Poor old America!!

  • Thread starter johnjames2010
  • Start date
J

johnjames2010

Guest
I was sickened yesterday to read Andrew Lynch's article on the front page of the Sunday Independant. The knowledge that people actually think like this man is bad enough but to have to endure this type of garbage when you sit down to read the papers on a Sunday afternoon is stomach churning.

I found his point in relation to the lack of media coverage of Saddam's trial in comparison to the coverage of the activities in Abu Ghraib particularly frustrating. His point was that Human Rights breaches don't seem to impress the media unless they are carried out by American soldiers. Im not quite sure what exactly Mr. Lynch wants. Does he wish to be reminded of the atrocities carried out by Saddam Hussein and his Regime?? If so, I think there is something seriously wrong with the man. The world knows what a ruthless dictator Saddam was and the last thing anyone needs is to see 24hr coverage of his trial, with footage of the carnage and genocidal devastation he caused both in his own country aswell as in Iran and Kuwait, packed into the ad breaks.

The sordid acts that took place in Abu Ghraib, however, was a new story. This was something the majority of the world would never have thought to happen. These soldiers were sent to Iraq with one main objective-To overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Regime and, hence, free the people of Iraq. These people were supposedly the "Good Guys". Nobody ever had such illusions about Saddam and his army.

In my opinion this justifies the extra attention, if any, given to the breach of Human Rights by the Coalition forces in comparison with the trial of Iraq's former and brutal dictator.

He also made a point of his disapproval of Radio five seven live's interview with an Iraqi exile who said he would not be surprised if Saddam was found dead in his cell in an effort to prevent him discussing his relationship with the CIA in the eighties at his trial. While this is merely speculation, I would be willing to bet that Mr. Lynch would have had no problem listening to an interview with an American official preaching about the presence of Nuclear Weapons before the invasion of Iraq. Which, coincidentally, turned out to be mere speculation !!

With people like Mr. Lynch writing articles like this on the front page of one of the biggest Sunday papers, its no wonder there are still people out there amongst the sane, who believe America have the God given right to invade any country they feel needs to be "Liberated".
 
Sindo sources from AAM

A bit surprised myself, sort of stuff I post on AAM but then Gene kerrigam does a wonderful impression of piggy.:D
 
.

I knew there would be an Al Quahida sympthasiser somewhere under the carpet. You will be the first to squeal when yo do not have enoght oil to heat your house this winter, or to commute to and from your American owned factory.
 
Re: .

Hi Advisor,

I'm not going to pass any remarks on johnjames's post.

Needless to say I'm, not surprisingly, a little stumped by your remarks.

I knew there would be an Al Quahida sympthasiser somewhere under the carpet

Do you think that all dissenting voices are by default Al Queda supporters? That would probably mean that approxiamtely half the planet are Al Queda supporters!!! Certainly half the population of Ireland anyway.

That's a pretty extreme view of the world isn't it?
 
Re.Poor old America!!

%%WORD0% 10;
His point was that Human Rights breaches don't seem to impress the media unless they are carried out by American soldiers. Im not quite sure what exactly Mr. Lynch wants.
While I do not agree with the vehemence of his piece he does raise some interesting points.
The media in this country, IMHO, is generally anti American and very anti George W Bush. While I don't like the man's policies I don't think portraying him as a one dimensional, Christian extremist half wit (as the Irish Times and RTE do) serves the Irish people well. He has views and values that I don't like but to accuse him of being evil or as bad as Sadam or Osama is idiotic.
No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Sadam and his government were clients of soviet Russia.
No one points out that the UN found both a chemical and nuclear weapons program in Iraq in the early 1990's.

Do the anti war/anti America people ever note that the French sold Iraq a nuclear reactor that produced plutonium in the 1980's and the Israeli's had to bomb it to stop Iraq getting an A-bomb?

When has the Irish Times or RTE but America's conduct in the middle east in the 1980's into the context of the cold war where they were fighting totalitarianism in it's most oppressive and evil form?

The conduct of US troops in Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of America's invasion/liberation of Iraq. To comment on them in the context of the wider issue of US policy in the middle east is emotive and simplistic.
The trial of Sadam is much more important and should get much more coverage. That, to me, is a reasonable point and the fact that it doesn't shows the bias of the Irish media.
its no wonder there are still people out there amongst the sane, who believe America have the God given right to invade any country they feel needs to be "Liberated".
There are few people who think that America had or has the God given right to invade whomever they wish but there are many people who think that the invasion of Iraq was not all bad.
What would have happened is the UN had stepped in two years earlier in Bosnia?
What would have happened if Britain and France has kept their word in 1936 and gone to war with Germany when they occupied the sudatten (spelling?) land? Would the second world war the the cold war have been averted. A few hundred thousand deaths rather than 20 million?

It's not all black and white, try and see where the other guy is coming from. If we justify our views by rubbishing the person who disagrees with us we do ourselves a disservice since we avoid having to come to a truly informed position.

Ref. advisor's comments; As far as I am concerned that is just trolling.
 
Re: Re.Poor old America!!

The media in this country, IMHO, is generally anti American and very anti George W Bush

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite.

No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Sadam and his government were clients of soviet Russia

Are you sure about this statement?

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Chemical weapons
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/sto...S00158.htm


No one points out that the UN found both a chemical and nuclear weapons program in Iraq in the early 1990's.

Do the anti war/anti America people ever note that the French sold Iraq a nuclear reactor that produced plutonium in the 1980's and the Israeli's had to bomb it to stop Iraq getting an A-bomb?


You tend to always equate anti-war with anti-American purple and that's not always such a good idea IMO.
In relation to Iraq's secret Nuclear capabilities in the 1980's...they're not the only Middle Eastern country which has/had secretive weapons programmes of this nature.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...841377.stm


He has views and values that I don't like but to accuse him of being evil or as bad as Sadam or Osama is idiotic

Most sensible people wouldn't accuse Bush of being evil. However, most people who did not support the war do so on the grounds that it had little to do with freeing the Iraqi people, ridding the world of Saddam or even WMD.

The conduct of US troops in Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of America's invasion/liberation of Iraq. To comment on them in the context of the wider issue of US policy in the middle east is emotive and simplistic.

Commenting on the actions of US troops out of context is simplistic. Commenting on it in relation to how they are now viewed in Iraq or across the middle east has everything to do with America's position in the middle east.

What would have happened is the UN had stepped in two years earlier in Bosnia?
What would have happened if Britain and France has kept their word in 1936 and gone to war with Germany when they occupied the sudatten (spelling?) land?


These arguments are brought up again and again. You cannot automatically justify one war by pointing back in time to other wars. I can name plenty of unjust wars.

Ref. advisor's comments; As far as I am concerned that is just trolling.

Unfortunately, it's become the norm for topics like this. I sometimes wonder at the type of people who use this board and what motivates them to do this.
 
Poor old America

Just to back johnjames up about his view on America, it make
me sick that people are so easly lead in this country, i recall on a few years ago when Bill Clinton arrived in Ireland while in the middle of the Monica scandal, the nation pack dublin city to see the man , it was almost a national holiday. Now after all the media hype from Pro-Arab sources we are out marching against USA for protecting their peoples lives. 9 / 11 must be very short in all you anti America activists... shame on you. If this happened in Ireland who would back us up.. the USA of course. For that fact most of this country is employed by USA owened companies.... makes me feel sick that people can abuse the States like that after 9 /11 . idiots thats all we are.
 
Re: Re.Poor old America!!

Piggy,
No one points out that America and Britain did not arm Iraq since Saddam and his government were clients of soviet Russia
Are you sure about this statement?
I take your point, great link!
I was a bit vague, I was commenting in the context of putting him in power. Many people seem to think that the USA put him there in the first place. The US support for him in the 80's was in the context of trying to keep back communist backed fundamentalist Islam. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and all that. They never backed Saddam 'cause they liked his methods or thought he was a nice guy.

Commenting on it in relation to how they are now viewed in Iraq or across the middle east has everything to do with America's position in the middle east.
I agree but the undertone in much of the Gene Kerrigan wing of the media is that you can equate the rights and wrongs of one with the other. That is nonsense! There is a lot wrong with the way America has behaving in Iraq but it is a separate issue from the way they behaved in Abu Ghraib.

You cannot automatically justify one war by pointing back in time to other wars
Again I agree. I make the point simply to ask people to but this whole sad affair in a world context and not view it from a simplistic cocooned western European stand point.

Many commentators have said that the world is a more dangerous place since the invasion of Iraq. The fact is that there are fewer Iraqi's dying now than there were two years ago. What those commentators should say is that the western world is a more dangerous place.
We should not dress up self interest in the clothes of egalitarian concern for all our fellow man.
 
Re: Re.Poor old America!!

Owensy, there is a hell of a difference between a guy being unfaithful to his wife - which is no ones business but theirs - and a guy who leads a country to unilateraly attack another country.
Also Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - I don't know how this can be continually used as an excuse. I mean, the vietnamese don't say 'remember Saigon - so lets attack the US'
And I also believe that economics should be no reason to support a regime. By that rationale should we have supported Sadam if he had employed us all over here.
One has to learn as much as one can from the facts and then apply them using the heart and the head.
 
Other Sindo jems

Did you see the bit about American investors getting jittery about investing in Ireland because of the rising SF vote.

Their fears were vague but, according to the Sindo, they particularly took fright at this talk of "equality".

You can understand what they mean. Equality is all very well for Iraqis but if that sort of thing caught on in countries they invested in, well that would be worrying.
 
..

Owensy, I’m afraid I have to take issue with a number of your points:

I think the very fact that so many people are voicing their opinions against the current American foreign policy just goes to show that Irish people are not as easily led as you suggest, otherwise they would be towing the line of their government. A large number of people have issues with what the Bush administration have done and are exercising their democratic right to voice that opinion.

Surely you are not seriously comparing Bill Clinton’s transgression with the invasion of Iraq, which many people believe to be entirely unjustified as it was a pre-emptive strike based solely on false information (for this see Colin Powells speech to the UN just over a year ago where he insisted the information was accurate, and the recent speech in which he admitted that same information was entirely false. Now if that’s not a reason to resign I don’t know what is).

Clinton, while not perfect, had a much more tolerant foreign policy, and can also be credited with reaffirming Irish-US links. It was during his term that our great tiger began to roar, and he also did excellent work on the Northern Irish peace process. For this he was warmly welcomed in Ireland. Do you seriously have issues with this?

I believe Ireland showed great solidarity with America after the tragedy that was 9/11, as most Irish people have close ties with the US and wish it no harm. I myself am a big fan of the US, though I am strongly opposed to the Bush administration. This does not, repeat, does not, make me anti-American. While I am grateful for all that the US has done for Ireland, I cannot allow economics stand in the way of my principles which adhere to the notion that violence against another nation must be avoided unless an imminent threat has been proven beyond doubt. In the case of Iraq this was not proved.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq based on evidence that has since been discredited. To say ‘Oh sorry we got that wrong’ is not acceptable as it would be to allow them a licence to do as they please without adhering to international law. The good guys can be wrong sometimes too, and in this case they were very wrong.

9/11 and Iraq are two entirely different issues, and no definitive link between the two has ever been proven. The main evidence the Bush administration based the link on was a supposed meeting of a member of Saddam’s administration, with an associate of Bin Laden in the Czech Republic I think it was. The FBI and CIA both discredited this evidence as they proved that Bin Laden’s aide was actually in the US at the time so the meeting never happened. However, one of the top guys in the NSA (can verify this, see Irish Times weekend section article a while back) commissioned a team of 4 analysts (yes, 4, how hush hush does that sound) to find links between Bin Laden and Saddam….their main argument for the link was based on this very same alleged meeting which their own security agencies had disproved! It is this ‘prove what you want to prove’ attitude that has made people like me anti-Bush. Not anti-American, just anti-Bush.

As for your ludicrous ‘media hype from Pro-Arab sources’, this is unsubstantiated slander. Try replacing it with ‘genuine concern from pro-humanitarian sources’ and you might be closer to the mark. As for you ‘idiots’ quote, I’m safe in the knowledge that doesn’t apply to me.
 
Re: Poor old America

Now after all the media hype from Pro-Arab sources we are out marching against USA for protecting their peoples lives. 9 / 11 must be very short in all you anti America activists... shame on you

owensy,

You sound remarkably similar to certain unregistered users who have in the past cast the same misguided stones at dissenting voices on this board.

Pro-arab sources and anti America activists??!!!!! :\

Let's put this in perspective for people shall we.

Would it make a difference if everyone on this board who opposed this war and all it stands for were American?

Let's look at what Americans feel then shall we?

There have been many polls done in the States concerning the war.

In 2003 approxiamtely supported the war.

That means that a year ago, half of America wanted this war and half didn't.

A year on and the majority of Americans are now standing against it, or believe they were lied to about it.

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/
[broken link removed]

So before you go accusing people of forgetting their ties with America, or of supporting Bin Laden, or listening to pro-Arab views (whatever that means) you should note that many Americans feel the same way - much as they did about Vietnam.
 
Poor old America

Well done Piggy with you facts, but lets be honest after 9/11 was the whole of the United States not in favor of revenge which in turn means war. How would you feel if a family member or a close friend where killed by the most disgusting terror act of our time, would you want your country to stand idol and just let the Religious freaks who performed this act walk free around the world to strike again.

What do you think should have happened?

I know put you sandals on and walk around town in a peace march after almost 3.500 people dying in the most horrific circumstances... can you imagine having to jump from the twin towers rather than burn alive, imagine the fire fighters and police that died under a crushed building..

So America as a nation should of stood idol by should they?
 
Re: Poor old America

Owensy...can you tell us what tie Iraq had with 911 please?
 
Re: Other Sindo jems

You can understand what they mean. Equality is all very well for Iraqis but if that sort of thing caught on in countries they invested in, well that would be worrying.

I think the 'equality' they are afraid of is the socalist, levelling down, unworkable, utopian SF version of equality. Just what we need......
 
Re: Poor old America

Owensy...can you tell us what tie Iraq had with 911 please?

There are coutries in the middle east the US needs to sort out. It would not be practical to do this with Saddam in power in the region. Therefore he had to go. He won't be the only one either.
 
Re: Poor old America

There are coutries in the middle east the US needs to sort out. It would not be practical to do this with Saddam in power in the region

Be that as it may, Iraq had no direct link or tie with 911.
 
Saddam's chutzpah

Piggy, Saddam, alone amongst world leaders, openly praised and celebrated the 9/11 atrocities. What a nerve.:eek Maybe he had nothin' to do with it but he obviously was under some illusion that world piggydom still protected him from the wrath of the righteous. But the cold war ended 14 years ago. America could now do what she had to do. He got what he deserved.
 
Re: Poor old America

Needs to sort out

I put it to you that America should actually "be sorted out". People are going on about how terrorists are killing people all over the world.
True, this is babaric and of course something I am completly against (no doubt someone will cast me as a Bin Laden fan or something equally as stupid).
However, I want to raise an issue with how people are painting this to be simple black and white where America is mainly good and others are mainly wrong.
I say that they are all mainly wrong. America may not be going out killing people by bombs but they are killing innocent people by their policies.
Look how countries around the world are kept in poverty by the tools of the big countries - the IMF, the World Bank, G8, and the various favourable trade agreements to "friendly nations".
How many farmers are dying around the world today because they can't afford to sell their products due to the subsidies the first world nations are giving their own people.
What about the fact that because of this poverty, war lords take power from the people and oppress them. These countries are indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions.

America supports Israel - the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons and not be subject to inspections by independent inspectors.
America supports Saudi Arabia - a country run by dictatorship.

The simple truth is America (like most countries) will do what is in its own interests.

True there is anti-American feeling but until that is acknolwdged and the reasons for it understood, nothing will be solved.

I know why I don't like America:
-They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.
-Kyoto Protocol
-Guantanamo Bay
-Unconditional support of Israel
-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
-Blantant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
-Bush (I really dislike him)
-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us.
-The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)
-Their news coverage being so biased


Sorry, got a bit carried away there, but what I am saying is that if America can not see the point of views of others and do something to change that, then nothing will be solved.
Take away the reasons for hatred, and the extremists will be alone in the world.

I am quiet happy for America to lead the world - just not run it!
 
Back
Top