We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:46 am

wildhorses;1083337 wrote: See post #296. I have already commented on this very item.

That's the whole point about a terrorist organisation, it exists in many, many countries rather than consists of many countries. Just because a terrorist cell exists in a country you do not have justification for invading that country.

As an example, there are Al-Quaeda cells in the UK, we are told so nearly every day, but if you come over here and invade us because of it then I'll see you in hell.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:55 am

Bryn Mawr;1083340 wrote: That's the whole point about a terrorist organisation, it exists in many, many countries rather than consists of many countries. Just because a terrorist cell exists in a country you do not have justification for invading that country.

As an example, there are Al-Quaeda cells in the UK, we are told so nearly every day, but if you come over here and invade us because of it then I'll see you in hell.

There is no need to seek out Al-quaeda in UK, the UK is doing that. Western governments will seek out Al-Quaeda in countries whose governments are neglecting to do this job. One of those countries has been Iraq. And it is justified.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:01 am

wildhorses;1083342 wrote: There is no need to seek out Al-quaeda in UK, the UK is doing that. Western governments will seek out Al-Quaeda in countries whose governments are neglecting to do this job. One of those countries has been Iraq. And it is justified.

The US Commission after 9/11 found no evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in commissioning or supporting the terrorists - in what way was the invasion justified?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:16 am

Bryn Mawr;1083343 wrote: The US Commission after 9/11 found no evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in commissioning or supporting the terrorists - in what way was the invasion justified?

Commissioning and supporting terrorists is different from neglecting to do anything about terrorism. Doing nothing is really the cousin of supporting anyway. Saddam offerred money to the families of suicide bombers to replace their homes thats why they took him out. By looking the other way, those countries are indirectly supporting terrorism. They allow it to grow within their countries. If they are not going to do anything about it, then western nations will go in and do the job that needs to be done.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:26 am

Jester;1083326 wrote: Every country I have ever been in has welcomed me to help them, thats hardly an invasionFrom your viewpoint you're liked, admired, heroic and wonderfully popular. From my viewpoint I remember that every invader in history has been cheered wherever he appeared for the simple reason that he's armed to the teeth, authorized to kill and terrifying to all civilians. What the hell else are they going to do except smile and clap as you approach and then stick two fingers at your back once you've gone past? Which Detroit are ya talkin about?

The 12th Street riot? Lyndon Johnson sent in the National Guard and the regular Army and scored forty-three dead and 467 injured. And no, it wasn't just the National Guard, there were 4,700 82nd Airborne paras. We used to deploy paras against the civil population of Northern Ireland, they were uniquely hated for their standard of brutality.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:30 am

wildhorses;1083347 wrote: Commissioning and supporting terrorists is different from neglecting to do anything about terrorism. Doing nothing is really the cousin of supporting anyway. Saddam offerred money to the families of suicide bombers to replace their homes thats why they took him out.

Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers in the USA? I think not. Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? So did and so does Saudi Arabia to this very day. That excuse fails for both reasons. The US seems oblivious to the fact that Muslim extremism is primarily a phenomenon of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which the USA is capable of invading. What happens in practice is that the US behaves like a jackal pack pulling down the weakest.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:50 am

spot;1083349 wrote: Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers in the USA? I think not. Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? So did and so does Saudi Arabia to this very day. That excuse fails for both reasons. The US seems oblivious to the fact that Muslim extremism is primarily a phenomenon of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which the USA is capable of invading. What happens in practice is that the US behaves like a jackal pack pulling down the weakest.

I never said the suicide bombers were in USA. You know exactly what I am talking about...dont play games. Oh yeah right...pull down the weakest....LOL. SA and Egypt will get theirs if they dont get on the ball. And muslim extremism is definitely not restricted to only those countries. We cant invade them? Oh please. We will if we have to. Western governments will go after terrorists in any country where the government of that country neglects the existing threat. ANY COUNTRY. First they will try to get that government to do something about it. If they dont respond or refuse, they will have a problem.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:02 am

Froth and ranting, wildhorses. What you write and what happens in the world are completely divorced. You're making up fiction.

The suicide bombers were in Israel and, I'll say it again, the Iraqi government wasn't the only one making those payments. So did and so does Saudi Arabia to this very day. The US ignores that inconvenient fact because the US is impotent against both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. "We will if we have to"? That's bullying bluster, it's got no reality on the ground, the Bush administration would have done it had it been possible and they'd considered it desirable. On the contrary, what they wanted was to position US Armed Forces in the Middle East and they achieved that by allowing a New Pearl Harbor to enrage domestic opinion.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:07 am

spot;1083352 wrote: Froth and ranting, wildhorses. What you write and what happens in the world are completely divorced. You're making up fiction.

The suicide bombers were in Israel and, I'll say it again, the Iraqi government wasn't the only one making those payments. So did and so does Saudi Arabia to this very day. The US ignores that inconvenient fact because the US is impotent against both Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Oh I see....if I dont agree with you then I am frothing and ranting eh? Great debating tactics. Thats the problem with you Spot, you cant accept any disagreement.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:09 am

wildhorses;1083355 wrote: Oh I see....if I dont agree with you then I am frothing and ranting eh? Great debating tactics. Thats the problem with you Spot, you cant accept any disagreement.

I'm merely comparing your statements with the newspaper headlines of the last twenty years. What I describe agrees with them, what you describe is fresh-minted out of your own head with no grounding in real-world events.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:10 am

fuzzy butt;1083354 wrote: Hmmm this is the opinions held by those who have had total censorship of the media. The jailing of journalists as "the enemy " so it doesn't matter if you kill them!!!! double the amount of journalists have been killed in Iraq alone than in the entire world war two!!! Anyone notice we havent had any reports from Iraqis on our televisions unless it's in support of Amercia? Doesn't anyone find that a bit weird? I do!!!!

But I did begin a thread on this . Americas' hands are dirty. Filthy in fact!!!!

Maybe the only Iraquis they can find all agree with American involvment.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:11 am

wildhorses;1083358 wrote: Maybe the only Iraquis they can find all agree with American involvment.

You should watch Al Jazeera for a few days mate, you'll see you're mistaken. Or the BBC.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:14 am

spot;1083356 wrote: I'm merely comparing your statements with the newspaper headlines of the last twenty years. What I describe agrees with them, what you describe is fresh-minted out of your own head with no grounding in real-world events.

Why are you getting angry? This is just a debate. I have my opinion and you have yours. And make no mistake about it...what you say is just your opinion of what you have read or heard about the events. My opinion has just as much value as yours. There is no need to be disrepectful.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:15 am

spot;1083359 wrote: You should watch Al Jazeera for a few days mate, you'll see you're mistaken. Or the BBC.

I do. I have both in my favorites. You see, Spot, I have access to the same media you do.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:17 am

wildhorses;1083361 wrote: Why are you getting angry? This is just a debate. I have my opinion and you have yours. And make no mistake about it...what you say is just your opinion of what you have read or heard about the events. My opinion has just as much value as yours. There is no need to be disrepectful.

You hear a tone of anger in what I write? It's an interesting perception on your part, I'm writing as factually as I can. No, your opinion's worthless unless it's related to the real world. You need to be able to produce evidence of what you claim just like the rest of us do.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:19 am

wildhorses;1083362 wrote: I do. I have both in my favorites. You see, Spot, I have access to the same media you do.

I thought the BBC web broadcasts were limited to the UK but, not unreasonably, I've never been able to test that. I'm surprised you can receive them but I note that you can.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:20 am

spot;1083364 wrote: You hear a tone of anger in what I write? It's an interesting perception on your part, I'm writing as factually as I can. No, your opinion's worthless unless it's related to the real world. You need to be able to produce evidence of what you claim just like the rest of us do.

The "frothing and ranting" comment was my very first clue.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:28 am

I'll probably regret writing this - but whenever I read Jester et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Spot et al. And whenever I read Spot et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Jester et al. So one lurches back and forth, like a ball in a tennis match, messing about with metaphor, a million miles from either position, and hoping reality lies somewhere in between these unattractive extremes.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:32 am

AussiePam;1083368 wrote: I'll probably regret writing this - but whenever I read Jester et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Spot et al. And whenever I read Spot et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Jester et al. So one lurches back and forth, like a ball in a tennis match, messing about with metaphor, a million miles from either position, and hoping reality lies somewhere in between these unattractive extremes.

You don't applaud each post, you wince? That's disturbing. I'm evidently not the Boris Becker of ForumGarden as I'd fondly hoped.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:33 am

wildhorses;1083362 wrote: I do. I have both in my favorites. You see, Spot, I have access to the same media you do.

Then how can you write "Maybe the only Iraquis they can find all agree with American involvment" when those two sources make it completely obvious that there are lots who don't?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:35 am

spot;1083366 wrote: I thought the BBC web broadcasts were limited to the UK but, not unreasonably, I've never been able to test that. I'm surprised you can receive them but I note that you can.

Why should it not be available globally? All media is available globally. The internet is global you know. Why would you think we in the USA would not be able to access BBC web site?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:37 am

spot;1083372 wrote: Then how can you write "Maybe the only Iraquis they can find all agree with American involvment" when those two sources make it completely obvious that there are lots who don't?

Because most are in favor of American involvement. Maybe they could not find any to interview that were against USA involvement.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:41 am

wildhorses;1083373 wrote: Why should it not be available globally? All media is available globally. The internet is global you know. Why would you think we in the USA would not be able to access BBC web site?

Because the BBC Director General said so when he appeared before the House Of Commons committee taking evidence from him on the future of British Broadcasting last month. There's a constant tension over the BBC driven by its funding through a national levy of $250 a year on every family which owns a television. Politicians are trying to split some of that funding to other UK program providers.

I didn't say "access BBC web site", I said "BBC web broadcasts" as in "You should watch Al Jazeera for a few days mate, you'll see you're mistaken. Or the BBC". The program internet TV is, I'm sure, only available to UK IP addresses.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:41 am

AussiePam;1083368 wrote: I'll probably regret writing this - but whenever I read Jester et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Spot et al. And whenever I read Spot et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Jester et al. So one lurches back and forth, like a ball in a tennis match, messing about with metaphor, a million miles from either position, and hoping reality lies somewhere in between these unattractive extremes.

Well why dont you go ahead and inject something more moderate into the thread....for the benefit of others who also may cringe at extreme views.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:42 am

spot;1083371 wrote: You don't applaud each post, you wince? That's disturbing. I'm evidently not the Boris Becker of ForumGarden as I'd fondly hoped.

I've winced quite a lot lately. Spot. :sneaky: But I believe you and Jester are friends, and this is just amicable letting off of steam.

I guess it's good for those member of FG who do get upset by these topics to take note that you are speaking for yourselves. This is Spot and a mate or two versus Jester and a mate or two, not the UK/Europe/Islam versus America/The West/Christianity.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:44 am

spot;1083376 wrote: Because the BBC Director General said so when he appeared before the House Of Commons committee taking evidence from him on the future of British Broadcasting last month. There's a constant tension over the BBC driven by its funding through a national levy of $250 a year on every family which owns a television. Politicians are trying to split some of that funding to other UK program providers.

I didn't say "access BBC web site", I said "BBC web broadcasts" as in "You should watch Al Jazeera for a few days mate, you'll see you're mistaken. Or the BBC". The program internet TV is, I'm sure, only available to UK IP addresses.

They have a web site. Are you telling me that they give correct information on the broadcast in UK and then put false information on the web site? That makes no sense at all to me. Interesting they should do this. Here in USA we have news broadcasts too. And guess what? The information on their web site is precisely the same as the broadcast version. Interesting that you Brits would have false information on your BBC site.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:48 am

wildhorses;1083377 wrote: Well why dont you go ahead and inject something more moderate into the thread....for the benefit of others who also may cringe at extreme views.

I think it's a waste of time, Wildhorses. Totally pointless. Maybe it's a bit like the threads on belief. Some people believe because they believe. Some people argue because they argue.

I'm going to bed now.. G'night!!!

:-6

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:11 am

fuzzy butt;1083387 wrote: Because the US has censored everything. Absolutely everything.!!!!!

So explain what the US does exactly....to censor the BBC web site. Do they alter the page? Put a phony page there? LOL. Please dont go off the deep end with the conspiracy thing and censorship OK? BBC news is the same as USA news. I laugh when I come across people who think they have access to some secret and special news source that is not available to anyone else. Very funny.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:15 am

fuzzy butt;1083390 wrote: That's a bit of a conceited view................voice of reason? Thought my mother was already in bed!!!!!

And you dont' see a problem with this?

Why should it be a problem that the broadcast version of a news channel is the same as their web site. It should be the same. Should the ABC news, for example broadcast information and then have contradicting information on their web site? Now that would be a problem. I see now problem with a broadcast company having the same information on their web site as on their broadcast news. Why would you think this is a problem?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:22 am

fuzzy butt;1083400 wrote: Nope I believe in updates and different journalistic points of view ....helps me to decide rather than sitting here being a pleb.

Well there are different points of view, but they are consisitent with the broadcast. The point is that the BBC broadcast is the same as the BBC web site. That is how the discussion started. And frankly BBC has almost the same news as any US news agency. Spot was saying that somehow they have all different information there than on US sites...but that is not true...I go there regularly.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:26 am

fuzzy butt;1083401 wrote: Teh US censors it before it gets to the BBC . they censor it before it even gets out of Iraq most of the time and the stuff that does get out without them knowing is seen as supporting the terrorists.

Funny I find it disturbing. You mean a source other than your own?

Interesting

You have missed the point of the last posts that started the media conversation. Spot was saying that I should read BBC to get correct information instead of US news agencies. Now you are saying BBC is censored. You all seem kind of confused.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:51 am

Good Lord! :-5

The fertilizer is getting thicker and thicker in the garden.

If we were censored then why would we be "allowed" to have access to the TV news and newspapers of every other country in the world.

to think that only *your* country has the real, true news of what's really going on in the world is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:32 am

sunny104;1083535 wrote: Good Lord! :-5

The fertilizer is getting thicker and thicker in the garden.

If we were censored then why would we be "allowed" to have access to the TV news and newspapers of every other country in the world.

to think that only *your* country has the real, true news of what's really going on in the world is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I do like to google the Wahington Post and The New York Times now and again.

I gave up googling The Irish Times when the breaking headlines were 'Bycycle stolen some-where in Ireland' or 'Man spots a cat'. Yawn

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:48 am

jimbo;1083578 wrote: oscar you mean you missed the toxic pork thing in Ireland

they fed loaves of bread still with the plastic packaging still on them

i mean what were they trying to get pre- wrapped sausage sarnies :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

I didn't miss it my Bracknell buddy, i just thought galbally had wrote an article about his pork sword.

yes, the Irish thought they'd cut out the middle man and pre-wrap without the expense. I bought some but to cut out the middle man, i just flushed them straight down the bog. :yh_rotfl

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:56 am

oscar;1083568 wrote: I do like to google the Wahington Post and The New York Times now and again. I gave up googling The Irish Times when the breaking headlines were 'Bycycle stolen some-where in Ireland' or 'Man spots a cat'. Yawn

Actually the real headlines are unfortunately

A 13 Year old thug shoots a father dead with a glock 9mm handgun at point blank range, after egging his house in Dublin, and tormenting the man's family for months.

Organized heavily armed criminals turning Dublin and Limerick into cocaine fuelled gang-land battle zones

6,000 People lose their jobs before Christmas because of Pork Scare, Irish agriculture in crisis economically

The rest of the economy is already falling apart, and we're heading into the worst recession for 25 years at least.

Irish Government trying to mend the damage arising from the Lisbon Treaty referendum, and restore Ireland's position within the EU.

People pouring across the border to avail of cheap prices in Northern Ireland because of collapsing value of Sterling, the economies of border towns being decimated.

2009 Set to be a disasterous year for Ireland financially, economically, and socially

However, the christmas lights in Grafton Street are lovely.

I wish your quaint vision of Ireland based on Ballykissangel was the reality, unfortunately, we are a modern country with all the ills of modern life being visited upon us now with a vengence. I saw its time to go back to donkey's and potatoes actually as all this modern crap is rubbish.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:01 am

Jester;1083615 wrote: Removal of Saddam.

That was a bright day when they took that scum out. Made my day. And there are a few fanatics running around there as well. So hopefully they cleaned out a nest or two of em.