U.S. Losing War in Iraq

Yup, same here.. but at least it's good that a city that has had two bombings (sorta) has a mayor with a good head on his shoulders. We don't need other warmongers in higher positions.

I was thinking.. the whole bombing thing and al qaida thing and all is basically to scare the US and European countries away from Iraq/Arab world. Maybe it's time to have a referendum.. ask the people what they think of it, like with the EU. With that, the people gave their clear voice that they don't agree with the choices of their chosen goverments (which is kinda a contradiction in itself). But now, by fighting a war that is first of all not even ours (at least not Dutch) and second doesn't do any good (no wmd found, no peace there still for the people).. ànd we are risking our own goods and safety over here.. maybe we should get our boys back?

I dunno.. I really feel for the people there, who are now living in a truly unstable land. But the US chose to ignore the UN and everyone when they entered, so why are we even helping them? If our Red Cross is there, our Doctors without Borders (or what's that organisation called in English) or whatever.. fine. But just don't send people with guns over there.. it's not our war!

 

London's "sensible" mayor has sympathised with suicide bombers in Israel and warmly embraced lunatic muslim militants. His credibility is weak.

 

I don't quite think he was being sympathetic merely reflecting a commonly held belief

When asked what he thought had motivated the four suicide bombers who struck in London on 7 July, Mr Livingstone traced it back to Britain's historic role in the Middle East.

"You've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic," he told Radio 4.

"In the 1980s, Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan."

The United States, he said, was reaping its own harvest as "they didn't give any thought to the fact that, once he'd done that, [bin Laden] might turn on his creators".

He was careful to say that his criticism of British and US foreign policy did not amount to sympathy for the bombers. "I do not support any suicide bombings. I don't ever recall supporting an act of violence," he said. But he made it clear that he regarded suicide attacks as the natural result of political decisions. "Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves.

"A lot of young people see the double standards; they see what happens in Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy."

The rise of Islamic extremism across the world was, he said, the product of British policy to maintain a presence in the Arab world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

"I have not the slightest doubt that if, at the end of the First World War, we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen," he said.

While Mr Livingstone has voiced such concerns before, his views were thought to have moderated since he was accepted back into the Labour Party last year.

Downing Street was taken aback by Mr Livingstone's outspoken remarks - but No 10 did not criticise him, praising his performance in the aftermath of the attacks a fortnight ago.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1658982005

Pointbreak quick question 'what do you think motivates suicide bombers'

IMHO it is religeon and all the things highlighed by Mr Livingstone.. Does not make it right and it is no justification at all..merely excuses.

 

Some would say, that Bush is just as bad as Saddam but has gotten away with atrocities because he is the president of the United States and is protected.

Bush, along with all the yank pollies, think they are the one and only answer to the world's problems. They come with their arogant egos and say that they are fighting for the innocents and the greater good. To help the people like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't be fooled. The American government is only out to help one subject, that is themselves. There is always an agenda however Bush appears, but it is not secret and this will be his undoing. The fact that Bush became president is a bloody joke to that country. He is an embarrassment to politics, to human caring, to freedom, knowing whats right and basic conversation skills. Whoever writes his speeches should be president. George Bush is one of the most inarticulate men that has been in the public sphere. The only reason he exists at all, is because of the people around him, people who share his selfish crusade of solitary reward at the expense of human decency, the common good, punlic opinion and what's fair.
Shame on him!

 

skip, what makes you think you can post a list of "facts", and then mock anyone who asks you to prove those facts? If you don't loudly state that your "facts" are all "true", then fine, state your opinion. But when you prefix each "fact" with an assertion of its truth, I think people conversing with you are not being unreasonable in asking for proof...

 

Some things are common knowledge and don't need proof, just because you don't agree, this doesn't make it any less so. Instead of having the opposition prove their case, prove yours?

 

Not an especially easy question. There are a number of things to look at. First, drawing the easy "injustice" link is wrong. There is injustice all over the world, much of it far worse than what happens in Palestine or Iraq. Yet only a few conflicts produce suicide bombers - outside the middle east, only in Sri Lanka. So for starters it is clear that it there is something about the perpetrators rather than the oppression which is unique.

Furthermore, those who encourage/support/carry out suicide attacks seem to have a very selective idea of what persecution is. No suicide bombers ever opposed the Taliban, or Syria's decades long occupation of Lebanon. No suicide bombers opposed genocidal wars in Rwanda, North Korea's self inflicted mass famine, Saddam's wars on the Kurds, etc. Finally, Iraqis themselves don't seem too keen on suicide bombings, yet muslims who have never lived there are happy to buy a one way ticket to the border so they can drive a car bomb into a Shiite mosque.

So the problem is that certain individuals feed on a contant diet of hatred and are indoctrinated in the glory of martyrdom. People who watch a never ending stream of propaganda villifying the US/Israel and screaming of oppression and injustice and a similarly steady stream of violence promoting materials. You won't find US Army recruiting stations plastered with photos of dead Iraqis, but in almost any radical muslim community in the worlds jihadi videos of beheadings and other horrors are standard fare. Why is this?

My theory is that all societies produce their sociopaths, but they express this is different ways. In this case it is by carrying out suicide bombings.

 

Thank you, Skip.

The list goes on and on...

 

Well, I am an American, maybe one of the rarer breeds ...maybe not, but I agree with 99.9% of what you have stated ..
No need for documents here, it seems obvious to me. I could care less what the news tells me, and whatever excuses Bush wants to pull out from his arse, I can see the truth lying right in front of me...
I can see that Bush, sincerely is greedy, power-hungry, hypocritical... and lacks in common sense. I'm not sure that I believe he's sincerely *stupid*, I think in order for a human to be filled with so much ignorance and hate as he is, that it doesn't tie in with stupidity, it just shows plain selfishness.

I've never had too much of an issue with the government like most have, until Bush pushed his way into office. Our country's goverment was never honest, but I'd have to say Bush tops almost everything ... He, in so many ways, reminds me of Nixon. [and for any of my elders, I realize I wasn't alive during Nixon's time, but I've done my fair share of research]

More over anything though, I see this: I see Bush as a puppet, and Cheney as the hand. Cheney is just as much of a corrupt, greedy asshole as Bush is, if not more so.

But, back to the point here... I agree with you on many levels, and I agree that TOO many Americans are ignorant to the reality of the war. Too many follow Bush blindly, because he's our "leader" and too many people feel that leaders somehow are trustworthy. That they should be...but unfortunately it has almost NEVER been this way. I've talked to a number of Bush supporters, who only, and I mean ONLY obtain their opinion and knowledge from the news, and what Bush himself says. It irritates me that people can be so easily manipulated to buy into it... it irritates me that people can't observe for themselves other than to just base opinions off what they hear from extremely deceitful leaders and reps. It's almost as if their eyes are SHUT... I don't understand how anyone can not see the complete dishonesty and horror in this war, and our President.

 

Not easy, but you handled it rather well...thanks.

I never much bought into the 'injustice' angle either, thats why i say 'excuses'..Suicide is a hard proposition to 'brainwash' the 'rewards' i would imagine would have to be huge (72 virgins seems quite tempting).. I have read of a few people who got caught before the carried out there task.. frightingly sane they were.. many people commit suicide in all cultures, this seems like it gives them a purpose...

 

i dont know what baghdad you're talking about. 20,000 shiites killed because saddam wants revenge for an assassination attempt. here in america, 20,000 citizens aren't killed when someone wants to take a shot at the president. people were oppressed by saddam and couldn't vote against him. remember that mustard gas attack on the kurds. yeah, iraq sounded really safe. im not supporting bush, just laying down the facts.

 

(quote)
Some things are common knowledge and don't need proof,
(end quote)

Thank you. You make my point wonderfully.

 

Thanks for the link..

The problem is the 'radical' jihadis are the ones willing to die. It seems a obligation to allah, not to do so is ok though; you can be muslim and not take up this cause (conveniantly). The burden can be lifted . We live in a religous world (no shit sherlock), the solution would be to get rid of 'religeon' because every religeon has its radical and liberal elements both supporting and interdependant on each element within and on each other. I think the quaran and the bible and the torah are as bad/good as each other.. The difference is objective and a lot has been altered and watered down (liberalised) over the centuries. That these are the ideals of erm dare i say one individual from thousands of years ago, is what makes me angry.. It would be deemed 'contoversial to say 'fuck religeon' it should be banned and thrown in the void of history asap. We live in different times but people are left (now) to interprete and abuse these words at will.

It seems we are in for a endless cycle of this absurdity for as long as religeon/politics is so dominant on this planet.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/jihad.htm

Nuclear destruction seems the only end to this nightmare we inflicted upon our selves, as soon as we learnt to communicate through speach and writing.

 

Excuse my tiredness, but are you being a smart arse or genuine?

 

War On String May Be Unwinnable, Says Cat General

 

Both, probably. My point was that anyone who says "I don't need proof, it's common knowledge" is clearly losing the argument.

It's the kind of thing that racists say - I've got no proof that negroes are stupid, but everyone knows it, don't they?

 

Truth: Whoever wrote this is in complete denial of the truth.

 

Did you seriously just bring race into this?

I'm not losing any argument. Some things are too obvious to not warrant proof. Do you need proof that the sky is blue? or that fire burns? Don't be such a dick mate

 

So, you're telling me that statements like:

Truth: Under Saddam there were few if any terrorists on Iraqi soil. Now there are hundreds if not thousands.

and:

Truth: They never captured Saddam's top general who is in charge of the isurgency.

Are just as obvious as the statement that fire burns? Hmmm....