That's the second time you have deliberately obfuscated this argument. And you still haven't addressed the first response.Originally Posted by liam88
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=447927&postcount=38
Indeed.
I look forward to your thoughts on either or both counts Liam.
PP
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
MAybe not a world stage-but on a regional and ideological stage deffinatly. Troops from an Islamic country are now being sent to Iraq....changes things a lot...even if Jordan aren't a major world player.
The point of the movement suggests the people involve prefer a pre-war Aghanistan/Iraq......as I said to an anti-war protester the other day "you find me a list of human rights abuses by the coalition forces in the 4 years coalition troops have been in Afghanistan and i'll put together a list of abuses by the Taliban in a four year period-then we'll compare"
Sorry could you tell me which part of my post you are replying to here.....as far as i'm aware both Afghanistan and IRaq have had elections since coalition troops have been in....thats a heck of a lot more democracy than those porr people had under the Taliban/Saddam
[/QUOTE]
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
I would normally say these protestors are a collection of bleeding hearts, and bored students on a day out, as these people are not anti-war, but anti-American. But in a way they have a point, however weak it is.
It is 3 years since the mission to rid a country of a tyrant started, but it's hard now to think why this war is still continuing. Saddam is gone, Iraq is a democracy, it's people are free, the elections have been held, the government is in place, the police are now trained, the country is being rebuilt, so there seems to be little reason now in staying put. It seems that the only challenge left is to withdraw troops without losing face. But the coalition can't stay there indefinitely, it's a challenge that must be faced sooner rather than later.
Last edited by mypost; 13/03/2006 at 6:53 PM.
Definitely not imho. Most of the countries involved in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" either have an agenda or were bullied into it. Belief otherwise demonstrates desperation or gullibility.
I've already covered the use of the word "movement", I won't repeat myself.The point of the movement suggests the people involve prefer a pre-war Aghanistan/Iraq
Let's put that old-hat straw-clutcher aside: Go outside in the street right now and ask passers-by what they think of the "war" in Iraq. When you find ten that object, ask them if they would prefer that silly thing you mentioned above. Count how many actually think that. Go on, off with you, you made the assertion, you need to either back it up or retract it.
Another frankly embarassing piece of propaganda reminiscint of Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us". So I'll use it against you: Do Saddam's and the Taliban's abuses make it ok for the coalition to do it so?"you find me a list of human rights abuses by the coalition forces in the 4 years coalition troops have been in Afghanistan and i'll put together a list of abuses by the Taliban in a four year period-then we'll compare"
I referenced it clearly, don't blame me if you can't bullet-point your posts correctly.Sorry could you tell me which part of my post you are replying to here
adam
Who are the actual organisers of this march??? Is it a coalition of groups or what??
Coalition of the Willing hamish.
As you said that's your opinion. My opinion is that bullying 29 soveriegn states even for the USA is pretty hard. There are tates from pretty much every continent there and deffinatly with regional impacts int heir respected areas (I was mistaken in my reference to Jordan by the way-I had been told they were sending troops)
Yes I did make the assertion-now why is it a "silly thing"? I'll back it up with logic-Afghanistan has, roughly speaking, since the Taliban took over, existed in 2 stages: Controlled by Taliban/Controlled by Coaltion. Now presumebly those anti-war would rather the war never occured. With me? Now if the war never occured there would be Taliban rule (at least int he areas not controlled by the-equally barbaric on occassion-Northern Alliance). So surley either:
-If you are "anti-coaltion intervention" you would have wanted the coaltion never in Afghanistan i.e. Taliban rule remains
-If you are "anti-coaltion intervention" then you are against both Taliban rule and Coaltion rule in which case you want what? A peaceful transfer to democracy? How did you plan on that coming about? And if anti-war people were so anti-Taliban why wern't there mass lobbies for pressure for a peaceful transfer from Taliban rule?
.....not propegand-just logic-and I didn't need to go running round Guildford at 20:00
No....I'm just confused as to why there was never this level of supprot against the Taliban and aboutthe misconception that the coaltion are as bad as the Taliban-that was the point of the list analogy-there has less human rights abuse in 4 years of coaaltion control than in any 4 years of Taliban control.
-No need to get personal; I made a polite reply
-Ok so Hamas were fairly elected I never said they wern't I was just suprised at the level of support for them from the Irish anti-war people I was speaking to.
-Your insult to the structure of my post missed out any reply to the point I made-there has been more demcoracy under the coaltion-elections in both countries-when was the last time of an open election in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I never said the USA/UK/Coaltion are perfect but to conclude:
-More democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan since coalition have intervened
-Less human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan since coalition have intervened
-A far bigger anti-war/anti-coalition movement in Ireland/UK than ever anti Taliban/ anti Saddam movement -why?
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
Liam, I already told you I'm not going to repeat myself, and I'm not going to fish around in your post for points that aren't the same arguments retold. I will say, though, that your suggestion that people that oppose the "war", by extension support(ed) Saddam and the Taliban is frankly disgusting; and the primary reason I decided to stop reading your post. If you honestly believe that, well, I honestly feel sorry for you.
[Comment edited as it may be construed as personal by defensive types.]
adam
Last edited by dahamsta; 13/03/2006 at 9:57 PM.
1. I thought the "mission" to invade Iraq was because of Saddam's WMDs??
2. Iran is not a democracy - it's government is a shambles with various groups squabbling amongst themselves about government positions and
Shi-ite death squads masquerading as security forces murdering Sunnis who's death squads are murdering Shi-ites.
3.The police are ridden with corruption and simply representatives of the Shi-ite militias who are picking out Sunnis and murdering them and torturing them in prison cells - even the Yanks are complaining about this for God's sake.
4.The country produces less oil than pre-war, Baghdad gets about 4 hours electricity a day (less than pre war), most drinking water is either unavailable or polluted and outside the green zone, the government is non existent to Iraqis.
6. The biggest industry, according to the Baghdad Blogger in last week's Newsnight, is kidnapping - the most profitable growth industry.
7. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - notably doctors, scientists, teachers, nurses, public administrators etc etc have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and so on - depriving Iraq of a whole swath of people who could actually run the country.
8. To add insult to injury, the Bushies have now decided NOT to continue using the already approved funds to continue reconstruction. We're talking tens of millions here - needless to say the corrupt Halliburtons and others continue to make a mint.
9. Seventy two per cent of US soldiers in Iraq, polled last week, now feel that the Iraqi situation is untenable.
Iraq is a mess with rampant sectarianism and resulting murders and as a result of the idiotic and hypocritical neo-con agenda, a breeding ground for future terrorists. The shi-ites have strong links with Iran to add to the mess and the British have lost the support of Iraqis in the Basra area.
Ethnic cleansing is now happening, not only with regard to the Sunnis and Shi-ites but also in the Kurdish area where anyone not of Kurdish ethnicity are leaving in droves.
Even "hawks" like Jack Murtha (Democrat) and Chuck Hagel (Republican) - both decorated war heroes - have slammed the Bush regime on so many areas it's unreal.
The following is worth watching. It lasts about an hour. TBF/TBH, it's an association of Robert Greenwald and Move-on.org - hardly Bush fans but notice the amount of ex-CIA, Republicans ie Scott Ritter who tear the neo-con agenda and fraudulence to pieces in a brilliantly logical and systematic fashion.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6423.htm
How anybody with an ounce of intelligence can support any aspect of the obscenity that has transpired in Iraq sickens me.They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and examine their consciences.
Before anyone rambles on with the usual Wingnut BS about Iraqi freedom and democracy, don't forget Rumsfeldt shaking Saddams' hand in the late 80s whe he knew that that b@stard was murdering Kurds with toxic agents, supplied by Rumsfeldt's government in cahoots with Germany and the UK. and while the US was also supplying Iran with military weapons.
This is not about anti-Americanism - to say that is a shallow and hypocritical cheap shot against those who protest the obscenity - it's an anti- Bush and his fellow sleaze bags protest.
Shame on the lot of you who support anything that idiot pronounces.
BTW - Well said Dahamsta, it's also disengenuous to say that anti-war protesters are pro-Saddam and pro-Taliban either. FFS.
Last edited by hamish; 13/03/2006 at 9:46 PM.
Either that or his involvement in the WTC attacks hamish.
I was just having a shower there ("picture that in your head there Father") when exactly those points occurred to me, because I realised just how old Liam's arguments are: People were making them before the war in Afghanistan, never mind Iraq; and they were facetious then, never mind now.
C'mon Liam, conform. After all, you're either with us or you're against us, right? No room for middle ground, perhaps even a tiny possibility that people opposed the war because it was done unilaterally, without consensus, possibly even illegally; that if it had been done right, those self-same people might - shock, horror - actually have supported it?
And, god forbid, if that had happened, there's just the slimmest possibility that Iraq mightn't be such a godawful mess now?
adam
Last edited by dahamsta; 13/03/2006 at 10:01 PM.
Funny you should mention that Adam.Either that or his involvement in the WTC attacks hamish.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/13/...are_linked.php
What amazed me is how poorly informed anyone who supports the Bushies is -never let the facts get in the way of cut and paste propaganda.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Herman_...uremberg_Diary"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Göring
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/0...ack.on.terror/"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." -- George Bush
Last edited by dahamsta; 13/03/2006 at 10:19 PM.
Bush poll numbers - majority of Yanks now have little faith in his handling of Iraq, Katrina, the economy etc.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12293.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12274.htm
Careful now lads, we don't want Dubya seeing this. We might end up in his crosshairs.
Last edited by strangeirish; 14/03/2006 at 6:00 PM.
Did you ever notice that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they have belly buttons. Think about that...take as long as you want.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. - more Goering quotes plus others. As true today as 60 or so years ago.
“Shoot first and ask questions later, and don't worry, no matter what happens, I will protect you.”
“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for”
Winston Churchill
“In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies”
Goebbels
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
If he's as good a shot as Cheney then dress up as a quail - you won't get hit.
on one hand
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
on the other
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
March 13th, 2006 12:14 pm
Death squads operated from inside Iraqi government, officials say
By Matthew Schofield / Knight Ridder
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Senior Iraqi officials Sunday confirmed for the first time that death squads composed of government employees had operated illegally from inside two government ministries.
"The deaths squads that we have captured are in the defense and interior ministries," Minister of Interior Bayan Jabr said during a joint news conference with the Minister of Defense. "There are people who have infiltrated the army and the interior."
Also, Sunday, a series of deadly attacks hit the Shiite Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, which had recently been relatively safe, initiating another round of sectarian killings and threatening to provoke more.
Seven car bombs were left in markets around the poor Shiite area. Two exploded at 5:30 p.m., another at 5:35 p.m., two at 5:40 p.m. in a different market, and one at 5:45 p.m. Police found and defused the seventh.
The blasts, set off at the busiest time of the day just after poor residents would have returned from their jobs, yet before curfew, killed 46 people and wounded another 204. By Sunday night, the suburb of 2.5 million had been sealed off by police and the private militia of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army.
The targeting of Sadr City could provoke a strong political backlash. Sadr City is a bastion of support for al-Sadr, a key backer of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's bid for re-election. Al-Jaafari's nomination is strongly opposed by Sunni and Kurdish leaders, although he is supported by United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that is the largest in parliament.
The Mahdi Army was also extremely active in attacks on Sunni mosques in the aftermath of last month's bombing of a key Shiite shrine in Samarra that touched off a wave of sectarian killings.
Elsewhere around Baghdad, a series of roadside bombs and gun attacks killed another 17 people.
Interior Minister Jabr said that investigations into death squads were still ongoing in the Defense Ministry. He said the Interior Ministry had arrested 22 people, and subsequently released 18 as innocent after interrogation, detaining four for further questioning.
"Now we have sent them (the four) to the court because it hasn't been proven that all four were involved," Jabr said. "Although I did not have clear signs (of their guilt) I sent them to the justice ministry so that the law could be carried out."
Although Jabr appeared to confirm the existence of death squads, the scale of the operation uncovered would appear to be far smaller than critics had alleged.
Sunni Muslims have long complained about Shiite death squads that arrived wearing official uniforms and rode in official-looking vehicles to haul away victims.
Knight Ridder first reported the accusation of death squads in February last year, and in June documented many cases in which victims were taken away allegedly by men wearing Interior Ministry commando uniforms were later found handcuffed and executed with a bullet to the back of the head.
The government had long denied the existence of such death squads. Sunnis had accused the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia supported by Iran, of being behind the killings, inside or outside of government ministries. Jabr is a senior leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shiite political party, and has close ties to the Badr Organization.
The investigation that led to Sunday's confirmation of government death squads came after American forces stopped a group of men who were passing through a checkpoint in late January. The men wore official uniforms and said they were preparing to execute a Sunni man in their custody.
The atmosphere of chaos in Iraq has been stoked in part by the failure of politicians to form a new government nearly three months after national elections.
Knight Ridder Newspapers special correspondents Huda Ahmed, Mohammed Alawsy and Shatha Alawsy contributed to this report.
Ok seeing as all my other posts on this issue were deemed tat here is a valid point for people signing petitions against any big power's foreign policy.
When I was a student in UCD you would see petitions against this that and the other in the corridors of Belfield. Many people signed these petitions especially those which took issue with U.S. foreign policy. These self-same signatories would then apply for J-1 visas to work for the summer and were quite surprised when their applications were refused... duh?
Nowadays with CCTV cameras available in O'Connell Street and with more sophisticated passports with biological features etc, it is within the remit of the techonology to isolate people from a protest march. So if people are going to march in the Protest, I wouldn't bother applying for a visa to visit the USA anytime soon if I were you!
AS long as there are powers on the Security Council with a permanent right to veto the U.N.will be toothless. Especially as one of them ( U.S.A.) is behind in it's subscription fees payment schedule. What that does is deny the U.N. of adequate resources to fund it's many worthwhile organisations such as the W.H.O. and U.N.I.C.E.F.
I was once approached in O'Connell Street to sign of these petitions. I was with a friend named Robert. When both of us asked the guy with the petition which organisation he represented , he got nervous, refused to answer the question and then told me to F***O**. So be careful what you sign folks cause you might not know who will be using your name!
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks