Keepers of the Peace

A

Aeron

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
862
Reaction score
0
Location
Travelling North of the Wake
People tend to criticize me for, well, my criticism of the war in Iraq. Apparently I hate the West and America and freedom and peace and all that.

But I still wonder whether the invasion in Iraq was more of barbaric slaughter than a peace keeping mission.

The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was the alleged refusal of the Iraqis to disarm their WMDs. I won't even go into the hypocrisy of a nation being told to disarm their weapons by the biggest nuclear power in the world.

But according to the Wiki (since anything less conventional is tin-foil-deluxe), they didn't have proof of a dangerous amount of WMDs, if any, and a survey in fact concluded that there were indeed no WMDs.

United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on the subject.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

The other thing that makes me shake my head is the Iraqi casualties the West felt required to inflict or were unable to prevent.

At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

So the West's idea of keeping the peace is to kill a million Iraqis, by far the majority (60%+) being innocent civilians, because of a government allegedly refusing to disarm apparently non-existent WMDs?

And the real clincher is this one:

Shortly after the United States presidential election, 2008, and the election of rival Democratic party nominee Barack Obama, president Bush admitted that "[my] biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq".[96]
Click to expand...

This man is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Coalition troops and a million Iraqis and he admits that the intelligence was terrible in Iraq?

Does that make him any better than Mugabe or Saddam? Just because he did it "legally", doesn't change the fact that more than a million people are dead because of his decision.

I have no beef with the West. I don't support many of the things they do, but I don't have an agenda in bringing them down. If I could bomb them to oblivion without consequences, I wouldn't. I’d like to believe they are civilized and care a bit more about human rights than China.

But how they can parade as the Keepers of the Peace, criticizing nations of "human rights abuse", telling countries what to do and how to act and to adopt their “flawless” system, with something like the war in Iraq in their scrapbook, is beyond me.
 
He didn't do it legally.. he got the legal right to mobilise army yes but the US doesn't decide who they can legally invade.. the UN does. In terms of international law the US invasion was completely illegal but see how many here will care.
 
Shouldn't this be in the ancient history section?
 
JustAsk said:
So are you saying that your uncle can molest you as long as he pays your way through life?
Click to expand...

No I am not, but lets take a look at life in the US, one can stand outside a place the president is speaking, holding a sign denouncing him, while wearing an unconcealed weapon. Try that in the above mentioned countries. People who go around trying to put the boot in on the states, are moral cowards, in that they will not give up their freedom and ipods and go an live in those countries they claim are being badly down by the US.
 
US Military warmongering

But how they can parade as the Keepers of the Peace, criticizing nations of "human rights abuse", telling countries what to do and how to act and to adopt their “flawless” system, with something like the war in Iraq in their scrapbook, is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, the US military are warmongers.
Now it's going to more invisible enemies - space weapons.

And no, I can think of many other destinations I would rather live in than the USA or the UK, my experience and love for the world and all the people and lifeforms in it goes beyond western culture.

The dead will reclaim the US one day - mark my words.

Who are the dead ?
ask the Native Americans
ask the Vietnamese
ask the Iraqis
ask the Japanese
and many more

Warmongering events

List of warcrimes :mad:

I do not see the US Military as a peacekeeping force, I do not see them as world leaders, I see greed, profiteering, hypocrisy, arrogance and fundamental christianity.
 
It was never about the peace but oil. If there was no oil in the middle east the yanks would not bother with it but due to the oil they are constantly interfering.
 
The iraq war is like the scene in monty pythons holy grail where lancelot gets a letter of distress, he presumes it's from a princess being forced into marriage, then he runs toward the castle (people are relaxed, preparing for the wedding)and slaughters everyone in his way just to find out he was mistaken and that it's the pale weak son.

Edit: added for context..
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ryPUJyQf6g&fmt=5[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Aeron said:
People tend to criticize me for, well, my criticism of the war in Iraq. Apparently I hate the West and America and freedom and peace and all that.
Click to expand...
Never underestimate the power of indoctrination.
 
milano said:
Shouldn't this be in the ancient history section?
Click to expand...

It should be in the "no-one-cares" section. Aeron (and others) have this hardon about bringing us into his little East vs West war. He has happily taken the first step towards genocide by separating people into two camps like that.

The whole East vs West thing it a racist concept and the exact same as wars between other common nouns like black vs white.
 
The USA never does anything that doesn't benefit them. They will arm-twist and moan until the whole of NATO is involved. They've never been a peace-keeping nation in that respect. Sometimes that ideal and their own overlap.
 
Sackboy said:
The USA never does anything that doesn't benefit them. They will arm-twist and moan until the whole of NATO is involved. They've never been a peace-keeping nation in that respect. Sometimes that ideal and their own overlap.
Click to expand...

Given that and the alternative, I would take the US over the other. Simple things like the amount of people trying to force their way into the US, versus the amount of people trying to force their way into the combined Axis of Evil countries. You know which is the preferred country and the reasons why.

Just as today in South Africa, it was the same during apartheid, SA was the country of choice for immigrants in Africa. we have xenophobia, today, apartheid then, and still the hungry and poor of Africa walks miles and miles to reach the dream.

Only those who sit comfortably can afford to cast stones at the beast that provides for them, until of course the beast gets upset and returns the same, then it's all tears and blaming the beast.

Fact, you can not have your cake and eat it, and the sooner you get to understand this the easier the transition will be for you.
 
Balstrome said:
Given that and the alternative, I would take the US over the other. Simple things like the amount of people trying to force their way into the US, versus the amount of people trying to force their way into the combined Axis of Evil countries. You know which is the preferred country and the reasons why.

Just as today in South Africa, it was the same during apartheid, SA was the country of choice for immigrants in Africa. we have xenophobia, today, apartheid then, and still the hungry and poor of Africa walks miles and miles to reach the dream.

Only those who sit comfortably can afford to cast stones at the beast that provides for them, until of course the beast gets upset and returns the same, then it's all tears and blaming the beast.

Fact, you can not have your cake and eat it, and the sooner you get to understand this the easier the transition will be for you.
Click to expand...
I see several flaws in your argument. The USA is often successful because of its selfish behaviour. A successful country is seen as a beacon for economic migrants. A poor person with little or no future in his own country is unlikely to care about the politics much when he decided to cross the border.

Maybe if they gave Texas back to Mexico ... (another chapter).:p
 
Sackboy said:
I see several flaws in your argument. The USA is often successful because of its selfish behaviour. A successful country is seen as a beacon for economic migrants. A poor person with little or no future in his own country is unlikely to care about the politics much when he decided to cross the border.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but where is the several flaws, you agree with what I say, yet claim that I am incorrect. Are the poor stupid to want a better life, should they rather be honest to the revolution and stay in their own countries and accept their lot as dealt to them?

Poor person... no future.. own country.. etc.. I would suggest that is the reason in fact they choose the evil US, because they can see that it works.

If one had to make a honest list of the pluses and minuses of the USA, one would find that the pluses had real immediate rewards, while the minuses, though few, would be concerns that only the well off could afford to indulge.
 
krycor said:
He didn't do it legally.. he got the legal right to mobilise army yes but the US doesn't decide who they can legally invade.. the UN does. In terms of international law the US invasion was completely illegal but see how many here will care.
Click to expand...

Which is why he was removed from power along with the leaders of dozens of countries like Britain, Australia, S.Korea, Italy etc. In fact they're going to join Bill Cliton and fellow NATO member state leaders and officials for their "illegal" attack on Yugoslavia in 90's. :rolleyes:
 
Balstrome said:
Fair enough, but where is the several flaws, you agree with what I say, yet claim that I am incorrect. Are the poor stupid to want a better life, should they rather be honest to the revolution and stay in their own countries and accept their lot as dealt to them?

Poor person... no future.. own country.. etc.. I would suggest that is the reason in fact they choose the evil US, because they can see that it works.

If one had to make a honest list of the pluses and minuses of the USA, one would find that the pluses had real immediate rewards, while the minuses, though few, would be concerns that only the well off could afford to indulge.
Click to expand...
I think you have to understand WHY the USA works. How that country forces others to adopt their trading practises, their market style economy, their culture, their language, their religion etc. They do this because they are better at it and it becomes a way of domination. If you disagree you get invaded or isolated.
 
And if you agree with these practises and put them in place, not only do you not have yur ass invaded, but you make a profit, your people benefit, and have good lifes to braai for everyone.
I still would like to understand how or what is lost, that on wanted to keep, by following a western ideal. The freedoms it's public has is much greater than any of it's opponents public has, in fact the only curbs on it's public freedom, generally are those that will endanger the public themselves.
Hatred of the US, is comes from the acknowledgement of the failures in one's own country. How dare the US be so successful. To quote a tagline "Hey we don't have one of those.... lets burn it."

If you care to try in another way, give us a benefit that the US does not have, that is equal or better in a country that is against the US. Easy one, there is not such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X