berrywoman Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 I dug it up. :wink3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colduser Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Good call Camille. I love this thread. It must always remain. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 ;) be sure to nominate it for next years coldplaying awards.. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colduser Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 You got it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 sooo.........we need a new discussion going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 well, I suppose the hot topic here would be how are we going to get out of Iraq???? here's an atricle I found.... Our troops are part of the problem Heavy-handed occupation is not a solution to the Iraqi insurgency Robin Cook Friday July 15, 2005 The Guardian In the single week since the London bombings there have been 11 suicide attacks in Iraq. One car bomb this week wiped out 30 children, one as young as six, who had gathered to plead for western chocolates from American soldiers. I do not draw a parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat. And still those who took us into the war are not frank with us. For months those of us who have asked for a timetable for withdrawal from the occupation of Iraq have been told that it would encourage the insurgents to circle that date in the calendar. Yet at the weekend we learned from another leaked minute that the Ministry of Defence has ticked the middle of next year as the target by when it will have reduced the British presence to about a third of its present level. This has nothing to do with progress against the insurgents, who are growing bolder rather than weaker. It is entirely to do with American domestic politics. As George Bush sinks in popularity back home, his desperation rises to cut his losses in Iraq. The leaked memo confirms that the Bush administration is planning to cut its occupying forces to a third by the first half of 2006, which would make it politically impossible at home for Britain not to do the same. Apparently there is a row going on between the Pentagon, which wants "a bold reduction", and the US commanders on the ground, who know that they cannot contain the insurgency with their present numbers and do not see how they will be able to do better with fewer. For once I find myself on the side of the Pentagon. Heavy-handed US occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it. Nor is it only the fatalities of US forces that foster resentment. Homes in every neighbourhood have been trashed by US forces in futile searches for insurgents. Every extended family knows of at least one person who has disappeared into the new gulag of detainees. A year after President Bush promised to demolish Abu Ghraib it is being expanded, rather than closed, to accommodate an even larger number than were held there by Saddam. It is an inexorable law of foreign occupations that the greater the repression, the stronger the resistance. The reduction in US forces may be planned for the wrong reason, but should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It does though present the coalition governments with a rhetorical problem. They have repeatedly told us that they would stay in Iraq until the job was done. Patently the job is not done if it is measured by success in getting on top of the insurgency. It has therefore been necessary to redefine what was meant by the job they promised to complete. Last week an imaginative new interpretation surfaced. Apparently, when Donald Rumsfeld warned that the insurgency could take a decade to contain he did not mean the US troops would stay that long to defeat it but that they would expect the Iraqi forces to do the job for them. In short, completing the job now is not bringing peace to Iraq but equipping the Iraqis to fight their own civil war, possibly for another 10 years. The Iraqi government itself appears to have a shrewd grasp of its need to find other allies, hence its surprising agreement last week to a mutual defence pact with Iran. It is striking how little events on the ground in Iraq have figured in the key decisions of this sorry episode. The timing of the original invasion was dictated not by the reports on the UN weapons inspections but by the momentum of the US military build-up. Now the timing of the exit from occupation is going to be determined not by progress in restoring security in Iraq but by the date of next year's mid-term congressional elections in the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1529119,00.html discuss.. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 haah from the gaurdian? oh please thats far worse and more bias then the evil foxnews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 :lol: :lol: well its still doesnt dismiss the fact that these things are happening though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 the london attacks would have happened sooner or later, even if no iraq. once they get done with america, then their really going to start going after europe. america is the bigget threat to them as of now. but war in iraq or no they would eventualy come after europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 hmm I dont know about that one.. I really think that England was targeted because they are one of our biggest/strongest allies in this occupation. Bombs on our soil would've happened reardless.. I dont doubt that.. I mean the proof is the WTC bombings in 93... (I think it was 93) and its no secret we have our own home grown terrorists who agree with this movement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ Fox Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 we should all flood his email box.... he;s an asshole!! heehee, I don't know whether you were joking or not, but I did it anyway. I Spammed a helluva lot. :lol: :sneaky: :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 no no... I wasnt joking... lol I send like 3 e-mails myself back when I started the thread.. lol I dont want FOX news so I dont know if he ever commented on the e-mails or not lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 london was targeted now because of its help in the iraq war, but sooner or later they would go after it. half of europe they are going to go after in the coming years. except france. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colduser Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 haah from the gaurdian? oh please thats far worse and more bias then the evil foxnews. You never can stop can you Nick. There is TRUTH in that article ok. Not fabricated liberal propaganda that you would so like for it to be. Fox News is pure trash. Deep down, you know this. Keep being ignorant and sheltered :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colduser Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Oh and thanks Camille for the wonderful read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons... iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colduser Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 You make a good point here Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons... iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler. hmmm I'm kinda with you on that.. but at the same time.. I have to disagree... (from what I know of) my knowledge on the topic and such.. I will however do some more research and stuff... :) so, how do you think we should pull out of there.. I mean its pretty deep now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambergris Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Okay... part by part to understand this. What's slags off? I know, my idiomatic expressions suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 exactly.... as a direct effect of their participation in the occupation... but they've always hated America for other reasons... iraq war or no iraq war sooner or later europe is going to have to deal with islamic terrorism. its better to deal with something now, then wait til it gets worse, as the world should have learned in ww2 with hitler. hmmm I'm kinda with you on that.. but at the same time.. I have to disagree... (from what I know of) my knowledge on the topic and such.. I will however do some more research and stuff... :) so, how do you think we should pull out of there.. I mean its pretty deep now.. we have a exit stratigy and a good one. train as many iraqi's as we can, and start having them take the place of u.s and coalitions soldiers, and in a few years we can pull our troops out and let the iraqi's do the security work. in theory its a great idea, but without the full support of america and europe it might not work, i mean the people who are extremely against the war are only giving fuel to the terrorist and insurgents fire! people against the war have already made it known they dont like it, but its far to late to take back what was done, so everyone must stick together while were in this, we lost vietnam becuase the war was lost at home first. every other war we've won we won with most of the american public backing it, but in vietnam many didnt and we lost. so even if you hate the war the best thing now is not to make as much of a fuss about it, and in a few years if the stratigy doesnt work then people should and have a right to fuss! but as of now we must stop the childishness and support our troops and try to win the war. sadly i dont see this happening with the anti-war people and i fear this will be another nam not because of the military but because of the anti-war people make it and want it to be. you may disagree with the war, and you have a right to and if its what you believe then you should, but as of now, we cant change what happened and being very vocal agaisnt the war will only make things worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilchick629 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 FOX NEWS IS NOTHING BUT A TRASHY SHOW BUT TOGETHER TO CATCH VIEWERS----IT SHOULDNT EVEN BE CALLED NEWS-------ACTUALLY ALL AMERICAN NEWS IS NOTHING BUT TRASH-----THEY DONT EVEN DELIVER NEWS BUT MOSTLY TRASH :P WHAT I SEE FOR MA NEWS IS BBC IN PUBLIC NEWS CHANNEL----ENGLAND'S NEWS ROCKS (WELL THE INFO GIVEN---NOT CAUSE OF THE TRAGEDIES) :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 fox is no worse then any other american news. almost all media is censered(sp?) and spun to the their political opinion, there is NO news that is completely unbiased all is biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilchick629 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 THATS WHY I SAID I HATED ALL NEWS FROM AMERICA LIKE GREENDAY SAID----- "DONT WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN IDIOT ONE STUPID NATION CONTROLLED BY THE MEDIA" I RATHER WATCH BBC----ENGLANDS NEWS----THATS NEWS :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now