Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Mentally disabled women used to kill in Iraq
Topic Started: Feb 1 2008, 01:41 PM (636 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
ImpulseEngine
Feb 5 2008, 04:39 AM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 07:35 PM
I completely disagree , had the USA not invaded Iraq in the first place, then Iraq would not NOW be the problem it is now, and al Quaeda would not be there.

In fact , the middle east would now be a very much more stable region.

Let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that you are right about the above quote (and I'm not agreeing that you are).

Even so, below doesn't follow:

Quote:
 


So the fact the al Quaeda s now using suciide bombers , and also in the latest case , shanghying intellectually disabled peoiple to be bomb vest carriers (and essentially murdering them when they the bombs they are unwittenly wearing are remotely detonated) still does not take the ultimate blame away from the USA.

al Quaeda is there because the USA is there .... that is FACT.
al Quaeda was not active in Iraq before the invasion ... FACT.

Here are some real facts:
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use suicide bombers.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use mentally disabled people.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose detonate the bombs.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to murder/injure those who died/were injured from the bombs.
FACT: As such, the ULTIMATE blame (as you put it) rests with al Qaeda, even IF you can pin any indirect responsibility on the US (and I'm not saying you can).

The logic you are trying to use is like blaming someone who left their door unlocked for their house being robbed. While the homeowner certainly didn't do a good job of protecting their house, they are certainly not responsible - the thief is. And, more accurately, your logic is more like guessing the homeowner left the door unlocked without verifying it first and then blaming the homeowner anyway.

Fact is that al Quaeda are in Iraq because Bush Jr dropped the ball in Afganistan and instead of finishing off al Quaeda there , he did a very stupid thing and let them regroup , retrain and worse, gave them the perfect venue and excuse to recruit and train and perfect their methods by creating a failed state where before there was a stable and stromgly governed state (Iraq) by preemptively going to war against Iraq on ficticious pretenses.

Ultimately the blame for the people killed by terrorists in Iraq is squarely the USA's , since the USA's actions are the reason they are there and the USA gave them the reason for being there.

None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law to invade Iraq and simultaneously NOT FINISNING THE JOB (that they actually had strong international support for) of demolishing al Quaeda in Afganistan when they had the opportunity.

Consequently , rather than becoming a spent force , al Quaeda is stromger and more lethal than ever and now they have had over 3 years to perfect their methods and to train.

And rather than making the world a safer place, it has become more dangerous and more unstable than it has been for decades.

Well done Mr Bush (and his mob). :doh:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM
Fact is that al Quaeda are in Iraq because Bush Jr dropped the ball in Afganistan and instead of finishing off al Quaeda there , he did a very stupid thing and let them regroup , retrain and worse, gave them the perfect venue and excuse to recruit and train and perfect their methods by creating a failed state where before there was a stable and stromgly governed state (Iraq) by preemptively going to war against Iraq on ficticious pretenses.

Bush really let the cat out of the bag on this one. al Qaida was sooooo respectful of borders before Bush single handedly invaded Iraq that they didn't dare step foot outside Afghanistan.
Quote:
 
Al-Masri, an Egyptian, assumed the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike in June 2006. The US government in 2005 set a $50,000 reward for al-Masri's capture, later raising it to $5m.

Security experts say he became a terrorist in 1982 when he joined Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He probably entered Iraq in 2002, before al-Zarqawi, and may have helped establish the first al-Qaida cell in the Baghdad area.
(link)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM
Ultimately the blame for the people killed by terrorists in Iraq is squarely the USA's , since the USA's actions are the reason they are there and the USA gave them the reason for being there.

Overthrowing a brutal dictator and setting up a country for freedom and prosperity is a reason for al-Qaida to intervene? How is that not twisted reasoning?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM
None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law...

One of us doesn't know the meaning of "unilaterally".

None of the thousands would have died ... OTHER than the 13,000 to 86,000 that Saddam killed each year.

Posted Image

Yeah, good ol' Saddam pretty much had untimely death outlawed in Iraq until Bush intervened.

How many Australian troops joined/followed Bush into Iraq? If someone else would like to step up and take a turn leading causes such as this no one would be offended.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" comes to mind.

I get the impression that no other country is strong enough to lead, nor independent enough to choose not to follow. They voluntarily get on the bus, pass when it's their turn to drive, but sit in the back and tell everyone how much better they could drive than the few countries willing to drive.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
RTW
 
Quote:
 
(somerled @ Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM)
None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law...

One of us doesn't know the meaning of "unilaterally".

It was not a unilaterally action on the part of the US as several nations were involved in a coaltion with the US.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 10:13 PM
RTW
 
Quote:
 
(somerled @ Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM)
None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law...

One of us doesn't know the meaning of "unilaterally".

It was not a unilaterally action on the part of the US as several nations were involved in a coaltion with the US.

Yes , the UK and Australia tagged along.

Good thing the PMs who were responsible for that stupidiity have "left" (or in the case Howard .... been sacked by the people , he even lost his own seat, which is an indication of how much the majority of Australians objected to his foreign policy).

There was certainly very little support internationally for this preemptive attack.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
somerled
Feb 5 2008, 12:25 PM
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 10:13 PM
RTW
 
Quote:
 
(somerled @ Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM)
None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law...

One of us doesn't know the meaning of "unilaterally".

It was not a unilaterally action on the part of the US as several nations were involved in a coaltion with the US.

Yes , the UK and Australia tagged along.

Good thing the PMs who were responsible for that stupidiity have "left" (or in the case Howard .... been sacked by the people , he even lost his own seat, which is an indication of how much the majority of Australians objected to his foreign policy).

There was certainly very little support internationally for this preemptive attack.

Just to remind you that Tony Blair and his Labour Government were returned to power in 2005 with a majority of 66. Out of the 17 elections since 1945 only 7 times has a government done better than that. Its hard to see that as a resounding lack of support for the former Prime Minister.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Feb 5 2008, 07:25 AM
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 10:13 PM
RTW
 
Quote:
 
(somerled @ Feb 4 2008, 08:11 PM)
None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law...

One of us doesn't know the meaning of "unilaterally".

It was not a unilaterally action on the part of the US as several nations were involved in a coaltion with the US.

Yes , the UK and Australia tagged along.

Good thing the PMs who were responsible for that stupidiity have "left" (or in the case Howard .... been sacked by the people , he even lost his own seat, which is an indication of how much the majority of Australians objected to his foreign policy).

There was certainly very little support internationally for this preemptive attack.

What makes you think it was the foreign policy that got them sacked?

If I recall correctly there was an election after the invasion of Iraq and Howard was re-elected. It was only years later that he lost.

I know well that sometimes leaders just overstay thier welcome and they get sacked because the populace sees them as arrogant and overbearing. I honestly have never seen a Prime Minister in Canada lose because of foreign policy. Usually it is domestic issues that come to the forefront and from what I recall of what was posted here during your election I suspect that domestic issues were a much stronger reason then foreign policy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
somerled
Feb 4 2008, 10:11 PM
ImpulseEngine
Feb 5 2008, 04:39 AM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 07:35 PM
I completely disagree , had the USA not invaded Iraq in the first place, then Iraq would not NOW be the problem it is now, and al Quaeda would not be there.

In fact , the middle east would now be a very much more stable region.

Let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that you are right about the above quote (and I'm not agreeing that you are).

Even so, below doesn't follow:

Quote:
 


So the fact the al Quaeda s now using suciide bombers , and also in the latest case , shanghying intellectually disabled peoiple to be bomb vest carriers (and essentially murdering them when they the bombs they are unwittenly wearing are remotely detonated) still does not take the ultimate blame away from the USA.

al Quaeda is there because the USA is there .... that is FACT.
al Quaeda was not active in Iraq before the invasion ... FACT.

Here are some real facts:
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use suicide bombers.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use mentally disabled people.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose detonate the bombs.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to murder/injure those who died/were injured from the bombs.
FACT: As such, the ULTIMATE blame (as you put it) rests with al Qaeda, even IF you can pin any indirect responsibility on the US (and I'm not saying you can).

The logic you are trying to use is like blaming someone who left their door unlocked for their house being robbed. While the homeowner certainly didn't do a good job of protecting their house, they are certainly not responsible - the thief is. And, more accurately, your logic is more like guessing the homeowner left the door unlocked without verifying it first and then blaming the homeowner anyway.

Fact is that al Quaeda are in Iraq because Bush Jr dropped the ball in Afganistan and instead of finishing off al Quaeda there , he did a very stupid thing and let them regroup , retrain and worse, gave them the perfect venue and excuse to recruit and train and perfect their methods by creating a failed state where before there was a stable and stromgly governed state (Iraq) by preemptively going to war against Iraq on ficticious pretenses.

Ultimately the blame for the people killed by terrorists in Iraq is squarely the USA's , since the USA's actions are the reason they are there and the USA gave them the reason for being there.

None of the thousands killed in Iraq since the Baathist regime there was deposed would have died if the USA had not acted unilaterally and against international law to invade Iraq and simultaneously NOT FINISNING THE JOB (that they actually had strong international support for) of demolishing al Quaeda in Afganistan when they had the opportunity.

Consequently , rather than becoming a spent force , al Quaeda is stromger and more lethal than ever and now they have had over 3 years to perfect their methods and to train.

And rather than making the world a safer place, it has become more dangerous and more unstable than it has been for decades.

Well done Mr Bush (and his mob). :doh:

First off, this is just plain inaccurate.

But actually, it doesn't matter. The whole scenario you painted, accurate or not, is beside the point; which you seem to be missing.

EVEN IF everything else you said is accurate, your conclusion that the US is ultimately responsible simply doesn't follow.

What you have stated in a nutshell is that the US paved the way for the al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Even if I grant you that unchallenged, how does that make the US responsible, or more especially "ultimately" responsible?

Did the US decide for al Qaeda to enter Iraq? No. Even in your scenario, the US just opened the door.

Did the US engage in al Qaeda activities such as suicide bombing or using mentally disabled people as human bombs? No. Al Qaeda did.

The "ultimate" responsibility has to lie with the one who "ultimately" perpetrates the crime.

And, if the US hadn't opened the door to Iraq, don't you think Al Qaeda would have just taken their terrorist tactics someplace else? If the US has had any responsibility, even in your scenario, it would only be by indirectly influencing the MOVEMENT of al Qaeda's terrorist activities from some other place to Iraq. The activities themselves would have happened regardless because the activities are "ultimately" the responsibility of al Qaeda - and no one else.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 05:43 AM
Just to remind you that Tony Blair and his Labour Government were returned to power in 2005 with a majority of 66. Out of the 17 elections since 1945 only 7 times has a government done better than that. Its hard to see that as a resounding lack of support for the former Prime Minister.

Any theories as to the different reactions between the peoples of the UK and Australia?

Could the difference be that one has experienced the realities of war first hand and the other not so much?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
RTW
Feb 5 2008, 06:07 PM
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 05:43 AM
Just to remind you that Tony Blair and his Labour Government were returned to power in 2005 with a majority of 66. Out of the 17 elections since 1945 only 7 times has a government done better than that. Its hard to see that as a resounding lack of support for the former Prime Minister.

Any theories as to the different reactions between the peoples of the UK and Australia?

Could the difference be that one has experienced the realities of war first hand and the other not so much?

I think that the election or defeat of the governments in question was most likely due to domestic issues and the state of the opposition parties - rather than primarily due to Iraq. In the UK the 2005 election was far from a referendum on Iraq, if I remember issues such as health, education, crime/policing and taxation were top of the agenda. I doubt it was that much different in Australia but I wouldnt like to say for certain.

As to your comments about the realities of war - I dont think thats a factor. If your thinking of the second world war, while it true Australia didnt suffer the same kind of large scale bomb damage etc as the UK, Australian troops were heavily involved in the fighting as close Commonwealth allies. Either way anyone who can remember that conflict is likely to be in their 70s now, anyone who served in the war probably into their 80s.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 11:29 AM
As to your comments about the realities of war - I dont think thats a factor. If your thinking of the second world war, while it true Australia didnt suffer the same kind of large scale bomb damage etc as the UK, Australian troops were heavily involved in the fighting as close Commonwealth allies.
Yes, I realize that.

Wars "over there" are felt by the friends and families of soldiers. Life pretty much goes on as normal. Wars "over here" are felt by everyone. Life is not normal.

My assumption is that a country that knows the reality of war "over here" would much rather fight "over there". Fighting "there" risks the lives of soldiers, while fighting "here" risks the lives of the entire population.


ds9074
Feb 5 2008, 11:29 AM
Either way anyone who can remember that conflict is likely to be in their 70s now, anyone who served in the war probably into their 80s.
With stories, movies, books, museums, etc, people can learn about and remember the hardships without having experienced them. Hopefully these second-hand memories can impress on future generations the importance of beating the enemy to the punch if you're convinced they're determined to fight.

No more feeding crocodiles hoping they will eat us last.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus