Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And again you raise utterly irrelevant points which fail to address the subject.

Let me remind you again what the subject was: You said that America had "widespread support" for its action. I have demonstrated that on any rational and objective measure of "support' that was simply not the case. Now if you have any proof to the contrary, please produce it.

Sorry, isn't someone elsewhere in this thread complaining about another poster making personal attacks??

*Where* do I say you should *shut up*? I want you to speak up! I want you to show the *proof* of the claims you are making!

Please *SHOW* us something that demonstrates that your claims are not just your beliefs, but are actually *FACTS*!

We're all waiting...!!!

You can also assume they are doing it because they were told to by the Great Pumpkin or the little pixies that hide under their pillow. It's not very convincing as an argument, though, is it?

Ah, *more* supposition and innuendo! Because X did it in the past, they *must* be doing it again!

:rofl:

You don't like people who won't take your baseless claims at face value and instead request reasonable standards of proof. You, in turn, respond with evasion, obfustication and persona attacks and then act all aggrieved when they won't run away before your bluster.

Hang on! You say "this is a free society" and that people "have a right to demonstrate" yet you then follow it with the suggestion that they *PAY* for the right to demonstrate!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And so you make one last desperate attempt to attack me, but end up only making yourself look even more ridiculous. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

In war you have to take out the infrastructure to deny it to the enemy. Anything less would be foolhardy. Thats a bit different to deliberatly targeting synagogues and buses don't you think?

I agree, cluster bombs are wrong, they may kill innocent women and children but that is hardly in the same league as targeting a bus full of children dont you think? That will kill them btw....no 'may' about it. Now if you can't see the difference, you definitly need your head seeing to. It's a question of intent, you see. The person who deliberatly kills innocents is deemed to be nastier than the person who accidently kills innocents whilst trying to kill bad guys. Also, the person who is trying to avoid civilian casualities will generally avoid them whilst the whilst the terrorist will generally get them every time ('cos that's what he's trying to do)....it's that 'intent' thing again you see...
I know that I'm talking down to you but you can't seem to see the difference between intent and accident (or just won't see it)

(All civilian casualities are tragic btw)

Who's phrase is that?, not mine, don't put words into my mouth. We are without a doubt 'better' than they are because we don't deliberatly target women and children. We don't set out to blow up buses and resturants and red cross facilities (using ambulances) I wonder how loudly you would squeal if we tried sh*t like that(but I don't see you condeming them for it:dozey: ) .

wtf has Turkeys apalling human rights record got to do with anything?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

A bit like the comments (from all you liberal left wingers) to the effect that because the US has got it wrong in the past they must be doing it wrong again.:dozey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And, once again, excuse me, but *HOW* does targetting civilian water and sewerage systems hurt the Iraqi military???

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw41/watertarget.html

What about a power system that supplies Iraqi hospitals?

http://www.droitvp.org/electricityCivilian.html

You may want to quibble words about whether this is "deliberate" or "accidental", but the fact is that innocent women and children have *died* as a result of this policy and that is something you *cannot* deny.

No, because innocent people end up maimed, crippled or dead either way.

It may salve *your* conscience to think "Ah, we but didn't undertake a deliberate act to kill these people", but I doubt that's much comfort to them or their families.

If you think otherwise, it is *you* who needs their conscience, rather than their head, examined.

Ye gods, no, it's not your phrase, it's mine!! It's the way I describe your position. Other words I could use are for instance "hypocritical" or "short sighted" or "blinkered".

So *accidentally* killing them by destroying vital infrastructure which is *NOT* of any military value or by using morally questionable weaponry such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium et al is "BETTER"??

I would be rolling on the floor lauging at this point if it weren't so bloody tragic.

Ah, because I don't condemn "them", somehow I have no right to condemn "us" for engaging in illegal actions! What a wonderfully ludicrous piece of logic...!

You just condemned the bombings in Turkey, yet you hadn't said anything about the abuses of Human rights in that same country and the persecution of Iraqi Kurds by Turkish forces! As someone said "but I don't see you condeming them for it"

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I'm sorry, is the phrase "liberal left wingers" supposed to be insulting or something?

As to whether the US is doing it wrong again, I'll leave the evidence of the current state of Iraq to stand for my answer!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Congratulations on summing up your own attitude, couldn't have put it better myself.

Incidently nothing I wrote was not irrelevant, merely following what was said by me in response from you before. I detected a rather smug arrogant attitude from you since were literally laughing at the new democracies supporting the coalition. Countries like Estonia, Poland etc have experienced years of oppression and now have a voice in world affairs, you I suppose would prefer they remained under Soviet influence.

I say again, we live in free society, people do have the right to protest; they have a duty to act responsibily; as long as they do not violate the law and cooperate with the police. I wrote at the time complaining our Council Tax would increase and none other than K. Livingstone announced it and at the same he was encouraging it, when as Mayor he should not be.

Some of the key people involved in the proposed demonstrations are members of the Socialist Workers' Party, the various Communist Parties and other fringe hard left groups, they have paid officials who are involved in organising and publicity, also there will be student activitists who will be paid NUS or other student union officials of various institutions. Others indeed may well be on state benefits, fine they have rights too. Certainly, on such ocassions when mob violence has resulted in damage to property and injuring police officers during the performance of their duties and any law abiding citizen then yes protesters involved in violent acts should pay compensation.


I have really tried to keep this friendly, I do not engage in personal attacks and will not but I will say that you are arrogant, you are intolerant and indeed you do respond with personal attacks.

I thought the speech from President George W. Bush yesterday at the Banquetting Hall was quite good.

Do have a nice day.

:wavey:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Absolutely!

'It ain't over till the fat lady sings':)

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

So did I.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

We know that the Iraqui military often located itself in civilian areas and went as far as using civilian buildings such as hospitals as bases.

We have to quibble over words when it comes down to deciding who is evil/to blame/how much to blame and who is not. Thats why we have a distinction between murder and manslaughter in law.



If my family was killed by accident I would feel differently about it than if they were killed deliberatly. It wouldn't make it right or help the sorrow but it would be different, for instance the question of retribution would have to be addressed (or not)

And this countrys legal system as well. Remember murder V manslaughter? Premeditated V accidental?:rolleyes:


I don't agree with using cluster bombs or depleted uranium shells. How do you know that the infrastructure was not of military value? The truth of stuff like that only comes out decades later. Anyhow the Iraquis often deliberatly sited themselves in/near/beneath civilian buildings.

The situation is tragic



Don't put words in my mouth. You have every right to condemn 'us' but when you don't utter a peep about 'them' it strikes me as odd and rather one-sided.



wtf? Are we discussing Turkey now? Different discussion, go start a new thread.:confused:

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

I'd just like to point out a couple of things:

1) I am sorry, but I think it reasonable to assume that most countries build their Miltary infrastructure outside population centres at least partly to minimise the impact on civilians if the place is bombed. Saddam did not do this.

He built Military bases in towns (near hospitals and schools for instance). Presumably this was in the assumption the west would not bomb them for fear of hitting innocent citizens. So, I personally blame Saddam Hussein for these deaths.

2) Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent Iraqi citizens.

3) Iraqi hospitals, if maintained to a reasonable standard, will have generators to power all essential equipment. Ours do.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Oh dear, now you bring this discussion to the level of the playground!

See that pile of poo? That's you, that is! That's your argument!

Yawn.

Any such "detection" is purely the result of your own imagination. I did not say anything of the sort, nor would I ever. I would ask you to prove your claim with cites, however past performance has demonstrated that the futility of such requests.

Why are people objecting to me allegedly "trying to put words into their mouth", yet don't complain when others do the same to me? Hmm...!

Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant. Some of the people are members of (insert ny particular group you care to name here). Whatever particular groups people may belong to has *NO* bearing on the fact that a *lot* of people are protesting because they object to US behaviour and foreign policy. It certainly doesn't mean that they *AGREE* with or *SUPPORT* the philosophiles of the SWP, the Communists or anyone else.

And any protestors who are arrested and convicted of such acts in a court of law *WILL* pay compensation or be given jail sentences or whatever. This does *NOT* mean that people should, as you seem to suggest, "pay to protest"!

Unfortunately what is clear is that you have no idea what a reasoned debate is. You confuse opinion with fact, disagreement with intolerance, requests for proof of claims with personal attacks and think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is, thereby, being "arrogant".

Sorry, am I expected to read this as some sort of sarcasm?

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Oh.

The sound you can hear is me not giving a damn.

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Ho hum. More irrelevancies.

Did you actually bother to *read* those links I posted? Let me quote a couple of relevant sections...

"During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq."

"An estimated 90% of Iraq's national power grid was destroyed in the Gulf War."

Now *HOW* exactly, is that going to affect the Iraqi military *WITHOUT* also causing widespread suffering to civilians?

These are *ILLEGAL* acts under UN conventions which the US has signed up to. They border on, if not actually are, *war crimes*.

And the US redefined "civilian" as "military" to justify their illegal actions. Oh, and don't forget that they refused to take part in the International Criminal Court because they knew damned well that they'd be hauled up in front of it for what they'd done!

However we're not talking so much about "accident" as "carelessness"! The US has this lovely phrase "collateral damage" to describe what happens when civilians are killed as a result of their military action. Those who are now suffering cancers or who have been maimed or killed by unexploded cluster weapons or who were made ill or died due to the lack of fresh water are just more "collateral damage".

How would *you* feel if your family were just "collateral damage"?

Read the bloody links!

Now who is putting words into whose mouth?? There's a word for that...

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Perhaps you didn't understand.

Here, let me quote the words again and see if you can fit them into the context of your above seeming attempt to "put words into my mouth":

'You just condemned the bombings in Turkey, yet you hadn't said anything about the abuses of Human rights in that same country and the persecution of Iraqi Kurds by Turkish forces! As someone said "but I don't see you condeming them for it"'

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

And all very valid points, except for the fact that they're *all* answered by the links that I posted, but which people don't seem to have bothered to *READ*!

1) We're talking about civilian infrastructure, not military targets. Targetting dams and water treatment facilities is an entirely different matter.

2) Irrelevant. We are talking about what *our* forces did (unless you believe the argument that "we had to kill them to save them")

3) Backup generators are a *temporary* measure, designed to keep the power going until the main supply is repaired. They are *NOT* designed to *keep* supplying power when 90% of the Iraqi national power grid was destroyed!

Re: anti americanism fashionable
 

Thats all right, I didn't expect you to:D