War in Iraq (2 Viewers)

[banco55]

firstly, turkey isnt part of the arab world.
i agree democracy in iraq is a sick joke, whats even more of a joke is how you, the US, britain, australia and the rest of the coalition of dumbshits thought it could work. and since you agree democracy in iraq wont work, you also concede that the war is lost. you also concede that australian troops should leave, since there very purpose is to aid in installing a democracy, and since that aint happening, we're wasting precious resources in being there.

Nowhere did I say Turkey was a part of the Arab world but they look positively modern compared to the Arabs. My point was if they can't make democracy work what hope do the arabs have? I think even if you never thought democracy in Iraq could work you could still support the deployment of Australian troops on the basis of maintaining the US alliance. We've only made a token contribution to Iraq, we've taken only a handful of casualties (from memory no KIA) yet we've got a lot of goodwill from the US. That will be very useful if anything like east timor happens again.

 

[onebytwo]

US risked the lives of millions of american soldiers lives to save Europe to from Nazis, Us risked millions of American soldiers lives to save South Korea and South Vietnam from Communist North. US risked the lives of thousands of american soldiers to protect Bosnian and Albanian from Serbs.

doesnt mean those in control give a crap about soldiers lives

Even if Oil was the reason, you should thank george Bush for invading Iraq so that people like you can have uninterrupted supply of cheap petrol.

sorry, but oil at the moment is anything but cheap, and i believe that prior to invasion we were getting cheaper oil. so if anything george bush has supplied us and the rest of the world with an interrupted supply of expensive oil.

By the way how did America profit from Iraqi oil, since there are no American oil companies operating in Iraq. :rofl:

oil companies probably arent profiting directly, but its interesting to note that invasion occured two years after sadam converted the conventional oil-$US trading system to his very own oil-euro system. and that once in iraq, that was one of the first things to be converted back. perhaps the US is afraid that if that system had survived, demand for $US would have een reduced significantly, resulting in a gradual depreciation of the $US, and considering the level of US foreign debt, thats not at all a good thing, and could affect US' economic supremacy.
interesting that in 2006, ahmadinajad did the same thing as sadam, introducing the oil-euro system for iranian oil, which is about the same time the US declared that iran's nuclear program was unacceptable.
"coincidence, or something more sinister"

 

[onebytwo]

Nowhere did I say Turkey was a part of the Arab world but they look positively modern compared to the Arabs. My point was if they can't make democracy work what hope do the arabs have? I think even if you never thought democracy in Iraq could work you could still support the deployment of Australian troops on the basis of maintaining the US alliance. We've only made a token contribution to Iraq, we've taken only a handful of casualties (from memory no KIA) yet we've got a lot of goodwill from the US. That will be very useful if anything like east timor happens again.

sorry, but arabs have been around for thousands of years, and living without democracy today isnt about to threaten their existence. if we are going to support the US into going around bulling other nations and creating more post-03 iraqs, then were better off having no part of it, particularly when we have severe problems here at home.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I agree with that. Perhaps on a more pragmatic thread, when Iraq completely dissolves into Civil War, like Vietnam after the war, the sunnis and shiites will be too busy focusing on killing one another that they won't want to kill us?

I'm not sure I follow. You say that attempting to quell the violence in Iraq will stop these feelings from the Iraqis? They're gonna hate us either way.

 

[banco55]

I suppose if she only watches the ABC and SBS that could explain her adherence to the theory that the evil westerners are responsible for poverty in africa.

 

[jb_nc]

socalist brainwashing

 

[rosietaranto]

I suppose if she only watches the ABC and SBS that could explain her adherence to the theory that the evil westerners are responsible for poverty in africa.

Well I don't watch crap like 7, 9, 10. If i want to watch shows on those channels i'd rather buy the dvd. Their news is about celebrities and using psychoanalysts to read body language. Yeah and i'm not saying that both channels always tell the truth.
Yes, I'm left wing. Howard is a jerk. Rudd may not be the best thing to come along, but he has miles on Howard. And if you don't think we had anything to do with Africa's poverty, well that's your opinion.

 

[leetom]

Well I don't watch crap like 7, 9, 10. If i want to watch shows on those channels i'd rather buy the dvd. Their news is about celebrities and using psychoanalysts to read body language. Yeah and i'm not saying that both channels always tell the truth.
Yes, I'm left wing. Howard is a jerk. Rudd may not be the best thing to come along, but he has miles on Howard. And if you don't think we had anything to do with Africa's poverty, well that's your opinion.

What are your detractions of Rudd? He is moral, intelligent and socially motivated. Why do you not regard him to be the 'best thing to come'?

 

[mr EaZy]

That can be backed up with Facts, cold hard facts.

.... Go on!

I'm sorry, did we tell people in Africa to fight amongst each other because someone's uncle thousands of years ago was the wrong tribe? No. Did we leave africa in the lurch in a post-colonial state, nope. Do we have outrageous sanctions against african nations or high tarrifs on their goods... nope.

Lol im sorry to break it to you... but we did- by we, i mean our imperial father Old Pom did, but it was a policy applied variously here and there, or it was applied through proxy , apart from that, there's the spanish and all their festive policies (though we as aussies dont need to worry about what they did having a burden on us)

i'll leave you to you to look up what i've said, but there's very little literature on colonial history online, try looking up books written in the 1800s- 1920s

 

[rosietaranto]

What are your detractions of Rudd? He is moral, intelligent and socially motivated. Why do you not regard him to be the 'best thing to come'?

No i don't have much to say that is wrong about Rudd, just that he may not be the best Labour leader that has happened. But her is far better than anything we have had in a long time and has a far greater chance of winning this election than anybody else and yes he is morally right.

 

[HotShot]

That can be backed up with Facts, cold hard facts.
I'm sorry, did we tell people in Africa to fight amongst each other because someone's uncle thousands of years ago was the wrong tribe? No. Did we leave africa in the lurch in a post-colonial state, nope. Do we have outrageous sanctions against african nations or high tarrifs on their goods... nope.

We're not economic terrorists towards africa.

Actually is all about economics - if we wanted to do we could solve the problem in Africa within year. But why would we want to do that?

 

[YankeeChica]

doesnt mean those in control give a crap about soldiers lives


sorry, but oil at the moment is anything but cheap, and i believe that prior to invasion we were getting cheaper oil. so if anything george bush has supplied us and the rest of the world with an interrupted supply of expensive oil.

Oil in relative terms are cheaper now compared to when oil supplies are at the hand and mercy of arab leaders. Now US made it clear that it will not be bullied by arabs, and will get oil supply when it wants and when it needs. Now Saddam is gone and no Iraq will never again in a million years impose Oil embargo on USA, Australia or Britain. That is what we gained from the invasion, uninterrupted supply of oil for us as well as getting rid of a cruel dictator who killed 100,00000 Iraqis.

oil companies probably arent profiting directly, but its interesting to note that invasion occured two years after sadam converted the conventional oil-$US trading system to his very own oil-euro system. and that once in iraq, that was one of the first things to be converted back. perhaps the US is afraid that if that system had survived, demand for $US would have een reduced significantly, resulting in a gradual depreciation of the $US, and considering the level of US foreign debt, thats not at all a good thing, and could affect US' economic supremacy.

If Oil companies are not profiting then why blame oil companies for things they have nothing to do with? I love it when war opponents said it profited Oil companies yet they cannot give us a SINGLE instance in which American or british Oil giant Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron get a single contract for oil exploration inside iraq. :rofl:

interesting that in 2006, ahmadinajad did the same thing as sadam, introducing the oil-euro system for iranian oil, which is about the same time the US declared that iran's nuclear program was unacceptable.
"coincidence, or something more sinister"

Well this clearly shows your ignorance, a change in Irans nuclear policy was a precondition for talks and normalising relations with US as declared by Madeleine Albright long before George Bush became President.

It is funny when you tried to use those conspiracy theory such as US Dollar vs Euro as a reason why US invade Iraq . One note, Us economy worth almost 13 trillion dollar cannot be touched and affected by Irans change from US Dollar to Euro at all. In fact a few billionaires in USA have more influence on US dollar than the whole of the middle east combined. Iran's oil economy is worth 160 billion Dollar, compared to the economy of New York City 460 Billion Dollar. I hope that will tell you how insignificant is Iran's use of Euro to US.

Rest of the world use US dollar because it is the most reliable currency throughout history. US did not put a gun on China or Russia's head and force them to use US Dollar, those countries; despite their huge differences preferred currency is US Dollar, because they knew that they can use US dollar to all countries around the world.

 

[Optophobia]

as well as getting rid of a cruel dictator who killed 100,00000 Iraqis.

Yeh because americans (most of which cannot even point out where Iraq is on the map) really care about a cruel dictator in Iraq killing "100,00000 Iraqis".

Americans are too busy living in their own shit hole of a 'nation' to care about anyone but themselves.. And even themselves they don't really care about.

If Oil companies are not profiting then why blame oil companies for things they have nothing to do with? I love it when war opponents said it profited Oil companies yet they cannot give us a SINGLE instance in which American or british Oil giant Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron get a single contract for oil exploration inside iraq.

That's because it's not as simple as invading a company and then going in an siphoning out the oil supply. Americans must do it *legitimately* my installing a puppet government first. Looks like they are having some trouble doing that though .. Not that Bush has a problem with the obstacles. "We must fight this war in Iraq and win.. Quickly, lets re-elect bush so he can finish the job." A job which he pulled out of his arse in the first place. But George Bush can rest easy, because Americans are stupid and will actually continue believing the lie and false hope that he gives them. The populace are stupid and largely uneducated and so he has no real threat. Being stupid is not the problem though. It's the method of manipulating and controlling the stupid masses that is the important part.

 

[YankeeChica]

Yeh because americans (most of which cannot even point out where Iraq is on the map) really care about a cruel dictator in Iraq killing "100,00000 Iraqis".

Americans are too busy living in their own shit hole of a 'nation' to care about anyone but themselves.. And even themselves they don't really care about.

Perhaps America cares and its the only country that actually dare to put an end to the butchery of Iraqis by Saddam while those who champion human rights in Europe and their fellow arabs in the middle east watches iraqis die.

The samething is repeated in Sudan, as arab muslims butchered Black and christians sudanese, Europe and rest of the world watch them doing nothing until US said an intervention is necessary.

That's because it's not as simple as invading a company and then going in an siphoning out the oil supply. Americans must do it *legitimately* my installing a puppet government first. Looks like they are having some trouble doing that though .. Not that Bush has a problem with the obstacles. We must fight this war in Iraq and win.. Quickly, lets re-elect bush so he can finish the job.

Now war opponents concede that Oil companies have nothing to do with the invasion I was right, all along .

 

[Optophobia]

Perhaps America cares and its the only country that actually dare to put an end to the butchery of Iraqis by Saddam

Yeh i guess that's the real reason............ NOT.

The samething is repeated in Sudan, as arab muslims butchered Black and christians sudanese, Europe and rest of the world watch them doing nothing until US said an intervention is necessary.

So when's the USA going to be invading Sudan?

yet America is the role model for all countries,

I don't know what you've been smoking, but which country has America as its role model? Besides those countries gullible enough to believe the USA to be great, such as the phillipines.

i bet you are choking on your own vomit living in a country that wants to be successful, rich and powerful like America

Oh yes, Australians every day wish to be just like Americans. Keep dreaming.

and everything American is considered premium LOL.

Everything American is considered premium.

 

[YankeeChica]

Yeh i guess that's the real reason............ NOT.

Whether its real or not it was and is USA that do something to stop butchery of civilians in iraq and former yugoslavia and the people are quite thankful to USA. In Kosovo, they have a huge building with the portrait of Bill Clinton, not the president of france, russia, germany or china, why? because it was USA under Bill Clinton who saved millions of albanian muslims from genocide.

So when's the USA going to be invading Sudan?

Only after USA said intervention is necessary, african union sent in troops, funded by USA. It was US secretary of State Colin Powel who visited Darfur on the ground, not foreign ministers of any peace loving european country or even australia. It was and is always USA that is at the forefront when it comes to humanitarian asistance.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm not sure if you're joking, or not. I doubt you are, in which case:

Whether its real or not it was and is USA that do something to stop butchery of civilians in iraq and former yugoslavia and the people are quite thankful to USA.

I certainly wouldn't put forth the view that butchery has been stopped in Iraq. People still seem to be dying, much more rapidly than they were under Hussein too. Lesser of two evils situation I reckon. Learn how to structure sentences in a somewhat understandable matter too, please.

In Kosovo, they have a huge building with the portrait of Bill Clinton, not the president of france, russia, germany or china, why? because it was USA under Bill Clinton who saved millions of albanian muslims from genocide.

This has nothing to do with anything. Comparing the Kosovo intervention to Iraq is asinine.

a) Genocide in Iraq stopped occuring years ago (Although it did happen. No-one denies that). It was occuring when Clinton intervened in Kosovo.

b) Stopping genocide played no part in deciding to invade Iraq. This is evidenced by the fact that no memorable mention of it was made in the leadup to the invasion.

c) Praising the current US administration on humanitarian intervention seems a bit silly, considering the 'do nothing' stance that they're taking with Sudan...As Optophobia already mentioned.

Only after USA said intervention is necessary, african union sent in troops, funded by USA.

Which evidently has not quelled the violence. If the US was serious then it would have no doubt done more.

It was US secretary of State Colin Powel who visited Darfur on the ground, not foreign ministers of any peace loving european country or even australia.

Colin Powell has very little, if anything to do with the current administration. When exactly did he visit Darfur? What became of this?

It was and is always USA that is at the forefront when it comes to humanitarian asistance.

I would suggest the role it has had in not attempting to eliminate debt in foreign countries, bombing various places in the name of "freedom" or "democracy", and ignoring actual humanitarian crises such as in Darfur would paint a stark contrast to what you're suggesting.

 

[YankeeChica]

I'm not sure if you're joking, or not. I doubt you are, in which case:



I certainly wouldn't put forth the view that butchery has been stopped in Iraq. People still seem to be dying, much more rapidly than they were under Hussein too. Lesser of two evils situation I reckon. Learn how to structure sentences in a somewhat understandable matter too, please.

The invasion certainly stopped iraqis from being killed By Saddam Hussein, after more than 20 years of opression by Saddam. The current Killing is by Muslim Terrorists and the US did everything it can, however, as muslims are blood thirsty revenge seeking savage, nothing will stop until they have enough blood of their fellow muslims.

This has nothing to do with anything. Comparing the Kosovo intervention to Iraq is asinine.

a) Genocide in Iraq stopped occuring years ago (Although it did happen. No-one denies that). It was occuring when Clinton intervened in Kosovo.

b) Stopping genocide played no part in deciding to invade Iraq. This is evidenced by the fact that no memorable mention of it was made in the leadup to the invasion.

c) Praising the current US administration on humanitarian intervention seems a bit silly, considering the 'do nothing' stance that they're taking with Sudan...As Optophobia already mentioned.

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

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.

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

Colin Powell has very little, if anything to do with the current administration. When exactly did he visit Darfur? What became of this?

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.

I would suggest the role it has had in not attempting to eliminate debt in foreign countries, bombing various places in the name of "freedom" or "democracy", and ignoring actual humanitarian crises such as in Darfur would paint a stark contrast to what you're suggesting.

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. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/PBC%20TroopFinancialContributorLists%202Feb06.pdf

 

[velox]

Optophobia: They wont be going to sudan, look how they screwed up iraq/vietnam/somalia.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Hi.

A few things.

1. Don't abuse other members over the net. I was lenient this time because I admit I didn't run through this thread earlier, so your various name calling and such may have been provoked etc. I'm sick of editing people's otherwise valuable posts, merely taking out things like "you idiot" and "you know nothing". Please just don't do it full stop.

2. Don't undermine people about who they are and whether they deserve to even make a voice. Regardless of age and area of study, they are still allowed to express their opinion. If their opinion is so ignorant and ill-informed, enlighten them. Do not abuse them.

3. Try to avoid tangents. Why on earth were we discussing whether or not America is hella awesome in full depth? I acknowledge that tangents will always happen, but try to keep them to a minimum.

4. Rather than complaining about how much this thread is off-topic WITHIN the thread, I would appreciate you reporting the actual thread or post. Please do this, it makes my life so much easier.

5. I apologise for deleting or taking out some great posts, but they were simply either not relevant or appropriate.

Thanks.

If you have any more concerns, please PM me.