kensloft wrote: I don't think that anyone should believe that it is over. It is not by a longshot. We are talking about men that are insane with having lost their positions of power, prestige, money and all the other perqs that their insolent and vicious upbringing gave them as what they thought to be their birthright.
We are talking about men that believe that their women are their chattels. To be abused and murdered if they don't toe their line. Baby factories that can't plan their children but must have them as they are given or come.
If you want a parallel with the IRA? I would say that it was the brave Iraqi people that went into the fury of war being lesser armed and motivated by the fact that they were right and the heavily armed insurgents are the equivalent of the British troops.
When the Iraqi people realize that they are working for each other's right to a decent, safe life then the insurgents will either sue for peace or die like those that they have murdered... through bullets and bombs.
As long as these murderers are allowed by citizens of their ilk, that abuse their fellow countrymen's trust in the noble thoughts of not killing ordinary citizens, then they will continue to fester the poison that they are promising to spread across Iraq and the Western world.
Personally, I think that the Iraqis will be able to take matters into their own hands and solve the problem themselves, but that will take time, which the killers want to exploit because they see their end is near. They have nothing to lose but the poverty that they foisted on their fellows citizens coming home to roostWell I hope you are right. And that American and the British governments bring home their troops. Let the Iraqi's get on with getting their country back to some normality.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: If you want a parallel with the IRA? I would say that it was the brave Iraqi people that went into the fury of war being lesser armed and motivated by the fact that they were right and the heavily armed insurgents are the equivalent of the British troops.
That statement plumbs the very depths of ignorance.
That statement plumbs the very depths of ignorance.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
capt_buzzard wrote: Well I hope you are right. And that American and the British governments bring home their troops. Let the Iraqi's get on with getting their country back to some normality.
I think it will take a long time. If the allies pull out too soon, then the same thing will happen as before - terror tactics, the emergence of another despot, and the subjugation of the people. It's not going to be a squeaky-clean system for ages, anyway.
I think it will take a long time. If the allies pull out too soon, then the same thing will happen as before - terror tactics, the emergence of another despot, and the subjugation of the people. It's not going to be a squeaky-clean system for ages, anyway.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bill Sikes wrote: That statement plumbs the very depths of ignorance.
You're the British Guy. Right? Well seeing as how it's your side that you are askin' to look like the brave populous against the IRA, then we can just change it around and consider it changed. When I get the po'd letter from The Irish Guy then I'll send him this one, let him compare them and we'll be in Happy Valley. If not I'll tell him to check the other one and maybe he'll make sense of it all.
Don't know though?
However, if there was a part of a city or town that thought that they could control people by various acts of thuggery and intimidation then you would probably see some people take it into their own hands to beat down the thuggish attitudes with whatever means are needed. It's really nice that you are trying to get on the Multi-cultural bandwagon (ain't that Trudeau great) but I am wondering what you call what is going on in Ireland if you 've stopped calling it racism? Has there been some kind of deed that is buried in the bowels of the archives of British parliament that says that the land in question was purchased from Brian Boru?
Don't know for sure, though.
You're the British Guy. Right? Well seeing as how it's your side that you are askin' to look like the brave populous against the IRA, then we can just change it around and consider it changed. When I get the po'd letter from The Irish Guy then I'll send him this one, let him compare them and we'll be in Happy Valley. If not I'll tell him to check the other one and maybe he'll make sense of it all.
Don't know though?
However, if there was a part of a city or town that thought that they could control people by various acts of thuggery and intimidation then you would probably see some people take it into their own hands to beat down the thuggish attitudes with whatever means are needed. It's really nice that you are trying to get on the Multi-cultural bandwagon (ain't that Trudeau great) but I am wondering what you call what is going on in Ireland if you 've stopped calling it racism? Has there been some kind of deed that is buried in the bowels of the archives of British parliament that says that the land in question was purchased from Brian Boru?
Don't know for sure, though.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Well put PEIguy. Makes me want to go out and buy an extra bag of potatos and some fish.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
PEIguy wrote: LOL...as long as it ain't in my bed...the women are already wondering about me cause of my articles in the Same Sex Marriage forum. LOL
How do you think they'll feel about the gay marriage law in politics.
Reminds me of a Fernandel movie I saw as a kid. He was a clothing designer so all the models thought he was gay. He wasn't. It was a movie of him burying his face in bosoms because they knew he wasn't that way. what a scream.
How do you think they'll feel about the gay marriage law in politics.
Reminds me of a Fernandel movie I saw as a kid. He was a clothing designer so all the models thought he was gay. He wasn't. It was a movie of him burying his face in bosoms because they knew he wasn't that way. what a scream.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
PEIguy wrote: Yeah...that movies like that provided me guidance. Why do you think I became a computer tech...how many other jobs get ya under womens desks? Huh?
Good one brother.
Good one brother.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Posted by Kensloft
If you want a parallel with the IRA? I would say that it was the brave Iraqi people that went into the fury of war being lesser armed and motivated by the fact that they were right and the heavily armed insurgents are the equivalent of the British troops
posted by PEIguy
Irish unrest came to a head in 1916 in the Irish War of Independance when the Irish were outnumbered by as much as 25 to one, fought the british occupiers. In 1920, the Brits devided Ireland into North and South Ireland and began an intentional program of pitting the two against each other. The favored protestants were aided by the Britain. The North had a functioning parliament, whereas the Catholic south was really still ruled by the Brits.
Fighting continued sporadically until things started to come to a head in the 60's and 70's. British treatment of anyone suspected of being IRA was atrocious. Complete familes were imprisoned for decades for just knowing IRA people.
I feel sorry for Ireland. It stands as a symbol of the history of British Opression. It should also stand as a reminder to the US and Britain that occupation leads to hatred and death which lasts for generations.
__________________
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
An Irish Free State was eventually established in 1921, although six counties in the north remained part of the United Kingdom. Controversy over this settlement was the source of civil war on the island, which lasted until a ceasefire was established in 1923. Relations between the Free State (known as Eire from 1936) and the British government remained strained till after the Second World War.
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.
If you want a parallel with the IRA? I would say that it was the brave Iraqi people that went into the fury of war being lesser armed and motivated by the fact that they were right and the heavily armed insurgents are the equivalent of the British troops
posted by PEIguy
Irish unrest came to a head in 1916 in the Irish War of Independance when the Irish were outnumbered by as much as 25 to one, fought the british occupiers. In 1920, the Brits devided Ireland into North and South Ireland and began an intentional program of pitting the two against each other. The favored protestants were aided by the Britain. The North had a functioning parliament, whereas the Catholic south was really still ruled by the Brits.
Fighting continued sporadically until things started to come to a head in the 60's and 70's. British treatment of anyone suspected of being IRA was atrocious. Complete familes were imprisoned for decades for just knowing IRA people.
I feel sorry for Ireland. It stands as a symbol of the history of British Opression. It should also stand as a reminder to the US and Britain that occupation leads to hatred and death which lasts for generations.
__________________
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
An Irish Free State was eventually established in 1921, although six counties in the north remained part of the United Kingdom. Controversy over this settlement was the source of civil war on the island, which lasted until a ceasefire was established in 1923. Relations between the Free State (known as Eire from 1936) and the British government remained strained till after the Second World War.
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: Hopefully, the boys and girls of the Allied forces will be coming home where they belong, soon.
The Iraqis will be standing on their own two feet. Able to take care of the depraved Husseinites on their own. Right now it's a dream but where would we be today without having dreams of a better world for everone to enjoy.They will perhaps stand on their own two feet over a civil war,when the Allied troops have gone home.
The Iraqis will be standing on their own two feet. Able to take care of the depraved Husseinites on their own. Right now it's a dream but where would we be today without having dreams of a better world for everone to enjoy.They will perhaps stand on their own two feet over a civil war,when the Allied troops have gone home.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bill Sikes wrote: I think it will take a long time. If the allies pull out too soon, then the same thing will happen as before - terror tactics, the emergence of another despot, and the subjugation of the people. It's not going to be a squeaky-clean system for ages, anyway.agree
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
gmc wrote: Posted by Kensloft
posted by PEIguy
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.That's a good bit of Irish history.Truth to tell.
posted by PEIguy
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.That's a good bit of Irish history.Truth to tell.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
PEIguy wrote: Yeah, but who is a terrorist can be a very different opinion depending what side of the fight you were on. Granted, the IRA were not warm and fuzzy...but were they motivated by some justified reasons.
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back? And there are some Irish Americans, Canadians ect who support the terrorists in Ireland against Britain, with $$ and weapons. These very same people wanted Britain's help to fight against terrorism in the middle east. It does not make sense.:-2
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back? And there are some Irish Americans, Canadians ect who support the terrorists in Ireland against Britain, with $$ and weapons. These very same people wanted Britain's help to fight against terrorism in the middle east. It does not make sense.:-2
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade,
I know that everybody already knows but let' remember the times that were there.
The Iraqis were the enemies of the Shiite Muslims. The Iranian power structure, predominantly Shiite, was predicated upon their having imprisoned the entire staff of the American Embassy. Until Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan showed up the Iranians were thumbing their noses at America, then the devil incarnate as the personage of Jimmy Carter. Just as Osama thought that he could pull the tiger's tail the Iranians thought twice because they returned the hostages. Pronto! (note: hostages as opposed to prisoners of war)
Kill all things American that indicates arrival into the twentieth century. Claiming that were going to kill Americans and assorted other people that sundry things they were going to do when they walked the streets of Washingtoon having just been brought down and overthrown by the will of Allah didn't make them many friends around the world.Especially in America! They will get more of the deaths throughout of Americans and things American in the regions that they held in their sway.
Now it doesn't take an astute person to see how America would stop the threats to their interests in the Middle East. There, right next door is a secular government with a yahoo that will care for your interests. He's got a different approach and a lot of his citizens are the Shiites that Iran is claiming as there own.
Let's give a resounding, communal yell of "What did they do next?", as in Nell is tied to the tracks.
And then they got some guns... and then... they got more ammo... and then...
they got bigger guns... and then they didn't want to do all the work that went with the inaccuracy of these armaments. They wanted something that would vanquish their foes in one fell swoop. Why he'd even talked to people in his country on doing the research on how to build these life saving instruments of death that could be built on the cheap.
Suggesting that America whispered in his ear that such things existed just doesn't cut it with me as to when he was able to know aout these strange machines of death.
Suggesting that Saddam wouldn't get his weapons by asking for things that you had to use in the poisons in order to make them work, could, just be not far off the track. Under the guise of needing them to purify the water. They get this... they get... that. Who knows? Yadda=yadda-yadda. I wasn't there but it makes sense to me.
short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
Politicians, when they speak of let us speak no more, is based upon who has the facts. They want you, not to forget the facts, but the fact that it is they that have the information (that is not based on hearsay and conjecture) as to things that have happenned or would happen. They're reading the script and telling the story.
Simplistic finger pointing, based on questions of no merit, make for a very dull conversation.
Oh, gosh? Shucks! Golly gee, he was supposed to have done that or this, doesn't cut it with me.
I know that everybody already knows but let' remember the times that were there.
The Iraqis were the enemies of the Shiite Muslims. The Iranian power structure, predominantly Shiite, was predicated upon their having imprisoned the entire staff of the American Embassy. Until Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan showed up the Iranians were thumbing their noses at America, then the devil incarnate as the personage of Jimmy Carter. Just as Osama thought that he could pull the tiger's tail the Iranians thought twice because they returned the hostages. Pronto! (note: hostages as opposed to prisoners of war)
Kill all things American that indicates arrival into the twentieth century. Claiming that were going to kill Americans and assorted other people that sundry things they were going to do when they walked the streets of Washingtoon having just been brought down and overthrown by the will of Allah didn't make them many friends around the world.Especially in America! They will get more of the deaths throughout of Americans and things American in the regions that they held in their sway.
Now it doesn't take an astute person to see how America would stop the threats to their interests in the Middle East. There, right next door is a secular government with a yahoo that will care for your interests. He's got a different approach and a lot of his citizens are the Shiites that Iran is claiming as there own.
Let's give a resounding, communal yell of "What did they do next?", as in Nell is tied to the tracks.
And then they got some guns... and then... they got more ammo... and then...
they got bigger guns... and then they didn't want to do all the work that went with the inaccuracy of these armaments. They wanted something that would vanquish their foes in one fell swoop. Why he'd even talked to people in his country on doing the research on how to build these life saving instruments of death that could be built on the cheap.
Suggesting that America whispered in his ear that such things existed just doesn't cut it with me as to when he was able to know aout these strange machines of death.
Suggesting that Saddam wouldn't get his weapons by asking for things that you had to use in the poisons in order to make them work, could, just be not far off the track. Under the guise of needing them to purify the water. They get this... they get... that. Who knows? Yadda=yadda-yadda. I wasn't there but it makes sense to me.
short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
Politicians, when they speak of let us speak no more, is based upon who has the facts. They want you, not to forget the facts, but the fact that it is they that have the information (that is not based on hearsay and conjecture) as to things that have happenned or would happen. They're reading the script and telling the story.
Simplistic finger pointing, based on questions of no merit, make for a very dull conversation.
Oh, gosh? Shucks! Golly gee, he was supposed to have done that or this, doesn't cut it with me.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
capt_buzzard wrote: They will perhaps stand on their own two feet over a civil war,when the Allied troops have gone home.
Do I detect a nuance of sarcasm brought on by the thought that we should leave tomorrow and see what happens when we aren't there. Bleacher sitters wanting to be the coaches? Don't you give them credit for risking their lives? Don't you give them credit for being human enough to overcome their difficulties. Anyone that thought that the Allies were going to move out of the region as soon as there had been an election is neither on the same page or in the book, for that matter, from which I see the world unfolding.
Do I detect a nuance of sarcasm brought on by the thought that we should leave tomorrow and see what happens when we aren't there. Bleacher sitters wanting to be the coaches? Don't you give them credit for risking their lives? Don't you give them credit for being human enough to overcome their difficulties. Anyone that thought that the Allies were going to move out of the region as soon as there had been an election is neither on the same page or in the book, for that matter, from which I see the world unfolding.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: Do I detect a nuance of sarcasm brought on by the thought that we should leave tomorrow and see what happens when we aren't there. Bleacher sitters wanting to be the coaches? Don't you give them credit for risking their lives? Don't you give them credit for being human enough to overcome their difficulties. Anyone that thought that the Allies were going to move out of the region as soon as there had been an election is neither on the same page or in the book, for that matter, from which I see the world unfolding.Well we all have to wait to see world unfolding in this region won't we.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
capt_buzzard wrote: Well we all have to wait to see world unfolding in this region won't we.
I hear yuh.
I hear yuh.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
posted by PEIguy
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back?
Maybe at the turn of the 20th century you could claim that, it's a moot point that it was terrorism that got them what they wanted, the very first thing the newly independent irish government did was set out to destroy them. The IRA now are a very different animal they are not freedom fighters but terrorists fighting in whose name? Terrorism itself becomes a way of life they move on to become almost like mafia families.
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back?
Substitute US for Britain and Alqueda for IRA and you could say the same. Do you think their terrorism is justified?
posted by kensloft
The Iraqis were the enemies of the Shiite Muslims. The Iranian power structure, predominantly Shiite, was predicated upon their having imprisoned the entire staff of the American Embassy. Until Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan showed up the Iranians were thumbing their noses at America, then the devil incarnate as the personage of Jimmy Carter. Just as Osama thought that he could pull the tiger's tail the Iranians thought twice because they returned the hostages. Pronto! (note: hostages as opposed to prisoners of war)
Kill all things American that indicates arrival into the twentieth century. Claiming that were going to kill Americans and assorted other people that sundry things they were going to do when they walked the streets of Washingtoon having just been brought down and overthrown by the will of Allah didn't make them many friends around the world.Especially in America! They will get more of the deaths throughout of Americans and things American in the regions that they held in their sway.
Now it doesn't take an astute person to see how America would stop the threats to their interests in the Middle East. There, right next door is a secular government with a yahoo that will care for your interests. He's got a different approach and a lot of his citizens are the Shiites that Iran is claiming as there own.
Let's give a resounding, communal yell of "What did they do next?", as in Nell is tied to the tracks.
And then they got some guns... and then... they got more ammo... and then...
they got bigger guns... and then they didn't want to do all the work that went with the inaccuracy of these armaments. They wanted something that would vanquish their foes in one fell swoop. Why he'd even talked to people in his country on doing the research on how to build these life saving instruments of death that could be built on the cheap.
Suggesting that America whispered in his ear that such things existed just doesn't cut it with me as to when he was able to know aout these strange machines of death.
Suggesting that Saddam wouldn't get his weapons by asking for things that you had to use in the poisons in order to make them work, could, just be not far off the track. Under the guise of needing them to purify the water. They get this... they get... that. Who knows? Yadda=yadda-yadda. I wasn't there but it makes sense to me.
Quote:
short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
Politicians, when they speak of let us speak no more, is based upon who has the facts. They want you, not to forget the facts, but the fact that it is they that have the information (that is not based on hearsay and conjecture) as to things that have happenned or would happen. They're reading the script and telling the story.
Not quite sure what you mean here which is worrying as I think I agree more than I disagree
Simplistic finger pointing, based on questions of no merit, make for a very dull conversation.
Oh, gosh? Shucks! Golly gee, he was supposed to have done that or this, doesn't cut it with me.
The ayatollah was welcomed in Iran because it meant the end of the Shah and what many saw as an oppressive regime america was seen as popping up the shah. Religious parties get in as there was no outlet for political parties to release dissent either in Iran or in Saudi Arabia. Iran shows signs of moderating but attacking them just unites people behind the regime and allows hard liners to keep control. people may not like a government but but they like even less an outsider telling them what to do. The US is not in a position to invade and the odds of getting any other country to support with troops is kind of remote
What happens next in Saudi could be quite interesting. Do you think you will see democracy there?
posted by kensloft
Do I detect a nuance of sarcasm brought on by the thought that we should leave tomorrow and see what happens when we aren't there. Bleacher sitters wanting to be the coaches? Don't you give them credit for risking their lives? Don't you give them credit for being human enough to overcome their difficulties. Anyone that thought that the Allies were going to move out of the region as soon as there had been an election is neither on the same page or in the book, for that matter, from which I see the world unfolding.
Given that the reason for invading Iraq has gone from WMD, to regime change to bringing democracy at what point do you think the coalition should pull out? If things take a course that does not suit western or primarily US interests and they elect an islamic regime should they stay until they get what they want? or turn round and tell OK your future is in your hands get on with it we're off?
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back?
Maybe at the turn of the 20th century you could claim that, it's a moot point that it was terrorism that got them what they wanted, the very first thing the newly independent irish government did was set out to destroy them. The IRA now are a very different animal they are not freedom fighters but terrorists fighting in whose name? Terrorism itself becomes a way of life they move on to become almost like mafia families.
Yes they fought using terrorist methods, but was that somehow related to the fact Britain was a superpower and they had limited means at striking back?
Substitute US for Britain and Alqueda for IRA and you could say the same. Do you think their terrorism is justified?
posted by kensloft
The Iraqis were the enemies of the Shiite Muslims. The Iranian power structure, predominantly Shiite, was predicated upon their having imprisoned the entire staff of the American Embassy. Until Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan showed up the Iranians were thumbing their noses at America, then the devil incarnate as the personage of Jimmy Carter. Just as Osama thought that he could pull the tiger's tail the Iranians thought twice because they returned the hostages. Pronto! (note: hostages as opposed to prisoners of war)
Kill all things American that indicates arrival into the twentieth century. Claiming that were going to kill Americans and assorted other people that sundry things they were going to do when they walked the streets of Washingtoon having just been brought down and overthrown by the will of Allah didn't make them many friends around the world.Especially in America! They will get more of the deaths throughout of Americans and things American in the regions that they held in their sway.
Now it doesn't take an astute person to see how America would stop the threats to their interests in the Middle East. There, right next door is a secular government with a yahoo that will care for your interests. He's got a different approach and a lot of his citizens are the Shiites that Iran is claiming as there own.
Let's give a resounding, communal yell of "What did they do next?", as in Nell is tied to the tracks.
And then they got some guns... and then... they got more ammo... and then...
they got bigger guns... and then they didn't want to do all the work that went with the inaccuracy of these armaments. They wanted something that would vanquish their foes in one fell swoop. Why he'd even talked to people in his country on doing the research on how to build these life saving instruments of death that could be built on the cheap.
Suggesting that America whispered in his ear that such things existed just doesn't cut it with me as to when he was able to know aout these strange machines of death.
Suggesting that Saddam wouldn't get his weapons by asking for things that you had to use in the poisons in order to make them work, could, just be not far off the track. Under the guise of needing them to purify the water. They get this... they get... that. Who knows? Yadda=yadda-yadda. I wasn't there but it makes sense to me.
Quote:
short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
Politicians, when they speak of let us speak no more, is based upon who has the facts. They want you, not to forget the facts, but the fact that it is they that have the information (that is not based on hearsay and conjecture) as to things that have happenned or would happen. They're reading the script and telling the story.
Not quite sure what you mean here which is worrying as I think I agree more than I disagree
Simplistic finger pointing, based on questions of no merit, make for a very dull conversation.
Oh, gosh? Shucks! Golly gee, he was supposed to have done that or this, doesn't cut it with me.
The ayatollah was welcomed in Iran because it meant the end of the Shah and what many saw as an oppressive regime america was seen as popping up the shah. Religious parties get in as there was no outlet for political parties to release dissent either in Iran or in Saudi Arabia. Iran shows signs of moderating but attacking them just unites people behind the regime and allows hard liners to keep control. people may not like a government but but they like even less an outsider telling them what to do. The US is not in a position to invade and the odds of getting any other country to support with troops is kind of remote
What happens next in Saudi could be quite interesting. Do you think you will see democracy there?
posted by kensloft
Do I detect a nuance of sarcasm brought on by the thought that we should leave tomorrow and see what happens when we aren't there. Bleacher sitters wanting to be the coaches? Don't you give them credit for risking their lives? Don't you give them credit for being human enough to overcome their difficulties. Anyone that thought that the Allies were going to move out of the region as soon as there had been an election is neither on the same page or in the book, for that matter, from which I see the world unfolding.
Given that the reason for invading Iraq has gone from WMD, to regime change to bringing democracy at what point do you think the coalition should pull out? If things take a course that does not suit western or primarily US interests and they elect an islamic regime should they stay until they get what they want? or turn round and tell OK your future is in your hands get on with it we're off?
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
gmc wrote: Maybe at the turn of the 20th century you could claim that, it's a moot point that it was terrorism that got them what they wanted, the very first thing the newly independent irish government did was set out to destroy them. The IRA now are a very different animal they are not freedom fighters but terrorists fighting in whose name? Terrorism itself becomes a way of life they move on to become almost like mafia families.
This IRA started in the sixties because they were an oppressed and abused minority. To you they are not freedom fighters, but that is only because you are the other side of the problem. You're too subjective to get a clear view of what is happening.
First let me start by saying that I do not hold you to accoount for the present state of affairs because you are but an individualo who if given a choice, I feel, would do the right thing. That is not in your power. You are talking like you are repeating the status quo speeches of the parliamentarians of the country.
Believe me, if these guys were like the mafia you would be in deep doo-doo. But I get your point and it is a valid way, though not right, to think about things,
Substitute US for Britain and Alqueda for IRA and you could say the same. Do you think their terrorism is justified?
This is an understandable point of view because, simply, you are not a bad person and you need to understand and protest the case of the IRA victimizing you and your friends and families.
I have met some protestants from the disputed area and it took every iota of my strength to not beat them down into the dirt like they had the people that they had so happily and victoriously terrorized, and were bragging about in my face.
You are not them!
Not quite sure what you mean here which is worrying as I think I agree more than I disagree
You can't begin to believe how relieved I was that you said what you said. It reaffirmed my take on who you are in my mind.
The ayatollah was welcomed in Iran because it meant the end of the Shah and what many saw as an oppressive regime america was seen as popping up the shah. Religious parties get in as there was no outlet for political parties to release dissent either in Iran or in Saudi Arabia. Iran shows signs of moderating but attacking them just unites people behind the regime and allows hard liners to keep control. people may not like a government but but they like even less an outsider telling them what to do. The US is not in a position to invade and the odds of getting any other country to support with troops is kind of remote
There are factions that are presently in Iran fomenting War against the Great Satan. They are there! Fortunately they are not in control. The US does not want to go to war in Iran. Period!
I have an Iranian friend who owns a carpet store. (go figure?) He went back last year to do some business.
When he came back I, obviously, wanted to know what it was like when he went back home.
He told me that the people were not happy with the status quo and were/are working towards that end but, "yuh gotta be there to appreciate the situation!"
It was his next observation that sort of put the capper on the visit back to the homeland. He said it was really a strange place to be because everybody was looking at the ground. No one was lifting their head except those that were in the Muslim clergy and their friends(?)!
What happens next in Saudi could be quite interesting. Do you think you will see democracy there?
Same as above. More money. Different class.
Given that the reason for invading Iraq has gone from WMD, to regime change to bringing democracy at what point do you think the coalition should pull out? If things take a course that does not suit western or primarily US interests and they elect an islamic regime should they stay until they get what they want? or turn round and tell OK your future is in your hands get on with it we're off?
Anybody that thinks that regime change was not on the agenda is not reading from the same page that I am. If you think that WMD went from top reason to let's look at the next reason... Saddam Hussein et al.? You are looking to be living on a different planet than I. I could see the world bitching and complaining about the Allied forces going in and not finding even mass burial sites. Then, I would agree with your take on things. In the logic that you use by chronologically giving us the failed (according to your views) war on terrorism has, penultimately, the latest phase of evolution case the causation of Democracy.
If you don't think that Democracy wasn't what it was all about to begin with, then, we are, once again, in different parts of the Universe. When people meet the Americans, the Canadians, the British they find out when they finally get to know us that we are really their friends. We have their dreams, ambitions and goals. We'd rather be home building the smaller world that has, through the Grace of God, come into our hands.
We want to know he is OK. There won't be any fourteen months in the mails routines that are happening for him to be able to tell us that he is OK or in danger and needs our help! We want to protect them from the mass graves that are found around the country ( according to Herodatus, the father of written history, there was in Eqypyt the bones and remain of many tens of thousands of foot soldiers that had died in the battle and had their skeletons piled high in their white lustre that only bone dried in the sun imparts for measurable distances. It was a whopper. Let me say...) not abandon them in their hour of need. Big costly battles come with the neighbourhood.
My dog is demanding attention that he deserves, so, I gotta go!
This IRA started in the sixties because they were an oppressed and abused minority. To you they are not freedom fighters, but that is only because you are the other side of the problem. You're too subjective to get a clear view of what is happening.
First let me start by saying that I do not hold you to accoount for the present state of affairs because you are but an individualo who if given a choice, I feel, would do the right thing. That is not in your power. You are talking like you are repeating the status quo speeches of the parliamentarians of the country.
Believe me, if these guys were like the mafia you would be in deep doo-doo. But I get your point and it is a valid way, though not right, to think about things,
Substitute US for Britain and Alqueda for IRA and you could say the same. Do you think their terrorism is justified?
This is an understandable point of view because, simply, you are not a bad person and you need to understand and protest the case of the IRA victimizing you and your friends and families.
I have met some protestants from the disputed area and it took every iota of my strength to not beat them down into the dirt like they had the people that they had so happily and victoriously terrorized, and were bragging about in my face.
You are not them!
Not quite sure what you mean here which is worrying as I think I agree more than I disagree
You can't begin to believe how relieved I was that you said what you said. It reaffirmed my take on who you are in my mind.
The ayatollah was welcomed in Iran because it meant the end of the Shah and what many saw as an oppressive regime america was seen as popping up the shah. Religious parties get in as there was no outlet for political parties to release dissent either in Iran or in Saudi Arabia. Iran shows signs of moderating but attacking them just unites people behind the regime and allows hard liners to keep control. people may not like a government but but they like even less an outsider telling them what to do. The US is not in a position to invade and the odds of getting any other country to support with troops is kind of remote
There are factions that are presently in Iran fomenting War against the Great Satan. They are there! Fortunately they are not in control. The US does not want to go to war in Iran. Period!
I have an Iranian friend who owns a carpet store. (go figure?) He went back last year to do some business.
When he came back I, obviously, wanted to know what it was like when he went back home.
He told me that the people were not happy with the status quo and were/are working towards that end but, "yuh gotta be there to appreciate the situation!"
It was his next observation that sort of put the capper on the visit back to the homeland. He said it was really a strange place to be because everybody was looking at the ground. No one was lifting their head except those that were in the Muslim clergy and their friends(?)!
What happens next in Saudi could be quite interesting. Do you think you will see democracy there?
Same as above. More money. Different class.
Given that the reason for invading Iraq has gone from WMD, to regime change to bringing democracy at what point do you think the coalition should pull out? If things take a course that does not suit western or primarily US interests and they elect an islamic regime should they stay until they get what they want? or turn round and tell OK your future is in your hands get on with it we're off?
Anybody that thinks that regime change was not on the agenda is not reading from the same page that I am. If you think that WMD went from top reason to let's look at the next reason... Saddam Hussein et al.? You are looking to be living on a different planet than I. I could see the world bitching and complaining about the Allied forces going in and not finding even mass burial sites. Then, I would agree with your take on things. In the logic that you use by chronologically giving us the failed (according to your views) war on terrorism has, penultimately, the latest phase of evolution case the causation of Democracy.
If you don't think that Democracy wasn't what it was all about to begin with, then, we are, once again, in different parts of the Universe. When people meet the Americans, the Canadians, the British they find out when they finally get to know us that we are really their friends. We have their dreams, ambitions and goals. We'd rather be home building the smaller world that has, through the Grace of God, come into our hands.
We want to know he is OK. There won't be any fourteen months in the mails routines that are happening for him to be able to tell us that he is OK or in danger and needs our help! We want to protect them from the mass graves that are found around the country ( according to Herodatus, the father of written history, there was in Eqypyt the bones and remain of many tens of thousands of foot soldiers that had died in the battle and had their skeletons piled high in their white lustre that only bone dried in the sun imparts for measurable distances. It was a whopper. Let me say...) not abandon them in their hour of need. Big costly battles come with the neighbourhood.
My dog is demanding attention that he deserves, so, I gotta go!
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Gmc & Kensloft,
The present IRA was formed out of the old Southern Ireland group. Just known as the IRA in 1918-1970. It turned political, socialist communist, with many of its members, I might add protestant and catholic. The British and Irish governments along with Washington helped break it up into two factions because of its leanings towards the USSR at that time. The new more hardliner Provisional IRA was based in Belfast and Derry Northern Ireland. Well the rest is history.
The present IRA was formed out of the old Southern Ireland group. Just known as the IRA in 1918-1970. It turned political, socialist communist, with many of its members, I might add protestant and catholic. The British and Irish governments along with Washington helped break it up into two factions because of its leanings towards the USSR at that time. The new more hardliner Provisional IRA was based in Belfast and Derry Northern Ireland. Well the rest is history.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
LT flora wrote: Allied troops have no reason to say they are sorry
Oh Yeah. Read the first post.
Oh Yeah. Read the first post.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: Oh Yeah. Read the first post.
Hey, Kensloft...
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!
Hey, Kensloft...
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
BabyRider wrote: Hey, Kensloft...
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!Good gal BabyRider:yh_clap
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!Good gal BabyRider:yh_clap
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
BabyRider wrote: Hey, Kensloft...
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!
With you around why do I feel that there is another flower about to bloom?
I think your "tongue-in-cheek" meaning was lost on LTflora, here. I've been looking at their (his? her?) posts, and they are all just one sentence, vague comments. Maybe if I can keep up, I'll see if they want to introduce themselves!
With you around why do I feel that there is another flower about to bloom?
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: With you around why do I feel that there is another flower about to bloom?Rock On
Attached files
Attached files
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
kensloft wrote: With you around why do I feel that there is another flower about to bloom?
Is that a good thing, darlin'? :yh_bigsmi
Is that a good thing, darlin'? :yh_bigsmi
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
capt_buzzard wrote: Rock On
Rockin' in the free world.
Rockin' in the free world.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
BabyRider wrote: Is that a good thing, darlin'? :yh_bigsmi
Good thing?
I thought that that was what gardeners were all about! Bringing life to the desert.
:-4
Good thing?
I thought that that was what gardeners were all about! Bringing life to the desert.
:-4
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Way to go Mr President & Dad,
Attached files
Attached files
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bob wrote: The question is should Muslems apologize for starting this mess. I for one don't want to stand around insulting a President that inherited a mess, and let the Muslems destroy our country in the name of Jehad. I say if its Jehad they waqnt then lets give it to them. That would include not only Irac, but several other countries that allow terrorists to operate in their borders. :-5
You can't spell worth dhit.
You can't spell worth dhit.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
gmc wrote: Posted by Kensloft
posted by PEIguy
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.
Finally figured out the UD?
posted by PEIguy
Have a look at this for a clearer picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ ... sing.shtml
from the above
First act of the new Irish Ggovernment in 1921 was to fight a vicious civil war against the IRA that lasted till 1923. Eire has been independent since 1921 not ruled by Britain-why do you think they were neutral all during ww2 although many fought with the British against Hitler. There are many southern Irish that would take umbrage at being told they are ruled by Britain.
It was quite clear at the time that the Northern Irish protestants were ready to take up arms rather than be part of a catholic Ireland.
No it's not all about religon but religon gives it a vicious spin that you have to see to believe.
The IRA are not warm fuzzy freedom fighters they are terrorists, mind you I tend to think the UDA are just as bad, sectarianism is a blight on both ireland and scotland.
A bit of consistency in fighting terrorism from the US would be helpful, Islamic terrorists bad, Irish terrorists good rather misses the point.
Incidentally the last serfs in Britain were scots miners finally freed in the 1790s 1797 I think it was. but don't quote me.
Actually I hope it all works out in Iraq and that the coalition forces pull out and the Iraquis live happily ever after.
It is too late to change what has happened and at the end of the day it will be the Iraqis themselves that sort out their own country one way or another and that will mean the coalition forces will have to leave. There are three racial groups and two religious groupings to contend with.
it has taken the west centuries of warfare to get to the point of smug self satisfaction that we are now. In a way the middle east is like eastern europe empire and occupation stopped regional warfare in yugoslavia, macadonia etc it's almost as if people have to fight out their differences before they settle down. Iraq is a creation of the british and french left to their own devices it might have been three countries instead of one.
America is now the biggest player that's why they get the blame-to pretend that the present situation in the middle east has nothing to do with american policy in the area shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of what governments get up to Saddam went from being upstanding american ally in the eighties to pariah in the space of a decade, short term memory seems to endemic amongst politicians which is bad enough, that they persuade everybody else to forget is depressing.
I still think there were better ways and that George Bush has opened a pandora's box pursuing a policy of pre-emptive warfare. Iran and syria are whole different ballgames. After the lies TB told to get the UK involved I would like to think support from the UK for more military adventures would be non existent-fool me once etc.
Neo conservative policies in another age would be statements of empire, just as imperial was were fought for economic reasons so is this one realpolitik has taken on a whole new face.
Finally figured out the UD?
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Personally I think the allies are kicking butt and the region is realizing that there is a way out without destroying their structures and religious beliefs. If we were to go into a nuclear deterrent state without any foe, to speak of, then America would be considered as being a nation of bullies.
The domino effect in the region is becoming apparent to all. Now all they have to do is be nutured by the West and other Democracies. The knee jerk reaction that you are promoting does not take into consideration the innocents that are there under the control of their respective irrational governments. Innocents whether in America, England or Iraq are innocents. Once you start showing yourself to be as depraved as the people that you are wanting to remove then the possibilty of this ending is put out to pasture because there are those that will instigate the deaths of millions to prove their worth.
The domino effect in the region is becoming apparent to all. Now all they have to do is be nutured by the West and other Democracies. The knee jerk reaction that you are promoting does not take into consideration the innocents that are there under the control of their respective irrational governments. Innocents whether in America, England or Iraq are innocents. Once you start showing yourself to be as depraved as the people that you are wanting to remove then the possibilty of this ending is put out to pasture because there are those that will instigate the deaths of millions to prove their worth.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bob wrote: You are so right, that is the reason I said it would never happen untill its too late. The only way to stop this insanity is with more insanity. In this war the inoccent muslims are the enemy. If we strike them they are the inoccent victims, those same victims are the perpetrators of more attacks. We can't just start killing them, so we can only stand by, and try to clean up after its over. We have only one way out, and that is unthinkable for any sane country. This was ordaned of God, before Abraham had the two sons that are the heart of this war. We will be destroyed by this. Our fate will be a merciful one, because it will bring about a time of starvation, and death for the whole world.
Personally I'll see how the reappearance of Jesus gets to play itself out in the forementioned scenario.
Personally I'll see how the reappearance of Jesus gets to play itself out in the forementioned scenario.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bob wrote: You are so right, that is the reason I said it would never happen untill its too late. The only way to stop this insanity is with more insanity. In this war the inoccent muslims are the enemy. If we strike them they are the inoccent victims, those same victims are the perpetrators of more attacks. We can't just start killing them, so we can only stand by, and try to clean up after its over. We have only one way out, and that is unthinkable for any sane country. This was ordaned of God, before Abraham had the two sons that are the heart of this war. We will be destroyed by this. Our fate will be a merciful one, because it will bring about a time of starvation, and death for the whole world.Pollyanna!
Look what the cat dragged in.
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Took us a hundred and fifty years to make the mess. It may be as long putting it straight. We didn't kow and now we do. We'll do stuff about it and make it so tht our grandchildren will at least have a life. You can't sit back because if you do then you are part of the problem and not the solution. No one said it was going to be easy.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
Bob wrote: So we have nukes in every country that wants them. China is exporting the parts. Russia can't wait to get started building.
you're kidding, right? please tell my you're kidding.
you're kidding, right? please tell my you're kidding.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Allied troops should say they are sorry.
dude, you are the worst pessimist i think i have ever listened to.
is there NOTHING you consider good, positive, fruitful, encouraging, anything at all?
Bob wrote: Actually only in the past 50yrs has this thing really taken off getting faster and faster. If we are going to do something about this runaway train we had better start.
I wish I was. Iran and Russia have a deal in the works now to start building. North Korea has made threats of a fire storm, if we try to stop their nuke ambitions. Have you been on the freeway lately traffic, just keeps getting thicker, and Dodge keeps making bigger motors. there is no stopping us now. We are fighting tooth, and nail to rid our Country of any mention of God. Yet we can't even pass one law governing the glut of petroleum we use to go play. Look at the news sometime. convenience, thats what really matters to us. You want to make a difference sell your car, and buy a mule. You'll be the only guy out there commuting on mule back. We ran a few adds in the early 80s about saving gas, But by 2000 we brought back the Hemi. We got over the higher price of gas, just like we will do this time. We will go on just like we are till we are all naked and starving. We have an alternative fuel now, fat. nobody needs to walk anymore. We ride on the backs of our children. nobody really cares how they will get around. We say we do, then we jump in the hummer, and just ride for the fun of it. :driving:
is there NOTHING you consider good, positive, fruitful, encouraging, anything at all?
Bob wrote: Actually only in the past 50yrs has this thing really taken off getting faster and faster. If we are going to do something about this runaway train we had better start.
I wish I was. Iran and Russia have a deal in the works now to start building. North Korea has made threats of a fire storm, if we try to stop their nuke ambitions. Have you been on the freeway lately traffic, just keeps getting thicker, and Dodge keeps making bigger motors. there is no stopping us now. We are fighting tooth, and nail to rid our Country of any mention of God. Yet we can't even pass one law governing the glut of petroleum we use to go play. Look at the news sometime. convenience, thats what really matters to us. You want to make a difference sell your car, and buy a mule. You'll be the only guy out there commuting on mule back. We ran a few adds in the early 80s about saving gas, But by 2000 we brought back the Hemi. We got over the higher price of gas, just like we will do this time. We will go on just like we are till we are all naked and starving. We have an alternative fuel now, fat. nobody needs to walk anymore. We ride on the backs of our children. nobody really cares how they will get around. We say we do, then we jump in the hummer, and just ride for the fun of it. :driving:
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]