Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:50 pm

Afghanistan:

Having read Puroresu's post earlier in which he gave reasons against the invasion and the current occupation, I'm still questioning what alternative he would have suggested. The Taliban not only had an abysmal human rights record, clamped down on any ideas of liberty whatsover and lived in a draconian culture of intolerance - they were also harbouring international terrorists. If that is the only distinction between the occupation of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan then so be it. From their base in Afghanistan they trained terrorists who committed acts of violence all over the globe, not just post 9/11 but pre 9/11 aswell. What should Western governments do when Afghanistan is being used as a basis for launching an attack on not only Western civilizations - but countries all over the world - muslim nations aswell. In these situations diplomacy does not work, you can impose as many sanctions as you like against the Taliban - and that's what happened - but they were ineffective. You either intervene or you let Al qaeda flourish, what alternative did we have in that situation? If you can give me that illusive alternative route in Afghanistan then go for it. On the issue of opium production, that's largely besides the point as we also have to do a job in preventing it reaching our shores. I disagree with Puroresu when he says Afghanistan is under chaos, in relative terms to Iraq it's like the garden of Eden. I'll say it again, if you can suggest a feasible alternative in Afghanistan that would have ousted the Taliban, please do.

Iraq:

In my view the invasion of Iraq was wrong. The premise of WMD was one that did not stand up and given the U.N. weapons inspectors couldn't find a jot of evidence is enough to back this up - the basis of the war was that Iraq were contravening resolution 687 - even when no weapons were found or have been found since. Had we gone in on the basis of intending to remove Saddam Huseein and that alone, there would have been little support for the war and accusations of a western Imperialism would have prevented it from being allowed i.e. U.S. congress would not have ratified the use of force nor would Parliament. The premise allowed the war to be justified at least in the short termm, as we now know there are no WMD. As much as removing Saddam is a good thing, it should not have happened and the situation now poses a greater threat to the West than it did under Saddam. We've opened a can of worms if you like, and the incentive and justification for Jihadist extremists is now even greater - but western interference is not the only reason for their acts of violence. They generally have an antipathy for the West and our way of life, as well as countries that are associated or have links to the West. I don't think you can justify removing Saddam purely on the basis of the acts of genocide that he authorised, the same applies to Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, South Korea and many other countries that haven't been invaded. I think oil contracts and the petro-dollar also had a big part to play in the invasion - or were at least factors that made it more appealing. I don't think it can be argued that Saddam posed a global terror threat either, perhaps to the region, but many countries have unstable and vicious regimes in control. The violence in Iraq at the moment is predominantly sectarian violence and is endemic to particular regions near Baghdad, oter areas like Kurdistan to the North have been freed from decades of persecution - but no-one pays attention to that since the Kurds have always been neglected in the middle east. I don't see how you could have removed Saddam in the short term, it was clear that the only acheivement of U.N. sanctions was to punish the people of Iraq and did nothing to harm his regime. It may be a case of gradual internal pressure and that sometimes you have to leave it and let the people rise up against it. Had there been a global terror threat from Saddam then I can see justification for the use of force, but there was none.

I agree with Puroresu in so far as - you cannot force Western values or western ideals of Democracy on the middle east because it doesn't work. Many are happy to live under dictators or theocratic rule, that's the way it's been for decades e.g. Saudi Arabia. The idea that everybody wants democracy is a fallacy.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:53 pm

puroresu wrote:"They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology."

"I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either"

President Bush

This is the kind of rubbish which the defender of the 'free world' comes up with.

He may be a fool, but he was just outlining al quada's goal, and nobody but a bigot can defend their ideology to be anything but hateful.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:03 pm

Big Niall wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
dawson99 wrote:cant believe absoltuely no one else thinks we were right to get rid of saddam. forget the oil and what happened since, at the time he HAD to be stopped, absokutely no one agree?

I agree mate.

Saddam was a modern-day Adolf Hitler, and HAD to be removed.

Iraq is a sh*thole now, but in time it will improve - something that would never have happened under that tyrant b*stard.

thats rubbish.

Hussein was no threat to other countries and definately no threat to UK or USA.

He was horrible but Iraq under him was much better than it is today. He was also secular so kept extreme islam at bay. A huge mistake and the soldiers (and Iraqis) are dying for no good cause.

I know this is stretching an analogy, but when slavery was abolished in the USA, thousands of slaves starved to death, thousands more blacks protested about its abolishment because they had no idea how to live any other way. Everyday decisions were a nightmare for them because they had lived all their lives having no choices. I would imagine that since those dark days they have become accustomed to freedom (or what we term freedom) and can now see the benefits.

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:10 pm

redtrader74 wrote:
puroresu wrote:"They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology."

"I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either"

President Bush

This is the kind of rubbish which the defender of the 'free world' comes up with.

He may be a fool, but he was just outlining al quada's goal, and nobody but a bigot can defend their ideology to be anything but hateful.

But its more than that. There are plenty of law abiding muslims who want a caliphate in the Islamic world. We are not terrorists and seek not to impose it on the whole world. Muslims in the Islamic world just want the chance to choose there own political destiny. If thats the caliphate then the US and West should accept this. Suppoting despotic tyrannical regimes instead will only lead to more terrorism.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:17 pm

puroresu wrote:
Anfield rapper wrote:
puroresu wrote:
redtrader74 wrote:Read up, plans had been thwarted for terror attacks pre 9/11 in the UK. Explain who the US was occupying for 9/11 to occur?

The US wasnt occupying anyone but her presence was felt in the Middle East.

1. The unconditional support of Israel
2. Propping up dicators all over the Islamic World
3. Military bases all over the Islamic World. US forces in Saudia Arabia.
4. An invasion of Somalia
5. Bombing of a pharmacutical factory in Sudan.

I mean thats just 5 things off the top of my head. Somalia again is another great example of the US causing chaos.

Since 1991 that country has had no real government or stability. Just warlords and clans fighting for power. In June 2006 the Islamic Courts Union took control of the capital Mogadishu and the majority of Somalia. For the first time in a decade there was a clean up of rubbish in the capital, the airport in the capital was re-opened, the major seaport was re-opened, people were free to walk the streets at night without the fear of being robbed or bribed by warlords and trade and business could operate freely without corruption.

For 6 months Somalia finally looked like it was becoming a state. The Islamic courts had popular support and the only ones who oppossed there rule was those who benefited financially before the the IUC cam to power.

However the US couldnt have this. An African nation looking stable and progressing was not allowed as long as it was governed by political Islam. The US government gave authorisation for ethiopa (helped them with airstrikes) to invade somalia and drive the Islamic Union Courts out of power. Now the warlords are back in power and chaos returns.

The US does not realise that interferring in the politics of the Islamic World only brings trouble on themselves.

I still don't understand though how you can see the war in afghanistan as an invasion to occupy. Like i said earlier afghanistan was out of control and activley supporting terrorism. Something had to be done.

I cant support any invasion of muslim lands by nations such as the US. I just cant do it. The US have much more interest in afganistan than the getting rid of the taliban. I cant support the installing of a puppet regime and the US dictating the future of that country.

That is a prime example of the reason behind the rise in extremism, you as an apparent moderate, would never support the invasion of muslim lands, it doesn't matter to you th reason why, even in the case of Afghanistan where you offer no alternative, or the first gulf war, i suppose liberating kuwait was unresonable, but then i suppose the liberal westernised Kuwaiti's deserved that.

The support of israel is the US's choice, without it, it would be blown to hell, i don't agree with israel being formed as it was, but its there now.

If any muslim country is friendly with the US, then its automatically considered a puppet regime.

Military bases over the islamic world? they have bases all over the world, not exclusively in muslim countries, and those countries allow it.

If you look at every issue and don't decide its validty on the merit, but rather siding only with the one who is muslim, then you are no better than the kkk, or any other far right group. That is not a dig, but surely you can see the similarity.

by **woof woof !** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:40 pm

puroresu wrote:There are plenty of law abiding muslims who want a caliphate in the Islamic world. We are not terrorists and seek not to impose it on the whole world. Muslims in the Islamic world just want the chance to choose there own political destiny.

Don't know why but for some reason I'm not convinced that's entirely true.

Oh, now i remember.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:07 pm

any muslim country is friendly with the US, then its automatically considered a puppet regime.

Believe me, any arab country that is being heavily backed by the U.S is considered a puppet regime! believe me its true, its happening in my country.

Woof, these people in the picture looks peaceful to me

by **zarababe** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:52 pm

What's this thread bout.. 'salmon' - isn't scottis salmon rather tasty with a bit of dil sauce, boiled potatoes and brockerly

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:07 pm

redtrader74 wrote:
puroresu wrote:
Anfield rapper wrote:
puroresu wrote:
redtrader74 wrote:Read up, plans had been thwarted for terror attacks pre 9/11 in the UK. Explain who the US was occupying for 9/11 to occur?

The US wasnt occupying anyone but her presence was felt in the Middle East.

1. The unconditional support of Israel
2. Propping up dicators all over the Islamic World
3. Military bases all over the Islamic World. US forces in Saudia Arabia.
4. An invasion of Somalia
5. Bombing of a pharmacutical factory in Sudan.

I mean thats just 5 things off the top of my head. Somalia again is another great example of the US causing chaos.

Since 1991 that country has had no real government or stability. Just warlords and clans fighting for power. In June 2006 the Islamic Courts Union took control of the capital Mogadishu and the majority of Somalia. For the first time in a decade there was a clean up of rubbish in the capital, the airport in the capital was re-opened, the major seaport was re-opened, people were free to walk the streets at night without the fear of being robbed or bribed by warlords and trade and business could operate freely without corruption.

For 6 months Somalia finally looked like it was becoming a state. The Islamic courts had popular support and the only ones who oppossed there rule was those who benefited financially before the the IUC cam to power.

However the US couldnt have this. An African nation looking stable and progressing was not allowed as long as it was governed by political Islam. The US government gave authorisation for ethiopa (helped them with airstrikes) to invade somalia and drive the Islamic Union Courts out of power. Now the warlords are back in power and chaos returns.

The US does not realise that interferring in the politics of the Islamic World only brings trouble on themselves.

I still don't understand though how you can see the war in afghanistan as an invasion to occupy. Like i said earlier afghanistan was out of control and activley supporting terrorism. Something had to be done.

I cant support any invasion of muslim lands by nations such as the US. I just cant do it. The US have much more interest in afganistan than the getting rid of the taliban. I cant support the installing of a puppet regime and the US dictating the future of that country.

That is a prime example of the reason behind the rise in extremism, you as an apparent moderate, would never support the invasion of muslim lands, it doesn't matter to you th reason why, even in the case of Afghanistan where you offer no alternative, or the first gulf war, i suppose liberating kuwait was unresonable, but then i suppose the liberal westernised Kuwaiti's deserved that.

The support of israel is the US's choice, without it, it would be blown to hell, i don't agree with israel being formed as it was, but its there now.

If any muslim country is friendly with the US, then its automatically considered a puppet regime.

Military bases over the islamic world? they have bases all over the world, not exclusively in muslim countries, and those countries allow it.

If you look at every issue and don't decide its validty on the merit, but rather siding only with the one who is muslim, then you are no better than the kkk, or any other far right group. That is not a dig, but surely you can see the similarity.

Liberated Kuwait? Again the US had an alternative motive.

Lawrence Koth, a former US assistant defence secretary, "If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn,"

If the US wants to support Israel then fine but at the same time she try's to act like some neutral who wants to bring a just solution to the table.

by **zarababe** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:09 pm

wow the dbate about 'salmon' is rather serious

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:09 pm

So you're suggesting Iraq should have been allowed to invade Kuwait? Who esle was there to stop them?

by **zarababe** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:10 pm

the 'salmon'

by **red37** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:16 pm

zarababe wrote:the 'salmon'

ive tried that joke already. These lads are far more interested in boring enlightening the rest of us thicko's about current world affairs.

by **Guido the Killer Pimp** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:20 pm

bottom line is it's got f*ck all to do with pakistan or iran who we choose to knight in britain. we knight who we think deserve it, not who might be acceptable to a bunch of stone age zealots on the other side of the world who run their lives by a 1500 year old book of contradiction and bullsh*t . or shall we burn down some more embassies?

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:49 pm

LFC2007 wrote:So you're suggesting Iraq should have been allowed to invade Kuwait? Who esle was there to stop them?

I'm not suggesting that all. I'm just saying the US isn't some defender of all those oppressed who does these so called liberations out the goodness of there heart.

Liverpool FC Forum

Salmon rushdie knighted - (i can see this getting locked)

Who is online