Poor old America!!

  • Thread starter johnjames2010
  • Start date
Re: Saddam's chutzpah

Saddam, alone amongst world leaders, openly praised and celebrated the 9/11 atrocities. What a nerve

YD,

That's a pathetic argument and you know it. Let's invade countries because they gloat when bad things happen to us! This administration has never claimed that they went to war for those reasons. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been killed by American soldiers. Women and children included.

Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!

Revenge is not a valid reason for war in this day and age. Actually, the reasons why America and Britain went to war are well docemented, and discredited too.

Over time and as it became more and more clear that WMD did not exist, they've tried to change their spin on it.
 
Re: Poor old America

Maceface,

You're right on a lot of your points. It seems though on this board any criticism levelled at the US is called anti-Americanism.

-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.
-Their news coverage being so biased

All of the above are valid points. Bush is responsible for a lot of them mind you. The truth is this whole argument, the entire War on Terror/ Iraq/ American foreign policy debate is a complex, many shades of grey argument, but people are unwilling to look at the facts, preferring to call any criticism anti-American or pro-Bin Laden. :\
 
Re: Poor old America

Note; I'm trying to see things from the perspective of the US in order to see their reasoning. I'm not quite sure though they are doing the best thing though. e.g they are supposed to have allies in Saudi, even though the terrorist threat is still strong there.

One thing I'm sure about is Al Quieda are a shower of facists who have nothing nice in store for you or me!
 
Piggy - gotcha

Over time and as it became more and more clear that WMD did not exist, they've tried to change their spin on it.
Without trawling (or is it trolling) over your very many postings on this matter, I feel sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you have asserted that this whole WMD thing was made up - the Wasp Warriors never believed a word of it - used it as an excuse.

Now this latest piggy wisdom puts a quite different spin on matters - it says the WWs genuinely believed in these WMDs but upon the realisation that the intelligence was deficient they switched ground.

That spin says Tony and George were perfectly right to invade Iraq based on their bona fide belief in the existence of Saddam's WMD.
 
Re: Piggy - gotcha

Now this latest piggy wisdom puts a quite different spin on matters - it says the WWs genuinely believed in these WMDs but upon the realisation that the intelligence was deficient they switched ground.

YD,

I have previously stated, in this thread in fact, that I don't believe that what we were told were the reasons for going to war, ie WMD, were indeed the real reasons behind this war.

I never stated that they believed any of it...just that those were the official reasons for its justification.
 
Re: Poor old America

Hi Maceface
You make alot of valid points however;
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.

We Europeans are far more to blame on this front as we give more subsidies

Take away the reasons for hatred, and the extremists will be alone in the world.

How do we do this? apart from deserting Israel (BTW it was us europeans that put them there in the first place)
 
Re: Poor old America

We Europeans are far more to blame on this front as we give more subsidies
I do not dispute that fact, and many of my points while directed at the US are actually directed at all big first world countries.

How do we do this? apart from deserting Israel (BTW it was us europeans that put them there in the first place)

I really don't believe that the man on the street in Kabul gives two hoots whether Israel exists or not.
What he cares about is whether he has enough food and a nice home.
In many ways it is similar to the Nothern situation. Catholics were no longer treated as second class citizens and the general people will dissassociate themselves from the miltants.

I remember one of the first times I heard anti-American sentiment was when I was in Pakistan and the local people had a severe dislike for the Americans. One of the reasons for this was how American specials agents kidnapped a suspected terrorist from a town in the country and he was never seen of again.
Can you imagine the reaction if America or even the UK had decided to assasinate anyone senior in the IRA. They would be turned into heroes for the cause (a la 1916 here)

America is only supporting Israel as there are very important Jews in America. Anyone wanting to become president needs their votes the same way as they used to need the Irish vote. See how the number of Irish is decreasing in America, the Northern situation is no longer seen as important as it used to be.

(BTW. Who cares who put them there. We were the ones called anti-Jewish when Brian Cowen spoke about the injustices facing the Palestinians with the barrier)

Imran Khan (the ex-cricketer) is a huge opponent of American policy in Pakistan and how they treat the normal person on the street.
 
Re: Poor old America

Maceface;
Just to try and balance things here,

-They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.
Their entire culture is based on allowing people from other countries into theirs, giving them citizenship and allowing them to participate equally with other native born Americans.
We should look a bit closer to home when we talk about treating people as second class.

-Kyoto Protocol
I don't like that one either but their is a strong argument that the 40 or so billion that it will cost to implement could be better spent.

-Guantanamo Bay
I think that one is a huge mistake on America's part. Having said that if France or Britain did it no one would hear a word about it.

-Unconditional support of Israel
George W is the first US president to publicly support a Palestinian state. He has tried to impose a road map for peace in Israel.

-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
The UN is a joke. It is now at the stage the League of Nations was at in the 1930's.

-Blatant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
Examples please. While the WMD issue may or may not have been lies it is not proven either way.

-Bush (I really dislike him)
I don't like him either but he has done more than anyone else to fight AIDS. Perhaps more than everyone else put together.
He has also cancelled massive amount of debt in the third world.

-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
Just like you think the anti war/anti American people in this counter think they are?

-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us.
That's a bit simplistic, but in general I agree. Then so does every country.

-The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)
If you look up hypocrisy the definition should be "France".
They conduct nuclear tests, sink Greenpeace ships, send their troops into west African countries to protect their mining interests, sell a nuclear reactor to Saddam's Iraq, kill over a million Algerians in the 1950's trying to hold on to their colonies and then when their oil companies interests are threatened in Iraq they get all moralistic. The same oil companies that prop up the dictatorship in Burma, recognised as the most oppressive in the world by both Amnesty International and the UN.
Don't get me going about the French!

-Their news coverage being so biased
Yes, but is it as biased as ours?
 
The Iraqi story according to piggy

Piggy, tell me if I have got your argument correct, as follows:

1. George Blair knew there were no WMD.

2. They wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons- oil, revenge, to finish daddy's work, whatever.

3. But to persuade their populaces they had to spin this WMD line.

4. When, as they fully anticipated, the WMD didn't materialise they hoped to spin their way out of that.

Presumably these conspirators were shrewd enough to know that when the WMD lie was exposed they would face a popular backlash.

Both these men have one supreme goal - to get re-elected. If the elections were last fall, this theory would at least hang together. As it is they appear to have knowingly signed their own electoral doom. As conspiracy theories go, this tops the implausibility list.

I feel certain that at least the better half of Tony Bush believed in the WMD thing.

Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!
Piggy, this is the sort of wholly inappropriate metaphor which you accuse the trollers of. Perhaps a closer analogy would be if Charlie Haughey had released a statement welcoming the Brighton bombings and that the only regret was that Mrs T escaped.
 
Re: The Iraqi story according to piggy

YD,

Who is George Blair and who is Tony Bush?

Maybe England should invade us after they lose their next football match!!

I was being sarcastic :rolleyes

Presumably these conspirators were shrewd enough to know that when the WMD lie was exposed they would face a popular backlash.

You might consider thinking about what I'm saying before jumping to wild conclusions too. Given that we know the intelligence was flawed, perhaps they did think they'd find WMD. I personally don't believe that it had much to do with their real reasons for wanting this war. However, they needed a more plausible official reason to justify it. Even that official justification has faltered...yet no heads have rolled. They've just changed the spin so that no one is accountable.

Perhaps you might challenge some of the other posters who've posted on this subject throughout this thread YD. I'm not the only poster here y'know.
 
......

Piggy is a hippocrite and should be ashamed of herself
 
Re: ......

Well said James. A lot of thought in that one. Welcome to the debate.
 
Pause to re-group

Okay, piggy, that hangs together. I still think Sadders asked for it.

No fun in trolling the others, piggy. I'll be back when I think you have made another slip. :D
 
Re: Pause to re-group

No fun in trolling the others, piggy. I'll be back when I think you have made another slip

So then it's not the debate you're interested in at all...just trolling my posts?

All you succeed in doing YD is giving people more of an excuse to allow only registered users contribute to LOS.
 
Re: Pause to re-group

The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that what people have a problem with is GB's personality more so than his actions. He does'nt have the charisma of Clinton / Blair / Ahern so he can't get away with it?

As has been already posted above, he's done more altruistic acts than most, but he's just not very good at being popular.

BTW Does anyone else think the primtime interview was a comedy - not on him - on RTE
 
Re: Pause to re-group

Just coz' ur registered don't mean u can't troll. :lol :evil
 
...

interesting that nobody in the above attacks on piggy's posts managed to address the issue that no evidence has been produced to prove a link between Iraq and Bin Laden/911 (well, no evidence that the Americans have not subsequently discredited themselves at least).

Saddam voicing support for the attacks on 9/11 was truly despicable, but only in the minds of the most extreme right would it be even a slight justification for invasion.

The dangerous issue is that we cannot simply allow the US to invade a country using evidence it slaps together, only for it to be disproven later when the deed has been done. (see Colin Powells speeches to the UN on this). The fact of the matter is, yes that Saddam is disposed is a good thing, but this should have been done through the UN. Having a self-appointed world regulator is not a safe situation. These things should be done with a UN mandate. Purple's point that the UN is now a joke is not true. It is severley weakened, but if the US and UK realise the error in their ways (surely it and the UK are to blame for undermining the UN's powers) and adhere to UN law in future, the UN will rise again.

Mmmmm, seems something is missing in the posts above - the small matter that was the invasion of Afghanistan. Nobody talks about this anymore. Some of the simplistic arguments above which choose to deride any arguments against the Iraq war by deriding those voicing them as bleeding heart liberals.

I am a realistic who feels war should be avoided where possible. However, I felt that the US was somewhat justified to take issue with the Taliban/Al Qaeda element in Afghanistan, as they could prove that these people were involved in the 9/11 attacks and posed an imminent threat. This also should have been done with a UN mandate, though. I felt that when they conjured up a flimsy justification for invading Iraq for supposedly similar reasons, they had taken things too far. The passing of time, and the discrediting of that flimsy justification, have proved me right.
 
Re: Pause to re-group

-They treat non-Americans as second class citizens.
Their entire culture is based on allowing people from other countries into theirs, giving them citizenship and allowing them to participate equally with other native born Americans.
I am not talking about the many people who they take in every year. Maybe I should have phrased it as "other countries and their people"
We should look a bit closer to home when we talk about treating people as second class.
This point is irrelevant. We are discussing America here.

-Kyoto Protocol
I don't like that one either but their is a strong argument that the 40 or so billion that it will cost to implement could be better spent.
Would this not be the best way to spend 40 billion - saving the planet for future generations. Reason they won't sign up is because the big businesses in America who control the government all rely on the ability to polute.


-Guantanamo Bay
I think that one is a huge mistake on America's part. Having said that if France or Britain did it no one would hear a word about it.
Again, as America is the biggest country in the world, they should be leading by example. How can they now seriously slate any other country on its human rights record when they are doing something equally as bad. (Also as a side note, on Morning Ireland last week, they were talking about that Iraqi jail and mentioned that most of the important prisioners are not there. They are in camps around Iraq where they don't have to allow the Red Cross to see them).

-Unconditional support of Israel
George W is the first US president to publicly support a Palestinian state. He has tried to impose a road map for peace in Israel.
So, he is giving an inch here. What is he actually doing about it. Does anyone disagree that there should be no Palestian state?

-Unilateral action in Iraq (i.e. no UN agreement)
The UN is a joke. It is now at the stage the League of Nations was at in the 1930's.
I wouldn't go that far now, but the reason it is ineffective is because you have the worlds biggest country ignoring it.

-Blatant lies over the reasons for war in Iraq (why not tell the truth)
Examples please. While the WMD issue may or may not have been lies it is not proven either way.
Do you remember the presentation Powell gave to the UN where he had arial photos of where they were manufacturing WMDs? Remember when he had "artist impressions" of mobile labs?
Remember the documents describing the Uranium from Niger, which turned out to be faked (I wonder who faked them).
What happened to all this evidence?
I remember when Resolution 1441 was passed that Russia and France both stipulated at the time that this resolution was not a pass to go to war, just a pass for stronger action.
The idea that he was an evil dictator is the biggest load of baloney (spelling?). There are far worse people in the world than him (look at Africa) and yet we don't do anything about it.

-Bush (I really dislike him)
I don't like him either but he has done more than anyone else to fight AIDS. Perhaps more than everyone else put together.
I give him that.
He has also cancelled massive amount of debt in the third world.
Again, agreed, but it is not as though he was going to get the money back anyway. The countries can't even afford the interest, let alone the acutal amount they borrowed.

-Their belief that they are whiter than white (they believe they are the freest and most democratic country in the world - what a joke).
Just like you think the anti war/anti American people in this counter think they are?
I am both anti-war and anti-American (but only recently) and I would not say I am whiter than white.

-Their attitude of either you are with us or against us.
That's a bit simplistic, but in general I agree. Then so does every country.
That was almost the exact quote Bush said when he first mentioned the war on terror - either you are with us or against us.

I remember thinking at the time that if Bin Laden turned up in Dublin, what would we do. We couldn't hand him over to America as he would face the death penalty.
Imagine what would happen if we decided to send him the the ICC? That would be funny!

-The way they treated France (and their freedom fries)
If you look up hypocrisy the definition should be "France".
They conduct nuclear tests, sink Greenpeace ships, send their troops into west African countries to protect their mining interests, sell a nuclear reactor to Saddam's Iraq, kill over a million Algerians in the 1950's trying to hold on to their colonies and then when their oil companies interests are threatened in Iraq they get all moralistic. The same oil companies that prop up the dictatorship in Burma, recognised as the most oppressive in the world by both Amnesty International and the UN.
Don't get me going about the French!
Again, just because one country does it, does not mean another country can.
I was watching The O Reilly Factor on Fox News last week, and at the end of his program he told everyone to go to his web site and download a bumper sticker for their car which read "Boycott France". I don't think I have ever heard Charlie Bird Say anything like that before.

-Their news coverage being so biased
Yes, but is it as biased as ours?
See above.
Incidently, the New York Post ran a piece recently about the interview on PrimeTime by Bush. They applauded how it was conducted and asked why they don't take an approach like this in America as opposed to agreeing with everything Bush says.
 
Re: ...

Spin and porkers......true and obvious. I can't believe people are spending so much time on this point. Something else is happening while you're getting caught up in this bickering.
Nations have used this tool down through the centuries, its nothing new.
 
Re: Pause to re-group

Again, agreed, but it is not as though he was going to get the money back anyway. The countries can't even afford the interest, let alone the acutal amount they borrowed.


Letting them off the payments promotes irresponsibility which will be bad for the country in the long run
 
Back
Top