Poor old America!!

  • Thread starter johnjames2010
  • Start date
Re: Laws

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

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

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

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


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

I think you guys are being a bit unfair here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you allow a country to act unilaterally
 
Sudan

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

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

Now, Piggy states:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Two days ago Piggy wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we all need to continuously reexamine why we think the way we think.
None of us are all right or all wrong here.
Never a truer word was spoken. If we don't constantly re-examine our own thought process we risk blocking out anything that scupers our own point of view, making debate a meaningless prospect.
 
UN shambles nothing to do with America

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

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

Was America right to invade Iraq?
Probably not.

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

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

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

Sorry about the essay/rant, bye!
 
Re: UN shambles nothing to do with America

Des anyone in Europe or Ireland in particular have the right to sit in judgement on them?
Click to expand...
Most certainly we do.
If we won't, who will?

The French also sold arms to the Rwandan hutu government right through the genocide….as I have said before; don’t get me going about the French.
Click to expand...
Who sold arms to the Iraqis during the Iran Iraq war?
 
Who are we to judge the US?

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

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

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

Quote; "if we won’t, who will?"

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

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

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

So I would ask again; who are we to judge the US?
Click to expand...
Well, I ask you again, if we don't, who will?

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

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

I really don't your rant!
 
Re: Who are we to judge the US?

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

Thanks
 
Re: Piggy

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

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

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

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

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