a Western woman Sunday in Falluja, according to The Associated Press. The woman could not be immediately identified, but British aid worker Margaret Hassan and Teresa Borcz Khalifa, a Polish-born longtime resident of Iraq, are the only Western women known to have been taken hostage in Iraq._ 
The female body is reported to have been mutliated, arms legs and head cut off.
I hope the b***ards filmed THAT and handed it in to Al Jazeera.
They should show that on RTE at tea time. 
Then we'd all know what we're dealing with.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*I would guess that most people on this site haven't seen one of those beheading videos either. Perhaps the Western media should show those too...as well as images of mutilated children.
Perhaps, in fact, it should be MANDATORY viewing for all.

I'm interested to hear your views on this.

I personally think that most people couldn't cope with either, because most people can't handle death in its most gruesome and pornographic form. There'd be uproar.*

What flawed logic.
Didn't we witness the brutal truth of 911 - people jumping out of windows from hundreds of feet up. 
If you were living in the Middle East and your neighbours were being blown to pieces you'd want to see that too - gruesome though it is.
What about the reporting of Vietnam? Was that not gruesome enough for us in the West?

Slapping the word pornographic in there doesn't alter the fact that there are good reasons why we don't show the real effects of this war. And they have little to do with taste. If they were happening on our doorstep we'd be shown the truth.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*Didn't we witness the brutal truth of 911 - people jumping out of windows from hundreds of feet up.* 

Oh sure! But did we see them hit the ground? Even the famous 9-11 documentary, done by a pair of French filmakers who were with the NYFD on the day, turned the camera away from the people burned by Jet fuel. 

*If you were living in the Middle East and your neighbours were being blown to pieces you'd want to see that too - gruesome though it is.*

Yeah, and western hostages being decapitated...its great entertainment.

*What about the reporting of Vietnam? Was that not gruesome enough for us in the West?*

I'm not old enough to remember much of it, but what was shown on TV *then* is different to what we see in documentaries *now*...and even at that you still see only a sanitised version.

*Slapping the word pornographic in there doesn't alter the fact that there are good reasons why we don't show the real effects of this war.* 

You are confused. On one hand you argue we're seeing it all (9-11, vietnam) and now you say we don't. Which is it. Pick an opinion and stick to it. 

*And they have little to do with taste. If they were happening on our doorstep we'd be shown the truth.* 

Really?? Do you think we were shown the truth of what was happening on our doorstep in NI?
On MY doorstep actually, because I saw it first hand, and I can tell you mate...you didn't see This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.

Exactly what point are you trying to make in this sideshow?


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*Yeah...its great entertainment.*

It has little to do with entertainment.

*Slapping the word pornographic in there doesn't alter the fact that there are good reasons why we don't show the real effects of this war.

You are confused. On one hand you argue we're seeing it all (9-11, vietnam) and now you say we don't. Which is it. Pick an opinion and stick to it.*

You misunderstood the point I was making. 
The good reasons we aren't shown the real effects of this war is that people would have no stomach for this war if they saw the real effects of it. My point is very clear and it hasn't changed. Living in the West we get shock and awe - entire news programmes dedicated to the high tech weaponary used in the gulf. Virtually all of the news pre war and during the short lived war itself was focused on the soldiers and little to the civilians being blown to pieces.
But if the same war was happening here we'd have shown the (pornographic) reality of it.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*



> Living in the West we get shock and awe - entire news programmes dedicated to the high tech weaponary used in the gulf. Virtually all of the news pre war and during the short lived war itself was focused on the soldiers and little to the civilians being blown to pieces.



And on Al Jazeera they get entire news programs dedicated to the inevitable civilian casualties of street to street fighting, but no focus at all on the atrocities being perpetrated on civilians in Darfur - because THAT is being done by Arabs.

This is all just pissing in the wind Piggy because, whether you like it or not, the Americans are not going to disengage from Iraq. They simply CANNOT, even if they secretly wanted to. 

So, given the FACT that they are in it - like it or not - then they have to be in it to win. 
Defeat is not an option this time.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*This is all just pissing in the wind Piggy because, whether you like it or not, the Americans are not going to disengage from Iraq. They simply CANNOT, even if they secretly wanted to.

So, given the FACT that they are in it - like it or not - then they have to be in it to win.
Defeat is not an option this time.*

I fail to see what the above has to do with showing us the realities of the war but if you wish to end the discussion, so be it.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

The discussion was not about showing the horrors of war, it was about truth in the media. You always let the petty details distract you from the big picture Piggy. Thats why its useless arguing with you.


----------



## Max Hopper (15 Nov 2004)

Whew! , you can really whip the crowd into a frenzy!<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Let's get one thing sorted. All that believe that the USA went after Iraq for control of it's oil, to the left. Those that differ, to the right.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->The scenario is now thus: someone (person, group, nation, trading block), is after something of yours, say oil, then the means to gain control of it are (in descending order of palatability)<!--EZCODE LIST START--><ul><li>purchase on the open market</li><li>establish a exclusive agreement</li><li>bribe some in high places in order to establish exclusive rights</li><li>extortion</li><li>threaten with financial sanctions</li><li>threaten with physical violence</li><li>resorting to violence</li></ul><!--EZCODE LIST END-->Our little competition here is to align your Socialist / Capitalist leanings with *The List*. Next, select your nation's action alongside *The List*. If your nation's point differs from yours, in the box provided, please reconcile -<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->-----------------------​<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->-----------------------​<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Question. What is the difference between America wanting to ensure a stable supply of oil to it's trading partners (using any method in *The List*) and Bertie Ahern "getting on his bike" to Washington in the event of John Kerry's election to preserve jobs in Ireland? Its all self-serving. Which conflicts deeply with the laissez faire view held by the majority of posters.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Somewhere in the thread a salient point was expressed about a virtual civil war. IMNSHO this conjecture rings true. And like the Israel / Palestine conundrum, will continue indefinitely. Saddam, through brutality and fear, succeeded in repressing his tribe's eternal enemies. No number of elections, free or faux, will replace the _peace_ of tyranny.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*The discussion was not about showing the horrors of war, it was about truth in the media. You always let the petty details distract you from the big picture Piggy. Thats why its useless arguing with you.*

Actually, showing the true horror of this war and truth in the media are very closely tied together I would have thought.

As for it being useless arguing with me, I sense that this is your opinion Asimov because you don't agree with me on many points and obviously (given your recent childish outbursts) harbour some deep resentment towards me.


----------



## Chapman (15 Nov 2004)

What's your quote Max?

Don't be such a baby Piggy.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*



> Actually, showing the true horror of this war and truth in the media are very closely tied together I would have thought.



No doubt Piggy, but when you reduce it to a debate about how much guts gets shown on TV it begins to get ridiculous.

Talk to me about the Big Picture.
Talk to me about Darfur.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (15 Nov 2004)

> I would guess that most people on this site haven't seen one of those beheading videos either. Perhaps the Western media should show those too...as well as images of mutilated children.
> Perhaps, in fact, it should be MANDATORY viewing for all.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your views on this.



If anyone does want to see such videos, they can see them here:
www.ogrish.com/index.php?include=special_members.php

WARNING: THEY ARE HORRENDOUS.
You have to pay to see most of them.

Doesn't make what America is doing in Iraq any more palatable.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: legitimate leadership, war "terrorism"*

*No doubt Piggy, but when you reduce it to a debate about how much guts gets shown on TV it begins to get ridiculous.*

Again you misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm not saying our news should be full of bloodied Iraqi bodies - but the great swathe of innocents killed have gone largely unreported in mainstream western media. 

btw, do Al Jazeera show the clips with the be-headings? I wasn't aware that they were but I stand to be corrected.

*Talk to me about the Big Picture.
Talk to me about Darfur.*

The entire international community has let down Darfur. Including the UN.

But we can talk about many wars and injustices in this thread - but I think it's better to at least try to keep these threads to one general topic.


----------



## purple (15 Nov 2004)

We in Ireland, and western Europe in general, live in a fairytale world of peace, justice and universal rights. We think anyone who threatens or attempts to restricts these rights for others is the "bad guy". 
The reality is that we only live in this fairytale world because there are ruthless and brutal people out there killing and oppressing in our names. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot. Everything from the cheap labour that gives us cheap clothes/coffee/tea/food/metals/glass/ships/cars/etc,etc to the tariff's and restrictions on trade that keep poor countries poor, contribute to oppression, and allow dictators and despots to flourish.
We in Europe are the ultimate hypocrites; we condemn the actions that keep us rich but do more than anyone (including the US) to maintain the status quo.
What is happening in Darfur is no worse than what has happened in dozens of countries in the last 20 years.
Remember how we campaigned to have the embargo's on Libya lifted so that we could sell them beef?
Remember how we fed Saddam's army for the last 20 years?
Remember how we campaign(ed) to keep 3rd world farmers in poverty by keeping EU tariff's in place?

We are/were protecting our interests. The US is protesting her interests, which happen to be ours as well; we need cheap oil, we need US investment.

What is happening in Iraq is terrible. 
It is only because America behaves in this way and keeps the real world away from our fairytale one that we can have the luxury of taking abstract moralistic stances.

And before anyone says that they would live in poverty to save the planet ask yourselves this; Would you see your children die from the same diseases that 2/3rds of the world see their children die from in order to saith your moral pains?

We are rich because they are poor, we are free because they are not (real democracy can only function in a rich country).

That's the way the world is. We all have blood on our hands.
Live with it and stop pretending we really give a s**t.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

> btw, do Al Jazeera show the clips with the be-headings? I wasn't aware that they were but I stand to be corrected.



Oh yes they most CERTAINLY do Piggy, in all their gory glory.

In fact (bizzarly) the only terrorist video they refused to show was one of Margaret Hassan *fainting* while being filmed begging for her life...they deemed that 'too graphic'! 
The mind really, truly, BOGGLES!!



> The entire international community has let down Darfur. Including the UN.


They certainly have! Do you think its possible Piggy that the reason for that was perhaps the desire to avoid being labelled as CRUSADERS by the international Islamic community, as they were labelled by the Sudanese government? And to avoid being dragged into yet another confrontation with Islamic terror?

The people of Darfur have also been 'let down' by Al Jazeera, which seems to have sided with their Arabic persecutors. Wouldn't you think they'd be keen to show more childrens guts on their news broadcasts? There's plenty to be seen in Darfur.



> But we can talk about many wars and injustices in this thread - but I think it's better to at least try to keep these threads to one general topic.


Oh yes Piggy, at all costs we must avoid doing anything which might bring the Arab media into disrepute, or add any balance to the debate.

Purple, what you say is harsh, but also (unfortunately) true.

I often wonder to myself, when I hear people condemning the US for seeking to secure Oil supplies - how would they react when the lights and heat start going off at home in the middle of a northern european winter? When they can't boil a kettle or cook their food, or drive their car, or all the other little things people seem to think happens by magic.
If they want those things, it has a price, and I'm damned sure that when the time comes, even Piggy won't sit in the cold and dark for the sake of his high principles.

_(Cue Piggy - with a long lecture on alternative energy sources)._


----------



## Maceface (15 Nov 2004)

> I wasn't in fact making a moral judgement of Simpsons motivations, just an observation of what they probably are. Your comment seems to infer you have no problem with him (or anyone) having such a bias...but the thing is, he's a journalist and you are getting your 'truths' from him.


I understand what you are saying Asinov, but reading his book, I was very impressed by him and how he explains the BBC way - impartiality (yes, he does give out about Gilligan and that episode).


> As for Al Jazeera. You are right. The Western media rarely show footage of mutilated children. Its a matter of personal judgement whether you think that is
> 1) An intentional cover up, or
> 2) The Western medias usual reluctance to show the true horrors of war.


I think it is maybe more of the latter. The sorry fact is that most news organisations are very biased because they rely on advertisers money. Thats probably the main reason why we can't believe most news organisations motives (BBC and maybe RTE aside).  I think if Fox News start showing stories which were anti-American (i.e. showed the true horrors of war), the advertisers would move their money elsewhere. As this is a Murdoch enterprise, it wouldn't happen! Money rules with that guy.

I think another reason why we don't see it is because here in the West, we see ourselves as more civilised, and we don't normally see that type of thing. In the Arab world, they would be more used to it with the amount of dicatators, freedom fighters, coups, wars on their own backyard. 
Every country has their own values, and their own ideas of what is right to show on TV. As an example, recently, on a trip to France, I saw one of the most sexually explicit movies on normal TV that I have ever seen. 
That type of stuff would never be shown in either the US, Ireland or the Arab world.
My point is, while we might think seeing dead children on TV as over the line, in other countries, it is seeing as normal because it is fact. 
And because the West gets upset that the people are seeing this, they demonise the messengers.



> I would guess that most people on this site haven't seen one of those beheading videos either. Perhaps the Western media should show those too...as well as images of mutilated children.


I did see one of the earlier clips and am sorry I did. I don't think anyone should see that.
There is a difference here though which is not being mentioned. The people who are doing this are terrorists - evil men who aren't even human. 
This does not make all men who are fighting the Americans as evil monsters. I am sure almost all the "freedom fighters" in Iraq, and particularly now in Fallujah, are just as disgusted at these goings on as the rest of us are.

Also, I don't know if Al Jazeera showed the actual beheadings on TV. I know they do show a lot, but I am not aware if they showed these monsters holding up a persons severed head on TV.
We showed the videos over here, but we stop when the knives go near any of the necks.

I am not going to start talking about Sudan now, because I know little of the reporting which is being done on it, but I do think that if countries from the West wanted to make the world safe, they could do a lot worse than move in now.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

> I am not going to start talking about Sudan now, because I know little of the reporting which is being done on it, but I do think that if countries from the West wanted to make the world safe, they could do a lot worse than move in now.



Why SHOULD the west have to do it? In the face of criticism from the Islamic world and at risk of opening up yet another front in the war on terror?

Why don't the OAU do it? Or The Arab League?

Why not? 
Because they are damn hypocrites.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

You really are a scream Asimov I must say. I reckon if I actually agreed with everything you said that spiteful tone would still be there and you'd find some way of thinking you were having a go at me.

*Oh yes they most CERTAINLY do Piggy, in all their gory glory.*

Fair enough so. I did say I stood to be corrected. Can you provide links as proof? 

*They certainly have! Do you think its possible Piggy that the reason for that was perhaps the desire to avoid being labelled as CRUSADERS by the international Islamic community, as they were labelled by the Sudanese government? And to avoid being dragged into yet another confrontation with Islamic terror?*

I don't know but I'd doubt it. That's one way of looking at it alright but not one that I'd personally agree with. Then again, if you were very anti-Muslim and thought all Muslims were evil or something you might think like that, I guess.

*The people of Darfur have also been 'let down' by Al Jazeera, which seems to have sided with their Arabic persecutors. Wouldn't you think they'd be keen to show more childrens guts on their news broadcasts? There's plenty to be seen in Darfur.*

I don't speak for or have any affiliation with Al Jazeera so I can't really comment. I merely used them as an example in various discussions to highlight the Arab media's position on a number of topics.

*Oh yes Piggy, at all costs we must avoid doing anything which might bring the Arab media into disrepute, or add any balance to the debate.*

:rolleyes   I couldn't give a rats ass if you want to bring the Arab media into disrepute Asimov. Go for it. 
I merely made the point that we might as well try to keep this discussion to Iraq. Do what you want though.


*Cue Piggy - with a long lecture on alternative energy sources*

If I had a teenager I'd imagine this is what trying to converse with him would be like.


----------



## purple (15 Nov 2004)

> If I had a teenager I'd imagine this is what trying to converse with him would be like.


 He can be infuriating Piggy, but you have to admit he's witty!


----------



## georgewbush2 (15 Nov 2004)

He can be infuriating Piggy, but you have to admit he's witty! 


I thought he was a teenager

gw


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

> That's one way of looking at it alright but not one that I'd personally agree with. Then again, if you were very anti-Muslim and thought all Muslims were evil or something you might think like that, I guess.



*Sudan's army says the UN resolution on the conflict in Darfur is "a declaration of war" and threatens to fight any foreign intervention.* (BBC Monday, 2 August, 2004)

The [UN] resolution gives the [Sudan] government 30 days to disarm the Janjaweed militias, which are accused of widespread atrocities against non-Arab groups. 

Sudan's cabinet has also criticised the resolution. It has promised to disarm the Arab militias - but within 90 days. 

*More than one million people have fled their homes in 18 months of conflict.* 

The United Nations World Food Programme has stepped up its relief effort in Darfur with its first airdrops of food intended to help families cut off from deliveries by road because of heavy rain. 

The growing international concern about the situation in western Sudan has led to calls for a limited form of military intervention. 

*'Jihad'* 

"The Security Council resolution about the Darfur issue is a declaration of war on the Sudan and its people," armed forces spokesman General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman told the official Al Anbaa daily newspaper. 

*"The Sudanese army is now prepared to confront the enemies of the Sudan [The UN] on land, sea and air," he said.* 

"The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south [The Muslim Genocide of the Christian south of the country] it will be opened in Darfur," he said, referring to a peace deal to end 20 years of war in southern Sudan. 

Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the Sudan capital, Khartoum and Libya over the weekend seeking an "African solution" to the crisis. 

As chairman of the African Union, he is pressing for African troops to be sent to Darfur to disarm the Janjaweed, and the two rebels groups, accused by Sudan of starting the conflict by taking up arms last year. 

Nigeria, South Africa and Rwanda had promised to send 300 soldiers to Darfur by the end of July but these have not yet arrived. 

French troops 

France is deploying 200 soldiers to secure Chad's eastern border with the Darfur region and deliver humanitarian aid to the 200,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad. 

France has about 1,000 troops in Chad, who until now have been helping to promote stability and train Chadian forces for peacekeeping duties. 

*Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis 
Up to 50,000 people have died since the conflict began in early 2003.* 

Refugees say the Janjaweed follow up government air-raids by riding into their villages, slaughtering the men, raping the women and looting. 

The US-drafted resolution demands that Sudan make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. 

It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report in 30 days on the progress made. 

But Sudan said that this promise it made to Mr Annan gave it 90 days to stop the violence. 

A cabinet statement also criticised the resolution for not blaming the rebels, who "took up arms and therefore... bear the responsibility for all the human and security tragedy in Darfur". 

The resolution was only adopted after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures". 

BBC Article>>




> I don't speak for or have any affiliation with Al Jazeera so I can't really comment. I merely used them as an example in various discussions to highlight the Arab media's position on a number of topics.


You just aren't interested, are you Piggy. It doesn't suit your purpose.
You just see what you want to see Piggy.


----------



## georgewbush2 (15 Nov 2004)

*asimov*

you are worse to take piggy seriously.
'pigginess' won't allow him to respond rationally
to others point of view

keep the faith, gw


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*You just aren't interested, are you Piggy. It doesn't suit your purpose.
You just see what you want to see Piggy.*

Make your real feelings on Muslims known to the board Asimov. I have a pretty good idea what they are.

When you've done that please whinge in someone elses ear. 

I've already stated that I think the entire international community has let down the people of Darfur who are being raped and killed on a daily basis. Perhaps if the US had not fought a pointless and unjust war in Iraq they would have more moral voice to go into Darfur - then again, I doubt many people would have objected to UN peacekeeping troops being sent to that region to stop this genocide. Perhaps they simply don't care.


----------



## Chapman (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: asimov*



> The reality is that we only live in this fairytale world because there are ruthless and brutal people out there killing and oppressing in our names.



Well said Purple. But Orwell beat you to it:



> We Sleep Safe In Our Beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those that would do us harm.




------------------------------

This is quite possibly the lowest comment I've read here. Nothing is actually said but the target's thoughts are somehow known and used to condemn them. Nasty.

I would encourage a hasty retraction.



> Make your real feelings on Muslims known to the board Asimov. I have a pretty good idea what they are.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: Darfur*

You accuse me of being anti muslim? That just shows your utter lack of knowledge about the Darfur situation.

For you info: The people of Darfur are *MUSLIMS.* 

The cynical government of Sudan chose the same underhand tactic as you however, when they labelled anyone who cares what happens to the muslims of Darfur as 'anti Islam'.


----------



## georgewbush2 (15 Nov 2004)

*Perhaps if the US had not fought a pointless and unjust war*

says who?
you priggy?

People like you and tne UN sat back and tried to appease Hitler, let Idi Amin get away with atroccities, let the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia happen, let Tibet be conquered, sucked up to Ghaddafi & Saddam and all the rest of the despots.

What did any country ever do to free people and stop genocide? Only one country - the USA.

WE stopped the genocide in Bosnia, tried in the Sudan and lost American lives, we stopped Ghadaffi's terroism, tried in the Lebanon and lost American lives.

The downfall of Saddam who gassed his own people, created an environmental  disaster draining the marshes so he could kill more of his people, would have had WMD within 2 years of the dropping of sanctions.

Was planning to drop poison gas on Riyadh and Jeddah to kill the Saudi Royal family (how many would have died)
Was planning to sort out Iran and then Israel.
Was setting up a dictatorship dynasty.

The USA has done good and bad but at least we do some good - more thant any other country in terms of donations and assistance, gave more lives to stop injustice and repression than any other country

What other country has done as much good as the USA?

gw


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: Darfur*

*PS. You labelled your post 'RE: asimov'. This debate is not about ME*

No I didn't.

*You accuse me of being anti muslim?*

No...I didn't. I asked you to make your real feelings about Muslims known to the board. Simply because I get the sense from most of your postings (not necessarily to do with Darfur) that you like to tar with the one brush. That's the impression you give.

I am of course referring to comments you made at the start of this post such as this...
_"So this TV program, which set out to defuse the fear of radical Islam...replaces it with a much deeper and more divisive scenario...that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!"_

and this...

_"No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!
Where are the peaceniks Piggy? Why aren't they out marching against militant Islam?"_

So, is this merely what you interpreted that the programme was saying or is this also what you believe? I'm not flinging insults - I'm merely trying to ascertain your stance on the subject. It's better all round if people make their opinions clear.
I've heard similar views from people on this board before and they tend to be very Islamophobic people. Nothing to do with Darfur before you jump in with that. I'm well aware of the situation that exists there.

*The cynical government of Sudan chose the same underhand tactic as you however, when they labelled anyone who cares what happens to the muslims of Darfur as 'anti Islam'.*

Given what I've already said about the genocide going on in Darfur and that I believe UN troops should be there where do you get this from?


----------



## georgewbush2 (15 Nov 2004)

*You accuse me of being anti muslim?*

typical Peggy tactic, reverse insult.
if you have an opinion then you must be
a bigot.


----------



## Asimov (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: Darfur*



> PS. You labelled your post 'RE: asimov'. This debate is not about ME
> No I didn't.


Yes, and I edited that comment out. But your continued assertions that I'm on a personal crusade (oops!) against you is still nonsense. I don't know you.



> No...I didn't. I asked you to make your real feelings about Muslims known to the board.


There's a clear inference in that question. Even another contributor (Chapman) saw it and called on you to retract.



> So this TV program....[concludes] that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the Teror...ALL muslims are!!"


Yes. That was the conclusion of the TV program! I didn't make it, so don't blame me!



> "No, but the vast majority of terorists are muslims!


Know where that statement came from Piggy?
It was a quote from an article written by *Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel.*


> It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. HIS WORDS, NOT MINE!


Here's the full text: Telegraph.co.uk




> Simply because I get the sense from most of your postings (not necessarily to do with Darfur) that you like to tar with the one brush.


 Three words Piggy. 
Pot. Kettle. Black.



> Given what I've already said about the genocide going on in Darfur and that I believe UN troops should be there where do you get this from?


 Because you've clearly stated that you think I'm simply anti Muslim, and that by suggesting there was Genocide in Darfur I was looking for an excuse to attack the muslim government of Sudan and make them (and all muslims) look bad. WRONG!!

Now Piggy, since you've asked me to 'tell the board my views on muslims' why don't you do the same, and tell us your views on America while you're at it.

Actually, forget America...we already know your views.


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: Darfur*

*Yes, and I edited that comment out. But your continued assertions that I'm on a personal crusade (oops!) against you is still nonsense. I don't know you.*

Is that your idea of an apology?
Given that you direct everything at me (in that spiteful tone) what else am I to believe?

*There's a clear inference in that question*

Correct, there is. I made the inference quite clear I thought.

*Three words Piggy. Pot. Kettle. Black.*

Who and where? When have I tarred one whole swathe of people?

*Yes. That was the conclusion of the TV program! I didn't make it, so don't blame me!*

Hmm...you seem to be doing your best not to answer my question. 

*Because you've clearly stated that you think I'm simply anti Muslim, and that by suggesting there was Genocide in Darfur I was looking for an excuse to attack the muslim government of Sudan and make them (and all muslims) look bad. WRONG!!*

So then you're not anti-muslim and you don't think they're all terrorists...yet you believe they should all be out on the streets demonstarting against Islamic terrorism?
You'll have to forgive me for believing that you _might_ be anti-Muslim or believe them all to be terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. It's just that I've only ever heard one other contributor on this board use that particular argument and he was quite openly anti-Muslim. A clarification on your part would of course sort this out immediately.

*Now Piggy, since you've asked me to 'tell the board my views on muslims' why don't you do the same, and tell us your views on America while you're at it.

Actually, forget America...we already know.*

Actually, I've made my position on America very clear ever since I started posting here. I am not anti-American but I am very, very anti-George Bush and in particular his foreign policy.

Anything else I can clarify don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## purple (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: You accuse me of being anti muslim?*

Asimov, piggy, can you two cool it!
You both make good contributions to this topic when the other is off doing their real job or whatever but when you are both posting at the same time you start arguing the person, not the point.
In general I would be closer to Piggy's views on the rights and wrongs of things (without the moral indignation) but I think he starts more of the "you said/I said" posts.

Please stop doing it, both of you, you will get another thread closed!  

(Back in my day... hrumph!!)


----------



## piggy (15 Nov 2004)

*Re: You accuse me of being anti muslim?*

You're right of course purple. Perhaps if people could learn to be civil towards one another then there would be no need for tit-for-tat postings.

I need to get some work done so I'm outta here for the time being anyway. Perhaps when I come back the air will be slightly more civil and we can get back to discussing topics instead of attacking each other.


----------



## piggy (16 Nov 2004)

purple,

Just to challenge some of your views (in a civil manner)...you make some good points but I find myself disagreeing with some of them.

*We in Ireland, and western Europe in general, live in a fairytale world of peace, justice and universal rights. We think anyone who threatens or attempts to restricts these rights for others is the "bad guy".*

We've only known peace in Ireland for a relatively short period of time. As for the fairytale - only if you're doing okay for yourself.

*The reality is that we only live in this fairytale world because there are ruthless and brutal people out there killing and oppressing in our names. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot.*

I see your point but I think this is a little simplistic at the same time.

*We are/were protecting our interests. The US is protesting her interests, which happen to be ours as well; we need cheap oil, we need US investment.*

If this is referring to Iraq I don't see our need for oil as any sort of justification for this mess. You might think it sounds indignant of me but I happen to care more about people than I do about the oil in my car - and not invading Iraq would not mean I wouldn't be able to start my car tomorrow.

*What is happening in Iraq is terrible.
It is only because America behaves in this way and keeps the real world away from our fairytale one that we can have the luxury of taking abstract moralistic stances.*

I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Are you saying that what is happening in Iraq is terrible but at teh same time America has to do it so we can live out our fairytale lives? If so I strongly disagree. That is making out this war to in some way have been inevitable and we should all accept it because we have to.

*And before anyone says that they would live in poverty to save the planet ask yourselves this; Would you see your children die from the same diseases that 2/3rds of the world see their children die from in order to saith your moral pains?*

I think that's a bit melodramatic and pre-supposes that we must wage unjust wars so that our children won't starve.
That's a correlation that just doesn't exist.

*We are rich because they are poor, we are free because they are not (real democracy can only function in a rich country).*

I tend to agree (reluctantly) agree with some of that - but it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for what's best for everyone - not just us.

*That's the way the world is. We all have blood on our hands.
Live with it and stop pretending we really give a s**t.*

You do not speak for everyone with that comment.


----------



## sueellen (16 Nov 2004)

*Re: Insults over.*

Time to call a halt to the insults.  Thread closed.


----------

