If there was another 9/11 scale attack on the US

[- PC -]

Nice response.

But.... your saying we should never has invaded Iraq, leaving a guy like Saddam in charge, now i know there are many Saddam's around the world, but the fact that he sponsors terrorists doesn't help his case.

I think this could have been handled differently. I would have in 1992 looked at ways of replacing Saddam , either by assassination or by an internal/external movement a la the Ayatollah Khomeni ... the fact that America supported Saddam from 1992 till 2000 must lend some of the blame on the US.

Are you saying that the US, UK and us, should just carry on with life, and not worry about what is happening in other countries, even if it could be deadly.

Not at all. I dont think making up lies or at least stretching the intelligence was the right way to go. We all know Mugabe is an @rsehole and his removal would save thousands of lives. Why isnt it been done? I would hope diplomacy and or the support of nationalist movements would be an appropriate path to take. Or at least carrot and stick approach that seems to have worked with Turkey.

Another issue is the level of support by the major alliance for those countries considered ''violent''

From 1975 – 83 more than two-thirds of the arms exporting to the Third World went to regimes using violence as a matter of policy. The main suppliers to these terrorist governments are the United States, the USSR and France.9

Stop supporting them with weapons and the means of control disappear.

We should just let those in the ME keep living on with dictators running the place?

We have left them in Zimbabwe and Nth Korea.

Yes not give them a reason to grow, but they will grow.... they want to spread throughout the world, just look at all the countries they have hit...

I assume you are talking about muslim sponsored terrorism. Why dont you rail against the ETA Basque movement? Or the LTIE Tamil Tigers? Chechneya?There are groups on nearly every continent that have use violent means to produce a political end.

 

[dan warna]

I don't deny that, they hate that Iraqi's want democracy. But i know that in the long term, we will have a lesser threat, so i guess, the answer is yes i deny that, we will be safer.

There has been an increase in security measures, yes, at times like this.. you need them. If there weren't people would be complaining that the government arn't doing enough to protect them...

Dude take a breath. I agree the the oil in Iraq is helping Iraq grow into a richer country.

Talking about corruption, do you agree that the UN have been doing secret deals with Mr Saddam himself, that is the same UN in which the left are in love in.

Now that i have answered you questions (briefly i know but still...) please answer mine.

With bombs going off all over the world, how can we stop them?

1. there has been a massive increase in recruitment for terrorist organsiations and as said by a number of security agencies which predicted the growth of terrorism as a function of the US invasion there has been an unpredicted effect of copycat organisations that are only loosely connected with al qaeda making tracking, communications, interception and counter intelligence very difficult as they are virtually independant organisations. SO invading iraq has resulted in a massive increase to the threat of terrorism

2. so as an effect of the invasion of iraq we've lost a lot of our rights. This wouldn't have happened if we didn't invade iraq for the non existant WMDs. Iraq was no threat to us or the USA. your stupid logic is circular and inconsistant did you get that from the white house press releases?

3. what an outragious lie, the iraqies haven't seen most of the oil money its being syphoned of by US companies. Most of the work have been given to the US, and the profits used to spend on US companies. Iraq has seen ALMOST NOTHING of the oil money. Go do some reading before you spout rubbish like that.

4. yes there is corruption int he UN, but nothing like the 6 billion dollars AT LEAST un accounted for by the US administrators and of the money accounted for most of that has been syphoned off by US companies. NOthing is reaching the iraqi people, water, electricity basic food, they are far worse off in the period post war than before.

5. stop US adventurism. The US kills far more than most other countries and supports dictators around the world. Why doesn't the US support democracy in uzbekistan? Saudi? kuwait? etc etc.... Where do these terrorist come from? saudi, kuwait, egypt...

your ignorance is astounding...

now however thanks to the US invasions people from indonesia, england, even australia are joining the lunatic fringe Al Qaeda demon spawn.

YOUR POLICY HAS PROVEN TO BE WRONG.

 

[Contra Mundum]

They would bring out the "Nookular" option - blow up Mecca and convert them all to Evangelical Christianity - at least that's what Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter want!

 

[just maybe]

But.... your saying we should never has invaded Iraq, leaving a guy like Saddam in charge, now i know there are many Saddam's around the world, but the fact that he sponsors terrorists doesn't help his case.

What terrorists does he sponsor? There was shown to be no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. That was a US government lie.

Are you saying that the US, UK and us, should just carry on with life, and not worry about what is happening in other countries, even if it could be deadly.

If you leave them alone, the insurgent groups in those countries will leave you alone. Anti-Western Islamic extremism stems from the behaviour of Western countries, particularly the US, in the Muslim heartland.

We should just let those in the ME keep living on with dictators running the place?

What about in Africa? Asia? The Pacific?

The gaping flaws in your policy are encapsulated in that one sentence. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with dictators or terrorism - it was all to do with strategic interest. Which is why Iraq is invaded and Zimbabwe isn't.

Nice post though, I'll give you that, i was just after more of a, what can we do?

Withdraw from the Middle East and stop trying to spread US influence in the Middle East. Stop the overwhleming support of Israel. US military presence simply inflames tensions. Restrict US presence in the region to diplomatic presence and soft power use. Only allow US military in the region as part of cooperative forces requested by local governments - ie as part of a UN or NATO force.

Yes not give them a reason to grow, but they will grow.... they want to spread throughout the world, just look at all the countries they have hit...

Yes, LOOK at the countries they have hit. It isn't random, and it IS for a reason. Spain would not have been hit but for their involvement in Iraq, for example.

You seem to be very ignorant of the fact that all terrorism has a reason - it isn't random. It has a political motive. We give them reasons to grow with our actions. If the US stopped meddling in the Middle East and supporting the most hated state in the region, they would not be such a target.

 

[Murray]

Uh yes the oil... it's all about the oil.


Forgive me if im wrong, but i still dont see you tell me a way of STOPPING terrorists.

It is inbuilt into their culture.
They revolted against the British so that they could claim the taxation money that was going to the King for themselves.

They had a war amongst themselves.

They slaughtered their own indiginous peoples

They enslaved people for cheap labour

They invaded their neighbours several times and stole thier lands.

They infiltrated any government that disagreed with them

They over threw any government that opposed them

The installed puppets in countries where they wanted to rape their resources.

The assasinated world leaders

They have been doing it for 100's of years.

We are talking about the US aren't we?

 

[just maybe]

It is inbuilt into their culture.
They revolted against the British so that they could claim the taxation money that was going to the King for themselves.

They had a war amongst themselves.

They slaughtered their own indiginous peoples

They enslaved people for cheap labour

They invaded their neighbours several times and stole thier lands.

They infiltrated any government that disagreed with them

They over threw any government that opposed them

The installed puppets in countries where they wanted to rape their resources.

The assasinated world leaders

They have been doing it for 100's of years.

We are talking about the US aren't we?

Well when you put it that way...

 

[- PC -]

It is inbuilt into their culture.
They revolted against the British so that they could claim the taxation money that was going to the King for themselves.

They had a war amongst themselves.

They slaughtered their own indiginous peoples

They enslaved people for cheap labour

They invaded their neighbours several times and stole thier lands.

They infiltrated any government that disagreed with them

They over threw any government that opposed them

The installed puppets in countries where they wanted to rape their resources.

The assasinated world leaders

They have been doing it for 100's of years.

We are talking about the US aren't we?

Wonder if skip or camsmith will come along asking you to prove each statement

 

[skipper kelly]

Wonder if skip or camsmith will come along asking you to prove each statement

Would you like me to?

 

[just maybe]

Would you like me to?

 

[skipper kelly]

Its very confusing that you would quote me. Are you seeking my attention? Its really strange because when I quote you, you run around like a little baby crying and sooking that I am following you.

 

[just maybe]

Its very confusing that you would quote me. Are you seeking my attention? Its really strange because when I quote you, you run around like a little baby crying and sooking that I am following you.

 

[camsmith]

I think this could have been handled differently. I would have in 1992 looked at ways of replacing Saddam , either by assassination or by an internal/external movement a la the Ayatollah Khomeni ... the fact that America supported Saddam from 1992 till 2000 must lend some of the blame on the US.

Of course we should have got rid of Saddam in '92, but at the time it was thought it would make things worse. It's always easy to look back and think, we should have done this and that... but that's history, whats important is that Saddam IS now facing trail, is NOT supported by the US, is not bribing the UN and various countries.

You do raise a good point.

..Not at all. I dont think making up lies or at least stretching the intelligence was the right way to go. We all know Mugabe is an @rsehole and his removal would save thousands of lives. Why isnt it been done? I would hope diplomacy and or the support of nationalist movements would be an appropriate path to take. Or at least carrot and stick approach that seems to have worked with Turkey.

Another issue is the level of support by the major alliance for those countries considered ''violent''

From 1975 – 83 more than two-thirds of the arms exporting to the Third World went to regimes using violence as a matter of policy. The main suppliers to these terrorist governments are the United States, the USSR and France.9

The first paragraph, i honestly don't think that if we took that path, it would have worked out. Diplomacy, 12 years and still nothing, i don't think that would ever have worked.
That tremendous hard hitting fact you felt like having in BOLD is great. Do you also know who the big suppliers of aid to those places are? Funny you should mention France.. no criticising of them though?

Stop supporting them with weapons and the means of control disappear.


We have left them in Zimbabwe and Nth Korea.

The situation in North Korea is on going, a number of countries are in talks with the US with regards to diplomacy.

I assume you are talking about muslim sponsored terrorism. Why dont you rail against the ETA Basque movement? Or the LTIE Tamil Tigers? Chechneya?There are groups on nearly every continent that have use violent means to produce a political end.

Well it is a global war on terror so....


----


dan warna, I'm tired of your post's. You seem to take the time out to attack me more than what im saying (which is fine, but tiresome and boring). I'm here simply to talk politics, sure i may not have a degree in politics or even world affairs.
Im just here to learn a few things (best way to do that is to debate..)
Just reading over PerthCrow's post, then yours, the difference in the two is amazing. One seems to respect my opinion (well.. kind of, not really lol) while also disagreeing, coming up with a number of good points, the other.. well needless to say, isn't worth responding too.

I don't know why i even wasted my time....

Night.


Oh one more thing..

It is inbuilt into their culture.
They revolted against the British so that they could claim the taxation money that was going to the King for themselves.

They had a war amongst themselves.

They slaughtered their own indiginous peoples

They enslaved people for cheap labour

They invaded their neighbours several times and stole thier lands.

They infiltrated any government that disagreed with them

They over threw any government that opposed them

The installed puppets in countries where they wanted to rape their resources.

The assasinated world leaders

They have been doing it for 100's of years.

We are talking about the US aren't we?

How about a history lesson on Australia? Not to flash either im afraid. Face it, most countries have scars from the past...

 

[dan warna]

Of course we should have got rid of Saddam in '92, but at the time it was thought it would make things worse. It's always easy to look back and think, we should have done this and that... but that's history, whats important is that Saddam IS now facing trail, is NOT supported by the US, is not bribing the UN and various countries.

You do raise a good point.




The first paragraph, i honestly don't think that if we took that path, it would have worked out. Diplomacy, 12 years and still nothing, i don't think that would ever have worked.
That tremendous hard hitting fact you felt like having in BOLD is great. Do you also know who the big suppliers of aid to those places are? Funny you should mention France.. no criticising of them though?




The situation in North Korea is on going, a number of countries are in talks with the US with regards to diplomacy.




Well it is a global war on terror so....


----


dan warna, I'm tired of your post's. You seem to take the time out to attack me more than what im saying (which is fine, but tiresome and boring). I'm here simply to talk politics, sure i may not have a degree in politics or even world affairs.
Im just here to learn a few things (best way to do that is to debate..)
Just reading over PerthCrow's post, then yours, the difference in the two is amazing. One seems to respect my opinion (well.. kind of, not really lol) while also disagreeing, coming up with a number of good points, the other.. well needless to say, isn't worth responding too.

I don't know why i even wasted my time....

Night.


Oh one more thing..



How about a history lesson on Australia? Not to flash either im afraid. Face it, most countries have scars from the past...

Im not attacking you IM attacking the US govt.

I still don't believe an attack on the civilian population of the US is justified, although attacks on the US military is justifiable as a defence against the US attacking them.

I was never a fan of alqaeda, but I believe the legitimate resistance to american imperialism is justified.

I believe Australia has done a lot of good with its military in birthing e.timor and namibia, support to the cambodian elections, etc. Supporting US imperialism however is wrong IMO.

As for bribing the UN have a look at what hte US did when it was trying to get its resolutions through. A multi billion dollar aid package to turkey. What Iraq did wrt bribing was peanuts compared to the US bribes.

There is no point in criticising france or russia because pretty much every one agrees that the french in north africa and the ME are creepy. The point of debate is that some people think the american govt is doing good and others think the US govt is acting out greed and motivation by religious nutters. Not many people rush to the defence of france and russia because we concur that they are primary causal agents of the problems in North Africa and Afghanistan for example.

There have been plenty of debates re: the history of the Australian Government, and its a fact that we were an apartheid by law country right up until the late 60s and early 70s.

There are indiginous australians alive today who were considered non citizens and didn't have the same rights as the white australian.

Its a disgraceful past.

 

[just maybe]

Of course we should have got rid of Saddam in '92, but at the time it was thought it would make things worse. It's always easy to look back and think, we should have done this and that... but that's history, whats important is that Saddam IS now facing trail, is NOT supported by the US, is not bribing the UN and various countries.

That's not the important thing. The blood of Saddam's victims are largely on US hands, considering the fact they essentially kept him in power, funded his military and then let him regain power again after the Gulf War. America is not suddenly exonerated because they belatedly decided to invade when he was of no further use to them.

Saddam was, to coin a phrase 'mostly harmless' these days. The way the US went about removing him was unacceptable and illegal. Large-scale weapons inspections, backed up by UN forces, were a far better option and would have legitimated the use of force if Saddam resisted.

The reality is, there is nothing right of justifiable in the US war on Iraq, and the post-war situation makes that all the more obvious.

The first paragraph, i honestly don't think that if we took that path, it would have worked out. Diplomacy, 12 years and still nothing, i don't think that would ever have worked.

We didn't try diplomacy for 12 years with Saddam. He was a pariah.

Although I'll bet you didn't know prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was essentially a First World country. It had free public education, excellent health infrastructure, public housing and so forth. When the US targeted Iraqi infrastructure during the Gulf War (yes, infrastructure - not military targets. How just is that?), that went to ruins and Saddam never bothered to rebuild because he had a lot less money after sanctions. So there's another reason for Iraq's poor state that you can put down to the US.

Bet you also didn't know that Iraq's original invasion of Kuwait had a lot more history than you realise - Iraq was enraged because the Kuwaitis were 'slant-drilling' from their side of the border, under the border with Iraq, and tapping Iraqi oil. Apart from that Kuwait has historically been a territorial claim of Iraq anyway.

The situation in North Korea is on going, a number of countries are in talks with the US with regards to diplomacy.

Funny they're not so quick to invade when someone ACTUALLY has WMD, eh?

Well it is a global war on terror so....

Yes, continue?

 

[redglare]

I hate bullies, i always have, and right now the Americans are bullies.

Wait until China are the bullies and see how much you like it then. You'll be crying for America to come and save the world (.....again).

 

[Murray]

Wait until China are the bullies and see how much you like it then. You'll be crying for America to come and save the world (.....again).

again?
When have they done it in the past?

 

[dan warna]

Wait until China are the bullies and see how much you like it then. You'll be crying for America to come and save the world (.....again).

our liberal govt can't wait to get into economic bed with the chinese...

 

[CoggaRules]

our liberal govt can't wait to get into economic bed with the chinese...

sort of menage e trois thing there dan huh? The yanks are already warming one side of that bed, aint that right walmart?

 

[evo]

again?
When have they done it in the past?

They were pretty handy in WW II

 

[CoggaRules]

They were pretty handy in WW II

correcto mundo there evo, by the way, who were they fighting again? Like I am looking for the stage name that was used. It was something like Axis of some sort wasnt it? Moreso, lets put it this way, hadnt the Japs reacted to the economic sanctions at the time, if I can recall, and did the unthinkable, and attacked the yanks at pearl harbor, ring a bell??, would the Yanks have been so forthcoming in saving the world when they let the world get to the stage of having to be saved? Like before Pearl Harbour, before the ******** hit the fan in Europe, what was their position with what was developing in Germany? There was defintely some bad ******** going down and a lot of people were being persecuted, but of course nothing was detected that seemed untoward i guess.

 

[CoggaRules]

Lets just think a little bit deeper about the whole situation and who is suppose to be saving who and from what here.

Now the one disaster that has wreaked havoc on this planet for god knows how long is and continues to do it unababted, apart from your usual terrorism and natural disaters is the Drug trade.
Now lets see, we have a country, for eg. Colombia, who is brimming with as they call them "cartels", you see, using the word cartel softens the wow effect, makes it seem more a business than a problem, a little different to "terrosrist cell". ANyway, what gets me is that foerever and a day these cartels are just sending tons of the cocaine into the US and across the globe and forever and a day, there isnt anything done about it, on the Iraq scale.
Like in the US case they have multi millions of people addicted to the stuff, so i take it that is a problem for them, or isnt it? so if that govt in Colombia is doign JS about the cartels, and they are a massive problem to the US then how come the US dont march in a solve the problem, like they are doing in Iraq? Oh...I get it, they have democracy there already, silly me huh?

 

[redglare]

again?
When have they done it in the past?

Europe in WW2 from the Nazis
Europe again from the Soviets
South East Asia including Australia from the Japanese in WW2.

 

[Murray]

They were pretty handy in WW II

But it was the US that started the conflict against the Japanese (oil/trade embargo's) and they screamed bloody murder when they were attacked.

The Nazi's decline had started in 1942, Britain had survived the air war and where slowly on the offensive (North Africa and the Mediterranean).
I admit the entry of the US with their equipment (fire power) and manpower did speed up the defeat but the defeat was inevitable.

As for wanting the US to be 'on my side' no thanks too many innocent people die when the US come in to 'save' people

 

[- PC -]

Now the one disaster that has wreaked havoc on this planet for god knows how long is and continues to do it unababted, apart from your usual terrorism and natural disaters is the Drug trade.
Now lets see, we have a country, for eg. Colombia, .........so if that govt in Colombia is doign JS about the cartels, and they are a massive problem to the US then how come the US dont march in a solve the problem, like they are doing in Iraq? Oh...I get it, they have democracy there already, silly me huh?

Cocaine the new Soma

 

[redglare]

correcto mundo there evo, by the way, who were they fighting again? Like I am looking for the stage name that was used. It was something like Axis of some sort wasnt it? Moreso, lets put it this way, hadnt the Japs reacted to the economic sanctions at the time, if I can recall, and did the unthinkable, and attacked the yanks at pearl harbor, ring a bell??, would the Yanks have been so forthcoming in saving the world when they let the world get to the stage of having to be saved? Like before Pearl Harbour, before the ******** hit the fan in Europe, what was their position with what was developing in Germany? There was defintely some bad ******** going down and a lot of people were being persecuted, but of course nothing was detected that seemed untoward i guess.

You could hardly blame Japan's involvement in WW2 on economic sanctions, which were implemented to stem Japan's military expansion in the Pacific, including a brutal and cruel invasion of China and sending troops to Indochina.

Do you also advocate US acting as a "world police force"? Your statement " would the Yanks have been so forthcoming in saving the world when they let the world get to the stage of having to be saved" implies that you are critical of the USA for not intervening earlier.