U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

[p_ps_sock]

Again I hate to break it to you lefties, but major improvements have been made in Iraq over the past year, perhaps enough significant progress to suggest that there could be a happyish ending to all of this.

Have you noticed that the BBC have pretty much stopped reporting on Iraq and the Mirror newspaper have ended their weekly Iraqi death toll? Now why do you think that could be?

It's all relative, the situation not long ago was about as bad as it gets and if there have been improvements then fantastic, though there is still violence and it remains to be seen if they can keep the peace themselves when foreign troops pull out, but thats a debate for another day, I'd like your opinion on this though

Why don't you give us details on what life was like under Saddam, particularly during the period the US supported Saddam, remember, before he got too big for his boots and didn't do what he was told anymore

EDIT: just seen your reply

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

It's all relative, the situation not long ago was about as bad as it gets and if there have been improvements then fantastic, though there is still violence and it remains to be seen if they can keep the peace themselves when foreign troops pull out, but thats a debate for another day, I'd like your opinion on this though



EDIT: just seen your reply

There is no ''if'' about it to be fair, there have been significant improvements. A lot of that has been down to the ''surge'' in troop numbers which incidentally was fully supported by John McCain but was rejected by Obama.

Now obviously huge challenges still remain but there is finally some light starting to appear at the end of the tunnel.

That should be a cause for optimism, but sadly it isn't reflected in the liberal media.

Good news in Iraq is ultimately bad news for the democrats chances of regaining the White House.

 

[p_ps_sock]

No I didn't, but there have been countless verdicts delivered by people who did. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that life under Saddam was anything other than horrific are you? At the very least you must be pleased to have seen the back of him?

Regarding the US support of Saddam, they provided under 1% of the arms sold/donated to the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war. So pretty minimal support I would say.

by publicly supporting him they validated his regime, they also provided money and intelligence, and I have no idea where that figure of 1% has come from, perhaps a link would help me out on that.

What are your thoughts on the support, no matter how minimal, that the US gave to Iraq in the 80's and what do you think of the way Saddam treated iraqi citizens during that time, surely given your abhorance for the man and all human rights violations you see this as a huge stain on the conscience of the west and the republicans/conservatives in particular?

 

[RedPhil1957]

For example... ?

I) Do you really believe the decision to invade Afghanistan was about oil? Even the invasion of Iraq the "Oil factor" was only a bi-product not the main reason.


2) Complete economic nonsense


3) You are making the classic mistake of mixing the idea of wealth and income ------ 5% of the population control 50% of the wealth. I am not saying earnings and wealth have no connection but it is difficult to quantify and there are other important influences. This particular gap is not something that has appeared in the last 28 years either.

It is true that for the last 28 years there has been a steady widening of the wage gap between rich and poor but that is not a something confined to the United states or to the right wing by the way.



4) as you have said nothing it is hard to agree or disagree on his one

 

[Sultan]

You must have been furious at Russia's intervention in Georgia then?

A quick glance through that thread tells me you weren't up in arms over that conflict, now I wonder why that might be....

Lucky the US and Nato decided to pop into Bosnia, eh?

I don't have much knowledge of the conflict in that part of the world. I doubt you would have seen me post much even if it had been my fellow Muslims in Chechnya.

I doubt very much NATO or the US were being benevolent to the Muslims when they decided to 'pop' into Bosnia, very much like the time they helped the Afghans during the Russian invasion, the US/NATO were again looking after their own interests.

 

[Alex]

I don't have much knowledge of the conflict in that part of the world. I doubt you would have seen me post much even if it had been my fellow Muslims in Chechnya.

I doubt very much NATO or the US were being benevolent to the Muslims when they decided to 'pop' into Bosnia, very much like the time they helped the Afghans during the Russian invasion, the US/NATO were again looking after their own interests.

Why wouldnt they

 

[Sultan]

Life has got better for the ordinary Iraqi in the past year or so. If you haven't been able to work this out there is probably little point in continuing the discussion. Or have you choosen to ignore the good news because it doesn't fit into your narrow minded opinion.

Life is better for the Iraqis' based on before the invasion, or from the height of this mess? Have about asking the 1 in 4 dead Iraqi family members if they are better off dead?

I seriously cannot believe the utter lack of critical thinking skills displayed by narrow minded supporters of Bush's war who are ready and eager to believe anything that makes them feel better about this failed war and the failed president.

 

[Sultan]

Why wouldnt they

Can you go beyond your usual three worded posts, and elaborate.

This is not the General.

 

[Sultan]

I'm not sure if its reached your part of the world yet but there have been significant improvements in Iraq over the past year or so.

Going by your IP location we are very much posting from the same part of the world.

 

[Alex]

Can you go beyond your usual three worded posts, and elaborate.

This is not the General.

I'm not saying it's right by any means, but organizations like NATO and the UN were created to keep the status quo, expecting them do otherwise and not protect their interests is irrational

 

[Sultan]

I'm not saying it's right by any means, but organizations like NATO and the UN were created to keep the status quo, expecting them do otherwise and not protect their interests is irrational

Exactly!

Like almost all countries the US was on the look out for it's own interests, and not being benevolent towards Muslims - which "WeWonItTwoTimes" was advocating in his previous post. I would have to think the US would have done the very same regardless what religion Bosnians followed.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

I don't have much knowledge of the conflict in that part of the world. I doubt you would have seen me post much even if it had been my fellow Muslims in Chechnya.

I doubt very much NATO or the US were being benevolent to the Muslims when they decided to 'pop' into Bosnia, very much like the time they helped the Afghans during the Russian invasion, the US/NATO were again looking after their own interests.

I find it bizarre that you know very little about the Bosnian conflict. Srebrenica? Where thousands of muslims were murdered by the serbs.

It was by and large a humantarian/peacemaking and then later peacekeeping mission. The tangible benefits of sorting out the Bosnian and Yugosalvian mess were minimal for the US.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

Life is better for the Iraqis' based on before the invasion, or from the height of this mess? Have about asking the 1 in 4 dead Iraqi family members if they are better off dead?

I seriously cannot believe the utter lack of critical thinking skills displayed by narrow minded supporters of Bush's war who are ready and eager to believe anything that makes them feel better about this failed war and the failed president.

Life is certainly better for the Shia and Kurdish groups in the country as they now get to have a say in how their nation is run. The kurds in northern Iraq are in fact delighted by the American intervention, again you won't have heard much about it because the anti-war movement choose to ignore it.

There is also the small consolation of not being subjected to a brutal regime anymore which regularly indulged in torturing and murdering the Shia and Kurdish factions and I'm sure some Sunni factions.

There have of course been horrific problems since the invasion but all I 've been pointing out in this thread is that things have significantly improved in recent times. Why is that so difficult for you and others to accept?

When Saddam was in power there was no hope of things improving, whereas there is now significant hope of the situation improving to a much greater extent than anything the Iraqis witnessed during Saddam's years.

Just a final point, you can't lay the blame for the post-war problems solely at the American's door, its the terrorists after all who made the situation so unbearable. Maybe a little bit more condemnation of their actions wouldn't go a miss when we're discussing Iraq. More fun no doubt to criticise nasty Uncle Sam?

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

Going by your IP location we are very much posting from the same part of the world.

Maybe I research matters I choose to discuss a little more than you.

 

[Raoul]

Life is certainly better for the Shia and Kurdish groups in the country as they now get to have a say in how their nation is run. The kurds in northern Iraq are in fact delighted by the American intervention, again you won't have heard much about it because the anti-war movement choose to ignore it.

There is also the small consolation of not being subjected to a brutal regime anymore which regularly indulged in torturing and murdering the Shia and Kurdish factions and I'm sure some Sunni factions.

There have of course been horrific problems since the invasion but all I 've been pointing out in this thread is that things have significantly improved in recent times. Why is that so difficult for you and others to accept?

When Saddam was in power there was no hope of things improving, whereas there is now significant hope of the situation improving to a much greater extent than anything the Iraqis witnessed during Saddam's years.

Just a final point, you can't lay the blame for the post-war problems solely at the American's door, its the terrorists after all who made the situation so unbearable. Maybe a little bit more condemnation of their actions wouldn't go a miss when we're discussing Iraq. More fun no doubt to criticise nasty Uncle Sam?

You're keen in touting the success of the Surge but seem to conviniently omit the calamatous decision making involved in the Invasion. You can't have one without the other - they're interwoven. The key question here is why the invasion happened - not whether the "Kurds and Shia" are living better. I'm sure those two groups are pleased that you're going to bat for them in web debates, but the reality is that Shia areas of the country have a long way to go before they're considered safe.

As to your final paragraph - yes you can. You'll note that terrorism wasn't a problem in Iraq until after the invasion. You should know this if you're read up on the facts.

 

[Raoul]

That should be a cause for optimism, but sadly it isn't reflected in the liberal media.

It isn't the media's job to sockpuppet administration talking points about "optimism" in Iraq. The media's job is to report the news - most of which is not good.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

FAO:

WonItTwoTimes,

What the feck do you mean by 'Far Left'? You sling that lable around like a God Damn Nazi Fascist, if not a narrow minded simpleton.

 

[Sultan]

Life is certainly better for the Shia and Kurdish groups in the country as they now get to have a say in how their nation is run. The kurds in northern Iraq are in fact delighted by the American intervention, again you won't have heard much about it because the anti-war movement choose to ignore it.

There is also the small consolation of not being subjected to a brutal regime anymore which regularly indulged in torturing and murdering the Shia and Kurdish factions and I'm sure some Sunni factions.

There have of course been horrific problems since the invasion but all I 've been pointing out in this thread is that things have significantly improved in recent times. Why is that so difficult for you and others to accept?

When Saddam was in power there was no hope of things improving, whereas there is now significant hope of the situation improving to a much greater extent than anything the Iraqis witnessed during Saddam's years.

Just a final point, you can't lay the blame for the post-war problems solely at the American's door, its the terrorists after all who made the situation so unbearable. Maybe a little bit more condemnation of their actions wouldn't go a miss when we're discussing Iraq. More fun no doubt to criticise nasty Uncle Sam?

See Raoul's posts.

 

[Sultan]

Maybe I research matters I choose to discuss a little more than you.

It's not very obvious.

 

[Sultan]

I find it bizarre that you know very little about the Bosnian conflict. Srebrenica? Where thousands of muslims were murdered by the serbs.

I was referring to your snide remarks regards Russian/Georgian conflict. Not Bosnia conflict.

It was by and large a humantarian/peacemaking and then later peacekeeping mission. The tangible benefits of sorting out the Bosnian and Yugosalvian mess were minimal for the US.

For the USA/NATO the problem of Bosnia was always more than humanitarian/peacekeeping. It was effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, and to stop Serbia becoming a much bigger power on Europes doorstep, seeing their past links with Communist Russia. Much like USA helping and creating Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to get rid of Russia.

 

[FresnoBob]

FAO:

WonItTwoTimes,

What the feck do you mean by 'Far Left'? You sling that lable around like a God Damn Nazi Fascist, if not a narrow minded simpleton.

He means the "anti-neocons," using a lable you tend to throw around a bit too often.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

You're keen in touting the success of the Surge but seem to conviniently omit the calamatous decision making involved in the Invasion. You can't have one without the other - they're interwoven. The key question here is why the invasion happened - not whether the "Kurds and Shia" are living better. I'm sure those two groups are pleased that you're going to bat for them in web debates, but the reality is that Shia areas of the country have a long way to go before they're considered safe.

As to your final paragraph - yes you can. You'll note that terrorism wasn't a problem in Iraq until after the invasion. You should know this if you're read up on the facts.

Surely the key question is will the lives of Iraqis improve and will a functioning democracy develop in Iraq?

The invasion happened because the Americans wanted to remove Saddam from power and install a democracy which would hopefully have friendly relations with the West.

I've already stated that there were a number of shocking errors made by the Americans in the post war period.

Why can't you focus on the present and the future without raking up old ground?

As for your final paragraph, you'll note that Saddam Hussein was a problem for Iraqis and the rest of the world before the invasion.

Still no condemnation of the terrorists actions, which is a little worrying.

 

[Adebesi]

Just a final point, you can't lay the blame for the post-war problems solely at the American's door, its the terrorists after all who made the situation so unbearable. Maybe a little bit more condemnation of their actions wouldn't go a miss when we're discussing Iraq. More fun no doubt to criticise nasty Uncle Sam?

You know things have gone pair shaped when part of the defence for the US government is effectively: its not all their fault, the terrorists are just as bad.

"Liberals" are no less disgusted by acts of terrorism than neocons or whoever else. It is pathetic when people try and frame the debate in that light.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

It isn't the media's job to sockpuppet administration talking points about "optimism" in Iraq. The media's job is to report the news - most of which is not good.

They don't report most of the good news though do they, because it doesn't make for interesting viewing.

 

[Ramshock]

They don't report most of the good news though do they, because it doesn't make for interesting viewing.

are you american or do you live in america? if you arent or dont then stop talking out of your shitehole, come live over here and watch the propoganda and sucks in the likes of FremontRob and his ilk.

This country is going down the fecking shitter, people can't afford to go to casualty or the doctors, the price of petrol and groceries have sky rocketed. The housing market has collapsed, people have actually taken to destroying their homes rather than give them to the banks in one piece.

They are spending billions of dollars on a fecking war against the wrong country, I dunno about you lot but if germany attacked britain and britain responded by invading sweden I would be mightily confused!

The US is in deep deep trouble, its already debted to china up to its eyeballs and the simpletons who keep voting for the rich candidates who dont give a feck about the normal everyday blokes are going to continue to facilitate the downfall of the country and even then they will be too stupid to realize its happened!

If McBush wins and the failed economic policies continue like they have the last 8 years and a new war with Iran happens which will double the billions already spent on the first war America will be finished! It can't even keep its finanical institutions out of trouble and its currency viable!

The american empire is going to crumble unless theres change at the top!

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

You know things have gone pair shaped when part of the defence for the US government is effectively: its not all their fault, the terrorists are just as bad.

"Liberals" are no less disgusted by acts of terrorism than neocons or whoever else. It is pathetic when people try and frame the debate in that light.

That's not the defence though, far from it. The mistakes made by the Americans were out of sheer incompetence, the terrorists actions amount to sheer evil. There is a significant difference there, which again many on the left fail to accept.

Whenever a liberal mentions Iraq they're all too quick to criticise the Americans and its always a struggle to get them to condemn the terrorists. Why do you think that might be?

 

[Alex]

A lot of the US's current problems are a result of corporate greed, none the least the price of oil which causes everything that is delivered by trucks(everything) to become more expensive. The war is stupid though, but if you think Obama is gonna get us out the day he is sworn in you are deluded and he basically preaches to the public as if he would do that

 

[Ramshock]

That's not the defence though, far from it. The mistakes made by the Americans were out of sheer incompetence, the terrorists actions amount to sheer evil. There is a significant difference there, which again many on the left fail to accept.

Whenever a liberal mentions Iraq they're all too quick to criticise the Americans and its always a struggle to get them to condemn the terrorists. Why do you think that might be?

how many terrorists on 9/11 where Iraqi?

 

[Alex]

how many terrorists on 9/11 where Iraqi?

So we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia then, never understood how that logic made any sense. Afghanistan is justified, Iraq has been a pointless quagmire few argue otherwise

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

I was referring to your snide remarks regards Russian/Georgian conflict. Not Bosnia conflict.




For the USA/NATO the problem of Bosnia was always more than humanitarian/peacekeeping. It was effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, and to stop Serbia becoming a much bigger power on Europes doorstep, seeing their past links with Communist Russia. Much like USA helping and creating Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to get rid of Russia.

They weren't snide remarks, they were a valid point. You're quick to criticise the Americans but not other nations. Its double standards and tells me all I need to know about you.

Maintaing a stable Europe was of course a vital aim of the Bosnian mission but at the same time many muslim lives were saved thanks to the American and Nato intervention. Were you glad the Americans choose to intervene in that instance?

The US didn't create the Taleban, that's factually inaccurate.

 

[Sultan]

That's not the defence though, far from it. The mistakes made by the Americans were out of sheer incompetence, the terrorists actions amount to sheer evil. There is a significant difference there, which again many on the left fail to accept.

Whenever a liberal mentions Iraq they're all too quick to criticise the Americans and its always a struggle to get them to condemn the terrorists. Why do you think that might be?

Incompetence? Do you want me to get a list of atrocities by the US/Coalition in Iraq?

The failed policies of Bush and his government have been a main cause of increase in terrorists and their activities - surely even you can understand this simple fact.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

So we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia then, never understood how that logic made any sense. Afghanistan is justified, Iraq has been a pointless quagmire few argue otherwise

History will judge as to whether it was or not.

 

[Ramshock]

So we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia then, never understood how that logic made any sense. Afghanistan is justified, Iraq has been a pointless quagmire few argue otherwise

of course they should have, most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, pro war right wing pricks continually ignore that glaring fact which makes the whole pretense for the war in Iraq completely false! Then they tried the WMD approach, which was bullshit of course, they are there for two reasons, Oil and more fecking Oil!

 

[Ramshock]

They weren't snide remarks, they were a valid point. You're quick to criticise the Americans but not other nations. Its double standards and tells me all I need to know about you.

Maintaing a stable Europe was of course a vital aim of the Bosnian mission but at the same time many muslim lives were saved thanks to the American and Nato intervention. Were you glad the Americans choose to intervene in that instance?

The US didn't create the Taleban, that's factually inaccurate.

You are an idiot!

 

[Sultan]

They weren't snide remarks, they were a valid point. You're quick to criticise the Americans but not other nations. Its double standards and tells me all I need to know about you.

Maintaing a stable Europe was of course a vital aim of the Bosnian mission but at the same time many muslim lives were saved thanks to the American and Nato intervention. Were you glad the Americans choose to intervene in that instance?

The US didn't create the Taleban, that's factually inaccurate.

Where have I criticised the USA?

I've been criticising the war, and the outgoing, incompetent president, whom you voted into office twice. This debate has nothing to do with Muslims, or the citizens of USA. If anything you're losing the debate, and trying to derail the thread by bringing my religion into the debate.

 

[Alex]

of course they should have, most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, pro war right wing pricks continually ignore that glaring fact which makes the whole pretense for the war in Iraq completely false! Then they tried the WMD approach, which was bullshit of course, they are there for two reasons, Oil and more fecking Oil!

Saudi Arabia has the biggest crude reserves in teh world idiot

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

Incompetence? Do you want me to get a list of atrocities by the US/Coalition in Iraq?

The failed policies of Bush and his government have been a main cause of increase in terrorists and their activities - surely even you can understand this simple fact.

Still no condemnation of the terrorists actions, which doesn't reflect very well on yourself.

The number of atrocities committed by the US/Coalition in Iraq is tiny compared to those committed by the terrorists. Off the top of my head I can think of maybe five major incidents in five years of fighting. You clearly have no understanding of warfare if you think that is significant enough to be able to make an issue out of it.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

You are an idiot!

Oh do carry on, I'm enjoying your absurd rants.

 

[Sultan]

Still no condemnation of the terrorists actions, which doesn't reflect very well on yourself.

The number of atrocities committed by the US/Coalition in Iraq is tiny compared to those committed by the terrorists. Off the top of my head I can think of maybe five major incidents in five years of fighting. You clearly have no understanding of warfare if you think that is significant enough to be able to make an issue out of it.

There was no terrorism in Iraq before the war. The USA, as an occupying force owe it to the Iraqi people to stop terrorism.

I see still no condemnation from you for the disastrous policy which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. I would have thought your leaders would rank very highly on world rankings as the worst terrorists. Just because they have a titles does not mean they are exempt from responsibilities of their actions, or decisions.

 

[FresnoBob]

The number of atrocities committed by the US/Coalition in Iraq is tiny compared to those committed by the terrorists. Off the top of my head I can think of maybe five major incidents in five years of fighting. You clearly have no understanding of warfare if you think that is significant enough to be able to make an issue out of it.

Except terrorists, by definition, need to commit atrocities, usually because they are not a match for the other side militarily. To affectuate their ends they need to create a climate of fear that exaggerates their numbers and power while forcing the other side (government) to take repressive measures that alienate the populace.
The US/Coalition military forces, on the other hand, are expected to be disciplined and use force only in specific instances for identifiable military objectives. Random killing of civilians and torture of captives furthers no legitimate military end and no one should accept the lame suggestion that intelligence gathering agencies were gaining valuable information by waterboarding prisoners.
The conduct of terrorists cannot be used as an excuse for excess, cruelty, and lawlessness by the other side. The military should be held to a higher standard of conduct.