babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Over 2000 coalition forces dead

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Over 2000 coalition forces dead
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 04 August 2005 05:17 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are americans still determined to bring more death and destruction to Iraq. Over 2000 dead in a war most of the world is against. Hopefully, Sept.24 will be a turning point, and americans will come together and protest against the "bush" machine. A similar date for Canadians would not be a bad idea.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 04 August 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you want the Americans to do? leave now?
Every political force in Washington agrees that the earliest possible withdrawal date has to be AFTER iraqi security forces are themselves ready. I see Americans leaving gradually between 2007 and 2010.

From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What do you want the Americans to do? leave now?

Yes.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So the US can sortof, like, invade any country it likese and then, you know, well, its ok after they gone an fucked everything up, so I guess they should, umm, like, stay?

If you had children would you encourage them to bad behaviour?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 04 August 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Yes.


I've heard this view expressed, and it may get so bad there that it'll be the best option. But what do you propose that the US, and coalition, do to help fix the mess that they've created? I would assume you think they're responsible. Not to mention the fact that all the countries who participated in the blockade of the country during the 90's have helped to weaken the country. So shouldn't the anti-war movement have some sort of demand that the countries responsible for Iraq's current predicament help share the financial burden for reconstruction or something?

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you think the US should just be able to invade whereever it likes, and then when they have fucked everything up we are to support there ongoing activites? It isn't like they ended up there by mistake.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 04 August 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obviously not. Now is there any way you can answer my question(s)?

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh well thats easy. They should repay the Arab people by putting preassure on Israel to abide by resolution 242, and its commitments under Oslo.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 04 August 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, are you dissapointed I didn't take the position that I think we should support US screw ups?

I could you know....

Actually, no, that's too much for me.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 04 August 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel is presently dismantling settlements in Gaza to help pave the way for palestinian control of the area, they're making steps in the positive direction, one step at time, and it's partly due to american pressure.

Cueball,

I think international law is wishful thinking.Nobody respects international law completely, nations respect what exists. The only thing that really exists as a deterrent as international reputation. The USA's leadership believed that the benefits of the war would outweight the cost to their international reputation. Does the USA have the right to invade whoeveer? I don't think the language of rights applies. I think the only language that applies is that of capability, and interest.

It will be exactly the same when China takes over from the USA as world behemoth in fifty years. They might even be worse.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 04 August 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
What do you want the Americans to do? leave now?
Every political force in Washington agrees that the earliest possible withdrawal date has to be AFTER iraqi security forces are themselves ready. I see Americans leaving gradually between 2007 and 2010.

In the words of many Iraqis, Yes.

Just what are the U.S. trained Iraqi forces supposed to be ready for? As long as "Iraqi forces" are U.S. trained and equiped they will be treated as americans and given no quarter. The U.S. must admit its' war in Iraq is a mistake and withdraw all troops and let Iraqis take take of their own business . Oh, and cut them a cheque for about 50 billion for all the damage you fuckers have done.

No WMD. Found Sadaam, get lost. Take your cheetos and your bullets, and let the Iraqi people decide their own future. Can you do that? No? Well there might be some people who will continue to "persuade" you fuckers to get the fuck out. 2000 and counting.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 06:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
Cueball,

I think international law is wishful thinking.Nobody respects international law completely, nations respect what exists. The only thing that really exists as a deterrent as international reputation.


I am not talking about international law. I am talking bad policy. Error compounded by error. And more rank stupidity.

My little sermon on the occupation was actually an in-joke for Vansterdam kid. See the winky smiley?

But that said. The Gaza Schmiel is intended to cover for the solidification of annexation of territories in the west bank. Gaza, once a trourist resort, is now worse than Compton. When Israel removes its settlments it will still control all of the border crossing, even those into Egypt.

From scenic mediteranean getaway to open air Gulag. Great!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 August 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to be the wet blanket here, but the US is never going to leave Iraq, not while there is oil to be had.

And marches on the White House will not have any effect on Bush.

I heard neocon Frank Gaffney on the BBC today continuing to repeat over and over that its not al Qaeda - its worldwide Islamo-fascism were fighting and they don't just want the US and UK out of the holy lands - they want the entire world to bow toward Mecca as part of a worldwide calipate.

"They want to destroy us, all of us" Gaffney said.

Bush is on the radio today framing the fight as a "clash of ideologies" just one step now from the "clash of civilisations" that the White House had so strenuously denied early in the war.

So this is the final refuge of the scoundrels - not admitting that we're there for the crude, but now that we are fighting an entire ideology (a new Evil Empire) hell bent on our utter destruction and conversion to Islam.

I'm afraid we may have just seen the overture.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 06:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So shouldn't the anti-war movement have some sort of demand that the countries responsible for Iraq's current predicament help share the financial burden for reconstruction or something?

Get out and pay up, yes.

quote:
I'm afraid we may have just seen the overture.

I am afraid we must finally, disagree. I think the US is in a policy retreat with rapidly evaporating public support. There was an article by Cole the other day that declared, "The war in Iraq is over ... Iran won." Another echoed those sentiments calling Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder ever.

Partly because when the US does retreat, and it will, it will have left its mideast allies weaker and its enemy, Iran, much stronger.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes. Fairlure for the US will make Israel's strategic position a lot more unstable. Best to make some kind of radical peace initiative with the Palestinians right away before the Arab world smells blood and revenge.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 August 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

I am afraid we must finally, disagree. I think the US is in a policy retreat with rapidly evaporating public support. There was an article by Cole the other day that declared, "The war in Iraq is over ... Iran won." Another echoed those sentiments calling Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder ever.

Partly because when the US does retreat, and it will, it will have left its mideast allies weaker and its enemy, Iran, much stronger.


Well I hope you're right, but I'll stand on this - I think the US will pay any price (in blood) and bear any burden to keep their oil marker in the Middle East. Without those oil access guarantees (especially with Saudi Arabia's possible destabilsation) the US economy is toast. It may be anyway.

This administration may have not exhausted their bag of tricks yet. That's what scares me more than anything.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 04 August 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the USA leaves now it won't be the iraqis who decide the fate of their country, it will be all the foreign nationals such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who are fuelling the insurgency. "Letting Iraqis decide" means supporting the government that Iraqis voted for. There are many more responsible for Iraq's predicament than the war on the willing. It starts with Saddam when he came to power.

I find it a tad ridiculous that the US should not only leave the country and thus leave it to be occupied by foreign nationals BEFORE it has invested in an iraqi police force, but that it should then "pay up." Pay up to whom? Al Zarqawi?


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 06:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
If the USA leaves now it won't be the iraqis who decide the fate of their country, it will be all the foreign nationals such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who are fuelling the insurgency. "Letting Iraqis decide" means supporting the government that Iraqis voted for. There are many more responsible for Iraq's predicament than the war on the willing. It starts with Saddam when he came to power.

I find it a tad ridiculous that the US should not only leave the country and thus leave it to be occupied by foreign nationals BEFORE it has invested in an iraqi police force, but that it should then "pay up." Pay up to whom? Al Zarqawi?


You watch to much tv.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Iraqis can handle any "foreign nationals," though calling a Syrian Arab from Jordan, like Zarkawi, a foreign national in Baghdad is like saying that someone from Yorkshire is not really English. I have not seen one Pentagon report that enumerates the number of foreign nationals at more than 20% of insurgents, the rest are local -- what is this need to see Iraqis as completely maleable to the work of a few Zealots?

It sounds like more cultural bias to me: the white mans burden warmed over.

Back in the Vietnam war, the US went on and on abour North Vietnamese intervention, as if the South Vietnam was somehow a different country. That line was bogus, then and it is now.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 04 August 2005 06:41 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
If the USA leaves now it won't be the iraqis who decide the fate of their country, it will be all the foreign nationals such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who are fuelling the insurgency. "Letting Iraqis decide" means supporting the government that Iraqis voted for. There are many more responsible for Iraq's predicament than the war on the willing. It starts with Saddam when he came to power.

I find it a tad ridiculous that the US should not only leave the country and thus leave it to be occupied by foreign nationals BEFORE it has invested in an iraqi police force, but that it should then "pay up." Pay up to whom? Al Zarqawi?


The american govenment needs to go away. Why is that so hard to understand? You think the Iraqis are incapable or something? The american govenment attacked a nation that had not been a threat to the U.S. That is outrageous. That's it. No more need to be said. Except that the american military will continue to suffer the bad choices of the u.s. govenment.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 04 August 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the USA leaves now it won't be the iraqis who decide the fate of their country, it will be all the foreign nationals such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who are fuelling the insurgency.

Oh, right. The US presence of 140,000 plus troops is insufficient to decide the fate of Iraq, but the oh-so-numerous foreign nationals "fuelling the insurgency" can do it. Easy.

If you are interested in a more realistic appraisal of who is the insurgency, try this (recently-murdered) writer for the National Review, or this US soldier, just back from Iraq, and testifying in Congress:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200412150858.asp

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=297326


quote:
One beautiful late winter morning, I found myself standing on a street corner in downtown Fallujah, surrounded by a crowd of Iraqi men, each person shoving forward to express an identical sentiment: hatred for the United States of America.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 04 August 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
I find it a tad ridiculous that the US should not only leave the country and thus leave it to be occupied by foreign nationals ...
Ah, so Iraq being occupied by foreign nationals is a bad thing. I guess you either oppose the U.S. occupiers, or perhaps you have already come to think of them as locals.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 07:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry about the dog pile DA_Champion.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can apologists for an illegal war possibly talk about "foriegn nationals" in Iraq with a straight face? I mean, do they? Is it like watching an old Carrol Burnett episode with Harvey Korman barely able to get his lines out? Or is it like some SNL characther finally giving up and saying "I can't do this." Or do they really not see the contradiction? Because that would be really sad, pathetic and dangerous.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 04 August 2005 07:22 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, the US encouraged "foreign nationals" to come in and fight them.

They talked about the need for an islamic movement against the infidel.

In Iraq, the same movement is deemed illegitimate, because the invader is different.

That's pretty hypocritical.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 August 2005 09:22 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff House

I was hoping you could answer this question for me?

Is there not an international law about when a country invades another country that the invading country must provide security / protection for the invaded country until the occupied country is able to defend itself from external / internal threats once again?

I can not remember if I read this some place or was told this by someone.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 04 August 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you people have a lot of faith that things can turn out ok. I personally forsee cataclysm, civil war and such if the USA leaves overnight as many of you are proposing. The relevent question is NOT, "was this war moral to begin with," rather, it is: "now that this war has taken place, what is the proper thing to do?"

I'm sure the Japanese also hated America back in 1945. The Americans still did what needed to be done. As it stands, all polls conducted of Iraqis do indeed demonstrate a distrust of Americans, but they also demonstrate that they don't want the Americans to leave just yet. They don't feel prepared to take on the foreign nationals by themselves.

Cueball said:

quote:
It sounds like more cultural bias to me: the white mans burden warmed over.

I'm not white, I'm middle eastern.

quote:
calling a Syrian Arab from Jordan, like Zarkawi, a foreign national in Baghdad is like saying that someone from Yorkshire is not really English.

Calling sunni fundamentalist zarqawi a foreign national in relatively secular shiite Iraq is like calling Rush Limbaugh a foreign national in Canada.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 09:31 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lost a lot of faith? Faith based on a lie is a false faith to begin with. You don't seem to be getting this: The Americans are the foreign nationals Iraqis are at war with.

quote:
"now that this war has taken place, what is the proper thing to do?"

GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 09:33 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets," he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. "Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door ... and I saw [the soldier's name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform." Hilas, who was himself threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Ghraib, then describes in horrific detail how the soldier raped "the little kid".

In another witness statement, passed to the Sunday Herald, former prisoner Thaar Salman Dawod said: "[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a US soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The prisoners, two of them, were young."

It's not certain exactly how many children are being held by coalition forces in Iraq, but a Sunday Herald investigation suggests there are up to 107. Their names are not known, nor is where they are being kept, how long they will be held or what has happened to them during their detention.


Iraq's Child Prisoners

Some faith you have there.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 09:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It still sounds like "white mans burden warmed over," even if you are middle eastern. Its the "civilized" presuming the right to "civilize." And in this case you are arguing the US position. Colin Powell is not white either, but the phrase has a generic meaning.

Similar sentiments are often expressed by Israelis in regards to Palestinians. The most recent I heard was some pundit from Ha'aretz suggesting that withdrawing from Gaza was a bad idea because the PA and HAMAS might "fight over the spoils," and that might pose a security problem, etc, etc, et al.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 August 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Jeff House

I was hoping you could answer this question for me?

Is there not an international law about when a country invades another country that the invading country must provide security / protection for the invaded country until the occupied country is able to defend itself from external / internal threats once again?

I can not remember if I read this some place or was told this by someone.



No, there is no such law.

But there is a law against aggressive war, which is what the attack on Iraq was. And that law says that all death and destruction that results from the illegal aggression is on the heads of the invaders. They can claim no right to "self-defence" if their aggression is resisted.

And if their continued presence in the invaded country causes further death and destruction to occur, as is happening every day in Iraq, their very presence in the country is illegal, and they must withdraw immediately.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 August 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M. Spector

Thanks. However if the USA leaves Iraq and a civil-war starts, who shall be responsible to pick up the pieces? Can the USA legally leave the Iraq in its current state? Is the USA legally responsible to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 August 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
I think you people have a lot of faith that things can turn out ok. I personally forsee cataclysm, civil war and such if the USA leaves overnight as many of you are proposing.

cataclysm already exists in iraq. there is already a civil war. i would like to understand why you place so little faith in the iraqi peoples' ability to govern themselves peacefully. it's this same attitude from the public that has supported imperialism in places like haiti and afghanistan as well. this attitude that the victim countries are too stupid or too barbaric to create a democracy or whatever other peaceful government by themselves. we have to help them, and we can bring democracy to them by dropping a few hundred or thousand DU bombs.

quote:
posted by vansterdam kid:
So shouldn't the anti-war movement have some sort of demand that the countries responsible for Iraq's current predicament help share the financial burden for reconstruction or something?

financial burden, yes. but that doesn't include the setting up of american corporations in iraq - corporations whose bottom line is profit, corporations who destroy local businesses and local economy, corporations that hike up prices unreasonably for products and services that are basic human rights so fewer and fewer people can afford these basic human rights. foreign corporations scrambled to buy reconstruction contracts in iraq either immediately before the war started or as soon as it was announced that there was going to be a war. all these contracts are based on profit-making, and have nothing to do with helping rebuild iraq in the best interests of iraqis.

quote:
posted by webgear:
Is there not an international law about when a country invades another country that the invading country must provide security / protection for the invaded country until the occupied country is able to defend itself from external / internal threats once again?

webgear, i think you may be right. i've heard this too, but i'm beyond tired at this point to verify it. i do want to state though that the u.s is not doing anything to help bring stability to the region. so, as long as they manage to maintain just enough instability, i guess they can stay there for an eternity. i say, let the iraqis do it themeselves, and the u.s should get the fuck out of there. it's not their country. they have absolutely no business there, not now, not before, not ever. the whole was is based on dirty oil, and everything that the u.s. media has reported to the public about iraq is lies, lies, lies.

AE, i agree with you... i'm pessimistic about any protest march at the white house persuading the americans to leave iraq. yes, we should protest all we can, and any way we can peacefully, but it breaks my heart to say i don't have a lot of faith in these protests. i feel that the white house administration is full of mad, insane, power-hungry maniacs excessively greedy for oil and money, and they will sacrifice anything and fight tooth and nail to have control of that last drop of oil.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 August 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i cross-posted with m.spector. i'd rather you take his word over mine.

if the u.s leaves iraq in its current state, it would be the most legal thing it's done in years, provided they give the iraqi public a big fat cheque for destruction of all the physical infrastructure. however, there is no way they will ever be able to bring back lives, or even make reparations for that.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 August 2005 10:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
However if the USA leaves Iraq and a civil-war starts, who shall be responsible to pick up the pieces? Can the USA legally leave the Iraq in its current state? Is the USA legally responsible to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq?
I think that "civil war" ship has sailed already.

Yes, the USA must legally leave Iraq, and yes, they are responsible for reparations. This is entirely theoretical, however, because in actual fact the USA does not feel itself bound to adhere to the rule of law, and nobody is going to make them do it or call them to account for their crimes. They are an outlaw nation.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 August 2005 10:23 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ephemeral

I will accept both views points for now.

I was hoping Mr. House would answer since he is a lawyer.

Unless M. Spector is a lawyer, then I would accept his view.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 04 August 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Two points:

quote:
I don't think the language of rights applies. I think the only language that applies is that of capability, and interest.

This is often heard from the defenders of American or Israeli crimes, but they rarely apply it equally, which would imply, more example, that the attacks on the World Trade Center, or the Jewish Holocaust, were neither right nor wrong, but merely the collusion of capabilities and interests.

Ultimately the discourse of rights in underpinned by morality. The only discourse in which rights are irrevelent is a discourse without morality.

Point two: stay or go?

All the arguments for staying necessarily depend on this premise: that there will be some later time in which the departure of American troops can be undertaken in a less damaging way: leaving less of a security vacuum; leaving a less corrupt and ineffective government; leaving a county not rapidly spiraling into a civil war. Progressives and conservatives, each for their own reasons, want to believe that this is so.

History suggests that this premise in false. Occupations, as they strech from years to decades, do not solve any of these problems; they tend to grow steadily worse. Nor does anyone have a cogent plan for such improvements, rather, the assumption is that there must be a way to do it, because some much has already been invested, and the consequences of failure are so horrible.

The urge to sink more resources into a failing enterprise is proportional to the amount already spent; this is a principle familiar to every poker player. Submitting to that impulse has a name: "Throwing good money after bad."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 August 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In for a penny, in for a pound.... a good way to go bankrupt.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 01:52 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I've heard this view expressed, and it may get so bad there that it'll be the best option. But what do you propose that the US, and coalition, do to help fix the mess that they've created?

Maybe the best option for Iraq would be - shudder - to reinstall Saddam, since he was deposed based on lies, and his regime was internationally recognized. Let Iraqis deal with their own issues, like any other country does too. As it turns out, the "Coalition" has already murdered and maimed more Iraqis than Saddam in his entire 20-some years in power. Second, the US must pay reparations and finance the rebuilding of Iraq out of US (and British) taxpayers pockets. Third, the US must make restitution to any Iraqi family which has lost someone due to the illegal invasion. That would be a good start.

quote:
I would assume you think they're responsible. Not to mention the fact that all the countries who participated in the blockade of the country during the 90's have helped to weaken the country. So shouldn't the anti-war movement have some sort of demand that the countries responsible for Iraq's current predicament help share the financial burden for reconstruction or something?

See above.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 01:59 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
I hate to be the wet blanket here, but the US is never going to leave Iraq, not while there is oil to be had.

Unfortunately, I must agree. Why? Because it isn't Bush who is doing the bleeding, and he doesn't give a rats ass.

quote:
And marches on the White House will not have any effect on Bush.

Right again. It's a 'democratic' waste of time.

quote:
I heard neocon Frank Gaffney on the BBC today continuing to repeat over and over that its not al Qaeda - its worldwide Islamo-fascism were fighting and they don't just want the US and UK out of the holy lands - they want the entire world to bow toward Mecca as part of a worldwide calipate.

Though that may be true for some, the vast majority of 'terrorist attacks' is no doubt nothing more than a reaction to western polotics in the region. 'You' cease meddling, and 99% of terror attacks will immediately stop. I have not the slightest doubt about that.

quote:
Bush is on the radio today framing the fight as a "clash of ideologies" just one step now from the "clash of civilisations" that the White House had so strenuously denied early in the war.

Yea, Bush is harnessing religious fanaticism in the US to use against ME religious fanaticism, in order to get his way. I wish these religious nutcases would get off their couches and actually take up weapons and go over there. With any luck, the bastards will kill each other off, and the rest of the world will finally have some peace as the nutcases on both sides have been severely decimated.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:

Well I hope you're right, but I'll stand on this - I think the US will pay any price (in blood) and bear any burden to keep their oil marker in the Middle East. Without those oil access guarantees (especially with Saudi Arabia's possible destabilsation) the US economy is toast. It may be anyway.

This administration may have not exhausted their bag of tricks yet. That's what scares me more than anything.


I think Iraq is more about keeping oil out of China's hans, than it is about securing oil for the US.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 05 August 2005 02:09 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe the best option for Iraq would be - shudder - to reinstall Saddam

Errr...while we're in the buisness of creating scenarios, I don't think anyone who is serious about anything could ever propose this. While I understand your legal rationales behind it, it's a throughly ridiculous idea becuase of the number of Iraqi's he had killed, not to mention the ways in which he did it (read outside the normal confines of the law). The Iraqi people, by and large, still want him to go on trial for the way that he killed so many of their countrymen during his time in office so I think they'll make that decision as opposed to just setting things back to a pre-Invasion point.

quote:
As it turns out, the "Coalition" has already murdered and maimed more Iraqis than Saddam in his entire 20-some years in power.

How do we know that's true? If you include the number of deaths from sanctions, yes more have probably died from the foreign policy of various other countries (even though Saddam played an important part in this by re-directing the country's resources for his and his friends/family's benefit, as opposed to that of the people). If however you include only the time from the begging of the war, the number of dead fluctuates a lot.

I do however agree with the nessecity for countries such as the US and UK to pay for reconstruction costs.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 August 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The U.S., U.K. and France owe the Arab World billions in reparations, retroactive to 1917.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
If the USA leaves now it won't be the iraqis who decide the fate of their country, it will be all the foreign nationals such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who are fuelling the insurgency.

With all due respect, the one-legged... no, two-legged... no one-legged Zarqawi, who outran military vehicles and helicopters by allegedly jumping from a moving vehicle, may be nothing more than a carefully crafted figment of someones imagination. He may be the face of the boogieman, and yet not really exist. Technology can work miracles. I have trouble believeing the lying liars who lie to us whenever they open their lying mouths.

quote:
"Letting Iraqis decide" means supporting the government that Iraqis voted for.

Really? What percentage of the popular vote did the Baath Party receive in Iraqs election? Well, we in the west may not like the Baath Party, but it really isn't our place or business to say that Iraqis aren't allowed to vote for them. At the very least, Baath, with Saddam at the helm, should have been able to be on the ballot, so that Iraqis could have rejected him democratically, a chance they previously didn't have. I think the Americans were afraid that Baath would actually win the election with a huge majority. An election which only allows select parties to run is an elaborate scam, not an election.

quote:
There are many more responsible for Iraq's predicament than the war on the willing. It starts with Saddam when he came to power.

It is all a matter of perspective. Saddam allegedly did some nasty things, though we do not know the true extent, because our government-controlled media has painted this picture of the devil of him. But in reality, Saddam made Iraq the most progressive and educated nation in the Middle East. Women actually had some real rights, while they'll now be forced back into burquas. They could get full education like any man. He kept religious fanaticism under control. If Saddam really was the devil he is being portrayed as in western media, at least he was controlling Hell, while now that the US and poodles have gone in there, they have put the devil in chains, and opened wide the gates of hell to spread hatred and fear all over the world. Great work.

quote:
I find it a tad ridiculous that the US should not only leave the country and thus leave it to be occupied by foreign nationals BEFORE it has invested in an iraqi police force, but that it should then "pay up." Pay up to whom? Al Zarqawi?

The US is the thorn in Iraq which aggravates the country. The longer the US (and allies) stays, the more aggravated the country will become. You still don't get it? If the US doesn't leave the country, the only way to 'pacify' it is to kill most of the innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire, and I have a feeling that rather than give up on their greedy goals, they'd slaughter hundreds of thousands more of uncounted innocents.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 02:18 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
When Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, the US encouraged "foreign nationals" to come in and fight them.

The US "encouraged" foreign nationals to overthrow Afghanistans government nearly one year before the USSR sent troops to Afghanistan to help the Afghan government suppress the insurgency. You should get your timeline right. It can be an important detail.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 02:21 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yes, the USA must legally leave Iraq, and yes, they are responsible for reparations. This is entirely theoretical, however, because in actual fact the USA does not feel itself bound to adhere to the rule of law, and nobody is going to make them do it or call them to account for their crimes. They are an outlaw nation.

Very well said indeed. Congrats.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 05 August 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Errr...while we're in the buisness of creating scenarios, I don't think anyone who is serious about anything could ever propose this.
While I understand your legal rationales behind it, it's a throughly ridiculous idea becuase of the number of Iraqi's he had killed, not to mention the ways in which he did it (read outside the normal confines of the law).

"Alleged" to have killed, according to the word of Bush, Rumsfeld and cohorts. Well, he probably killed some, just like pretty much any politician is responsible for the killing of people, including our own Paul Martin in Haiti. But unless there is a truly independent court gathering evidence against Saddam, I will log the accusations under 'US exaggeration' like the rest of the crap they have been feeding the world.

quote:
The Iraqi people, by and large, still want him to go on trial for the way that he killed so many of their countrymen during his time in office so I think they'll make that decision as opposed to just setting things back to a pre-Invasion point.

Well yea, the Iraqi people that speak through Reuters and the Associated Press. The only way to find out what the Iraqi people REALLY think about Saddam would have been to put his name on the ballot in that phoney US-friendly-parties-only election.

quote:
How do we know that's true? If you include the number of deaths from sanctions, yes more have probably died from the foreign policy of various other countries (even though Saddam played an important part in this by re-directing the country's resources for his and his friends/family's benefit, as opposed to that of the people).

Again, you are taking the western press at face value. (As if they have spoken the truth on anything for the last several decades.) What we know as fact is that, despite the sanctions, Iraq was a more or less functioning country... despite a war in the early 90's which never actually ended. Yea, he lived it up, no doubt, but not to the detriment of the Iraqi people. The US and Britain are responsible for the death of so many Iraqis under the sanctions. They were the ones who armed him. They were the ones allied with him. They were the ones who egged him on with false assurance that "the US government has no opinion on Iraq invading Kuwait" in the first place... just ask April Gillespie[sp?]. And once he did their bidding, he gave them the perfect excuse to bomb and starve Iraq to death and gain control over the resources of the land.

quote:
I do however agree with the nessecity for countries such as the US and UK to pay for reconstruction costs.

Right now they make Iraqis pay for their own reconstruction with their own oil. How obscene.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 05 August 2005 03:21 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well yea, the Iraqi people that speak through Reuters and the Associated Press. The only way to find out what the Iraqi people REALLY think about Saddam would have been to put his name on the ballot in that phoney US-friendly-parties-only election.

I think your arguing for the sake of it. Take a look at his policies and popularity in the Kuridsh and Shiite communities. It's obvious that he isn't popular amongst them and they make up about what 75% of the population?

quote:
And once he did their bidding, he gave them the perfect excuse to bomb and starve Iraq to death and gain control over the resources of the land.

Yes, he did their bidding. This is really important, it points out that, yes, he was involved and is one of the important pieces in the puzzle. And no, it wasn't only the big bad United States and friends.

Yes all politicians, who lead a national goverment, at least indirectly probably have had policies that lead to the death of others. But to say compare Paul Martin to Saddam Hussein is a little rich, yes? While the US was complicit in many of Hussein's actions, he as leader of Iraq, ordered them knowing full will what the causes of said actions were. While I'm not going to say that this justifies the US invasion, as it's not as if he's the only dictator committing human rights abuses, even though technically yes he's innocent until proven guilty, I'm not going to gloss over his actions for the sake of proving my ideological purity in opposing the Iraq War or something.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 05 August 2005 07:35 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
If you include the number of deaths from sanctions, yes more have probably died from the foreign policy of various other countries (even though Saddam played an important part in this by re-directing the country's resources for his and his friends/family's benefit, as opposed to that of the people).

the re-directing of money and resources by saddam took place under what was supposed to be tight u.s control and scrutiny. basically, the u.s. had to know it was happening, they let it happen, and the amount of resources taken by saddam has been grossly inflated by both u.s senators and the u.s media.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 08:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice to have all these vistors to the ME forum! Welcome travellers!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 05 August 2005 10:43 AM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, very active place. I apoloize that I cannot reply to every single reply, there have been so many of them.

To those who have said something along thje lines of "What? you do not trust the Iraqis to be able to manage their own plane at the snap of a finger?" I merely point to history. It is extremely difficult for a nation which is impoverished to rise up against oppressors, take Sudan for example, or Kosovo, or Tibet, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. All of these were regions or are regions crying out for international help, for peacekeeprs (read: trained international soldiers who will come in and kill the bad guys whenever necessary), and quite frankly they may not be able to accomplish the tasks themselves. 2 million people have died in Sudan already because we in the west are too afraid of appearing arrogant by offering our help. More will die in Iraq, unless the USA leaves a proper governing infrastructure and a police force; the foreign nationals will intimidate the heck out of the Iraqis until they turn into a taliban-like state.

The statistics demonstrate that some 10, 000 - 20, 000 have died in Iraq since March 2003, and that 37% of those deaths are due to coalition actions. My main complaint is not, as others here have suggested, that we should have allowed saddam to ammass as many riches as he wanted, but rather, that this entire exercise should have taken place in 1991. I also think the disgusting, heroin growing, buddha statue destroying, mysgonystic taliban should have been attacked back in the 1990s. Problems only get worse if you wait for them to go away.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 August 2005 10:56 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you ever been outside of Canada? I ask because you seem to have quite a list of countries which need to be set right. When you go to other countries, you find some things out:

They are big!

They have MILLIONS of people!

Every day, more and more of them will try to KILL any occupying force!

Luckily, I see by your bio that you are just the right age to volunteer to fis the situation in all these benighted regions of the globe. The US Army will definitely take you.

By the way, you have listed only three or four of the countries who are crying out for US intervention to set them straight. I am sure a similar argument could be made for North Korea, China, many of the former Soviet Republics such as Kazakhstan, Tadjikstan, and so on. Then, places like Colombia need help, and probably Bolivia too. And Venezuela!!

Quite a sacrifice you are willing to make!

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 05 August 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Luckily, I see by your bio that you are just the right age to volunteer to fis the situation in all these benighted regions of the globe. The US Army will definitely take you.

He also lists fitness as an interest, ensuring he'll be placed further ahead in line considering all the chubby recruits who've been told to lose weight before military training. Go for it, dude!


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 August 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
The statistics demonstrate that some 10, 000 - 20, 000 have died in Iraq since March 2003, and that 37% of those deaths are due to coalition actions.
So you believe that the number of deaths caused by coalition forces ranges from 3700 to 7400, only about 2-4 Iraqi deaths for each coalition soldier killed. This, of course, is utter nonsense, and you refer to no source (let alone a credible one) to back it up.

The number of civilian casualties due to military action that have been directly reported in more than one independant media source is already about 25,000. A better attempt to take into account civilian deaths that were not directly reported in the media comes up with a number of at least 100,000 civilian deaths. And then there are the military casualites (e.g. hapless Iraqi recruits). And let's not forget that the ongoing carnage of 1 or 2 London bombings per day in Iraq, the kidnappings and murders by insurgents, the innocent people shot at checkpoints, the constant waste of human life... all of it is a direct result of conditions created by the unbelievably stupid invasion, based on a pack of lies.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 01:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
Wow, very active place. I apoloize that I cannot reply to every single reply, there have been so many of them.

To those who have said something along thje lines of "What? you do not trust the Iraqis to be able to manage their own plane at the snap of a finger?" I merely point to history. It is extremely difficult for a nation which is impoverished to rise up against oppressors, take Sudan for example, or Kosovo, or Tibet, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. All of these were regions or are regions crying out for international help, for peacekeeprs (read: trained international soldiers who will come in and kill the bad guys whenever necessary), and quite frankly they may not be able to accomplish the tasks themselves. 2 million people have died in Sudan already because we in the west are too afraid of appearing arrogant by offering our help. More will die in Iraq, unless the USA leaves a proper governing infrastructure and a police force; the foreign nationals will intimidate the heck out of the Iraqis until they turn into a taliban-like state.



They have proven themselves incapable of providng or creating a governing infrastructure in Iraq. 6 months ago, opposition was more or less distributed among all sectors of society, by directly siding with Sistani and the Kurd's the US has created the civil war you would like to pretend they are preventing. When things get like this, it is clear there is no way out, except letting the Iraqis figure it out for themselves.

There may actually be some marginal possibility of success in Afghanistan, but conditions there are different. This situation in Iraq was not good from day one, has gotten signifigantly worse, and almost certainly will deterioriate firther.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 05 August 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know cueball. I've been in a lot of these discussions, and some days I wish I could just speak arabic and order some arab newspapers. I suspect we're all very wrong in this thread.

The greatest issue, as I see it, is the long-term status in the Sunni triangle. The kurdish areas will be ok and the shiites areas have enough clerical support and political support from parties like the supreme council for islamic revolution in Iraq that they may turn out ok. There's pretty much nothing that can be done in the ST. For the rest of the country however, I suspect the extra year of coalition forces present will allow more time for infrastructure. You say they have done nothing, but in fact they have trained a large number of iraqi recruits, who are slowly becoming independent. That takes time, but they've made some progress and will continue to do so.

As for Afghanistan, it probably sounds better because no one reports about it, and because all the professional jihadis went to Iraq instead.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of this sounds like something the US used to call Vietnamization. The Vietnamization began early with the election of President Diem in 1960, and continued on until 1973. All that time, the US was actively building up infrastrucure and building up an indpendent army. It all did sweet fuck all, in th real world.

It was all a bunch of crap used to prop up a failed policy. The Us should have seen what was up in 68 and split right after Tet.

Its amazing how similar the jargon is.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 05 August 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
DA_Champion,

Christ, everywhere i move, somebody decides to start some big construction project.

One of the most important aspects of any situation that calls for international intervention is the motivations behind those who intervene.

If there is a properly motivated, well financed, equipped UN peace-keeping force, keeping warring factions apart and otherwise staying out of the politics of a nation, then you'll have a good intervention.

If, on the other hand, the US invades a country, tries to sell off its assets to cronies, installs a puppet government to oversee the looting, and abuses the populace, it is easy to see how its staying there will only contribute to the problem.

Many Iraqis want the US to leave. I understand that Shiites like Sistani want the US to stay, and i believe it is because he wants the US to kill as many Sunnis for him as possible. That, and bush jr.'s regime's ham-handed incompetence is allowing Iraq to pull closer to Iran's orbit. I don't know what will happen when the US pulls out, but I have a hard time seeing that it will get much worse, and it might make it significantly better. They're not in there for good in the first place. If there are Iraqis who disagree with me, fine; there are others who agree with me. Just as there are Canadians who like Paul Martin Jr. or Stephen Harper, I disagree with them.

"The US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't" isn't all that inexplicable a phenomenon.
Anybody would be damned if it does nasty stuff and damned if it refuse to do good work.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 05 August 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,

I don't know a lot of Vietma, but a lot of the issues from that war arose from the fact that the US viewed communists as inherently evil, just as here they view islamic jihadism as inherently evil. I'm inclined to believe the former belief is wrong, I'm not quite convinced the latter is wrong as well.

thwap:

quote:
but I have a hard time seeing that it will get much worse, and it might make it significantly better.

It could get a lot worse. Seeing the foreign jihadists claim full control of the sunni triangle for example.

I've always said that the true measure of success in Iraq will not come until like 2025, at which point Bush will either be indicted as a war criminal or receive a nobel peace prize. Maybe somewhere in between. What we're seeing now is nothing more than the bottom of a U-shape.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 05 August 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It could get a lot worse. Seeing the foreign jihadists claim full control of the sunni triangle for example.

The insurgency is mainly indigeneous from what credible sources have said.

quote:

I've always said that the true measure of success in Iraq will not come until like 2025, at which point Bush will either be indicted as a war criminal or receive a nobel peace prize. Maybe somewhere in between. What we're seeing now is nothing more than the bottom of a U-shape.


Well, we have different opinions. But there's no way in hell that bush II will ever deserve a peace prize. Whatever happens in Iraq we know that bush launched the war based on lies, that it was the Project for a New American Century's aim to regain total control of Iraq's oil. The reconstruction has been a sick joke, depleted uranium will be causing ghastly birth defects for generations, Abu Ghraib has a sign saying "under new management," ... god no, a peace prize for that piece of shit bush? Excuse me, but i can't take anymore.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 05 August 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was exagerrating for dramatic effect. Moods are hard to convey over the internet.
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 August 2005 02:59 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't know a lot of Vietma, but a lot of the issues from that war arose from the fact that the US viewed communists as inherently evil, just as here they view islamic jihadism as inherently evil. I'm inclined to believe the former belief is wrong, I'm not quite convinced the latter is wrong as well.


This, in a nutshell, is why grandiose global mistakes are allowed to repeat. Poor history students.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
Cueball,

I don't know a lot of Vietma, but a lot of the issues from that war arose from the fact that the US viewed communists as inherently evil, just as here they view islamic jihadism as inherently evil. I'm inclined to believe the former belief is wrong, I'm not quite convinced the latter is wrong as well.


I appreciate this. But this kind of dilineation is hung on the ideology from which it comes, and the way it is defined in the media, and by the Whitehouse.

The Americans in Vietnam, as General MacNamara, (along with most other Americans) thought that he was fighting the dread communists hoards (derived from the Mogolian word for "clan" -- orde -- incidentally), who themselves were foreigners, or foreign backed. Later, when he finally sat down to dinner with his Vietnamese counter-part Vo Nguyen Giap, he admitted he had read the situation incorrectly and now viewed the Vietnamese war as a nationalist civil war.

So, everything you are saying actually makes a good deal of sense, that is if you are right that the entire insurgency is essentially a foreign inspired effort derived from the work of some political extremists. If that is the case, both the moral and the strategic situation would seem pretty favourable to the US.

In the military aspect the US's overwhellming fire power would be in play against a force which had similar strategic problems, such as resupply and recruitment in play against a backdrop of untrustworthy indiginous population. On the moral front you could say at the very least neither foreign intevention is morally superior to the other.

But that assumes, that you are right.

I have concluded that, if this thesis were right, given the above military prospectus, that real opposition should have slackened and incidents of guerilla activity should now have dried up, as the original foreign volunteer army should have been swept away by the immense power of the occupying army. This in itself (aside from the Pentagon estimates I have read, which state that the insurgent forces are largley indiginous) indicates that the thesis that Zarkawi et al are the sole basis for the rebellion is false, very much in the same way MacNamara's original thesis about Vietnam was false.

It is very, very telling just how similar your rhetoric is to that of the kind being bandied about during the halcyon days of US intervention in Vietnam. Very much the same kinds of logic and explanations in play, and the fact that "you don't know a lot of Vietnam," (though not a discredit to yourself, surely, as one can not know everything,) may be the reason why the present DIck Chenney adminstration seems to be able to parley the same arguements in favour of its intervention. The Vietnam era people are getting old and the memories have faded.

I put it to you like this: Yes your position would have moral, politcal and military cogency if it is true that the Iraqi insurgency was really about Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad (In Vietnam: Communist Hegemony,) however I think every indication is that the revolt is about national self-determination, as in Vietnam, even if the insugents themselves pay lip-service to a greater or lesser extent to Political Islam (in Vietnam: Communism) of one stripe or another.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 August 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Albireo

I think this is where DA_Champion his/her information.

Iraq Body Count

Who did the killing?

a.US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.

b.Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.

c.Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

d.Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

He got his information from the same site that you posted about.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 05 August 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Webgear,

Thanks for the post. I didn't quite get my information from that site, or at least I don't think so. The 37% figure is all over the internet, it's possible Iraqi body count is the source of it since they're one of the first links that come up on google. It's also possible it's a generally accepted figure.

Briguy,

I'm not a history student. I'm a math and physics student. history and politics is a hobby, I don't know everything, but I think I know it pretty well. And in this context I knew enough to say, "I don't know much about vietnam." I know a lot of useless trivia (useless in that I have no real influence) on current events, and I'm very much into the greco-roman age, and the ancient middle east. That's about it.

Cueball,

quote:
I have concluded that, if this thesis were right, given the above military prospectus, that real opposition should have slackened and incidents of guerilla activity should now have dried up, as the original foreign volunteer army should have been swept away by the immense power of the occupying army. This in itself (aside from the Pentagon estimates I have read, which state that the insurgent forces are largley indiginous) indicates that the thesis that Zarkawi et al are the sole basis for the rebellion is false, very much in the same way MacNamara's original thesis about Vietnam was false.

I don't see why they would have dried up. Iraq has been labelled the "world cup of Jihad." I'm sure more and more would be interested in going there every year. We shall see once american forces leave. If the country splits into a civil war as foreign jihadists say they want a sunni islamic state, we'll know where the insurgency came from. If peace and tranquility return to reasonable levels at a reasonable pace, then you will have been demonstrated correct.

My complaint, is that most of the "insurgent" attacks kill more iraqi civilians than american troops. I don't believe ordinary iraqis would do this. I do believe jihadists would do this. History will show us the truth.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 05 August 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Well, DA_C,

it could be that it's been "labelled" something, but that don't mean dat it is.

And, i think that some bombs are planted by Sunnis to kill Shiite police volunteers. Some are planted by insurgents to kill those who would volunteer for any puppert gov't's forces. Some are planted by morons who don't care about blowing off a promising adoslescent's limbs.

And some, i honestly believe, are planted by psychopaths in the employ of the US.

btw: bush jr.'s regime lies through its fukkin' teeth, so there's no telling what they do and won't do, and Vietnam, Central America will tell you what they're capable of .


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 August 2005 03:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:

Cueball,

I don't see why they would have dried up. Iraq has been labelled the "world cup of Jihad." I'm sure more and more would be interested in going there every year. We shall see once american forces leave. If the country splits into a civil war as foreign jihadists say they want a sunni islamic state, we'll know where the insurgency came from. If peace and tranquility return to reasonable levels at a reasonable pace, then you will have been demonstrated correct.


Look, insurgents are setting off bombs at a rate of one a day in Iraq. Yet, since 9/11 there have been four major attacks in countries outside of Iraq. Are you saying that if this international jihadist movement can make a major attack every day under the noses of the US army in Iraq, that they could not be setting off bombs in America, Britain, Australia and wherever else, at least monthly, if not weekly?

Look at the ease with which the London bombing was achieved. You think security in the west is that tight?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 06 August 2005 11:27 AM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a lot of analysis I've seen around which has tried to argue that the situation in Iraq is decreasing terrorism outside Iraq.

If I was an angry, pissed off fundamentalist young syrian and I wanted to kill Americans, would I go soend thousands of dollars I don't have to go to Britain which is not that easy to get into and stay into, where I would have to blow myself immediately because I would not be able to last long since I don't know English; or would I head over to Iraq in my car or on horseback and wait for my turn in a culture which is similar to my own?


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 August 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You realize here you have suggested that these supposed "jihadists" had no opportunity to act until the US invaded Iraq. And of course money should have been no object, with arch-villian Saddam in the picture willing to doal out dollar after dollar in the war against the great Satan.

It seems to me if there were these thousands and thousands of willing martyrs just ready to go, bombs would have been going if weekly right from September 11th onward. The truth is the reverse, nothing happened anywhere until after the invasion of Iraq.

Yes the US is a more difficult target, but there are lots and lots of much more vulnerable targets thoughout Europe and elswhere.

quote:
There's a lot of analysis I've seen around which has tried to argue that the situation in Iraq is decreasing terrorism outside Iraq.

This supposition is entirely theoretical. Drawing conclusion based on things that are not happening, or did not happen in history amounts to story-telling.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 06 August 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
A View Of Iraq From A Soldier

Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005

By John Bruhns

Click here to watch Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, read this letter into the congressional record

08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.

George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."

After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.

I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.

The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.

At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.

During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.

I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.

On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.

So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.

I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.

My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.

Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.

Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.

I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were leaving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.

I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.

And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.

So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?

We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.

In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with the American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.

Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.

John Bruhns

from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 August 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Albireo

I think this is where DA_Champion his/her information.

Iraq Body Count


The Iraq Body Count Project is worthwhile, but it is very important to take into account their methodology. It is a media survey. For an incident with civilian casualties to be included in their count, it must be separately reported in at least two out of an approved list of media sources. If a death was never reported in at least 2 of these sources, it is not counted. We must remember that it's not Toronto, where every shooting is reported in the paper; it's Iraq at time of war, where much of the media on IBC's list doesn't even leave the green zone in Baghdad. For every single reported civilian casualty, there are more that are not reported; it could be one other, or 3 or 10. There is no way of knowing. But it is not surprising that the study published in the Lancet -- which surveyed thousands of households to find out how many had been killed and then statistically extrapolated that to estimate a civilian casualty count for all of Iraq -- found that there were at least 100,000 civilian casualties.

As for that 37% figure, those were the civilian casualties reported in the media where coalition forces directly shot the bullet or dropped the bomb. It is important to keep in mind that the other deaths -- those caused directly by insurgent attacks or by post-invasion criminal violence, and those caused indirectly by the war -- ALL of them have the illegal invasion of Iraq as their ultimate cause. And then there are the 2000 coalition soldiers, the other foreign civilians killed, and the very large and uncounted number of Iraqi military and police deaths. The Bush neocons and their cheerleaders are responsible for every single one of these deaths.

Now our Dumb-Aggression Champion seems to feel that the U.S and its allies have killed "only" a few thousand; more reliable sources put the figure at 25,000 or 100,000 or much more. It seems that DAC feels that a few thousand innocent deaths are an acceptable price for what has been accomplished in Iraq (that is, ousting a dictator that the US helped support during his worst crimes, smashing infrastrucure, creating chaos, causing a huge insurgency where there was none before, turning most the world against the U.S., helping Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts, increasing terrorism around the world, bankrupting US taxpayers, etc) -- a few thousand dead innocents are a good price to pay for these great achievements, according to this poster. I wonder, what if the other figures are correct? What if more than 100,000 innocent civilians have been killed? Would that be acceptable? 200,000? How many dead Iraqis are agreeable to our visitor, in exchange for making things worse? What will it take for these fools to admit that they are wrong, and have always been wrong ever since they were convinced that an invasion was necessary because of Saddam's fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction?


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca