Powerful, I like it

Hedgehog

Hedgehog

FGM General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
15,866
Reaction score
8,660
Age
86
Location
Leighton Buzzard England
An incident occurred in a supermarket recently,
when the following was witnessed:

A Muslim woman dressed in a Burkha (A black gown & face mask) was standing with her shopping in a queue at the checkout.
When it was her turn to be served, and as she reached the cashier, she made a loud remark about the English Flag lapel pin, which the female cashier was wearing on her blouse.

The cashier reached up and touched the pin and said,
'Yes, I always wear it proudly.
My son serves abroad with the forces and I wear it for him'.
The Muslim woman then asked the cashier when she was going to stop bombing and killing her countrymen,
explaining that she was Iraqi.
At that point, a Gentleman standing in the queue stepped forward, and interrupted with a calm and gentle voice, and said to the Iraqi woman:
'Excuse me, but hundreds of thousands of men and women, just like this lady's son have fought and sacrificed their lives so that people just like YOU can stand here, in England,
which is MY country and allow you to blatantly accuse an innocent check-out cashier of bombing YOUR countrymen'.
'It is my belief that if you were allowed to be as outspoken as that in Iraq, which you claim to be YOUR country,
then we wouldn't need to be fighting there today'.
'However - now that you have learned how to speak out and criticize the English people who have afforded you the protection of MY country, I will gladly pay the cost of a ticket to help you pay your way back to Iraq'.
'When you get there, and if you manage to survive for being as outspoken as you are here in England, then you should be able to help straighten out the mess which YOUR Iraqi countrymen have got you into in the first place, which appears to be the reason that you have come to MY country to avoid...'
Apparently the queue cheered and applauded.
Support Our Troops
 
I dont get it?
She is suppose to support occupation of Iraq, only because she is in England?
Iraq was not good place to live before Desert Storm, and certainly it is not after DS.
No one with little brain inside skull does not want to get back in Iraq...and obviously Sadam is not the reason...
 
The point is, she is enjoying the freedom of expression which was not avaiable to her in Iraq, prior to the Gulf War. The gentleman may be wrong, but he is also exercising his freedom of expression, which is available in England.

Saddam Hussein may not have been THE problem in Iraq, but he was certainly a major one. The issue here is not whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other country under a totalitarian regime, whether it be lay or clerical, but that efforts have been made, whether appropriate or not, to provide freedom to each country's inhabitants to be able to make their own choices, and not to have those choices made for them.

Personally, I think anyone afforded the protection of another country's sovereignty, should be careful about criticizing that country. That does not mean they should not say what they feel, but be aware of what and where they are saying it. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.
 
iron mike usmc said:
Personally, I think anyone afforded the protection of another country's sovereignty, should be careful about criticizing that country. That does not mean they should not say what they feel, but be aware of what and where they are saying it. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.
Click to expand...

I agree with that (and most other things), she should keep her mouth shut.

This:
...to provide freedom to each country's inhabitants...
Click to expand...
...is exactly were the problem is.
I didn't see any effort to actually do this. Efforts have been made, but for something else, and definitely not benefit of the citizens (Iraq, Afghan, whatever)...
 
Well, it is certainly not to have a place to send troops.

The war in Afghanistan was intended to rid it of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, s retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, and others, with the add on to allow the Afghanis to have a popular government. And, no, it is not working so far.

Iraq was and is a mistake.

Eitehr way, the people should choose how they want their country led. It should not be left to a handful of people.
 
Iron Mike USMC that would be great...but your countries recent history does not bear that in mind. Bush was installed the first time as president without a majority so it does look like the smaller handfull got what they wanted.
 
Bush was in stalled the first time a s presedent without a majority
Click to expand...
2054172, you don't understand our form of Government. The majority that counts is the electoral college, which bush won. Ironically, if Al Gore would have only won his "Home" state of Tennessee he would have been the president. Thank God for Tennessee!

Iraq was and is a mistake
Click to expand...
Mike,
I disagree with you on that. I can guarentee you that you would find that the majority of Iraqi's are far better off today than ever in their history and actually have a future with their own elected government.

But President Bush did make one mistake. He thought way to small. We should have also invaded Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Libya. We should also have forced the Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to cease with their terrorist support or we should have overthrown them and installed friendly governments. Had we done that, we could have probably had our best chance to stamp out our terrorist problems.

I didn't see any effort to actually do this. Efforts have been made, but for something else, and definitely not benefit of the citizens (Iraq, Afghan, whatever)...
Click to expand...
Zaraza your wrong. The Iraqi's and Afgans have been able to vote for their own governments for the first time. True that the last Afgan election had many cases of voter fraud, but I am sure that will be corrected. The citizens of Iraq are far better of today than they were ten years ago.

Unfortunately there was a major effort by the American media and Democratic Party to try and convince this country that we had lost the war in Iraq for strictly political purposes. I was in Iraq in 2005-06 and have had friends that came back from there as recently as last year. We have won the war there and are now transitioning into rebuilding the country and turning everything over to the Iraqis. The next five or ten years will be critical for them and we must not waver in our support now.
 
Lord Bane, The Iraqis may be better off now, than they were. I am not unhappy about Saddam Hussein being removed from power, but we did enter the war on false pretext. As you listed, there are other countries that could also have been attacked. I believe Iraq was selected by Bush for personal reasons. But, regardless of personal bias, we went to war in Iraq without a strategy, only a goal.

As far as overthrowing governments, not the best ideas. Just because we would put a friendly government in place, doesn't mean we would have won. If the people do not want the government in place, that government won't last. Assuming the government is a western styled one in a country where loyalties are local and not national. The methods to emplace governments in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't perfect, but they are good. It allowed the people to choose the format. Putting 'friendly'governments in place in countries we have invaded or conquered is no different than what the Soviers did following WWII. We saw how well that worked out.

If a national government is going to work for all the people, then it needs to include all the people, and it needs to be organic to that country. It cannot be arbitrarily emplaced using our standards. A government needs to reflect the society it will govern. That being said, a government must also be able to work and play well with other governments.
 
iron mike usmc said:
.. but we did enter the war on false pretext..
Click to expand...

Who cares?
Saddam was a psycho and suspected of having WMD'S, and he was also constantly saying nasty stuff so that's a good enough pretext for me..;)
"Does America realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"- Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner,take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values"- Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

It's only a pity Britain France and the USA didn't get together to round up Hitler in the 1930's and there wouldn't have been WW2 and 30 million dead.

The moral?- Take out tyrants while you still can..

Mission accomplished..:)-

"We got him!" -George W. Bush

saddamhole.jpg
 
iron mike usmc said:
If a national government is going to work for all the people, then it needs to include all the people, and it needs to be organic to that country. It cannot be arbitrarily emplaced using our standards. A government needs to reflect the society it will govern. That being said, a government must also be able to work and play well with other governments.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. If the government we have installed in Iraq is to have any hope of succeeding we will have to have a large military and political presence there for several generations. Even if you could maintain public support for that long, it would eventually become economically untenable. When we leave, the government we have left behind will not be powerful enough to control the internal conflicts that still exist, nevermind the meddling of the true bad guys in the area, re. Iran, Syria et al. It is highly unlikely that the end result of this internal strife and external meddling will have a positive result for the Iraqi people or for the rest of the world.

The situation in Afghanistan is even worse. Even with our large presence there, government corruption and election fraud on a huge scale still goes on. A large portion of the country sees the Karzai government as corrupt and merely a US Puppet. When public support and economic resources for this conflict runout the results will be the same as they will be in Iraq. The power vacuum that is created will result in all the unsavory players in the region battling for control against a helpless "duly elected" government. The results are predictable.

This pattern has played out endlessly throughout history. Great empires have striven to remake the world in their own likeness. Historically they justified their empirical actions by saying that they were "bringing light to the savages of the world". Today we say we are "supporting and spreading freedom". However noble and right minded these justifications may seem to the empire builders, those on the receiving end always see them differently. All of the empirical powers in history have eventually had to abandon there nation building ways or face destruction. No matter how noble we think our cause to be, it is arrogant and foolish to think that the results for modern day empires will be any different.
 
.. but we did enter the war on false pretext..
Click to expand...

I disagree. Everyone(Democrats, foreign Intelligence agencies, our intelligence agencies etc.) believed that he had WMDs and that was only one of the issues. What about his continued violation of the No fly zone operation. Iraq forces routinely fired on our aircraft that were imposing the No Fly Zone. This was part of the Cease Fire agreement from the first Gulf war which the Iraqi's signed. IMO that is enough to go to war on in it self. I believe that the those WMDs did exist and are hidden either in Iraq or a nearby country. In my experiences, the Iraqis never get rid of any weapon once they posses it. On the FOB where I was stationed we had a 60mm Mortar (US made) from World War II that had been sent Lend Lease to Russia. At some time after WWII it made its way to Iraq. It was obsolete by the time of the current war yet it was still in use. The truth about the WMDs will come out in time.
Lord Bane
 
Lord Bane (FGM) said:
I disagree. Everyone(Democrats, foreign Intelligence agencies, our intelligence agencies etc.) believed that he had WMDs and that was only one of the issues. What about his continued violation of the No fly zone operation. Iraq forces routinely fired on our aircraft that were imposing the No Fly Zone. This was part of the Cease Fire agreement from the first Gulf war which the Iraqi's signed.
Click to expand...

The No-Fly zone was a UN resolution. If we are to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of the violation of a UN resolution, than the list of countries we are compelled to invade is rather extensive and includes countries such as Israel, Turkey, Morocco and Armenia just to name a few. Here is a link to a list of countries that have violated UN resolutions up until the time we invaded Iraq: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11599

As far as using the suspected possession of WMD as justification, why not invade North Korea or Iran. We know China and Pakistan posess these weapons on a much larger scale than Iraq ever did, their human rights records are as bad, if not worse than Iraq's yet we are content to let them continue unchecked. All this begs the question, Why Iraq? It also fuels speculation that our true motivation for invading was far less noble than the citizens of the US and the world have been led to believe.
 
Lord Bane (FGM) said:
Zaraza your wrong. The Iraqi's and Afgans have been able to vote for their own governments for the first time. True that the last Afgan election had many cases of voter fraud, but I am sure that will be corrected. The citizens of Iraq are far better of today than they were ten years ago.
Click to expand...

What's better?
That you can expect bomb to kill you when you go to the market to buy whatever you buy on market?
Or to be afraid to get candies or medical help from Brits because of Taliban retaliation?
Or perhaps Serbs fleeing from Kosovo because of so called democracy or human rights...

Common mate...i dont see anything bad if you say - this (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan....) is our target for (our bases, military/political/whatever strongpoint)....but dont say that it is good what is going on in this regions....
Actually, i could say very bad things (about Kosovo in the first place), but if a pretend i'm neutral, i'll consider that as a thing that NATO and other forces must do...

I cant speak about Iraq, i cant speak about Afghanistan, but i can speak about Kosovo problem, and i can say that Kosovo is almost clean from Serbs - after NATO intervention which supose to bring peace and help poor muslim albanians....
Serbian children are going to school in armored vehicles....think about that...
 
The No-Fly zone was a UN resolution. If we are to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of the violation of a UN resolution, than the list of countries we are compelled to invade is rather extensive and includes countries such as Israel, Turkey, Morocco and Armenia just to name a few.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any cases where any of the other countries that you mention were shooting at our aircraft! Shooting at another countries aircraft is an act of war. Surely we can agree on that. I think it should be our policy that if your going to shoot at our military or civilians that we are going to fucking anihilate you UN resolution or not!
Lord Bane
 
Lord Bane (FGM) said:
I don't know of any cases where any of the other countries that you mention were shooting at our aircraft! Shooting at another countries aircraft is an act of war. Surely we can agree on that. I think it should be our policy that if your going to shoot at our military or civilians that we are going to fucking anihilate you UN resolution or not!
Lord Bane
Click to expand...

The Russians shot down a U2 spy plane in 1960 and a Korean civilian airliner in 1983. Should we have invaded Russia at those times? The Serbs shot down Scott O'Grady's F-16 in 1995, should we have invaded Yugoslavia? The USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, would that have justified an Iranian invasion of the US?. Yes, acts such as these should draw a measured response, whether it be diplomatic or military but I believe that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation should only be undertaken as an absolute last resort.

History has shown us that trying to be the world's police force only leads, eventually, to disaster.
 
ACSpectre,
Your examples make no sense. The U-2 was intruding in Russian Airspace. It got shot down and we could not really say much about it. The Korean Airliner was likewise in Soviet Airspace. They shot it down. Not a good decision on their part but again, they had an aircraft over their country that wasn't supposed to be there. The F-16 over the Balkans I believe was on another UN resolution enforcement mission because Serbian Aircraft had been bombing civilians and we were denying them that airspace. In that instance we definetly should have retaliated and I believe we did. It at least was a big factor in our bombing of Serbia to end the war later on.
The USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, would that have justified an Iranian invasion of the US?.
Click to expand...
That incident was a classic example of a crew believing that they were defending themselves from an Iranian Air attack and making what turned out to be a poor decision. But we must not forget that the Vincennes had very recently been attacked by Iranian boats in the area so an enemy air attack seemed logical. And lets not forget the USS Stark that was hit by an Iraqi Mirage firing an Exocet missle in the same area just a little more than a year before. That missile hit did considerable damage to the Stark and the Vincennes was surely trying to avoid what they believed could be the same fate. IMO, had it not been for the early Iranian attacks, it is highly unlikely that the warship would not have acted so hastily and shot down the airliner.
History has shown us that trying to be the world's police force only leads, eventually, to disaster.
Click to expand...
Really, I have not seen that example. Perhaps we should just pull back with in our own borders. On second thought, that didn't work too well after WWI though did it. You seem to me to be a firm believer in peace at all cost. I believe that Americans need to "Man up" a little bit and accept our role in the world. And let's stop appologizing for it shall we.
Lord Bane
 
My point in citing those examples is that there were plenty of people demanding that the reaction to these incidents be something out of proportion with the original action. A couple of outdated Migs taking potshots at some F-16's in my mind, no way justifies an outright invasion. The guilty parties in that case were blown from the sky, consequences commensurate with their offense. I am by no means an advocate of peace at all costs. The example you cite about the world's actions at the end of WWI is a perfect illustration of how a strong military response to a situation before it gets out of hand could have prevented catastrophy. Germany invaded and occupied a sovereign nation in 1939 and the rest of the world should have responded definitively at that time. The world's reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was swift, forceful, and entirely justified.

Our attempt to "Police" a problem in Vietnam was pretty disasterous for 58,000+ Americans and countless Vietnamese. Our attempts to keep an unpopular regime in power in Iran gave us the Ayatollah. Our arming of Iraq in their war against Iran gave Saddam much of the military hardware and infrastructure he used to subjugate Kuwait. We arranged and financed the coup that installed Pinochet in Chile. Is it a stretch to think that many of the "freedom fighting" mujahideen we armed and trained in the 80's became the Taliban fighters shooting at our forces today. In my opinion, these are all pretty good examples of how trying to be the world's police force has had disasterous consequences.

I am not saying that we should turn inward and cut ourselves off from the world. I am saying that our relationship with the rest of the world needs to be something a little deeper than "do it our way or we'll bomb you back to the stone age"
 
LOL...Ok, I will buy that. Well said buddy. But damn it, just once I want us to snap and actually bomb someone back into the stone age! Perhaps Canada...LOL.
Lord Bane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom