THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Geli said (of Vietnam)

Quote:

Who were the alliies we left.

But you say you know Nam and you don't know the answer to that?

Geli asked where he said Saddam was not a killer, but he also said

Quote:

It's been over two years, people are still dying and will be after we leave ....

This would imply that more people die because we are there than died before we got there to give them a chance to stop dying. That doesn't sound like you think Saddam was as much a problem to the Iraqi people as the USA is.

0 Replies

Quote:

This would imply that more people die because we are there than died before we got there to give them a chance to stop dying. That doesn't sound like you think Saddam was as much a problem to the Iraqi people as the USA is.

_________________
--Foxfyre

The point is that we could have handled everything differently without adding more deaths to the equation because we were not out of options at the time that George Bush went to war with Iraq.

Moreover, our being there has stirred up terrorist and more people have died in the last two years than they had been dying the previous couple of years.

They are still dying and we are not anymore closer to getting handle on either the insurgency in Iraq or the terrorist in the Iraq and elsewhere.

Other than the elections and capturing saddam hussien we have failed in our objectives.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Geli said (of Vietnam)

Quote:
Who were the alliies we left.

But you say you know Nam and you don't know the answer to that?

Geli asked where he said Saddam was not a killer, but he also said

Quote:
It's been over two years, people are still dying and will be after we leave ....

This would imply that more people die because we are there than died before we got there to give them a chance to stop dying. That doesn't sound like you think Saddam was as much a problem to the Iraqi people as the USA is.

I just don't know whether you are being deliberatly obtuse or if you are that way naturally. I knowyou woulld rather eat a worm than to answer a direct question but ..... who did we leave over there that did not live there to begin with?
We are killing innocents ....they could not be more deadif Saddam had killed them ...or am I wrong?

0 Replies

Do some people still really believe that we attacked Iraq to stop Iraqis dying?

Say it ain't so.

0 Replies

kinda like falling down a rabbitt hole aint it.....

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

... who did we leave over there that did not live there to begin with?

The US went into South Vietnam to prevent the North Vietnamese from conquering South Vietnam. The US failed when it fled South Vietnam. After the US fled, over a million South Vietnamese were murdered by the conquering North Vietnamese. In addition, over a million South Vietnamese fled in anything that would float to escape the North Vietnamese. Many of those desperate and terrified people drowned in their vain effort to escape.

So now you want us to emulate ourselves in Vietnam and repeat that shameful cowardly flight.

Not me! I would rather we emulate our behavior in South Korea where we stopped the North Koreans from conquering South Korea, or in Kuwait where we stopped Saddam's regime from conquering Kuwait. That of course doesn't include numerous other examples of our successfully rescuing democracies already conquered and liberating them, or rescuing democracies threatened with being conquered and stopping them from being conquered.

Gelisgesti wrote:

We are killing innocents ....they could not be more deadif Saddam had killed them ...or am I wrong?

No! The murdering terrorists are killing innocents. But thankfully they are killing them at a lesser rate than Saddam did. We unintentionally kill some innocents too. But that number is dwarfed by the current number of intentional killings perpetrated by the terrorist-would-be-subverters of the Iraqi people's efforts to evolve a democracy of their own design.

0 Replies

What Ican said. I have a friend who was at the Embassy at Saigon. His buddy was on the last helicopter out though they didn't know it at the time. The North Vietamese were believed to be closing in though they actually had more time than they expect--enough time for another wave of helicopters. As they lifted off they could see the brave South Vietnamese firemen in their yellow raincoats still protecting their perimeters. They were supposed to go back for them. Because it was judged too dangerous, they weren't allowed to.
It was maybe the USA's most shameful hour. Do you get it Geli? Or am I still being too obtuse in your judgment?

And no we didn't go to Iraq to stop people from dying. We believed we were going to Iraq to prevent more innocents from dying at the hands of terrorist thugs. When we got there we found even more noble tasks to undertake and we are undertaking them. And it is the belief of our brave men and women over there, and it is my belief that for every life lost many hundreds if not thousands have been saved.

I'm sorry some of you think that is wrong. I don't.

0 Replies

the u.s. , the u.n.
anyone interested in current relations between the united states and vietnam is invited to take a look at the following two entries; i think they are great reading - uncle ho must be happy.
1) U.S. EMBASSY - HANOI
2) VIETNAM/U.S TRADE AGREEMENT ON TEXTILES

two items i found to be of particular interest :
1) the U.S. has a consulate general in HOCHIMINH CITY
2) "In accordance with the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement, Vietnam will also provide the U.S. with Most Favored Nation treatment and will agree to refrain from utilizing non-tariff barriers."

as i said, i found it highly interesting reading. there is more info out there, but i think this might keep us going for a while. hbg

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Do some people still really believe that we attacked Iraq to stop Iraqis dying? Say it ain't so.

It ain't so! It wasn't the only reason. There were five principle reasons Powell gave to the UN 2/5/2003. Only one of which was found to be false.

1. Saddam's regime possesses ready-to-use WMD.

Not verified after we invaded Iraq: WMD were discovered to not exist in Iraq after 1991.

2. Saddam is accumulating powerful conventional weapons and munitions in hundreds of depots, and equipping terrorists with these weapons and munitions.

Verified after we invaded Iraq.

3. Al Qaeda are based in Iraq.

Verified after we invaded Iraq.

4. Saddam is mass murdering thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians every year.

Verified after we invaded Iraq.

5. Saddam is preparing to continue development of WMD after UN sanctions are lifted.

Verified after we invaded Iraq.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What Ican said. I have a friend who was at the Embassy at Saigon. His buddy was on the last helicopter out though they didn't know it at the time. The North Vietamese were believed to be closing in though they actually had more time than they expect--enough time for another wave of helicopters. As they lifted off they could see the brave South Vietnamese firemen in their yellow raincoats still protecting their perimeters. They were supposed to go back for them. Because it was judged too dangerous, they weren't allowed to.
It was maybe the USA's most shameful hour. Do you get it Geli? Or am I still being too obtuse in your judgment?

And no we didn't go to Iraq to stop people from dying. We believed we were going to Iraq to prevent more innocents from dying at the hands of terrorist thugs. When we got there we found even more noble tasks to undertake and we are undertaking them. And it is the belief of our brave men and women over there, and it is my belief that for every life lost many hundreds if not thousands have been saved.

I'm sorry some of you think that is wrong. I don't.

Have you ever heard the term 'baseless rhetoric'?
The people left behind were some firemen in yellow coats and a buddy of a friend.
The people sadam killed with his goons were somehow more dead than the people killed by 70 zillion tons of explosives.
Nam was a just war and we were in some way shameful.Why can't you argue facts? Sorry, forgot you have athing about questions

0 Replies

You don't seem to get it Geli, so I have to assume you just plain don't want to. We had the war won militarily. The North Vietnamese confirmed that long after the fact. But we caved in under pressure from the bleeding heart liberals back home. We left behind people who trusted us to come back for them. We didn't. We left them to be slaughtered, probably via torture. They along with hundreds of thousands of others. Now if you don't see anything wrong with that, there is apparently nothing anyone can say to educate you.

You want us to do the same thing in Iraq. It completely escapes you how many have been saved; are being saved. Maybe you don't care. There is apparently nothing anyone can do to educate those who don't want to know. I just glad that the majority do know.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

... The point is that we could have handled everything differently without adding more deaths to the equation because we were not out of options at the time that George Bush went to war with Iraq.

False! If we didn't invade Iraq, Saddam would have continued to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians each year, and the al Qaeda in Iraq would have grown to the point where they would murder thousands of innocent civilians in democracies throughout the world.

revel wrote:

Moreover, our being there has stirred up terrorist and more people have died in the last two years than they had been dying the previous couple of years.

False! The terrorists were already stirred up and were continuing to be stirred up while we procrastinated our invasion. It's true the terrorists were and are murdering many innocent civilians, but at a rate less than Saddam's past rate.

revel wrote:

They are still dying and we are not anymore closer to getting handle on either the insurgency in Iraq or the terrorist in the Iraq and elsewhere.

False! We have so far substantially reduced terrorism in the US and terrorist murders of Americans elsewhere.

revel wrote:

Other than the elections and capturing saddam hussien we have failed in our objectives.

False! We have not failed in our other objectives. We merely have not yet succeeded in them. Sure, that will take a while. What else is new? Besides, enabling Iraqis to have their first real democratic election, and capturing Saddam Hussein plus many of his cohorts, all within two years, is really not bad for government work.

Revel, hang in there! Show some backbone! Success does not go to the faint of heart; it goes to those who persistent in the face of their many failures along the way.

0 Replies

rofl

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

rofl

edor

0 Replies

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/banana_repug.jpg

0 Replies

My characterization of what the Iraqi people want isn't contradicted, as you contend, by the Iraqi people themselves, ican. One thing is the Shia and Kurds turning out in droves to vote in elections that benefit them, another thing is their opinions about our occupation of their country. You are drawing links between the two that aren't necessarily so.

You left out the main jobs the US has to do in Iraq, ican:

1. Secure and prepare Iraq for our permanent military bases there.

2. Secure control of Iraqi oil interests for US oil companies.

0 Replies

It's interesting that you expect the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce the al Qaeda problem to a manageable level roughly equivalent to containing and then destroying any other organized crime organization. Ironically, the US has forgone that approach. Instead of reducing al Qaeda in Iraq it has increased it. "Al Qaeda" was confined to a manageable, organized-crime level in northern Iraq where our allies, the Kurds, were prepared to deal with them decisively. Through our ham-handed approach, we've spread al Qaeda throughout the country. Our approach guarantees the perpetuation of terrorism over lots and lots of time.

The argument that our presence in Iraq causes an increase in al Qaeda is confirmed by simply looking at the situation there, your illogical simile notwithstanding.

So, our ground invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed more al Qaeda bases (including so-called al Qaeda safe-houses) and exterminated more al Qaeda than did any of our air strikes in those countries. That still doesn't negate the fact that destroying bases, as you have pointed out about Clinton's air strikes, is irrelevant. The ground invasions have exterminated more al Qaeda than did any of our air strikes in those countries. The ground invasion in Iraq has also incited more people to join the al Qaeda cause.

What the steady growth in al Qaeda's terrorism shows is that al Qaeda are recruiting more and more people to take up the cause, that you'd like to see al Qaeda concentrated in one place is irrelevant to this fact. Your desire is a non-sequitur, ican. I'd like to see al Qaeda disappear off of the face of the earth. My desire is a non-sequitur. What I'd like to see is irrelevant to the fact described above.

Your opinions of my assertions are irrelevant, ican. We incite terrorism by ignoring the underlying grievances that incite people to perpetrate terrorism.

I wasn't referring to the "al Qaeda confederation" throughout the world when I said that the terrorists in Iraq are waging what they call a war against democracy because of what they perceive democracy to mean: a proxy government set up by the US, for the US at the expense of Iraqis. It is the probable evolution of that kind of "democracy" in Iraq (think, the Philippines) that incites the terrorism in Iraq, along with our occupation thereof which is but a means to that end, ican. Your argument is yet another non-sequitur. Our occupation in Iraq is inciting terrorism to be perpetrated towards local, nationalistic ends in Iraq.

Without a doubt, the Iraqis terrorizing Iraqi civilians are largely those who fear being dispossessed and disenfranchised by the kind of democracy described above are violently echoing the fears of that portion of Iraqi society that portends to devolve into a civil war, and the US is setting itself up to be right smack dab in the middle of it all.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

2. Secure control of Iraqi oil interests for US oil companies.

What exactly do you mean by this? How are we doing this?

0 Replies

Quote:

WMD expert reopens row about 'sexed-up' dossier
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
16 February 2005

A letter by the head of MI6 allegedly seeking to "sex up" a dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction should be released under the Freedom Of Information Act, the former head of the MoD intelligence branch said last night.

Brian Jones, ex-head of the Defence Intelligence Staff, spoke out after Rod Barton, an Australian member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), reopened the dispute over the "sexing up" of the government dossier on WMD that led to the suicide of David Kelly, another weapons specialist.

Dr Barton, a microbiologist who worked for Australian intelligence for more than 20 years, said John Scarlett, then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, asked for "new elements" to be included in a draft report he was producing on the WMD in Iraq. The head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, refused.

Dr Barton told Australia's ABC TV: "Both Washington and London wanted other things put in to make it - I can only use these words - to make it sexier.

"We left the impression that, yes, maybe there were ... WMD out there. So I thought it was dishonest. Dr Barton, who joined the United Nations' search for Saddam's illicit arsenal in 1991, said the censorship in the US investigation began after Charles Duelfer became the head of the ISG last February.

He claimed Mr Duelfer wanted "a different style of report altogether", which he had discussed with President George Bush and the CIA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=611494
Blair learns to lie through his teeth, and to then attack media (BBC) who carry a different narrative than what he wishes. Pretty disgusting.

0 Replies

Blair seems to get his cues from Bush on what to say and do in any and all situations. Do the British people not resent it?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know