War in Iraq (3 Viewers)

[YankeeChica]

Prince Harry off to Iraq after all From correspondents in London
May 01, 2007 04:00am
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

Deployment may still be reversed
Wide consultation over decision
First royal since Andrew to see active service

PRINCE Harry would deploy to Iraq, the head of the British army said overnight, after speculation that he may not go because of fears he could be targeted by insurgents.

But General Sir Richard Dannatt also said he could yet change his mind, if circumstances change.

“I have taken the decision as chief of general staff. It's my decision as chief of general staff. I have full command of everyone in the army, including Prince Harry,” he said.

“The decision has been taken by myself that he (Harry) will deploy with his regiment in due course.”

Gen. Dannatt said the decision had been taken after the “widest possible consultation”.

“I will of course keep that decision continually under review and if circumstances are such that I change that decision, I will make a further statement,” he told Sky News.

Speculation has been rife about Harry's deployment with the Blues and Royals regiment since the decision was announced in February. The regiment was expected to begin its six-month tour of duty in May.

British media have said the second lieutenant - or Cornet Wales as he is known in the Blues and Royals - could be pulled from the front line because of the threat of kidnap or death and his presence could put comrades in danger.

Any decision to pull him out is likely to infuriate the third-in-line to the throne, who has said there was “no way” he would train to become an officer, then sit around while his soldiers fought.

Harry, 22, is responsible for 11 soldiers and four Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles.

An unnamed Household Cavalary regiment source told the domestic Press Association news agency last week that Harry would resign if he is not allowed to go.

April has been one of the deadliest months for British forces in Iraq since the US-led invasion of March 2003. To date 12 lives have been lost, including a corporal doing Harry's armoured reconnaissance troop leader job.

Harry would become the first British royal to see active service since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the 1982 Falklands War with Argentina.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21651121-401,00.html

Finally a true Prince who is leading his men at war send signals to deserters and war opponents that real men do not question order from above.

 

[dagwoman]

real men do not question order from above.

Gag.

 

[ur_inner_child]

You find not questioning authority admirable?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The invasion certainly stopped iraqis from being killed By Saddam Hussein,

Uh, no, it didn't.

after more than 20 years of opression by Saddam.

Probably should have tried 20 years or so ago when genocides were actually occuring, and they probably shouldn't have funded Hussein when they knew full well of his muderous tendencies. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the idea of deposing of a vile dictator is a bad idea, it would just have been ill-informed. Unfortunately for the Bush crew, being rid of Hussein and stopping murder was never on his to-do list.

The current Killing is by Muslim Terrorists and the US did everything it can,

At this time, the best thing to do would be to end the violence. The US is failing at that. Obviously, they haven't done all they can do. More is needed, and seeing as how the current administration so vehemently defends their position as an instigator of human rights and democracy, I'd say that they have a pretty damn bonafide responsibility to do something about it. What can be done? May I suggest pulling out of Iraq so that at least one group can be put into power?

however, as muslims are blood thirsty revenge seeking savage, nothing will stop until they have enough blood of their fellow muslims.

...

I am well aware that the situation are different in Kosovo and Iraq, howewver,

No, you're not. If you were you wouldn't have put forth such a fucking ludicrous example.

the genocide in Iraq by Saddam and genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia were stopped by USA NOT peace loving Europeans or their fellow islamic countries.

Mmkay, I see your point now. Yes, the US has had a part in ending genocides in the past. What is important to note, and you best take off your rose coloured glasses to see it, is that the US has also contributed a lot to human rights abuses the world over. Couple that with what's happened in Iraq, and you'll see a picture that's rather different from the one you're painting of the US.

if US sent in troops into Sudan, guess what you flip flopper are gonna say? US intervened for OIL ha ha. Since Sudan is another Oil rich country. It probably waited those who oppose military intervention notably France, Germany, Russia and China to act.

No, untrue. Even if it were true, there's no relevancy of that post of yours. End these strawman arguments and move along.

The fact is US did the bulk of the worlds humanitarian asistance,

Untrue. I don't have the time to work out actual absolute values, but regardless, the following shows that the US is hardly the generous mother of the world that you're making it out to be.

Per capita (c): http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

even in the case of Sudan US declared it as genocide, but for peace loving Europeans and lefties, millions of death in Sudan is not enough to be a genocide as UN refused to declare it a genocide.

As above.

US wants direct military intervention by UN ( of course it will be led by brave american soldiers as usual), while peace loving Europeans, Russia and China refused to impose sanction because they want sudanese oil contracts

Evidence please.

Colin Powell's visit put the confclit into a limeligt and US urged UN military intervention. as mentioned before, refused by UN thanks to Russia and China.

Evidence please. Even so, I'm not in any position to defend Russia or China.

US is at the forefront in foreign AID, US contributed more money than any other country in the world in foreign AID in cash or kind. If US ignored Darfur, then rest of the world have never heard of Darfur. On TV most food bags distributed to africans have USA and USAID written in it. I don't see EURO AID or AUSSIE AID written on those rice bags. According to UN Security Council report, US contributed more than 11 billion to various UN Aid agencies such as Unicef, Unesco, peacebuilding fund etc Japan contrinbuted 5.5 billion, Uk over 4 billion and germany 2.5 billion over three years

LOL. So now we're defending the US government by what the private sector gives to external funds? lolololol.

Back to the subject of Iraq though, which I see that you've largely ignored. I'm no expert on Darfur, obviously. My take home message is that if the US was as generous as you suggest, a lot more would be done. Iraq and other anti-humanitarian interventions it has played a part in suggest further, that it's not exactly the bright beacon of aid that you're making it out to be, also.

 

[YankeeChica]

You find not questioning authority admirable?

Yes, in the military you obey orders. Soldiers do not choose which war they want to fight and not fight. I believe Prince Harry set an example to soldiers who tries to avoid deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then the people that founded your oh so favourite country in a rebellion are a bunch of economic girlymen by your own logical conclusions.

To my knowlege it was the Civilian population who rebelled against the british rule not the military

Uh, no, it didn't.

can you name any person killed by Saddam Hussein on his order after his fall? Why do you have to lie for the sake of replying my post?

Probably should have tried 20 years or so ago when genocides were actually occuring, and they probably shouldn't have funded Hussein when they knew full well of his muderous tendencies. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the idea of deposing of a vile dictator is a bad idea, it would just have been ill-informed. Unfortunately for the Bush crew, being rid of Hussein and stopping murder was never on his to-do list.

If Bush dont want to getr rid of Saddam then why is he toppled, captured and hanged?

At this time, the best thing to do would be to end the violence. The US is failing at that. Obviously, they haven't done all they can do. More is needed, and seeing as how the current administration so vehemently defends their position as an instigator of human rights and democracy, I'd say that they have a pretty damn bonafide responsibility to do something about it. What can be done? May I suggest pulling out of Iraq so that at least one group can be put into power?

So that Saddam like figure can arise and Butcher more Iraqis eh?



...

No, you're not. If you were you wouldn't have put forth such a fucking ludicrous example.

It was USA who ended genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia, Iraq and I wil keep repeating it because only USA is willing to stop killings of innocent people not anyone else.

Mmkay, I see your point now. Yes, the US has had a part in ending genocides in the past. What is important to note, and you best take off your rose coloured glasses to see it, is that the US has also contributed a lot to human rights abuses the world over. Couple that with what's happened in Iraq, and you'll see a picture that's rather different from the one you're painting of the US.

What US did in human rights abuse was to prevent larger scale of the abuse happening and it was the lesser evil from the two choice available, since you probably are referring to Chile etc. One wonders what will happen had those countries fallen to communists. another Cuba like country is the last thing they need.

No, untrue. Even if it were true, there's no relevancy of that post of yours. End these strawman arguments and move along.

If it is untrue why don't you supply us the true version? otherwise my point still stands.

Untrue. I don't have the time to work out actual absolute values, but regardless, the following shows that the US is hardly the generous mother of the world that you're making it out to be.

Per capita (c): http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

What is untrue? Yes I will happily provide you absolute value which makes sense. It is not about per Capita contribution that makes a difference its the Absolute amount of money contributed. A country with 1 dollar GDP can contribute 1 dollar which will make no sense while USA contributed Billions of Dollars which actually feed billions of poor around the world. during the past three years US donated 22.7 Billion US $ compared to a paltry 2 billion for Australia. What makes a difference 22 billion or 2 Billion? :rofl: Yes That figure if from OECD Official Development Assistance http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs just click at Raw Data tab. Furthermore US is the biggest donor in every kind of donation be it scientific research, international projects, UN budget etc. It is unrivalled in terms of generousity.

As above.



Evidence please.



Evidence please. Even so, I'm not in any position to defend Russia or China.

yes I love giving evidence to enlighten the unfortunate folks here .

China has indicated that it will block any attempt by Britain and the United States to push for sanctions against Sudan, despite new evidence that the African state has disguised military planes as United Nations aircraft and bombed villages in its war-torn Darfur region. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1678083.ece

Russia and China say they will oppose UN sanctions against four Sudanese officials accused of involvement in continuing violence in Darfur. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4917970.stm

By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer | April 18, 2007
UNITED NATIONS --Britain and the United States said Wednesday they will propose new U.N. sanctions to pressure the Sudanese government and rebels to stop the fighting in Darfur, but Russia, China and South Africa opposed any new measures.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2007/04/18/us_push_for_sudan_sanctions_opposed/

LOL. So now we're defending the US government by what the private sector gives to external funds? lolololol.

Private or Public, by far US is the biggest Donor outstripping every other country on earth. Last week alone American Idol collected 60 million in donations for poor africans.

Back to the subject of Iraq though, which I see that you've largely ignored. I'm no expert on Darfur, obviously. My take home message is that if the US was as generous as you suggest, a lot more would be done. Iraq and other anti-humanitarian interventions it has played a part in suggest further, that it's not exactly the bright beacon of aid that you're making it out to be, also.

I have not ignored any issues here I replied each and every point you made. You never gave anything to rebutt instead said not true, false without giving anything to counter the argument.

I agreed with Velox that US is pretty busy in Iraq, Afghanistan and another possible showdown with Iran and north Korea, why don't rest of the world do something about Darfur, instead of begging and waiting for USA to do something? Why can't rest of the world do something good and save some soul without USA for once?:mad1:

 

[Sparcod]

Yes, in the military you obey orders. Soldiers do not choose which war they want to fight and not fight. I believe Prince Harry set an example to soldiers who tries to avoid deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those soldiers chose to become soldiers in the first place.

It was USA who ended genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia, Iraq and I wil keep repeating it because only USA is willing to stop killings of innocent people not anyone else.

Ironically, the USA had to kill even more innocent people to do that. Who says that the USA is always right anyway?

What US did in human rights abuse was to prevent larger scale of the abuse happening and it was the lesser evil from the two choice available, since you probably are referring to Chile etc. One wonders what will happen had those countries fallen to communists. another Cuba like country is the last thing they need.

I'm sorry but communism is actually dying. If you actually look at the stats and see how many civillians have died you'd probably find that that number is a lot bigger than the number killed in the "genocide" YOU were referring to.
...and who says that George W Bush is God? Does he determine who's right and who's wrong?

What is untrue? Yes I will happily provide you absolute value which makes sense. It is not about per Capita contribution that makes a difference its the Absolute amount of money contributed. A country with 1 dollar GDP can contribute 1 dollar which will make no sense while USA contributed Billions of Dollars which actually feed billions of poor around the world. during the past three years US donated 22.7 Billion US $ compared to a paltry 2 billion for Australia. What makes a difference 22 billion or 2 Billion? :rofl: Yes That figure if from OECD Official Development Assistance http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs just click at Raw Data tab. Furthermore US is the biggest donor in every kind of donation be it scientific research, international projects, UN budget etc. It is unrivalled in terms of generousity.

I disagree with your argument.
America has over 14 times as many people than Australia has and so Australia has been more generous (according to your statistics) because on a per-capita basis, more money per Australian has been given out.

Besides, say if someone had $1 and gave his one and only dollar to feed the poor as opposed to a trillionaire giving away $1.01, what gives you the right to say that the person who gives away the most money is the most generous? That's not the way I see things.

yes I love giving evidence to enlighten the unfortunate folks here .

It'd be better if you could interprete them.

I agreed with Velox that US is pretty busy in Iraq, Afghanistan and another possible showdown with Iran and north Korea, why don't rest of the world do something about Darfur, instead of begging and waiting for USA to do something? Why can't rest of the world do something good and save some soul without USA for once?:mad1:

Perhaps there's a lack of propoganda? I think that there are people out there trying to help the innocent victims in Darfur but you only hear the U.S side. I don't know about this because obviously I know very little about North African politics.

 

[Optophobia]

YankeeChica is an American.

I win.

To my knowlege it was the Civilian population who rebelled against the british rule not the military

And now the Iraqi civilians are rebelling against US rule.

 

[YankeeChica]

Those soldiers chose to become soldiers in the first place.

yes no one forced them to become soldiers and it was their choice to be one and then running away when they are needed most is just not right, not only from military rules but also from common sense.

Ironically, the USA had to kill even more innocent people to do that. Who says that the USA is always right anyway?

Can you tell me where US had to kill more people to end genocide? Very very few people were killed by US bombing of Yugoslavia to force serbs out of Kosovo, most air strike were done with Surgical precision. Like wise in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualties of US bombings were negligible.

I'm sorry but communism is actually dying. If you actually look at the stats and see how many civillians have died you'd probably find that that number is a lot bigger than the number killed in the "genocide" YOU were referring to.
...and who says that George W Bush is God? Does he determine who's right and who's wrong?

Everyone credited USA for the demise of evil communism. You may want to look at the number of people killed under cummnism in USSR, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba etc. The number of people killed by Communism and the number of people killed by US efforts to contain and end communism differs to the tune of millions to one perhaps.

I never said that george Bush is God, not even his ardent supporters. But as the worlds most powerful man and as the President of USA, the one and only superpower in the world, he have the obligation and prerogative, within its abilities; to maintain peace and orders in the world in the interest of United States of America. What is good for USA is good for the world. Perfect example is Iraq, US wants to get rid of Saddam, so does rest of the world. The only disagreement is the way in which it was done. Saddam was not liked by anyone including his own people, all of Iraq's neighbours are scared of him because he invaded almost all of them. US wants to get rid of Iran's nuclear program and that is good for the world, even Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan agreed with that.

I disagree with your argument.
America has over 14 times as many people than Australia has and so Australia has been more generous (according to your statistics) because on a per-capita basis, more money per Australian has been given out.

Besides, say if someone had $1 and gave his one and only dollar to feed the poor as opposed to a trillionaire giving away $1.01, what gives you the right to say that the person who gives away the most money is the most generous? That's not the way I see things.

The point was America was and is always the biggest donor to all international Aids, grants. regardless of your calculations to trump up the stingy donation by Australia ( a mere 2 billion compared to 22 billion by USA) . One dollar does not feed anyone while 1 trillion feeds billions and that is what matters to the people who were in need of help. Which one makes more difference to poor people 2 billion or 22 billion dollars?

It'd be better if you could interprete them.

Cant you read the artcle by yourself? he demanded a source that China and Russia blocked an attempt by USA to place UN sanction on Sudan and I just provided that.

Perhaps there's a lack of propoganda? I think that there are people out there trying to help the innocent victims in Darfur but you only hear the U.S side. I don't know about this because obviously I know very little about North African politics.

Lack of propaganda? Does it requires advertisement blitz and endless infomercials to make rest of the world to let them know that the situation is pretty bad out there? If thats the case then the world is doomed without USA's leadership.

YankeeChica is an American.

I win.

Yes you won Darwin Awards :rofl: http://www.darwinawards.com/

And now the Iraqi civilians are rebelling against US rule.

Iraq is ruled by Iraqis with its own democratically elected parliament, president and prime minister. Thanks to George Bush.

 

[Atilla89]

"And now the Iraqi civilians are rebelling against US rule."

Two things wrong with that statment and the first was adressed above - It is the IRAQI Government in power not the U.S. who are there on Iraqi invitation.

Secondly the people who are 'rebelling' (e.g. planting IED's, kidnapping and ransoming people, beheading civilians and blowing themselves up) are not civilians, not by a long shot. Not sure if you have heard of the War on Terror, but people who do these deplorable deeds are called terrorists not civilians.

 

[banco55]

Looks like the kurds have just as many savages per capita as the arab muslims in Iraq:

A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.
As a horrifying video of the stoning went out on the Internet, the British arm of Amnesty International condemned the death of Du’a Khalil Aswad as "an abhorrent murder" and demanded that her killers be brought to justice.
Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.
Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811&ct=5

 

[onebytwo]

dont worry, the whole of iraq is in the process of receiving a magic peace spell courtesy of the US, once thats fully applied we'll see the end of stories like this.

 

[onebytwo]

Wait but you like Che which means you support murderous tyrants...

So... Why are you in favour of peace again?

yes I know you're being a facetious little fuckwit, you socialists don't have senses of humour thus the spelling this out in a comment tag

i like peace and murderous tyrants
you like war and peaceful governments

 

[withoutaface]

But this means, by extension, that you believe nukes are the solution to everyone's problems (see: Che's comments on the Cuba crisis).

 

[Atilla89]

i like peace and murderous tyrants
you like war and peaceful governments

Ever head the quote "To secure peace is to prepare for war"? Well it's true. BTW, murderous tyrants is a contradiction of peace, because of the murderous part.

P.S. I don't like war nor am I a warmonger but it is necessary in some occasions.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Ever head the quote "To secure peace is to prepare for war"? Well it's true. BTW, murderous tyrants is a contradiction of peace, because of the murderous part.

P.S. I don't like war nor am I a warmonger but it is necessary in some occasions.

I don't oppose war, nor am I unpatriotic. I simply prefer a softer, kinder type of war where the only troops are from the UN, and they stand by and watch genocides occur.

I also support the troops, I just hope a lot of them die in horrible ways so we can prove the evil hoWARd wrong.

 

[Atilla89]

I don't oppose war, nor am I unpatriotic. I simply prefer a softer, kinder type of war where the only troops are from the UN, and they stand by and watch genocides occur.

I also support the troops, I just hope a lot of them die in horrible ways so we can prove the evil hoWARd wrong.

Was that said sarcastically?

 

[liverpool3k]

Of course not.

 

[onebytwo]

Ever head the quote "To secure peace is to prepare for war"? Well it's true. BTW, murderous tyrants is a contradiction of peace, because of the murderous part.

no ive never heard of that. how is preparing for war exercising peace? so whenever you go to war, its considered neccessary, but when someone you dont like declares war, you get your panties in a twist?


btw, do you think the iraq war was and is necessary?

 

[onebytwo]

But this means, by extension, that you believe nukes are the solution to everyone's problems (see: Che's comments on the Cuba crisis).

no i dont think nukes are the solution to everyones problems, ernesto was horribly wrong in this regard. if everyone having nukes reduces security threats because leaders dont want to do anything silly that might bring on foreign attack, then how is it different from everyone not any nukes whatsoever?

 

[Atilla89]

no ive never heard of that. how is preparing for war exercising peace? so whenever you go to war, its considered neccessary, but when someone you dont like declares war, you get your panties in a twist?


btw, do you think the iraq war was and is necessary?

Preparing for war is a detterint for other nations to embark on war. For example lets just say that Australia and New Zealand were at odds over something and the situation got out of hand and war was approaching (never going to happen but whatever...). To make New Zealand think twice about invading Australia, Australia would immediatly beef up its military to such a degree that any attack would result in huge losses for the invading country. Obviously New Zealand would back down as its citizens would not want to die, in other words war is averted. Interestly this happened during Reagans administration during the cold war. BTW the crucial point is this: preparing for war doesn't mean you will go to war it is as I said before, a reason for the other country not to go to war.

On the Iraq war I am sure it was necesary. Saddam was only a couple of years from nukes, he oppressed and killed his own people. Personally I believe that the U.S. should have invaded and taken out Saddam during the first Gulf War and this would have stopped a lot of blood from being spilling today, this is because he had the Iraqi people's support (he still has but not as much). In fact there was an Iraqi rebellion because they thought that the U.S. would invade but they didn't and those Iraqi's that rose up in rebellion were killed (ever seen the movie Three Kings? it talk a bit about that situation); but as the saying goes better late then ever.