Lynndie England

[Fair_play_boy]

She was that soldier photographed with the naked Iraqi prisoner in Abu Ghraib Prison near Baghdad. Although she changed to a guilty plea yesterday, she could still be sentenced for up to 11 years.
Why this news caught my attention is the defence evidence in mitigation that she has a learning disability, and that she has a history of psychiatric illness.
What in the name of God was she doing serving in the US Army?
The cynic in me wonders if many kids like that were deliberately targeted by the military recruiters, safe in the knowledge that they would take orders and follow them without question. In this case, that appears to be exactly what happened.
How many more kids like her are serving soldiers? When that Italian secret service agent was killed by US troops a few months back, it seemed like a tragic accident. Now, you would have to wonder if accidents like this happen a lot because the US troops just are not up to a professional standard. And maybe we don't get to hear about it unless news leaks out by accident.

[hamish]

Since the draft ended, usually only the poor end up in US army. Many seem to join to get an education/trade of sorts or as an escape from rednecksville.
My godson toyed with the idea of joining the US army a few years ago (pre-Iraq) even though he didn't need to - qualified for university here - he just wanted to see what it was like. Y'know, the curiosity of youth. I nearly had a heart attack when he broached it. Had he gone ahead, could be dead/maimed now. Glad I was able to cop him on.

See where many students are harrassing army recruiment at third level colleges - way to go!
Many recruiters are blatantly lying what's in store - don't mention the war type thing.
In a weird kinda way, I feel a little sorry for the likes of England - obviously brainless and easily manipulated. I've no doubt that orders/influence came from much higher.
US army will eventually end up $hit creek due to dropping numbers.

[pete]

Are not something like 75-80% of US soldiers in Iraq reservists? Most come small town america trying to put in their time some decent cash for their families. It was the same for Vietnam where goingt o college could exempt people from the draft.

If a middle or upper class soldier was killed in Iraq i'm sure we have heard about it.

She is almost certainly guilty but amazing the Commander in Chief had avoided almost allt he blame.

:rolleyes:

What the US are doing in Cuba is amoral & illegal. They have lost almost every case taken in the US against those detentions.

[hamish]

No arguments there. Not too sure re. Vietnam era. I think many college students had not as much choice as we think ie. John Kerry - quite a few managed to join the Peace Corps. You're right about the middle class aspect - probably why it got so much media attention at the time was many middle class were being drafted and middle class dominated media reporting on it. Reporting on their own, so to speak.
Kind of has similarities with here - a murder of/by a person froma "respectable family" is often a remark made by a Judge in the court. For res. fam. read upper or middle class.
I know I seem all over the shop here but, in the Brian Murphy case, you can be damn sure if those involved had played football a term like "soccer murder" or soccer death would have been used.
Bush and rest of his neocons are, of course, 99.9% responsible.
Ironic to see Fox "News", a few minutes ago, giving airtime to an ex-soldier condemning the Gitmo situation. Things are beginning to disintegrate a little on the US right, methinks.

[Metrostars]

Almost all of the people who sign up for the forces here do tend to come from the middle to lower classes. Most who sign up after high school cannot afford college or dont have enough good grades to get in. You don't here much about signing up for the love of the country etc. I've known a few people who are/were in the military. My cousin was in the navy for 5 years in the late 80s-early 90's around the time of the gulf war. He was in logistics or something. Although he was 5 years in the navy, he never stepped onto a ship in that time.
I coach 6& 7 year old soccer here and one of the kids' father was in Iraq recently with the marines. I just met him last week for the first time after one of the games, don't know if he is on leave or is out of the military. I'll have to ask him about Iraq if I see him at the next game...

[hamish]

Almost all of the people who sign up for the forces here do tend to come from the middle to lower classes. Most who sign up after high school cannot afford college or dont have enough good grades to get in. You don't here much about signing up for the love of the country etc. I've known a few people who are/were in the military. My cousin was in the navy for 5 years in the late 80s-early 90's around the time of the gulf war. He was in logistics or something. Although he was 5 years in the navy, he never stepped onto a ship in that time.
I coach 6& 7 year old soccer here and one of the kids' father was in Iraq recently with the marines. I just met him last week for the first time after one of the games, don't know if he is on leave or is out of the military. I'll have to ask him about Iraq if I see him at the next game...
I just pray to God he survives Iraq. When I think of all the American families broken hearted by deaths from an unjust war, the thousands back home with mutilated bodies and the tens of thousands of Iraquis killed and maimed - all sent there by an entire neocon government, none of whom pulled a trigger in their pathetic little lives, I drives me nuts. Metrostars - why the fcuk aren't MILLIONS of US citizens out on the streets protesting. Why?? Is there no legacy of the 1960s left when a superb media/people had the guts to defy government and show the truth. If this cannot happen in America, it cannot happen anywhere. :(

[Macy]

Are not something like 75-80% of US soldiers in Iraq reservists? Most come small town america trying to put in their time some decent cash for their families. It was the same for Vietnam where goingt o college could exempt people from the draft.
I'm anti this war, but if someone signs up as a reservist, then they know they are potentially going to go to war. It's totally different from the draft, as bottom line it was their choice to sign up. Ultimately it's what they get paid for for the weekends etc they put in training.

I would also suggest that in most armies in the world the majority come from the lower socio-economic backgrounds, especially if they're entering at non-officer level. Just the nature of armed forces (and wars) since the beginning of time - the rich and powerful make the decisions, the ordinary joe's do the fighting and dying. It's not an American thing imo.

[drinkfeckarse]

The news this morning said that the judge had called a mis-trial. There was no other details though so not sure what's happening or what the reason was.

[drummerboy]

Just read a very good novel about the Great War and its affect on the thousands of Irishmen who volunteered to join the British army to free a small Catholic country, Belgium. In the army they were treated like 2nd class citizens. Unlike the present US army, the volunteers came from all walks of Irish life to join up. Thousands upon thousands lost their lives and many more were maimed for life. They came back to a completely different Ireland, and were mostly shunned. Totally off the point I know, sorry.

[hamish]

I'm anti this war, but if someone signs up as a reservist, then they know they are potentially going to go to war. It's totally different from the draft, as bottom line it was their choice to sign up. Ultimately it's what they get paid for for the weekends etc they put in training.

I would also suggest that in most armies in the world the majority come from the lower socio-economic backgrounds, especially if they're entering at non-officer level. Just the nature of armed forces (and wars) since the beginning of time - the rich and powerful make the decisions, the ordinary joe's do the fighting and dying. It's not an American thing imo.
No, it's not just an American thing but I suppose it's high on the radar given the US involvement in Iraq.
Many US soldiers who legged it to Canada recently claimed that war was not on their minds when they signed, be they reservists or whatever. I suppose when you become a soldier war is always a possibility but many recruiters deliberately downplayed it when signing up potential soldiers. What is chilling is to see blokes my age, years retired from anything resembling active service, called up for Iraq, Once you're on the list you're on it for good. That's really scary. There's no "out" clause. :(

[Green Tribe]

I'm anti this war, but if someone signs up as a reservist, then they know they are potentially going to go to war. It's totally different from the draft, as bottom line it was their choice to sign up. Ultimately it's what they get paid for for the weekends etc they put in training.

.

I agree, hope I am not being cold-hearted but, it makes me angry to hear these families giving out to Tony Blair, my son/husband/daughter died in this war/government's fault etc, come on!!! :rolleyes: You joined the army, what did you expect, to sit around playing with toy guns all your career! :rolleyes:

[GavinZac]

I agree, hope I am not being cold-hearted but, it makes me angry to hear these families giving out to Tony Blair, my son/husband/daughter died in this war/government's fault etc, come on!!! :rolleyes: You joined the army, what did you expect, to sit around playing with toy guns all your career! :rolleyes:

i feel the same. all these families being awarded thousands of dollars because their son died in iraq?

its their job to risk death. if you dont want to die, dont sign up. its like a lifeguard getting compo for sunburn

[Green Tribe]

They've got a cheek haven't they?!! :mad: They should be completely ignored.

[Macy]

Depends whether the arguement is that they shouldn't be called up if there's a war (eg the reservists) or whether the war was illegal. If it's the latter, which appears to be the case of the UK families, then I support them.

2 different arguements imo.
1) Reservists shouldn't have been called up - bull, their countries army is in action, and they signed up in full knowledge that they could be and were happy to take the money when the was no conflict.

2) The army shouldn't be in Iraq. Fair enough - it's an illegal war, that the US/UK Governments justified based on at best dodgy information, at worst outright lies.

Seems a bit of a contradiction, but....

[Éanna]

I agree, hope I am not being cold-hearted but, it makes me angry to hear these families giving out to Tony Blair, my son/husband/daughter died in this war/government's fault etc, come on!!! :rolleyes: You joined the army, what did you expect, to sit around playing with toy guns all your career! :rolleyes:
glad to see there'ssomeone who agrees with me. FFS, it's like becoming a teacher and then complaining you don't like dealing with kids. You joined the army, you idiots what did you expect :rolleyes:

[pete]

Yes armys are organised by class structure so pretty much mirrows society.

American people are not protesting about the war in Iraq because they support the "actions" in the Middle East. Republicans now control all the branches of goverment & only have minority in the judiciary. People vote for republicans therefore they support the war. Reservists know they going to war (they will have their reasons) if they sign up so is a bit rich complaining when they end up in Iraq.

[shedite]

why the fcuk aren't MILLIONS of US citizens out on the streets protesting. Why??

Well, from what I say, people are afraid to say anything. So many people have friends/family affected by the war that people are afraid to say stuff in public. America is not as against the war as it seems. I think the most vocal people are the anti-war so it comes across that way. I'm here in Boston which is major democrat country, so I can't imagine what the republican states are like.

I agree completly with the class thing. Funniest part of farenheit 9/11 (not that I don't think this film a bit exaggerated), is when Micheal Moore asks asks the US politicians so enrol their sons and daughters in the war. From here, the upper classes are happy to put a "support our troops" sticker on their car and that's their bit done for the war. They see themselves as way above the army.

[hamish]

Well, from what I say, people are afraid to say anything. So many people have friends/family affected by the war that people are afraid to say stuff in public. America is not as against the war as it seems. I think the most vocal people are the anti-war so it comes across that way. I'm here in Boston which is major democrat country, so I can't imagine what the republican states are like.

I agree completly with the class thing. Funniest part of farenheit 9/11 (not that I don't think this film a bit exaggerated), is when Micheal Moore asks asks the US politicians so enrol their sons and daughters in the war. From here, the upper classes are happy to put a "support our troops" sticker on their car and that's their bit done for the war. They see themselves as way above the army.
Bang on the button, Corky Boy (sorry, couln't resist that :D ) check out John Fogerty/Creedence song "Fortune Son" - says it all and written in the sixties. Song also used by the Dems in election. Fogerty's latest "Deja Vous all over again! echoes the same sentiments. (I think the lyrics are still on John Fogerty.com). That aspect of Fahreheit 911 was the best part - did you see the craven wnakers (senators etc) trying to avoid Moore and soldier when asked about their sons joining up - what a bunch of cnuts!!
Eanna, lay off us teachers!! I blame the parents, not the kids 'cos far too many parents don't give a siht about their kids schooling. I know what you meant and were using that line as an anology (right word?) but it really gets me going when teachers/kids are even mentioned.
I think there should be a new website eg. Rate the parents.com. = that would shut the fcukers up! :mad:

[pete]

Yanks could say they didn't know they were voting for in 2000 but the re-election of George W Bush means can't use that excuse anymore.

[mypost]

it's an illegal war, that the US/UK Governments justified based on at best dodgy information, at worst outright lies.

Really?? :rolleyes: Since when was a war "legal"? When the DN (Divided Nations) could finally agree on something? Sorry, but the world can't sit on it's hands and wait forever for them to agree to a war, or not. The Iraq conflict was the result of 12 years of failed diplomacy.

It's easy to say now that there were no WMD in Iraq. Before the war there, Hussein had used WMD in the past on his own country and his neighbours, and he had never allowed free, and fair weapons inspections. Nobody could prove that there were no WMD in Iraq, and anyhow, it was only one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded.

Hussein was an unpredictable, dangerous thug who had to go. Unfortunately, he could only be removed by force. 25 years of war, daily terror, torture, and executions by him and his cronies, was more than enough. Yes, there have been problems there in the last 2 years, and many people have been killed. There would have been millions more killed however, if his regime was left in place to do, god knows what, in the future.

[Macy]

Not sure I get your arguement. Iraq said they had no WMDs. The weapons inspectors said they had no WMDs. Blair and Bush lied that they had proof that they did have WMDs. No WMDs have been found.

The Iraq war was the result of one man's desire to finish what his daddy couldn't.

Saddam should've gone, but years ago. Around the time he was being funded and supplied by the USA and the UK - that was when he was committed most of his atrocities. But sure he was fighting Iran, so the USA and UK were happy enough to ignore it then....

[GavinZac]

Yes, there have been problems there in the last 2 years, and many people have been killed. There would have been millions more killed however, if his regime was left in place to do, god knows what, in the future.

saddam hussein posed no threat to anyone else. there are dozens of dictators like him around the globe put in place by the good ol USA. he happened to be sitting on some oil.

[Éanna]

Eanna, lay off us teachers!! I blame the parents, not the kids 'cos far too many parents don't give a siht about their kids schooling. I know what you meant and were using that line as an anology (right word?) but it really gets me going when teachers/kids are even mentioned.
I think there should be a new website eg. Rate the parents.com. = that would shut the fcukers up! :mad:
I wasn't having a go at teachers at all sirhamish. My parents are both teachers, and I've been teaching for the last year myself. I was just using it as an example- could just as easily have said being a policeman and complaining about having to arrest people! Agree with you re the parents.

[hamish]

I wasn't having a go at teachers at all sirhamish. My parents are both teachers, and I've been teaching for the last year myself. I was just using it as an example- could just as easily have said being a policeman and complaining about having to arrest people! Agree with you re the parents.
Eanna, I KNOW you were'nt - I wa just acting the maggot with you. I still get ****ed re. parents though. Funny you should mention your parents being teachers. In the school where I used to teach, the Principal and his wife, also a teacher, gave their lives to the school, virtually built it, expanded it, did everything possible to upgrade. Both retired recently and are relieved to have it in their past - I thought the breaking of the bond, so to speak, would kill them. Things have gone so bad now with the teaching scene that even devoted teachers etc are pi$$ed off. It was like getting out of jail - that's from teachers who had a vocation!!! Unbelievable isn't it the way things have gone but that's for another day.

[anto eile]

Since the draft ended, usually only the poor end up in US army. Many seem to join to get an education/trade of sorts or as an escape from rednecksville.



US army will eventually end up $hit creek due to dropping numbers.

even during the draft the poorer kids still got drafted,as if you were going to college (ie had plenty of money) you could avoid the draft. blacks made up 40% of the us army in vietnam,though they only made up 11% of the population at the time


6 straight months the us army has missed its recruitment target figure. according to cnn two nights ago.same for marines.

also on cnn a story,bout a set up on campus by a student. approaches two recruiting officers, gives a story how he wants to be in the army, but has to falsify documents (due to failing exams or something). the recruitment officers,caught on tape,assuring the student he will get away with it,that their superiors wont check up on the documents.of course some recruiting agents were on cnn pretending to be aghast at such goings on but i woulndt trust these f.uckers for a minute.i reckon theyr told to do whatever they can to get people into the us army

[hamish]

Re. the above - BOTH Colin Powell and Condi Rice said in 2001 and 2002 - on tape - as seen in The John Pilger series last Autumn on ITN News that Saddam Hussein was well contained, posed no threat and was monitored by UN and US. Then, bang, sudden sea change - Saddam suddenly had WMD and was a threat. BS.
Saddam always had a clapped out army, most soldiers treated like dirt except for the Revolutionary Guards and had as much chance of dominating the Middle East as Kilkenny City winning the Champions League. Israel would have seen to that re. any impending threat with tactical strikes as they had done in the past.
Sure it could be argued that wars might be illegal - but what's the alternative to the system we have now - total anarchy. Bush and co, by undermining an UN, will ensure a world of unilateralism where countries that fancy their chances can invade/pillage/murder to their hearts content. The UN is pi$$poor but at least there is an element of constraint.
It's rather hypocritical these days of the US to criticise the UN's lack of clout since most US administrations - Rep. and Dem. - have fcuked it up over years.

[drinkfeckarse]

and I've been teaching for the last year myself.

You mustn't do that much teaching with the amount of posts you do every day! :eek: :D

[hamish]

Maybe he gets the students to do it as part of English class. :D

[Metrostars]

I agree with what shedite says....I think the repubs successfully changed the reason of the Iraq war to the American people from being one of getting Saddam's WMDs to one of helping free the poor Iraqi people and part of the 'war on terror' © ™.
I think a lot of people against the war as almost afraid of speaking up because they will be seen as being against the 'war on terror' © ™. And since you're either "with us or agin us", will be seen as being in favor of the terrorists.

[pete]

The Iraq war was the result of one man's desire to finish what his daddy couldn't.


Yeah Dubya & his buddies weren't exactly shy in making public for years their desire to invade Iraq come what may.

I don't think the US or UK governments can ever again stand in front of the international community & say they can prove any of their intelligence. Can we belive them about North Korea? Iran? They have zero credibility & will never be believed again.

I have never understood how the US can claim its legal detaining the Taliban members. The Taliban never attacked the US & has never threatened too. In fact they've never even left theor own country.

:confused:

[JohnB]

Really?? :rolleyes: Since when was a war "legal"? When the DN (Divided Nations) could finally agree on something? Sorry, but the world can't sit on it's hands and wait forever for them to agree to a war, or not. The Iraq conflict was the result of 12 years of failed diplomacy.

It's easy to say now that there were no WMD in Iraq. Before the war there, Hussein had used WMD in the past on his own country and his neighbours, and he had never allowed free, and fair weapons inspections. Nobody could prove that there were no WMD in Iraq, and anyhow, it was only one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded.

Hussein was an unpredictable, dangerous thug who had to go. Unfortunately, he could only be removed by force. 25 years of war, daily terror, torture, and executions by him and his cronies, was more than enough. Yes, there have been problems there in the last 2 years, and many people have been killed. There would have been millions more killed however, if his regime was left in place to do, god knows what, in the future.

Top post.

How many of his own people did Saddam kill? Five million or thereabouts. But, of course, in the main there were no cameras to record it, so it was pretty much ignored by bleeding hearts in the west.

[Macy]

But, of course, in the main there were no cameras to record it, so it was pretty much ignored by bleeding hearts in the west.
Totally disagree with that statement - it was pretty much ignored by the west's leaders more like when he was the "good guy" in the war against Iran. It's an ignorant and lazy excuse by the Right imo....

[JohnB]

Yer average Joe didn't really give a **** about Iraq until the war. People were being totured to death day and daily and, because of UN sanctions, people were dying because of poor medical care. Of course, it was only ever mentioned briefly, because the people died quietly.

That allies change is a fact of life and it's also a fact that your enemies' enemy is your friend. That's the way it will always be and whingeing about it after the fact is a bit pointless unless you've got the gift and could've forseen the future.

What's best for the people of Iraq should be all that counts, and it is difficult to assess that properly at the moment. What is certain is that if Saddam was still in power, people would be being killed in all manner of horrific ways. I've a friend working out there at the moment and he works with several Iraqis who were tortured by Saddam and who had friends tortured to death. You can see torture victims who appear to have Parkinson's disease. Torture was par for the course and systematic and can hardly be compared to the despicable events in Abu Ghraib.

Is it best to be tortured to death or killed by an explosion? Some choice, but at least Iraqis may have some future and it would serve people well to look past the end of their nose when jumping up and down about evil Bush and Blair.

[Macy]

Is it best to be tortured to death or killed by an explosion? Some choice, but at least Iraqis may have some future and it would serve people well to look past the end of their nose when jumping up and down about evil Bush and Blair.
Maybe it would serve Bush and Blair better to look towards their allies in the middle east if they are genuinely concerned about torture. Sorry, I forgot they use many of these "friendly" countries to do their torturing for them.

[JohnB]

Ah, if only all the world's ills could be solved in one all-encompassing gesture. Sorry, this is the real world and many different factors have to be taken into account. Unfortunately torturers sometimes have to be dealt with and cannot be removed just like that.

[Macy]

Ah, if only all the world's ills could be solved in one all-encompassing gesture. Sorry, this is the real world and many different factors have to be taken into account. Unfortunately torturers sometimes have to be dealt with and cannot be removed just like that.
Unless they're in Iraq, and they can make up some bullshít intelligence to bomb the crap out of a country just because Daddy Bush didn't finish the job...

[JohnB]

Poor reply, but never mind, if you can't fight the logic, blame the Americans, or better still GWB.

[pineapple stu]

Unfortunately torturers sometimes have to be dealt with and cannot be removed just like that.
Maybe so, but you don't bankroll them and publicly support them because it suits you for the moment...

[mypost]

saddam hussein posed no threat to anyone else. there are dozens of dictators like him around the globe put in place by the good ol USA.

There are indeed, dozens of dictators around the globe, but there are dictators, and then there are DICTATORS. You can't compare Saddam Hussein to someone like say, Fidel Castro.

Saddam became the leader of Iraq in 1979, and his reign lasted for 24 murderous years. His war against Iran lasted 8 years. One billion people were killed during it. Near the end of it, he poisoned the inhabitants of Halabja, where 5,000 were killed in one fell swoop. At his inauguration speech in 1979 as President, he ordered dissenters out of the building, to be executed on the spot. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. America and 33 other countries had to liberate the country then. He turned against Iraqi Kurds soon afterwards. He constantly interfered, and then expelled UN Weapon Inspectors from his country. He and his regime, tortured, and executed anyone who did not unequivocally back him daily, using some of the most violent methods ever known to dispense with his opponents. While it turned out that he had no WMD when Iraq was invaded, he was capable of developing and using WMD in the future. There were several "smouldering guns" found by UN Weapons Inspectors pre-invasion. Sarin was found by British troops after the war. He was in material breach yet again, of UN Resolution 1441, which warned that he would face the consequences if he didn't comply fully with UN Inspectors. He didn't, so he had to be dealt with it. He was dismissed as leader of Iraq by America and it's allies in 20 days.

Away from the media coverage from Iraq today, the country is slowly finding it's feet. The country has been liberated. It has a democratically elected government, however flawed. It has a free press. It has a new currency. Schools and hospitals are been reconstructed. Civilians are not being executed by the government anymore. Daily life is gradually improving. The new Iraq is not perfect, but it's a lot better than what it was. The new Iraq will in time become a flourishing state, and a model for other countries in the region to follow.

[pineapple stu]

His war against Iran lasted 8 years. One billion people were killed during it.
Ah now! Typo, I hope! Or maybe you work for Fox News! :eek:

Nobody's arguing (or they shouldn't be) that Hussein wasn't evil and that it isn't great that he's gone now. However, if you think the US invaded to save the poor Iraqis from this nasty man, you're taking in far too much of their propoganda. Apart from bankrolling him to power in the first place, they openly supported him for years while he was off killing all these people and never made a move to remove him. And there' splenty of other dictatorships the US have set up as well - nasty Nicaragua (who, we were told, were going to blow the poor defenceless US to smithereens before brave Uncle Sam intervened), Chile, Venezuela (where the president unbelievably wanted to use his country's oil revenue to improve his citizens' standard of living and not sell it to American oil companies on the cheap) etc., etc. The reason most are against the war is because they recognise that the world simply can't go on allowing the US to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

Hussein at one stage did have WMDs. Wonder where he got them from?

There's other nasty leaders in the world too. China and North Korea spring to mind. China's OK because they're a growing economic power with potential for huge American investment and profits. North Korea's OK - even though they're actively making threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons - because they don't have any oil and so the US don't care.

[mypost]

Or maybe you work for Fox News!

How many Fox News journalists attend EL games? :rolleyes: Seriously, is that the best you can come up with as a response???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:


if you think the US invaded to save the poor Iraqis from this nasty man, you're taking in far too much of their propoganda. Apart from bankrolling him to power in the first place, they openly supported him for years while he was off killing all these people and never made a move to remove him. The reason most are against the war is because they recognise that the world simply can't go on allowing the US to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

They supported him until he went into Kuwait. After liberating Kuwait, they turned against him. So what if they bankrolled him for some time, how is that relevant? Other dictators are torturing, and killing their citizens around the world. But you have to prioritise. Are the likes of Mugabe, Castro, or Lukashenko sponsoring international terrorism? Do they currently possess, or may they possess WMD in the future? Do their regimes pose a threat to the International community? No.

Saddam was a vicious thug, who was getting worse, and had to be dealt with at some point. After ignoring many UN Resolutions including 1441, the Americans went in to clean him out, and free the Iraqi people. As the USA has the most powerful military force in the world, it is entitled to protect itself from threats to their own country when the need arises, and by extension, from threats to the International community.

You can be sure also, that the situations in Syria, Iran, and N. Korea are being carefully monitored and action will be taken against those countries if necessary, should their situations deteriorate, oil or no oil.

[hamish]

"the Americans went in to clean him out, and free the Iraqi people"

Yep, that's right! Totally honourable intentions. Don't forget Saddam was connected to 9/11, Fox News keep saying that so that must be true too. And of course Halliburton and friends are in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. COME ON. The Iraqi people are free now aren't they. How many dead in the last week? 400. How many maimed for life? Don't worry about that missing leg, Mohammed, YOU'RE FREE. Ali, what's a couple of missing eyes? YOU'RE FREE - sure you can smell the freedom.


" As the USA has the most powerful military force in the world, it is entitled to protect itself from threats to their own country when the need arises, and by extension, from threats to the International community. "


There was NO THREAT from Iraq -Powell and Rice said that on TV in 2001 and 2002 and then lied to the UN to justify war. A complete volte face.

"You can be sure also, that the situations in Syria, Iran, and N. Korea are being carefully monitored and action will be taken against those countries if necessary, should their situations deteriorate, oil or no oil.[/QUOTE]"

Where are they gonna get the soldiers and BILLIONS of dollars to do this. Where are they gonna get multinational support?
Oil or no oil? You must be kidding.
HOW DARE any country, I don't care how mighty they may be, adopt the right to shape, control, rule this world. HOW DARE any bunch of neocons - most of the them army dodgers in their time - send soldiers to their deaths and the deaths of thousands of innocents - on behalf of a country.

The UN is flawed, (thanks mostly to years of US antipathy - ask Mary Robinson )- should be improved to deal with emergencies in the hotspots of the world. Who the hell wants a super power running the world? Look at the mess the British, Belgium,. Spanish etc empires left behind. Now we want another one? With Bush in charge?


I said it on another post, the Republican attitude will eventually trickle over here and become part of the political discourse/norm. After years of throwing off the crap of conservatism, now it's seeping back in again under the floorboards. I hear it every day on RTE - it's like listening to US TV.

Justin Barrett for President, anyone. It'll happen if the above pro neocon attitude takes hold.

I can't believe I read those opinions above. I find them utterly depressing.

[pineapple stu]

How many Fox News journalists attend EL games? :rolleyes: Seriously, is that the best you can come up with as a response???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:
:rolleyes:

My comment was what is known in common parlance as a joke.

It clearly isn't the best I could come up with given the fact that I went on for another couple of paragraphs...


So what if they bankrolled him for some time, how is that relevant?
How is it relevant?! How could it not be relevant?! Do you honestly think the hood old US of A suddenly turned around and said "My my, what have we been doing all these years, bankrolling a guy who was murdering millions under our own noses? Well, let's all reform straight away and change that!" The utter hypocrisy of the US is what gets at everyone - they'll publicly turn against the likes of Hussein when it suits them, all the while quietly supporting some other threat to world peace elsewhere in the world.


Are the likes of Mugabe, Castro, or Lukashenko sponsoring international terrorism? Do they currently possess, or may they possess WMD in the future? Do their regimes pose a threat to the International community? No.
You have to be joking here! Did Hussein sponsor international terrorism? No! The US said as much previously, and any links to Bin Laden are refuted by the numerous reports that he can't stand the guy! Did Hussein possess WMD? No! He said as much, the weapons inspectors said as much, he'd destroyed his weapons in previous years!

But let's have a look at your questions again, because they are interesting in a way. Does Bush/the US administration sponsor international terrorism? Yes - in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, Chile, Argentina, etc., etc. Does the US currently possess WMD? Hell yes! More than the rest of the world put together! Do their regimes pose a threat to the international community? Ask Iraqis, Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc., etc.

And let's have a look at your questions again. The Saudis sponsored world terrorism - that's where the WTC attacks originated. Are they a threat to the international community? Quite obviously - they attacked the WTC. Has the US invaded? No. In fact, the same people are some of Bush's closest business friends. Has the US any intention of invading? No! Why? Because as long as the Saudis play to the US's tune, they can do whatever they like without redress from the Yanks. That's where the problem lies. That's why the US can't be trusted to wield its power whenever it wants. That's why they must be made go through the UN. And that's why the war in Iraq is illegal. Simple as that...

[hamish]

AND Pinapple Stu, the Saudis and Chinese have so much money invested in the US economy, if they pulled out - economic catastrophe. If they even threatened to pull, dollar down the plughole.

[mypost]

My comment was what is known in common parlance as a joke.

Maybe, but that's the third time that I have posted about this issue, that I have been accused of working for Fox News, just because my opinion is different to most other posters. The "joke" is wearing thin by now! :mad:


Did Hussein possess WMD? No! He said as much, the weapons inspectors said as much, he'd destroyed his weapons in previous years!

You believed Hussein!! :eek: Who the hell would believe a word he said? He was a dictator, everything he said was propaganda. Just because he had destroyed weapons previously, doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of developing more in the future. With his previous record, anything was possible. Blix stated that his regime wasn't fully complying with UN Resolution 1441, which warned of the consequences for the Iraqi regime for non-compliance, which duly materialised.


Does Bush/the US administration sponsor international terrorism? Yes - in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, etc., etc. Do their regimes pose a threat to the international community? Ask Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc.

As I said before, you must PRIORITISE. There are some dictatorship regimes who pose a threat to the International community, and there are others that don't. Those that do pose a threat will be dealt with. Where is the terrorism, in countries declared safe to visit such as Bulgaria, and Argentina? Bulgaria is an EU candidate country, FFS. How could they enter the EU, with a government whose "regime" poses a threat to the International Community? As for Haiti, US troops were merely sent there to stabilize the tense political situation in the country, following the recent developments there.

[mypost]

Halliburton and friends are in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. COME ON. The Iraqi people are free now aren't they. How many dead in the last week? 400. How many maimed for life? Don't worry about that missing leg, Mohammed, YOU'RE FREE. Ali, what's a couple of missing eyes? YOU'RE FREE - sure you can smell the freedom.

It may come as a surprise to you, but they (and their allies) are actually there for the good of the Iraqis. They had no future under Saddam's regime, only death, routine torture, and hopelessness. War is not pretty, people do actually die, that's war. Like I said before, away from the headlines from Iraq, daily life is slowly improving. The country despite it's problems, is free. The Iraqi people have voted in a government who they believe is best equipped to guide their country through this difficult period. They had no such rights under the old regime, and their neighbours don't have that right at the moment.


There was NO THREAT from Iraq -Powell and Rice said that on TV in 2001 and 2002 and then lied to the UN to justify war.

Saddam may, and probably would have, given his record, developed WMD soon afterwards, if left to his own devices, thereby posing a threat to the International community.


HOW DARE any country, I don't care how mighty they may be, adopt the right to shape, control, rule this world. HOW DARE any bunch of neocons, send soldiers to their deaths and the deaths of thousands of innocents - on behalf of a country. I can't believe I read those opinions above. I find them utterly depressing.

Then don't write them!! :rolleyes:

Like it or lump it, America is the biggest country, with the biggest budget, and has the greatest military might in the free world. Because of that, it is entitled to defend itself against any perceived threat to their country, when the need arises. Regarding soldiers, a soldier's job in war is to kill, or be killed, and unfortunately, some soldiers do die in combat. But in Iraq, their actions helped to bring some sense of freedom and opportunity to the people of countries who for so long had neither of either, so they could have the chance to make a better life for themselves in the future. Something it would seem that those who were "anti-war", were desperate to deny them of.

[pineapple stu]

You believed Hussein!! :eek: Who the hell would believe a word he said? He was a dictator, everything he said was propaganda.
Hey, guess what - he wasn't lying! Unlike Bush and Blair, who lied about having proof of WMD. Lied to start a war! Do you condone this?


As I said before, you must PRIORITISE. There are some dictatorship regimes who pose a threat to the International community, and there are others that don't. Those that do pose a threat will be dealt with.
Really? North Korea keeps actively threatening the US and is quite open about its nuclear capabilities. Don't see them getting dealt with, do you?



Where is the terrorism, in countries declared safe to visit such as Bulgaria, and Argentina? Bulgaria is an EU candidate country, FFS. How could they enter the EU, with a government whose "regime" poses a threat to the International Community?
You're not even bothering to read my posts now. Read it again -


Do their regimes (the US) pose a threat to the international community? Ask Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc.
I said the US was posing a threat to these countries - nothing to do with the countries being a threat themselves. Bulgaria was bombed by "smart" American bombs in the Yugoslavia affair. As you rightly point out, Bulgaria is a safe country. Which is why the US bombing it - accidentally or not - certainly means they're (the US, just to be ultra-clear here) is a threat to the international community. US interference in the other countries I mentioned backs this up as well.

With all due respect, mypost, your knowledge of American activities in the world today and in the past 50 years appears to contain gaps far too large for this thread. May I suggest you do some background reading in the meantime? I'd point you towards Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Why Do People Hate America by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies or the Michael Moore books among others. Among other things, you'll learn just what the US has done to destabilise world peace since the last World War and also why it is absolutely wrong that the US should be allowed to wield its power as it chooses (I would have thought the fact that they have been proven to lie about its evidence to start a war in a conveniently oil-rich country which they are now looting would have been evidence enough, but seemingly not). I think this knowledge is vital to have before discussing the US's role in the world.

[hamish]

[QUOTE=mypost]It may come as a surprise to you, but they (and their allies) are actually there for the good of the Iraqis. They had no future under Saddam's regime, only death, routine torture, and hopelessness. War is not pretty, people do actually die, that's war. Like I said before, away from the headlines from Iraq, daily life is slowly improving. The country despite it's problems, is free. The Iraqi people have voted in a government who they believe is best equipped to guide their country through this difficult period. They had no such rights under the old regime, and their neighbours don't have that right at the moment.


The only thing that surprises me is how naieve your opinion on this is. Sorry if that's rude and hurtful. No future? Lets look at today. Iraqi government is basically functioning within the green zone under 24/7 protection. Chaos everywhere else. That is not democracy.
Torture? Saddam era. agreed eg Abu Gharib. Today?..er....Abu Gharib.
Life is improving? Let's see
Oil exports : DOWN ..on Saddam era
Oil facilities : BOMBED daily
Employment : DOWN on Saddam era.
Electricity: Levels DOWN on Saddam era - infrequent at best. Power cuts daily occurence.
Sewage treatment : Bombed by US firstly and virtually non existent.
Clean Water: Bottled water sold at huge prices. If you can't afford it, don't wait by the tap, because it's not coming and even if it did, poisioned.
Emigration : UP -illegal and legal
Transport system: What transport system?
Television: Al Jazeera banned along with others. Of course, Fox "News" say they're in league with the terrorists. US financed channels always there to listen or watch if you want their truth. That's of course if you have electricity or can afford batteries to watch/listen.
Wages: Mininimal if you have a job and if you work for the "government", if you have a life. Massive unemployment.
I could go on and on and on.
By the way, you can verify the above on numerous websites ie UN - that's a start.

My post - that's not freedom. COME ON??

When you hear anti-Saddam Iraqis on TV saying that life was better under the old regime, then you know, as an US admistration, you've got a real credibility problem. Sure, Saddam was a vicious, incompetent ba......rd but who put him there and backed him up in the first place? Anyone see Rumsfeldt these days?

[hamish]

Saddam may, and probably would have, given his record, developed WMD soon afterwards, if left to his own devices, thereby posing a threat to the International community.



International law, the UN - whatever its limitations, Human rights are NOT based on COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA, PROBABLY, IF etc as Jude Judy says. (Yeh, I deserved to be slagged for watching that - feel free :D )
Hans Blix's investigations clearly showed that Iraq couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag by 2003. Its military infrastructure was in a mess.
Why would the US not give him a few more months? Easy. They'd have no excuses to wage war.
I repeat my points that you ignored: why did Rice and Powell reverse what they stated ON TV/LIVE about having Saddam boxed in, under control etc. within a matter of months. If they were so sure about him, where did all the evidence suddenly appear when Powell addresses the UN. As was blatantly obvious, it was contrived.

[hamish]

Then don't write them!! :rolleyes:

What's that supposed to mean?? Don't write what? I never mentioned anything in that paragraph about writing. Oh yeh, that's supposed to be sarcastic. Jesus, my post, you can do better than that.





Like it or lump it, America is the biggest country, with the biggest budget, and has the greatest military might in the free world. Because of that, it is entitled to defend itself against any perceived threat to their country, when the need arises. Regarding soldiers, a soldier's job in war is to kill, or be killed, and unfortunately, some soldiers do die in combat. But in Iraq, their actions helped to bring some sense of freedom and opportunity to the people of countries who for so long had neither of either, so they could have the chance to make a better life for themselves in the future. Something it would seem that those who were "anti-war", were desperate to deny them of.[/QUOTE]


So MIGHT IS RIGHT? And you're advocating democracy? Saddam was not a perceived threat, he had no part in 9/11. Period. You get slagged about Fox, my post, but they keep linking Saddam and 9/11. Coincidence?

Sense of freedom. See my above posts. Enough said.

I respect your points of view, my post. In fact, I really wanted to believe that the reasons for invading Iraq were genuine - I really did which is why I hate to disagree with your pro US views. Saddam was a monster, a vicious horrible cnut and I would love to have seen him kicked the siht out of in public by say, one of his victim. But life is not like the WWF so we must face reality and observe laws.
However, you really should be embarrassed by the comment that the anti-war movement were desperate to deny Iraqis freedom. Again, straight out of the Hannity/O'Reilly/Mike Savage/William Kristol/Krauthammer/Fred Barnes/John Gibson etc etc handbook. I've heard them say this again and again. It's a neocon mantra and basically utter and absolute hyprocritical BS.
The anti-war movement was against an ILLEGAL war. The anti-war movement knew - as anyone who lives on planet earth knows - that the invasion of Iraq would would make matters WORSE, not better. They were right. It's hard to believe that things could be worse after Saddam but I'm afraid that's what's happened. That does not mean that the anti-war movement was pro-Saddam by implication and anti freedom.

Iraq is now a magnet for every nutcase and anti-West looper and for generations we will suffer the consequences.

I honestly do not know what would have happened had Blix been given more time. I don't do COULD, WOULDA, SHOULDA so I do not know if Saddam would still be in power. I can GUESS that he would have been assasinated by elements within Iraq, aided by US, Saudi Arabian and Western agencies. Who knows? We could talk forever about the legality of that too!

By the way, I watch Faux "News" and read the various right wing websites such as Media Research Council, Drudge Report AS WELL as Newshounds, Media Matters , Michael Moore.com.
Yeh, I listen to Air America also. The difference between Fox "News" and Air America is that latter says what is does on the tin, Fox pretends to be "fair and balanced". I listen to both knowing they both have their agendas but at least Air America admits to being pro Democrat, anti neocon. What's Fox's excuse. Yeh right, "fair and balanced" For fcuks sake!!
Watching them all and questioning them all, right and left - that's how I form my opinions not by absorbing and regurgitating from one of them only as you are coming dangerously close to doing my post.


Finally, I will say to you, my post. I hope I'm totally wrong and that Iraq becomes genuinely free and its people have a future. Sadly, a dishonest war by a dishonest administration usually only has one outcome - chaos. History is worth studying for that reason alone but Bush and co don't do history.