Jump to content

Iraq Issues

Gobalopper
 Share

Recommended Posts

zamboe

zamboe

Posted
Posted

I got a go right now, but I will reply the other subjects later. However I will reply the short part first.

Now all of a sudden Canadians are 99% the same as Americans? Oh puhlease! Have you ever lived in or even been to either country?

Exactly. I challenge you to go to Central/South America, you and all canadians by most of the people are known/recognized as US, not that I agree, but that's the real situation in this countris, you will be called "gringo" "yankee" by 99% of the people, no matter how much you explain them you are not US citizen.

And, yes, I have travelled like much, and that includes many trips to the US and Europe among other places.

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

ACE, how can you guess someone's feelings by a computer? How can you know that it's some hate that brings to disagree with you and not my ideological opposition that brang me to consider USA'sdirection as wicked?

There were lots of countries in the past that were wicked by kings and lords: what's so surprising?

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted
Exactly. I challenge you to go to Central/South America, you and all canadians by most of the people are known/recognized as US, not that I agree, but that's the real situation in this countris, you will be called "gringo" "yankee" by 99% of the people, no matter how much you explain them you are not US citizen.

And, yes, I have travelled like much, and that includes many trips to the US and Europe among other places.

Just because 99% of South Americans can't tell the difference between the different regional accents doesn't mean we're the same. But thanks for warning me in advance that most South Americans are bigoted and use slurs to refer to complete strangers!
Gobalopper

Gobalopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Egeides its called evidence. Anything would have helped their cause and would have changed a lot of peoples minds especially if it could be verified by the UN inspectors.

zamboe

zamboe

Posted
Posted

Zamboe, Gob is saying that it's unfair to judge this US administration on the actions of different administrations of the past because they aren't the same people and have different policies and make decisions differently. Iraq's hadn't because it was a dictatorship. No changes in government over 25 years.To judge Bush off of Nixon or Clinton off of Carter would essentially be stereotyping all administrations, and all Americans, as the same, which I know you do anyway but you could at least keep it off record.

Now all of a sudden Canadians are 99% the same as Americans? Oh puhlease! Have you ever lived in or even been to either country?

I mean come on, so suddendly I have to believe that *this* administration will apply clean and fair policy for foreign matter, please, give me a break.

History and records have a purpouse, to serve as a base to forecast and understand some behavior/policy.

On a same basis I could ask you not to judge the former Iraqi government based on it's previous crimes (such as the invasion to Kuwait or Kurds massive murder), they actually gave levels of cooperation,information and access to it's facilities than any other time before, that would be a proof that they had changed, but I guess no matter what they'd do, you had your judgement already made, let alone that at the same time that the US gov. was speaking about it's commitment to peace, many US army divisions were on it's way to Iraq.

Have you ever been in a non-first-world country ?

zamboe

zamboe

Posted
Posted

zamboe the proof has to come from the Iraqi's because it has already been proven by the UN that they had weapons but had not destroyed them.

Come on Gob, let's focus on the present and future, because Iraq former government is no more. Now is the turn for the invader to prove they were right, (existance of WoMD), then and only then we might actually call them liberators.

Gobalopper

Gobalopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Woah, so now your saying give them a chance to find the weapons? Wasn't it a few posts ago you were saying the US made it all up? ::)

I agree lets give them a chance to find the weapons, stop with all these accusations that the US just made it up until they have actually had a chance to find the stuff.

Egeides Iraq just had to comply to the demands created out by Bush, Blair, the UN etc in the resolution. I don't remember what those were off the top of my head though.

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

What was asked to Saddam was about what was asked at the 1st WW, and was in advance alot to ask to a country that is supposedly responsible of its own territory.

Don't radicalize what I said about USA: I may have said that USA attacked without evidence (pre-emptive, just in case: which was criticized to Germany BTW). And may have said that until now, they don't have them and that they will do anything to find something, even if it means to say "We found trucks producing bio weapons" while at first they thaught "Could have been, but probably not since not organized as such". All is in nuances of grey, depending on which info you release...

What I'm bothered of is mainly what will happen to Iraq from now... Yet, Bechtel (Cheney) is getting alot, Iraqi aren't the one controlling their ressources, preachers are sent... And the population brings opposition.

zamboe

zamboe

Posted
Posted

Woah, so now your saying give them a chance to find the weapons? Wasn't it a few posts ago you were saying the US made it all up? ::)

I agree lets give them a chance to find the weapons, stop with all these accusations that the US just made it up until they have actually had a chance to find the stuff.

I keep what I said, I am not changing anything, I used the verb "prove", meaning that they have to prove that many people (and I include myself in that group) are wrong, they said they knew where WoMD where, well.....

And the time that has passed since they control Iraq at their will is enough chance for me, not even a sample or trace was found, I see no need to give them more time to start making conclussions.

How long should be enough for you having doubts about them Gob ?

Gobalopper

Gobalopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well once the troops leave I would assume they should have found something by then. I don't really have a date because I have no clue how long it would take to search a country the size of Iraq. A rough guess would be maybe 6 months... I don't really know and haven't heard any timelines.

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted
I mean come on, so suddendly I have to believe that *this* administration will apply clean and fair policy for foreign matter, please, give me a break.
Who asked you to do that? Did I ask you to do that? Tell me where I asked you to do that. All *I* asked is that you throw away your hatred towards all American politicians and not judge this administration based off of the actions of its predecessors.
History and records have a purpouse, to serve as a base to forecast and understand some behavior/policy.
You're right! So now I'm going use Mayan history to predict your actions!
On a same basis I could ask you not to judge the former Iraqi government based on it's previous crimes (such as the invasion to Kuwait or Kurds massive murder), they actually gave levels of cooperation,information and access to it's facilities than any other time before, that would be a proof that they had changed, but I guess no matter what they'd do, you had your judgement already made, let alone that at the same time that the US gov. was speaking about it's commitment to peace, many US army divisions were on it's way to Iraq.
*bangs head against desk*

Old Saddam and new Saddam is still Saddam. Carter is not Reagan, Reagan is not Bush, Bush isn't Clinton, and Clinton isn't other Bush.

This might be news to you but people don't change unless they want to. Did Saddam get all cuddly and peace-loving all of a sudden? Please. US administrations, on the other hand, are in and out every 4 to 8 years. There one day and gone the next. That's why you can't compare the Bush admin to something that happened decades ago. It's not the same people. So unless you are trying to say that all American politicians, and therefore all Americans, are evil, oil-grubbing, warmongers, you don't have a leg to stand on. I have a feeling you know this as well as I do, hell, even I know you're smart enough to understand this, yet you ignore it because it weakens your position.

Let me put it this way, I wouldn't be prejudicial to Gorbachev based on the actions of Stalin. Hell I wouldn't even pre-judge Saddam based on Qasim (lead Iraq during the 50s). Do you see the distinction yet?

Have you ever been in a non-first-world country ?
Not that it's relevant, and not that it's any of your business, but, among other places, I've been to Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil.
zamboe

zamboe

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah ! Mexico, such an example...... ::)

None of my business, indeed, is funny you asked something similar....

I wonder if there is anyone in this forum that Ace doesn't think that hates US, I smell some paranoia there, no matter how insignificant or no the critic towards the US someone gave, it's inmediately classified as US hater, I would have liked to read his answer to Edrico's or Egeide

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted

Just over 3200 eh? About what I expected, given the Afghanistan campaign. Odd. Before the war everyone was estimating numbers in the millions. Even the UN expeced a minimum of 500,000.

I wonder how many of those civillians were soldiers in civillian clothes. My guess is grand total doesn't exceed 4000.

DukeLeto

DukeLeto

Posted
Posted

Whatever happened to, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

There's a difference between "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and "We're a bunch of right-wing bigots, so we won't serve you." ::)

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Looks like the USA is now "searching out Saddam loyalists and militia leaders"

Any more success than with the Weapons of Mass Destruction? :P

What's wrong with loyalty? If Saddam's soldiers switch sides they are hailed as heroes but if an American soldier were to start fighting for Saddam's memory he'd be spat at in the street (On a GOOD day!). Loyalty to any cause is not a reason to persecute people.

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted
There's a difference between "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and "We're a bunch of right-wing bigots, so we won't serve you." ::)
Only to you. So instead of "You have the right to refuse service to anyone" it's "You have the right to refuse service to anyone, but only when *I* say it's ok" I didn't say I supported the guy either but it's his business.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.