|
end of Britain's physical military presence in any Iraqi city (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
what political process ?
Bush(and Clinton before him) and Blair before he quit never recognized any "political process" but military might to further their economic interest and almost single handedly killed any credibility for united nations and any other global entity .
90%+ people in Iraq never wanted british and american invaders normally and the only reason they will leave is to save themselves and because they have failed in their colonial plans |
Colonial plans??
Wow, that's some good crack right there...:eyes: |
|
|
| The Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
what political process ?
Bush(and Clinton before him) and Blair before he quit never recognized any "political process" but military might to further their economic interest and almost single handedly killed any credibility for united nations and any other global entity .
90%+ people in Iraq never wanted british and american invaders normally and the only reason they will leave is to save themselves and because they have failed in their colonial plans |
Cite your sources please. My information is taken directly from General Petreus, where-as your extremist remarks appear to be nothing but propaganda. My facts are also backed up by actual goings on in Iraq.
Colonial plans? You know what? I give up trying to rationalise you or your arguements already. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
Do we really expect to stay there forever?
Are we now the conquerors of iraq? How amnesic we must be, to go from "protecting our security", to liberators, to peacekeepers, to conquerors. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| All coalition forces need to withdraw immediately from the Middle East. End of story. I'de sure as hell fight a jihad if my neighborhood was being occupied by foreign forces from 1000's of miles away. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
what political process ?
Bush(and Clinton before him) and Blair before he quit never recognized any "political process" but military might to further their economic interest and almost single handedly killed any credibility for united nations and any other global entity .
90%+ people in Iraq never wanted british and american invaders normally and the only reason they will leave is to save themselves and because they have failed in their colonial plans |
Suppose we did the same in the Balkans yes? For all the oil there.... |
|
|
| The Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
All coalition forces need to withdraw immediately from the Middle East. End of story. I'de sure as hell fight a jihad if my neighborhood was being occupied by foreign forces from 1000's of miles away. |
Yes, and accepting the tyranny of one of your ruler's, just because he's one of your own people is morally correct? Not really. If Saddam was up against this kindof resistance he'd of been ed, why didnt they get rid of him? |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Colonial plans??
Wow, that's some good crack right there...:eyes: |
and here is our Zionist clown acting as American,no wait Canadian |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Arbiter
Yes, and accepting the tyranny of one of your ruler's, just because he's one of your own people is morally correct? Not really. If Saddam was up against this kindof resistance he'd of been ed, why didnt they get rid of him? |
?
Saddam's "Tyranny" never bothered me , why would it bother you?
Of course it didn't bother you either just like current slaughter doesn't bother you even if it's on a much higher. But starting with botched invasion of Kuwait , everything was set up almost perfectly for invading and occupying Iraq for Oil, Israel and military industrial complex. Excuses for doing so were really pathetic but also supremely arrogant
Saddam was just stupid to believe that America had any principles when they financed him in the 80's . It's better to be enemy of this America. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Arbiter
Yes, and accepting the tyranny of one of your ruler's, just because he's one of your own people is morally correct? Not really. If Saddam was up against this kindof resistance he'd of been ed, why didnt they get rid of him? |
Under what authority does any country have to invade another country based on the notion that their ruler is a tyrant? As I recall in the UN Charter, invasion is authorized only because an aggressor state is actively attacking a victim state. The majority of Iraqis never wanted us there to begin with. The reasons given by the Bush Administration to go there are false, and the notion that we are there to spread freedom is just an excuse for the failure of even allowing our country to do such a stupid thing as deposing sovereign leaders because they are "tyrannical".
Ok, then, let's go after Kim Il Sung, invade him too, Hugo Chavez, Lushenko (Belorussia), Mugabe (Zimbabwe). Let's go on a freedom crusade and make the whole world free. Following that course would lead to world chaos.
The only legitimate government is the grass roots government of the people. eAnd as I rcall, before the Baath Party took power, Iraq was in the same civil war state that is in today. Has it ever occured to you that democracy is as foreign to them as authorianism is foreign to us? Democracy will only work if the people of Iraq want it to work. And as the current state of affairs make clear, they seem to only care about their sect or party's power share rather than the nation as a whole. Iraq the country is hanging by the thread of the american occupation and nothing more. This is almost 5 year after the infamous "Mission Accomplished". Mission accomplished my arse:whip:. The mission was a failure from the minute they decided to do it. |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Suppose we did the same in the Balkans yes? For all the oil there.... |
I am glad you mention the balkans, I don't know if it's intentional as I am serbian canadian. I will say this, American imperialists and their servants and allies definitelly got away with murder and robbery there on multiple occasions, they did it to supposedly placate muslims around the world and destroy any semblance of international law. No doubt , balkan wars that were orchestrated from washington enboldened their protagonists to try it on a global scale but they are just learning that they chewed too much . All the latest hurrah about "Iraqi surge" and "kosovo independence" are signs of a desperate and out of touch fading power.
Balkan wars suited well military industrial/israel lobby that rules washington. Thus, American attempts to destroy serbia and iraq are inseparable and should be viewed in the same light. I will also say that all the major protagonists of wars on serbia are the same as against iraq. But alas none of it bore any results for the protagonists, US and europe have been attacked by muslim militants like never before, america is entangled in losing wars and all international organizations that could come into this situation have lost credibility and are almost dead meat for all intents and purposes |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Under what authority does any country have to invade another country based on the notion that their ruler is a tyrant? As I recall in the UN Charter, invasion is authorized only because an aggressor state is actively attacking a victim state. The majority of Iraqis never wanted us there to begin with. The reasons given by the Bush Administration to go there are false, and the notion that we are there to spread freedom is just an excuse for the failure of even allowing our country to do such a stupid thing as deposing sovereign leaders because they are "tyrannical".
Ok, then, let's go after Kim Il Sung, invade him too, Hugo Chavez, Lushenko (Belorussia), Mugabe (Zimbabwe). Let's go on a freedom crusade and make the whole world free. Following that course would lead to world chaos.
The only legitimate government is the grass roots government of the people. eAnd as I rcall, before the Baath Party took power, Iraq was in the same civil war state that is in today. Has it ever occured to you that democracy is as foreign to them as authorianism is foreign to us? Democracy will only work if the people of Iraq want it to work. And as the current state of affairs make clear, they seem to only care about their sect or party's power share rather than the nation as a whole. |
I agree with the first statement but there is no doubt that "Tyranny" is only used as an excuse and never clearly explained for a reason .
Like "Democracy" which is another catchy word that is deliberatelly kept vague for it to mean anything for an aggressive super power. For example , I consider current regime in Washington to be tyrannical, it doesn't respect international, it constantly deceives abroad and at home, it breaks rules and even its own chapters in pursuit of its imperialist policies and funds various terrorist groups and dictators. Let's remember that democracy means rule of majority which is almost inherently against freedom and against personal property. It's all too easy to form majority under sophisticated media campaign which can turn tyrannical against other groups , individuals and personal property .
US itself is presented as constitutional republic and not a democracy but alas there has been substantial attempt to "democratize" it and turn it more authoritarian by the globalist elite that wants to rule the world |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Arbiter
Cite your sources please. My information is taken directly from General Petreus, where-as your extremist remarks appear to be nothing but propaganda. My facts are also backed up by actual goings on in Iraq.
Colonial plans? You know what? I give up trying to rationalise you or your arguements already. |
General Petraeus?
:rolleyes:
You are talking about Bush appointed general that all he does is rationalize so called "surge", eventually he will try to rationalize "withdrawal" . All he does is try to improve domestic situation regardless of what's happening in Iraq as American people are understandably sick and worried over this war. Actually american media has significantly and intentionally cut down Iraqi coverage and all that people see now is optimistic statements from Bush people. |
|
|
|
|
