'Islamising' the war ?

[Joe DeFuria]

I did because I was tired yesterday to write something significative, then I wrote this quick sarcastic reply.

But that's not what friends do, right, pascal? You're a miserable failure at diplomacy. Sabastian and I share no responsibility in the matter about how your words are perceived. Perception is reality. There is no excuse for your insulting language. At least, that's what you feel about the Bush adminstration, and "diplomacy" right? Unless, of course, you're just being hypocritical.

So how are things I post propaganda? And the other post are not? Then you are using double standard here. The photos were from guardian, stopwar, BBC and CNN...

First of all, it's not all about the photos. It's about threads like this one where the implications are being made that the U.S. is turning this into "War on Islam" because of how we are "treating" certain nations.

Hello? We have amreican soldiers in Iraq. And we will do what we can to protect them. WHOEVER we feel is aiding and abiding our "enemy" will be called on it.

We pointed out NATIONS. Not MUSLIMS.

Saddam, on the other hand, is calling for Jihad in his last "statement" read by the Information Ministry.

If there is in any way some real "War on Islam", it would be an "Islam war on the U.S."

At the time of this writing, there are Iraqi paramilitary troops in a Mosque in Basra firing at us and we are not firing back. The US and Coalition has said this is not against "Islam", is not against the IRaqi people, and our ACTIONS prove that out.

You should be fuming at those who encourage "Islam" to rise up against the U.S.

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

So, how does harping on casualties of war, when we are well aware of them, further make that point for you? It doesn't.

As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy.

When MUSLIMS DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S. IN THE NAME OF ISLAMIC JIHAD, is it surprising?

See how the Arab and Muslim world internally react to what is happening.

Is it because we declared war on Islam? That hasn't happened last time I checked.

See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Where has world relations deteriorated to any material extent at this point.. I have seen ZERO evidence thus far of anything of the sort. All I've seen is a lot of beurocrats bitching and moaning, misguided "product boycots" that don't mean squat, and the typical leftist "peace protests" that destroy propertry.

What else is new.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly?

I just want you to be non hypocritical in your position, or at least offer an alternative to the war on Iraq. Something more tangible than "let's all be friends!"

The multibillion bribed Turkey is your friend..

Yup...we must bribe people to be our friends. Go it.

but the long old French are not anymore?

Since when HAVE they been any more a friend than they are now?

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that.

And no one is trying to. Though you seem to turn a blind eye to the human tragedy to Iraqis that is inevitible by letting Sadam's regime to continue.

I could have mentioned some disturbing causalities incidents but I didnt, I just posted the picture of an incredbilly poor man.

Again, this is not so much about the pictures you posted, but your continual rhetorical bashing of the U.S.

 

[RussSchultz]

At the time of this writing, there are Iraqi paramilitary troops in a Mosque in Basra firing at us and we are not firing back. The US and Coalition has said this is not against "Islam", is not against the IRaqi people, and our ACTIONS prove that out.

I believe you're talking about the Ali Mosque in Najaf. At the Iraqi press conference, the information minister accused the US of targetting the mosque (Of course the US Brig. Gen. Brooks claimed we did not return fire).

Its apparently one of the most holy Shi-ite sites and the Iraqi regime is attempting to get the Shi-ites to forget about the years of oppression.

Sadly, it will work for some portion of the population.

 

[chavvdarrr]

See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Where has world relations deteriorated to any material extent at this point.. I have seen ZERO evidence thus far of anything of the sort. All I've seen is a lot of beurocrats bitching and moaning, misguided "product boycots" that don't mean squat, and the typical leftist "peace protests" that destroy propertry.

You should wake up.
Russian forums for example are full with people who believe in 10 years USA will try to "instill" US-type of democracy there.
Writing there that not all americans are evil is best way to be called fool or moron.
I admit even before pro-USA people were minority there, but I'm shocked by the anti-US tone there now. Especially by the tone, not of the "anti-" .
Honestly I don't know european country where pro-US moods are more than anti- .
With power USA can rule the world.
With arrogant behaviour USA can't lead .

 

[Gollum]

Its apparently one of the most holy Shi-ite sites and the Iraqi regime is attempting to get the Shi-ites to forget about the years of oppression.

Sadly, it will work for some portion of the population.

I don't think they will forget the years of opression, just don't expect them to run to the coalition forces with open arms. Why? Because they also didn't forget that the coalition of the first gulf war refused to help them when they revolted against Saddam, causing them to get slaughtered by his republican guard in the long run. We didn't help them back then so they are still doubtfull, I personally don't blame them...

 

[Sabastian]

You should wake up.
Russian forums for example are full with people who believe in 10 years USA will try to "instill" US-type of democracy there.
Writing there that not all americans are evil is best way to be called fool or moron.
I admit even before pro-USA people were minority there, but I'm shocked by the anti-US tone there now. Especially by the tone, not of the "anti-" .
Honestly I don't know european country where pro-US moods are more than anti- .
With power USA can rule the world.
With arrogant behaviour USA can't lead .

In 10 years? That is ridiculous. Further I saw one pole out of Russia that found that the vast majority of the people in Russia believe the US is trying to take over the world.... an even more preposterous conclusion. Just speaks volumes of the ignorance that seems to be prevailing. I don't recall massive protest against the Russian slaughter house in Chechnia.

More left wing hypocrisy. The only focus of their politic is the US and it is pathetic. Never mind the US is a far more just country then most any other in the world. I am not shocked by the anti-US tone, it has always been there to a degree. The left wing organized protest against the war effort in Iraq is pathetic and it ignores the injustices done to the Iraqi people by Saddam and his regime.

The countries of France, Germany, Russia and China are not concerned with the people of Iraq and all this anti war protest is more about the spread of Capitalism, Democracy and the fall of yet another Socialist government that Saddams Baath party was.

The US and UK are doing a fine job in Iraq and soon all this protest will fade to shame. Shame in that they were defending Saddam and his regime. Shame in that the people of Iraq will be better off under a new democratic government. Shame that the UK and US did the right thing. Shame in that the UN was attempting to salvage Saddam and his regime and preferred the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country of Iraq. When the US and the UK bring out all the facts on just how brutal the old Iraqi government really was. The fact that Saddam was harbouring terrorist training camps and preaching hate towards the US. The production and use of chemical weapons ....... on and on. If their is not shame then it will be because the left wing protestors cannot see past their bias and shallow thinking.

There will be only one conclusion IMO that in the end and that is that the US and UK absolutely did the right thing in removing the Saddam regime and that all the opposition to the removal was not based on concern for the well being of the Iraqi people but of less then altruistic motives. There will be some revelations come the end of Saddams government and I believe that they will be very positive with regards to the US and UK removal of the old Iraqi government.

On the matter of the US ruling the world... just where the hell does that come from? The only organization that I see trying to rule the world in the UN. Further on the matter of leading.. the US and UK have shown great leadership in the face of adversity here this is a marked characteristic of leaders.

 

[pascal]

I did because I was tired yesterday to write something significative, then I wrote this quick sarcastic reply.

But that's not what friends do, right, pascal? You're a miserable failure at diplomacy. Sabastian and I share no responsibility in the matter about how your words are perceived. Perception is reality. There is no excuse for your insulting language. At least, that's what you feel about the Bush adminstration, and "diplomacy" right? Unless, of course, you're just being hypocritical.

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

Again you are making a storm in a cup of water. I was sarcastic and I have already asked his apology, then I am not contradicting myself.

I really disagree with his view of the world. Hypocrisy would be close my eyes or simple agree with you and pretend everything is fine.

So how are things I post propaganda? And the other post are not? Then you are using double standard here. The photos were from guardian, stopwar, BBC and CNN...

First of all, it's not all about the photos. It's about threads like this one where the implications are being made that the U.S. is turning this into "War on Islam" because of how we are "treating" certain nations.

The treating is a fact. The result is further radicalization and more hate and exploitation by the others.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war? The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Hello? We have amreican soldiers in Iraq. And we will do what we can to protect them. WHOEVER we feel is aiding and abiding our "enemy" will be called on it.

We pointed out NATIONS. Not MUSLIMS.

Saddam, on the other hand, is calling for Jihad in his last "statement" read by the Information Ministry.

If there is in any way some real "War on Islam", it would be an "Islam war on the U.S."

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?
Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

At the time of this writing, there are Iraqi paramilitary troops in a Mosque in Basra firing at us and we are not firing back. The US and Coalition has said this is not against "Islam", is not against the IRaqi people, and our ACTIONS prove that out.

You should be fuming at those who encourage "Islam" to rise up against the U.S.

What is fuming? Anyway are not US actions treating some islam countries? Are you surprised by their reaction?

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

So, how does harping on casualties of war, when we are well aware of them, further make that point for you? It doesn't.

What is harping? Where did I have done that with casualities of war? IIRC I complained about 100 deads in one night and one hospital. Is this harping or whatever?

As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy.

When MUSLIMS DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S. IN THE NAME OF ISLAMIC JIHAD, is it surprising?

Then, do you believe the same thing?

See how the Arab and Muslim world internally react to what is happening.

Is it because we declared war on Islam? That hasn't happened last time I checked.

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Where has world relations deteriorated to any material extent at this point.. I have seen ZERO evidence thus far of anything of the sort. All I've seen is a lot of beurocrats bitching and moaning, misguided "product boycots" that don't mean squat, and the typical leftist "peace protests" that destroy propertry.

What else is new.

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly?

I just want you to be non hypocritical in your position, or at least offer an alternative to the war on Iraq. Something more tangible than "let's all be friends!"

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.
The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means. IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

The multibillion bribed Turkey is your friend..

Yup...we must bribe people to be our friends. Go it.

Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

but the long old French are not anymore?

Since when HAVE they been any more a friend than they are now?

What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that.

And no one is trying to. Though you seem to turn a blind eye to the human tragedy to Iraqis that is inevitible by letting Sadam's regime to continue.

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

I could have mentioned some disturbing causalities incidents but I didnt, I just posted the picture of an incredbilly poor man.

Again, this is not so much about the pictures you posted, but your continual rhetorical bashing of the U.S.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

 

[Sabastian]

Pascal I am still very much waiting for a response to my questions. Frends don't ignore one another. Oh wait, I understand now you ignore the questions just like you ignore the acts of Saddam and his regime and only focus on the actions of the US to find the devil.

Anyhow my post is here. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=100497&highlight=#100497

I expect some good answers to the questions frend.

 

[Gollum]

In 10 years? That is ridiculous. Further I saw one pole out of Russia that found that the vast majority of the people in Russia believe the US is trying to take over the world.... an even more preposterous conclusion. Just speaks volumes of the ignorance that seems to be prevailing. I don't recall massive protest against the Russian slaughter house in Chechnia.

Chechenia is a very different situation than Iraq and you can't compare the two even remotely. Only the most glaring difference: one is the military invasion/occupation of a foreign souvereign country, the other is military intervention against rebel factions and terrorists on your own territory. What is going on in Chechenia is maybe comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but even then you need to be simplyfying both situations to draw a direct comparison.

More left wing hypocrisy. The only focus of their politic is the US and it is pathetic. Never mind the US is a far more just country then most any other in the world. I am not shocked by the anti-US tone, it has always been there to a degree. The left wing organized protest against the war effort in Iraq is pathetic and it ignores the injustices done to the Iraqi people by Saddam and his regime.

Pfff, LOL! Sorry, but just what do you think you know about Russian politics dude? Maybe you should spend less time being shocked about the opinions of others and more time trying to understand where those opinions come from? That's really the whole problem here, a lack of empathy towards the feelings of people elsewhere in the world. Oh my, why don't they like us? But we're such nice guys, what's there not to love about us? Dang, must they be ignorant fools, I am shocked!

The countries of France, Germany, Russia and China are not concerned with the people of Iraq and all this anti war protest is more about the spread of Capitalism, Democracy and the fall of yet another Socialist government that Saddams Baath party was.

Now stop right there, you just managed to insult like 1.5 billion people in one sentence, that's quite an accomplishment! If that doesn't go down as "most offensive comment this year yet" on these boards then I don't know what will! Its so easy to just throw all people and countries that are against this war into one bowl and make up some negative things about them to feel and say, yes? Much easier than spending any effort thinking about that there might be some very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US. Only a little while ago and in some cases for dozens of years, several of these these countries have pretty much completely backed the US policy. Did you ever stop to think that yes, there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why suddenly they disagree this time? And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas. If that is what you need to think to keep yourself happy then be free to do so, just spare the rest of us with it as you're beeing insulting.

The US and UK are doing a fine job in Iraq and soon all this protest will fade to shame. Shame in that they were defending Saddam and his regime.

Shame that you don't understand that protesting this war does NOT equal defeninding Saddam's regime, thank you very much Sir!

Shame in that the people of Iraq will be better off under a new democratic government. Shame that the UK and US did the right thing. Shame in that the UN was attempting to salvage Saddam and his regime and preferred the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country of Iraq.

Shame that the oil for food program was one of the few postive actions initiated over the past decade, I guess what you mean are the other sanctions, those and Saddam impoverished the country, you find me in full agreement with that.

When the US and the UK bring out all the facts on just how brutal the old Iraqi government really was. The fact that Saddam was harbouring terrorist training camps and preaching hate towards the US. The production and use of chemical weapons ....... on and on. If their is not shame then it will be because the left wing protestors cannot see past their bias and shallow thinking.

I think we all know what a brutal regime Saddam had, we don't need to "expose" that first. If anobody needs to feel ashamed of anything, then its France and the US, who have for a very long time worked together with Saddam, providing him with both military equipment and resources for the creation of biological and chemical weapons for decades! Hipocrisy seems to be a popular word these days, IMO it his hipocrisy to sell WDM to Saddam or help him produce them and then complain he is in posession of them. It is hipocrisy to not say anything against him using them against the people of Iran and his own, as long as it was still in the interest of the US during the late 80ies. I could go on with this list, but you can find out about all that if you spend some time reading about the Iran/Iraq and Gulf War. No conspiracy theories involved, just plain and simple facts...

There will be only one conclusion IMO that in the end and that is that the US and UK absolutely did the right thing in removing the Saddam regime and that all the opposition to the removal was not based on concern for the well being of the Iraqi people but of less then altruistic motives. There will be some revelations come the end of Saddams government and I believe that they will be very positive with regards to the US and UK removal of the old Iraqi government.

Removing the Saddam regime is an entirely good thing, I think that despite your thinking otherwise, you will find few people who will disagree with that. The time, circumstances and means of doing so are an entirely different matter though, and worth of debate...

 

[pascal]

Sorry Sabastian

Just Joe response got a lot of precious time.

The reason I made my comments is because I precieved hypocrisy in your constant critique of the coalition action in Iraq. I am not wrong with that preception AFAICT.

How do you know you are not wrong? Yes critique in a open forum the existence of this war the way is has been done. I critique the possibility of send people to Guatanamo Bay without proper trial. I critique the actions that may contribute to the possible Islamizing of the war. I ask the world concerns about the future US actions.

What is wrong with that Sabastian? Is this a free world or not? Or this "liberation" talk is just pure talk?

Nice rebuttal, how insightful. I would like to pick a little harder here. If this is the case then if they are not morally equivalent then how, may I ask, are they different? Meaning which is worse in your judgement? Are the protestors justified in their support of the Saddam regime? If so why is it that Iraq is better off with Saddam in control rather then the coalition?

If you don't draw a moral equivalence then in your opinion whom is the better choice for the Iraqi people, the coalition and a new government or the continuance of Saddams socialist Baath party?

Which protestors are really supportting Sadam? They are against the war which is different.

Also you excluded a third possibility that was possible before the war started. IMHO now we have gone after the return point. Now I am concerned with the development of the war.

Yes you are saying things with your picture and comments about liberation. It is antagonistic. Now I want to know why it is that you think that I am the one who needs "hope" when you are the one whom is convently forgetting the massive incursions on the people of Iraq by Saddam..

I stated a fact with the picture "Man with all his family killed", this you cannot deny. The picture IMHO is very touching and show part of the war that we should not hide below the carpet. Then you come with a sarcastic comment about the poor man.

Hypocrisy is saying you are going there to liberate Iraq.

How so? While they are liberating the people of Iraq they are also acheiving other objectives. To say that this is the only reason is hypocrisy. I nore have anyone else made such a claim. Hypocrisy is to defend Saddam and his oppressive regime over the coalition even though he is a far worse destiny for the people of Iraq.

Again, nobody is defending Sadam. IIRC US has gone to disarm Iraq from WMD.

Hypocrisy is say that all possible peacefull means were used to disarm him.

This is not hypocrisy. While they have let Iraq get away with throwing the UN inspectors out of Iraq multiple times and mislead the inspectors for 12 years no less it is not hypocritical to say that all possible peaceful diplomatic means, that actually had a chance of working, were actually exhausted. AFAIK there has never been such an exception ever. Saddam would just keep playing his games in order to stay in power till the day he died. Further the removal of such a bad government and its military is a great thing. There are plenty of good arguments for his removal and very few good arguments to salvage the SOB.

This is not what UN, its inspectors and many countries around the world think. Dont mix the morality of depose Sadam to the morality of preemptive war in an unstable region of the world.

Hypocrisy is say "Poor sole..... " for the human tragedy.

I don't understand. The real human tragedy was to let him rule for so long and terrorize his own country with torture, chemical weapons terroristic death squads. That is the real human tragedy that you and the people whom are protesting the war should be worried about. Not the US and UK taking action and this BTW is where you are hypocritical. Type it out " the US and the UK are doing a good thing by removing Saddam and his regime".... then expalian why they are doing the right thing and you bloody well know it. What is even more shameful is that the UN lead by France, Germany, Russia and China was perfectly willing to let the dictator continue his rule and favor yet the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country.

IMHO you was sarcastic when you made your comments. Long term Embargo can also be seen as favouring human tragedy.
Nobody was willing to let the dictator continue to rule, but US imposed the war to the world.

Hypocrisy is other things...

Hypocrisy is defending an unjust government such as Saddams regime is over something that will clearly be a better thing for the Iraqi people simply because the US is involved. That is hypocrisy.

Again, again, again and again. Nobody is defending this asshole.
Just STOP trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Sabastian]

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

Again you are making a storm in a cup of water. I was sarcastic and I have already asked his apology, then I am not contradicting myself.

I really disagree with his view of the world. Hypocrisy would be close my eyes or simple agree with you and pretend everything is fine.

No you are right. You are nothing but a drop in the bucket. I won't apologize because you are being hypocritical overall with your efforts to find the devil in every US activity.

Just where do you disagree exactly? Maybe we can hash this out. Give me some more evidence that my views are absolutely incorrect. Give me some real arguments as of yet you have not done so.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war? The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Well the Jihad against the US has been on for years now. Islam has adopted more and more hatred of the US based on religious rhetoric. The attack on the World Trade Center amongst numerous other US targets outside of the US over the past 20 or so years now could be seen as the real preemptive war. Terrorism and the mentalities that support it ought to be stood up too. The only destabilization that is being perpetuated is happening in the Arab countries by their governments and radical movements such as Jihad. Hrm, I don't think Joe could be on topic any better really.

Saddam, on the other hand, is calling for Jihad in his last "statement" read by the Information Ministry.

If there is in any way some real "War on Islam", it would be an "Islam war on the U.S."

Exactly.

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?
Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?.

You should be fuming at those who encourage "Islam" to rise up against the U.S.

What is fuming? Anyway are not US actions treating some islam countries? Are you surprised by their reaction?

Well it is the Islamic Jihad that has declared war on the US AFAIK the US has never nor would ever declare a war on a religion. lol what happened to the left wing desperation to separate religion and state... oh that must have only been for the Christians. More left wing hypocrisy. From what I have seen the west not standing up to the Islamic Jihad has only created a sense that what the Islamic Jihad stands for is right. There is very little in the way of internal critisism from withing Islam about the motives of the Jihad or if it is wrong. Opposition to the brainwashing that the Jihad requires is needed at this point. It must be shut down somehow because it is wrong. It is Islam that must do some sole searching at this point.

As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy.

When MUSLIMS DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S. IN THE NAME OF ISLAMIC JIHAD, is it surprising?

No, not from what I have learned of their movement. It is a particularly violent movement that teaches its followers to become suicide bombers and hate Americans and westerners in general. They are upset about the plight of their Islamic countries less then favorable position in the world and are jealous of the west and their success. The movement is responsible for planning and attacking America via terroristic implements. America should defend itself against this terrorism to do otherwise only gives them the impression that their actions are justifiable.

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

Here ... while Iraq was reputed as being a secular state now because they are an Arab state this is some sort of war on Islam? Or terrorism? Both? Oh I see now... it is a war on a race. It has little to do with race, unless of course the Arab nation makes it one. So the Arabs are the racists? Hrm, you defend the dictator found in Saddam, you defend the mix of religion and state for Islam, you defend racism, by defending Islam BTW you defend the subordination of women on mass in the Islamic culture. You defend terrorism by perpetuating your anti American bias. You defend hate mongering by the Islamic Jihad. Your a hypocrite.

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

No you are wrong these protest are organized by the left on a massive scale. They are loosely associated but they were able to stage demonstrations simultaneously accrossed Europe. The protest are predominantly left wingers and it is obvious that they are not interested in the well being of the Iraqi people but rather attacking the US lead action. Their were no massive protest to the war in Chechnia and the slaughter there was far more brutal there with the Russian military attacking the civilian population heavily...... funny that? more hypocrisy.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly?

I would like to see better rational for your anti US bias overall.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

Sometimes the truth is more hurtful I guess. Your view of the US is hypocritical thats all.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means. IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

The alternative to war has been effective for the past 12 years no less. France with its insistence that the threat of war not be used to disarm Saddams regime would simply see the continuance but this would have went on and on until the UN gave up.

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that.

It was so because Saddam was not going to give up his weapons of mass destruction. It was so because they train terrorist in Iraq. It was because Saddam refused to step down as their leader. It was because the Iraqi people should be liberated from his horrible rule. There are plenty of reasons why the war was necessary. The real human tragedy come from the fact that him and his Socialist Baath party had ruend the lives of millions and if he was still in power in that country it possibly would have been millions more. Again I will add that the UN supported his regime and the oil for food bartering program that did nothing for the country but impoverish the people.

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

While the war is not over it will be interesting to see just how much collateral damage was actually inflicted by the coalition military action and just how much was committed by the Baath party regime. There is far more evidence to suggest that collateral damage to the country was already in place with Saddam as the countries ruler with the third world impoverishment of its people and the massive deaths of children under his rule to the tune of 500 000 over the past decade.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

The disagreement is more then simply a disagreement. It is about the truth and what is the right thing to do. That is why there is a problem. My problem is that I believe very much so that the coalition is doing the right thing and it is based on a variety of reasons while yours seems to be based on pacifism and left wing political agenda of which I think is inherently wrong and flawed. The hypocrisy is real.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

There, you are wrong.

Because you, and everyone else who makes implications about motives and agendas of, me, the president, etc., is exactly affecting their perception.

The treating is a fact.

No, "treatment" is by definition a subjective term. And this is your problem. You treat subjective things as facts.

The FACTS are simply what was said. How this is interpreted as some poor or disrespectful "treatment" is subjective.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war?

So, you are saying this is a pre-emptive war against Islam?

Is there ANY justification for that type or argument? Or fo you think that if "it happens", it's actually because of "Islam" doing things like you are doing: making implications that and wrong conclusions about what this war is about, and who it's against.

The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Sure, anything's possible. Topic closed then?

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?

Yes, you are a diplomacy failure.

If you can't understand LOUD AND CLEAR that I don't care WHO YOU ARE...MUSLIM, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ETC. If you are aiding the Iraqi resistance in any way, we don't like it, because our troops are out there!

If Muslims take that as a personal affront to ISLAM, then they have a problem.

If it's RADICALS that you are concerned with....then your suggestion then is to what? Not make relevant statements because we are afraid of them? You mean, give credibility to their terroristic ways and threats?

Sorry, I don't want to live like that.

To be clear. I'd RATHER live with some "threat" of terrorism, than to have those terroristic threats influence what we think is right.

Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

That's the way you make it sound...that's what Saddam wants too.

Then, do you believe the same thing?

I believe that the RADICALS are trying to MAKE THIS A WAR OF ISLAM. Despite our efforts and actions to the contrary. Whether or not it will be of any serious consequence beyond protests in the street remains to be seen.

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

No, it's it because it is perceived as such a war by arab radicals, and then propagandized to the arab masses that way.

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

Point?

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Yeah, and as time passes we might actually get a "thank you" too depending on how the war goes, what is found out, etc.

Anything is possible.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

It should be.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means.

What alternative?!

IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

Pascal, you continually fail to appreciate this as an issue of our nation's soverign right to defend itself, vs. going along with "international consesus."

It is a valid argument that has two sides to it.

We simply feel that while there ARE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES by going to war without UN Approval, those risks are outweighed by the risks of not going.

I wish you would acknowledge that we ARE AWARE of possible negative conseqences, "strained relations" (whatever that means in material terms), etc. We just see it as better than the alternative, which is letting Sadam go on with business as usual.

Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.

What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

I mean what exactly has changed between us and the French in terms of our relationship?

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

Sigh. NO ONE IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ANYTHING.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

No, agreement is not a prerequisite to being my friend or not. However, misrepresenting my views is a sure way to not become my friend.

 

[Sabastian]

Chechenia is a very different situation than Iraq and you can't compare the two even remotely. Only the most glaring difference: one is the military invasion/occupation of a foreign souvereign country, the other is military intervention against rebel factions and terrorists on your own territory. What is going on in Chechenia is maybe comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but even then you need to be simplyfying both situations to draw a direct comparison.

I am not comparing the two wars directly. What I am saying is that there were not massively organized pacifist protest to the slaughter in Chechnia and to protest the US action based on pacifism is hypocrisy.

Pfff, LOL! Sorry, but just what do you think you know about Russian politics dude? Maybe you should spend less time being shocked about the opinions of others and more time trying to understand where those opinions come from? That's really the whole problem here, a lack of empathy towards the feelings of people elsewhere in the world. Oh my, why don't they like us? But we're such nice guys, what's there not to love about us? Dang, must they be ignorant fools, I am shocked!

Hey "dude" that portion of my post was not necessarily an analysis of Russian politics. It was however an implication of left wing hypocrisy.

Now stop right there, you just managed to insult like 1.5 billion people in one sentence, that's quite an accomplishment! If that doesn't go down as "most offensive comment this year yet" on these boards then I don't know what will! Its so easy to just throw all people and countries that are against this war into one bowl and make up some negative things about them to feel and say, yes? Much easier than spending any effort thinking about that there might be some very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US. Only a little while ago and in some cases for dozens of years, several of these these countries have pretty much completely backed the US policy. Did you ever stop to think that yes, there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why suddenly they disagree this time? And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas. If that is what you need to think to keep yourself happy then be free to do so, just spare the rest of us with it as you're beeing insulting.

The implication was directed at the governments not the people directly. You ought to get a little sharper with your reading comprehension. To dismiss the vast incursions of significant others and to focus on the US is hypocritical. The fact that they supported US military action before shows that it is not a matter of concern for life but rather that this time they have something to loose. If you think for a second that the states opposing the military action in Iraq are doing so because of altruistic concern for the well being of the Iraqi people you are fooling yourself.

Shame that you don't understand that protesting this war does NOT equal defeninding Saddam's regime, thank you very much Sir!

Nice rebuttal.. I would like for you to explain just how it is not. Since there would be no removal of his regime without this action. That is ... a very bad argument you got going there. Lets hope this reply causes you to be more ... thoughtful with you next reply.

Shame that the oil for food program was one of the few postive actions initiated over the past decade, I guess what you mean are the other sanctions, those and Saddam impoverished the country, you find me in full agreement with that.

Shame on how you don't realize that the oil for food program is in place only because of Saddams control of the country as a part of the UN embargo. Shame that you don't realize that it is a total rip off of the Iraqi people.

I think we all know what a brutal regime Saddam had, we don't need to "expose" that first. If anobody needs to feel ashamed of anything, then its France and the US, who have for a very long time worked together with Saddam, providing him with both military equipment and resources for the creation of biological and chemical weapons for decades! Hipocrisy seems to be a popular word these days, IMO it his hipocrisy to sell WDM to Saddam or help him produce them and then complain he is in posession of them. It is hipocrisy to not say anything against him using them against the people of Iran and his own, as long as it was still in the interest of the US during the late 80ies. I could go on with this list, but you can find out about all that if you spend some time reading about the Iran/Iraq and Gulf War. No conspiracy theories involved, just plain and simple facts...

While I would agree that we do know that his regime was brutal I think that the coalition will uncover much more... soon hence my supposition that we will find out how bad it was in the immediate future. While the US did supply these weapons at one time to help them with Iran whom was constantly threatening the US.(Once taking a mass of hostages.) The US did not compel them to do so later. Further I would suggest to you that this is why the US knows how much that the Iraqi government is hiding from the UN weapons inspectors. Certainly it seems fitting that the US be responsible for putting their once upon a time Frankenstein to rest. Obviously the US no longer supports the Saddam regime and has not for well over a decade.

Removing the Saddam regime is an entirely good thing, I think that despite your thinking otherwise, you will find few people who will disagree with that. The time, circumstances and means of doing so are an entirely different matter though, and worth of debate...

My sakes ..... thanks for that.

 

[pascal]

And I am not responsible about how you, Sabastian or your president is perceived around the world.

There, you are wrong.

Because you, and everyone else who makes implications about motives and agendas of, me, the president, etc., is exactly affecting their perception.

Wrong, I have NEVER questioned your motives or agenda.
I have questioned US administration´s agenda and I have discussed some possible reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, did I started the preemptive war?

The treating is a fact.

No, "treatment" is by definition a subjective term. And this is your problem. You treat subjective things as facts.

The FACTS are simply what was said. How this is interpreted as some poor or disrespectful "treatment" is subjective.

Sorry I mean a threat. Lets call it a warning, and that really happened and evrybody is concerned of what will happens next.

I am NOT implying that US is conciouslly turning this into "WAR on Islam", but will it happens with this kind internationally not accepted preemptive war?

So, you are saying this is a pre-emptive war against Islam?

Is there ANY justification for that type or argument? Or fo you think that if "it happens", it's actually because of "Islam" doing things like you are doing: making implications that and wrong conclusions about what this war is about, and who it's against.

Again, I am not implying anything. What US and the Islam world perceive or mutually understand is not my problem, as I see it is an undesirable scallation of mutual ofense, disagreement and hate. The final result is something that everyone should be concerned around the world, then I really worry about. Blindlly negate the scallation of hate and its effects is naive.

All this hate is the fuel of terrorism.

The fact is further desestabilization of the Arab and Islam world is possible and this thread is about it. Stay on topic.

Sure, anything's possible. Topic closed then?

Why, do you want to close the topic? Nobody can discuss it here?

Anyway the treat happened loud and clear to EVERYBODY listen to it. Dont you think it is a fuel to the radical side of Islam. And you call me a diplomacy failure?

Yes, you are a diplomacy failure.

If you can't understand LOUD AND CLEAR that I don't care WHO YOU ARE...MUSLIM, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ETC. If you are aiding the Iraqi resistance in any way, we don't like it, because our troops are out there!

If Muslims take that as a personal affront to ISLAM, then they have a problem.

If it's RADICALS that you are concerned with....then your suggestion then is to what? Not make relevant statements because we are afraid of them? You mean, give credibility to their terroristic ways and threats?

Sorry, I don't want to live like that.

To be clear. I'd RATHER live with some "threat" of terrorism, than to have those terroristic threats influence what we think is right.

Thanks for your compliment. This is your choice. Give your support to whatever you believe. I simply cant believe that continually threat other countries will solve anything in the long term but cause more problems.

Do you really believe that the 1.2 billion Islam people around the world is on war against US?

That's the way you make it sound...that's what Saddam wants too.

No, I am not making it sound anything.

Then, do you believe the same thing?

I believe that the RADICALS are trying to MAKE THIS A WAR OF ISLAM. Despite our efforts and actions to the contrary. Whether or not it will be of any serious consequence beyond protests in the street remains to be seen.

And you dont believe you are giving than more fuel to burn?

It is because of what is perceived as war on arab countries.

No, it's it because it is perceived as such a war by arab radicals, and then propagandized to the arab masses that way.

And this war is not given than any fuel or incentive?

First not all peace protests are leftist. Second not all protests destroy properties. We have seen large (almost 1 million) protest in London with full civil order.

Point?

Point is correct some perception. Someone stated that civil disorder and lefitism is a caracteristic of the protests which is a wrong perception.

The product boycot and bureocrat moaning may go more than that as time pass. The fact that Russia will rethink its security is enough to see how things deteriorated.

Yeah, and as time passes we might actually get a "thank you" too depending on how the war goes, what is found out, etc.

Anything is possible.

Yes, anything is possible.

On the other hand the insistent and personal use of the word "hypocrit" is anoying, insulting and ofensive.

It should be.

No I am not hypocrit, and I see no point to continue to discuss with someone who explicity intention is ofend in a personal level.

The alternative was open some time ago but US refused to use it, in fact it may have sabotaged any peacefull means.

What alternative?!

The UN alternative of disarming him and some previous international work.

IMHO even if in the end the war were a "must do" than with international consensus it could have been done with less trouble and less colateral damage.

Pascal, you continually fail to appreciate this as an issue of our nation's soverign right to defend itself, vs. going along with "international consesus."

It is a valid argument that has two sides to it.

We simply feel that while there ARE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES by going to war without UN Approval, those risks are outweighed by the risks of not going.

I wish you would acknowledge that we ARE AWARE of possible negative conseqences, "strained relations" (whatever that means in material terms), etc. We just see it as better than the alternative, which is letting Sadam go on with business as usual.

I acknowledge that you are aware of what can happen, then IMHO it makes things worse.

Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.

You can call it whatever you want.

What do mean by that? It is not the same as "since when have they been less friend than before".

I mean what exactly has changed between us and the French in terms of our relationship?

See the French pool about the war. See has some radicals in both sides are just making mutual ofense.

And you turn blind in the way US imposed it to be done and all its colateral damage.

Sigh. NO ONE IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ANYTHING.

This is not rethorical bashing, this is just discussion of what is happening right now in the world and US is unfortunatelly involved. We disagree and that is all, but to be your friend the prerequisite is to agree. Sorry but I cannot do that.

No, agreement is not a prerequisite to being my friend or not. However, misrepresenting my views is a sure way to not become my friend.

What your views have I misrepresented?
Joe, I really dont wish to turn this in some endless discussion.
Again I see no point continue it any further.
I will continue to expose opinions and concerns.

 

[pascal]

Now come the British with some damage control (one more guardian link )http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,928010,00.html

Straw: UK will not attack Syria or Iran

 

[pascal]

More about the threats (guardian again): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927660,00.html

Widening regional destabilisation was one of the reasons why so many people and nations opposed this foolish war. By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly. The Iraqi regime must be delighted. It is already doing its level best to portray the conflict as one between the entire Arab "nation" and the US, between Islam and the west, between the righteous and the "Zionists". Its call for Arab volunteers appears to be having some success. Its resort to suicide bombings, or "martyrdom operations", creates an entirely deliberate, emotive association with the Palestinian intifada.

This is what I call giving fuel to the enemy.

 

[Silent_One]

pascal wrote:

Joe DeFuria wrote:

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

So, how does harping on casualties of war, when we are well aware of them, further make that point for you? It doesn't.

What is harping? Where did I have done that with casualities of war? IIRC I complained about 100 deads in one night and one hospital. Is this harping or whatever?

Harping: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97507&highlight=#97507

Yeah people are going to the shoping, movies, theather, etc...
Nothing is happening, just a mass bombing

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97482&highlight=#97482

The action taken by other countries will depend on the civilians casualities which IMHO is high now with all this bombing.

100 is not high.

In one night, one hospital?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93652&highlight=#93652

I am thinking about a mad and worst scenario when Sadam forces may use human shield or some part of the population as hostage or people trapped by the situation. I really worry about the urban side because it could be extremelly bloody.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93652&highlight=#93652

Many innocent people (and many are really innocent people) will die from both sides specially Iraq. If we can avoid it then we should.

- The innocent people that will suffer and die during this war

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4774&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

We are really advancing, killing lots of people with a preemptive war. Maybe ethical groups erradication could be good thing, right?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93628&highlight=#93628

I worry about that too. Think about a hostage situation but in a much, much larger scalle in an urban area.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42412&highlight=#42412

the war is not big deal. Just:
- spend 40 billions dolars
- shake the entire international finance community
- kill many americans
- kill much more iraquians
- risk the midle east´s stability

Is not much better try some inspections first?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34944&highlight=#34944

Continue to spread the misconception that a new crusade to free the entire world has to be done costing multibillions dolars directlly (plus many indirect international economic and finance costs), many americans lifes, much more Iraquians lifes and risk the middleast stability. Maybe do it again every 10 years

 

[pascal]

Harping: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on.

Me tedious?

I talked two times about the real casualities of the war. The rest were about possibilities and part of a context.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly.

Pascal,

FOR ONCE. Instead of assuming the portrayal of things as "provocative threats" is a valid and right one, "because the guardian says it, so it must be true"....

Did you ever actually hear the statements that are being talked about, in their full context?

This is your major problem, and why you are accused of being a propaganda agent.

Here's a thought: Instead of getting your news from a 2nd hand source...why not actually listen to the people making the comments, and in the context they are being made. Instead of always reading through a propaganda filter as if it is a first hand source.

 

[pascal]

This is your major problem, and why you are accused of being a propaganda agent.

Me a proganda agent? You must be out of your mind and are going to far. I can say the same of you.

Filter the article and start to search some related info. The guardian is a good place to start fast find some information. No see what I highlighted.

See another link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2902943.stm

He made specific demands. "Syria faces a critical choice," he said.

"(It) can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein or it can embark on a different and more helpful course."

And his message to Iran went further. Not only did he say that "Iran (must) end its support for terrorism", but he added: "Tehran must stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them."

By "terrorist groups", Mr Powell means the Lebanese Hizbollah and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

His comments followed warnings from the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said last Friday that military equipment including night-vision goggles had been getting to Iraq from Syria, and that the Syrian Government would be held "accountable for such shipments." Syria has denied any responsibility.

Mr Rumsfeld also told Iran that Iranian trained Shia fighters opposed to Saddam Hussein, some of whom have entered Iraq, would be treated as "combatants" if they posed a threat to US forces.

So there is no doubt of the concerted nature of the American statements.

Is this specific enough for you?
edited: now see more the British position http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2908839.stm

 

[Silent_One]

Joe DeFuria wrote:

Quote:
Why, didnt you payed them? Is not the Turkey public opinion against the war (about 90%)?

We are offering to pay them, as we should. Any time a nation lends us it's resources, and puts ITSELF at some risk be allowing us to use it's land, etc., they should EXPECT something in return, and the U.S. was willing, and should be willing, to pay for the risks we are asking them to take.

That's not a BRIBE. That's common sense.

You can call it whatever you want.

Pascal,
You do realize that the French did the same thing when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin began a three-day tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- the three African members of the U.N. Security Council to persuade them not to vote in favor of the US position at the UN? You do realize that this form of diplomacy has been going on for centuries, that it's not uncommon. Why is it that some people act as if the US alone in this practice? Why no condemnation of other countries? Joe is correct. This is how the world works