US is now selling $11 billion worth of weapons to Iraq

Let me guess. You are a Sunni, just begging for someone to come in and step on those goat f*cking infidels.

 

I think its Israel's job is to beg others for help, they are quite good at it.

 

This ignoring the fact your previous post was a call for western powers to take direct action against Iran. Take care of it yourself if it is such a concern to you. From where I sit, Iran seems to be botching the job nicely all on their own.

 

I'm not hoping it will change to a dictatorship but it certainly appears to be happening now, I'm hoping Iraqis will shape their own political future without any outside interference.

I was? I was merely offering a viewpoint on what may happen.

Iraqi education levels have most probably suffered after 10 years of sanctions and a further 10 years of US military occupation - that alone would lower the intelligence of anyone.

People going to other countries for higher education is common. It is a great money spinner for Australia for instance with tens of thousands of overseas students coming here each year, so the point that Gaddafi's sons went overseas for education is irrelevant.

Every country has its own culture and wants to maintain it, and they want to be allowed to do it without interference from anyone else. Just because another country doesn't conform to the US idea of "right" doesn't mean that it is "wrong".

I'm certain you will rejoice in an opinion piece of an Australian journalist and his view of the US and its culture.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/still-the-lucky-country/story-e6frerdf-1226230837989

 

O'Rly?

Let me guess, you were being facetious? Whatever. Figure out your position, and stick with it.

Not sure what this has to do with the fact Iraqis will continue to seek western education, but since you mention it, do you understand the difference between intelligence and education?

Of course. Invading Kuwait was only wrong in the opinion of the US. Perhaps you are a fan of child molestation, rape, and state sponsored murder as well?

I'm always baffled about how moral relativists, such as yourself, have the enormous sack to try and hold the US in judgement for ANYTHING we do. Just because you think bombing the crap out of Iraq for it's oil doesn't conform to your idea of "right" doesn't mean that it is "wrong". Moral relativism means we can do whatever the f*ck we want and you need to keep your lousy standard of right and wrong to yourself. Failure to do so makes you a hypocrite, like most who share that philosophy.

Can't be bothered with useless foreign opinions. We have enough useless domestic opinions as it is.

 

Well isn't that just typical crap from a typical Foxnews educated buffoon. "We don't care about anyone else." "we're not interested in what anybody else thinks." "We will continue to bomb everyone just because we can." "We will completely stuff the world's financial systems."

No wonder the world hates the US.

Bring on Ron Paul.

 

Amazing that this was your take away from my post. Let me try spelling it out in more detail, with some links to definitions you might be having trouble with.

Firstly, Moral Relativism.

Though I doubt you will bother to read the link, you can find your philosophy and it's pitfalls summarized nicely there.


Basically, your argument is, "Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, stole their property, raped their women, and set their oil wells on fire did not give the US just cause to keep sanctions on Iraq. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone". Or perhaps your argument was,"Just because Iraq used nerve gas on thousands of it's own citizens(Kurds) following the first gulf war, did not give the US just cause to keep sanctions on Iraq. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone". . Or perhaps your argument was,"Just because Iraq threw out the weapons inspectors that were a condition of their surrender following the first gulf war, did not give the US cause to invade per the terms of the surrender agreement. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone".

Whatever your ridiculous argument might be, it follows the definition of Moral Relativism. It basically says we(The US) can't judge any other nation for it's actions, no matter how egregious they may be to our culture.

A true relativist would say, "It may be offensive to me that the US invaded Iraq and stole their oil, but as a relativist, the standard I use I would never try to apply to other cultures like that of the US".

Unfortunately, you break from your philosophy, and reserve the right to judge the US for imagined infractions against your personal moral standard. It basically makes you nothing more than a delusional hypocrite.

If you are still having problems understanding the content of this post, perhaps I can spell it out for you one last time, using smaller words. Just trying to be of service here.

 

Not that I've heard. Though they do teach the language in our primary schools.

 

http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5717742

So in the last few weeks we have 11 Billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, 11 Billion to Iraq, 3.5 Billion to UAE. Looks like at least one section of US manufacturing is taking an upswing. Perhaps we should thank Iran for starting an arms race in the Middle East. The more rogue Iran goes, the more money we make in arms deals, and the bright side effect is, we won't have to pummel Iran. It's neighbors will.

 

Arming the KSA is a foolish thing to do, but what choice does the US have since its bankrupt.

 

Bankrupt of morals it seems. Maybe there is something to this 2012 end-of-earth story afterall. How are we all any safer?

 

Well its 2012 now and the world hasn't ended.

 

Gees I go away for a couple of days of sun and surf and come back to this load of piffle.

Basically you state that I take certain positions on Kuwait, Kurds and Iraq. None of which I have ever stated myself - you have just made them up out of thin air. Trained CIA operative are you?

Because I'm bored I'll go through them for you and you can morally relativise them yourself to your heart's content.

"Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, stole their property, raped their women, and set their oil wells on fire did not give the US just cause to keep sanctions on Iraq. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone".

Iraq invading Kuwait = bad
US helping ally, Kuwait = good

"Just because Iraq used nerve gas on thousands of it's own citizens(Kurds) following the first gulf war, did not give the US just cause to keep sanctions on Iraq. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone".

Using nerve gas on anyone = bad. Put it the same league as Agent Orange, napalm etc - they're bad too.

"Just because Iraq threw out the weapons inspectors that were a condition of their surrender following the first gulf war, did not give the US cause to invade per the terms of the surrender agreement. What is 'wrong' to the US isn't 'wrong' to everyone".

That bloke Hans Blix was running round for quite a long time looking for big guns in Iraq I believe - doesn't he count? Of course he was a UN inspector so he wouldn't count would he? Hans did have this to say "In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media". "

Still searching for a genuine reason for invading Iraq I see. Throwing out foreign weapons inspectors is a pretty abysmal reason.

Sanctions against countries = bad. The only people who get hurt in the end are the citizens.

Second Iraq war = bad. Criminal in fact. At least the British PM apologised to the international forces, the Iraqis, the families of the people who died because of the UK's participation.

Go forth and morally relativise good man

 

I said this before its just a matter of time !

 

Not at all. They were your words.

You are very confused. You kick off your conversation on this thread quite literally rooting for a dictatorship in Iraq that will suppress Sunni Muslims and be an ally to Iran. You follow it up with heaping blame on the US for 10 years of sanctions which supposedly lowered the intelligence of the Iraqi people (lol). Then you provide us with the lovely quote above telling us we have no right to judge a nation like Iraq for invading Kuwait, or violating the terms of their surrender. It would seem simple logic is wasted on you, so I'm not sure how I can help.

Care to quote this "apology" so we can all see how badly out of context you've put it? I can if you won't. Make sure you include the part where Blair tells the panel of lords that his country needs to end its "wretched policy of apology" for what goes on in the Middle East. Apology indeed.

We here in America are still waiting for an apology. I personally want Bush and Cheney to apologize for not paying for all expenses related to the war with Iraqi oil money. $800 Billion dollars + residual medical expenses. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but I fail to see why the US needs to pick up the tab when Iraq is perfectly capable of doing so.

 

NOPE

NOPE - you're misreading again.

Just one account:

TONY Blair finally apologised for the Iraq War yesterday – and was jeered by furious relatives of British soldiers who lost their lives.

After facing an official inquiry for the second time, the strained-looking ex-PM offered his “deep regrets” for the 179 troops killed in the conflict.

But his remarks sparked emotional scenes in the witness room.

One woman broke down in tears, then stood up and spent the rest of the session with her back turned to Mr Blair.

Rose Gentle, the mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, who died in Basra aged 19 in 2004, shouted: “Too late!” And as Mr Blair walked to the exit, she called out: “Your lies killed my son. I hope you can live with it.”
Reg Keys, whose Lance Cpl son Tom, 20, was killed by a mob in southern Iraq in 2003, yelled: “You’re a disgrace to your office!”

At his appearance before the inquiry 12 months ago, Mr Blair caused outrage by refusing to apologise for taking Britain to war in 2003. But this time, he ended the four-hour grilling by saying that although he took responsibility for the decision he “deeply and profoundly” regretted the deaths of British troops and Iraqi civilians.

Earlier Mr Blair finally came clean about how he had backed George Bush’s war plans from the beginning. Official documents revealed that he was told in 2002 that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was not getting any worse.

Ex-SAS soldier John Brown, 66, who lost his son in Iraq in 2008 aged just 34, claimed Mr Blair “ran rings around the inquiry”.

He said: “He reminded me of Al Capone going into the court fully aware he’d bought off the jury. I just think everyone knows the guy lied. Everyone knows he promised to go to war a good year before he said so.”

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...raq-war-deaths-115875-22866650/#ixzz1iGBUPGE1
Go Camping for 95p! Vouchers collectable in the Daily and Sunday Mirror until 11th August .

Good luck with that. I personally want to see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld charged with war crimes, but I guess they won't be leaving their sanctuary. I also want the US to pick up the bill for the health problems due to the US use of depleted uranium ammunition, repair/replace all buildings damaged, pay recompense to the families of all Iraqis killed and put the control of oil fields back into the hands of the Iraqis.

 

Poor Blair cannot even walk through a high street without being egged or getting shoes thrown at him.

 

Wow. Convincing! Ignore the quotes, just deny, deny deny. Its like arguing with a 2 year old.

So this is what you call a quote of Tony Blair making an apology "to the international forces, the Iraqis, the families of the people who died because of the UK's participation"? Really? You do know what a quote is, right? A quote is a reprint of the words actually spoken by Mr. Blair, put in proper context. I guess I should give you partial credit. You did, after all produce two words Mr. Blair actually spoke. "Deep regrets". The rest of it are the reporters words and political commentary for morons who eat that kind of crap up. Try again junior.

By the way, what ever became of Gordon Brown who opened up this whole circus of an inquiry? Such a praiseworthy and upstanding individual surely must still hold his position in the English government, no? I personally think old Gordy failed because his lips were sewn to Obama's sphincter, making it hard for him to give political speeches.

I think I'll have better luck getting oil money out of Iraq, than you will with any of that. Bush and Cheney may not be willing to even apologize, but perhaps you can take solace in this. If Bush could legally run for the presidency in 2012, he'd beat Obama.

 

Tell you what - you use your superior intelligence and find where I mentioned Kuwait, Kurds etc in an original statement and I'll apologise.

Well Princess, I guess the CIA operative in you is on the ball here. The Chilcott report has yet to be released so we have to rely on the people who were in attendance to produce their own commentary.

Dear, dear me princess - You may think it's a circus but the Brits are pretty serious about it.

You are possibly correct about Bush. Except for Paul the rest of the candidates are proving total imbeciles. Especially that Newt bloke. I might even donate to the Paul campaign and help make the world a better place.

 

Using my super CIA stealth skills, I was able to enter "Blair Apology" into Google and come out with this:

I realize that the use of Google, and access to BBC articles is only available to those of us in the CIA, so let me help you out a bit more here and provide some context. In an earlier grilling by the Chicolt group, Blair had made it clear he had "no regrets" about helping to remove Saddam from power, going a step further saying he'd do it again. Of course the Guardian and other political enemies used those statements to paint Blair as a guy who had no concern over the loss of life caused by the war, so he issued the quoted statement above as a clarification for political purposes.

It seems obvious to even the lay person that Mr. Blair's "regret" in no way qualifies as a retraction of his earlier statement expressing "no regret" over making the decision to invade Iraq. Further evidence to that fact is a statement he made in the very same meeting as his expression of regret.

I know, I know, there is no way you could have had access to all this information, so you were completely justified in painting Blair as apologizing for Iraq. Like I said, I'm just trying to help. Then again, maybe I don't work for the CIA and you just don't have a clue how to operate Google.

LoL. Yah, that is why the Chicolt circus convened in 2009 and finished its interviews in January of 2010, won't be releasing a report until July of this year at the earliest, and likely much later if ever.

Circus indeed.

And I would appreciate your donation! Four years of Paul as president would basically dismantle large portions of our federal government, allowing his successor to proceed with a much leaner, meaner, and more efficient government.