|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big boys of iraq putting the hurting on the marines
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Um, Afghanistan is under the jurisdiction of the Eurocorps, sorry.
If you threw in Vietnam is just confuse the situation, you did; that's a totally different situation, on a different timeline and has no relevance to this arguement. |
Lepanto said small insurgents dosent have a slight chance against the marines from big countries like US.
So I gave him an example of how Russia failed in Afganistan after like 30 years of war. And how US lost in Vietnam.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Like South Korea, Kuwait, West Germany and South Vietnam for example?
Those that have been liberated from oppression have done very well for themselves.
It only took a peek over the border to see whos style of government really works and who helped them to acheive that. |
Totally different situation, on a different timeline. Different countries, different people, different 'aspirations'.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
With your agruement, you probably would think dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan was 'terrorism' too.
The West was quick to rectify that situation with billions of dollars worth in loans and Japan became a leading manufacturer in the world. |
No with my argument, if Bush was president during WW2, he would have labeled Japan a 'terrorist nation' too for attacking Pearl Harbour.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I'm probably being totally unreasonable here, but would you be so kind to present a little, you know, evidence? Who are the knights of truth that were denied the right to run? And upon what do you base your assertion that, if these were allowed to run, they would have won in a landslide victory?
Btw. Wikipedia, states that the december elections offered only 228 lists for the poor Iraqis to choose from. Lack of choice indeed. Of course, this outrageously low number would be much more tolerable if all the poor US-branded "terrorist organizations" were allowed to run. A bit odd that organizations such as the SCIRI are allowed to run by the US overlords, though. One would think that organizations with close ties to the Axis-of-Evil Mullahs of Iran would be banned from running in the brutal US-dictatorship that is Iraq? |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What??
The government was freely elected by the people of Iraq, not some puppet regime.
Simply side-stepping thier whole electoral process so you can try and make your point is ignorant indeed...
|
He is the 12th person to be announced head the State of Iraq in past 3 years. He is Kurdish caught in between Shia and Sunnis. Noone looks at him, listen to what he has to say. He is hardly quoted in any national/international news channel. People dont know what he does whole day, people dont know what plan he got for his country (if he has any at all). His political views - as expressed in interviews with Western media - remain unclear beyond the obvious intention of winning and conserving power for his tribe. You guys have too much fixation for figures and statistics.
When the Kurds launched an armed uprising against the Iraqi government in 1961, Talabani led battles at home in Iraq, as well diplomatic missions to Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East to seek support for the Kurds and a seperate country for Kurds. This man has been in EU to sell his idea of a seperate Kurdish country outside of Iraq. And now he is made 'The Pesident of Iraq'. Is he not a puppet yet? Ok you might want 'proof'.
And you are telling me he was freely elected by the people of Iraq, not some puppet regime. You want statistics, United Iraqi Alliance had 41% votes and Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan from which Iraq's current President belong had 21.7% votes. Why is he still made the President of Iraq? I dont know who voted for a Kurdish president at first place in Iraq? Shias or Sunnis or Japanese people?
___________________
___________________
Last edited by Purple on Mar-13-2006 at 07:59
|