Oceania Aussie troops in Iraq

The whole populism debate is bullsh anyway

You would say that, after calling the Liberals populist in a thread about the Iraq war - oh, the irony!

E_S

 

It is ironic indeed.

Hello again everyones favourite warmonger is back.

I won't state my argument at this stage because Ender Sai has quite succinctly done that. I knew that masters degree wouldn't go to waste!

 

We should be concentrating on preventing terrorism, not contributing to it.

 

Oh, please, that arguement is crap when it comes from you and it's crap when it comes from any left-leaning columnist.

Or do you want to lecture me on terrorism?

E_S

 

The best way to stop terrorism is by the following:
1. Setting up an Islamic state in this country and naming it "The Islamic Republik of Al-Australyya"
2. Giving terror groups money in exchange for not blowing us up (a la Jimmy Carter, mid 90s with N Korea)
3. Generally telling them that they have a legitimate right blowing people up.

Alternative measures include:
1. C4
2. JDAMs, cruise missiles

 

You think we aren't contributing to creating extremists and terrorists by having Iraq in total anarchy coupled with an occupying force of westerners? That is what is happening now and that is the future of Iraq. We are creating yet another deeply resentful population of muslims.


Oh no, according to you Ender, we are liberating the Iraqi people and everything will be apples once Saddam is gone. It's a totally naive view.

 

Oh no, according to you Ender, we are liberating the Iraqi people and everything will be apples once Saddam is gone. It's a totally naive view.

Yes, according to Ender and the Iraqi People.

We're seeing the birth of a new nation. Of course there's going to be a bit of chaos, it's just the way these things happen. But if we are able to successfully implement democracy in Iraq, well, the terrorists will lose a lot of their power.

 

Uruk-hai

What "total anarchy" are you talking about? A few high-profile riots?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

I can't help it if you don't class armed uprisings and riots anarchy.

 

Yes, they are anarchy.

but that's not what you said.

You said "total anarchy."

That is what I am contending.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Ok, so there are some areas without anarchy and some with. Doesn't change my sentiment.

 

Ok, so there are some areas without anarchy and some with. Doesn't change my sentiment.

Which areas are in anarchy? Can you name them?

Yeah, you could name a couple, but a couple does not a bad, anarchy-filled situation make.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

<--- Dumbfounded.

Where is there a problem? There's a Shi'ite uprising in Baghdad, Najaf, Kufa and Amara. In Basra as well to a lesser extent. There's Sunni resistance in Falluja. There's constant terrorist attacks throughout the country. There have been reports that the coalition trained Iraqi police have turned their guns on Americans in some areas during the riots. The north seems to be the only area where there isn't a problem, but there are fears the tensions between the Kurds, Turkomen and the rest of the ethnic groups in Kirkuk may soon erupt into violence.

That enough evidence for you?

 

Perhaps we've got different definitions of what anarchy is. Is it just social unrest, or is it violence, or what?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

May I suggest you watch the news or read a newspaper.

 

I suggest you look deeper than what you are told by the mainstream media. They only report the negative.

 

Excuse me while I die laughing. This from a guy who posts links to mainstream media articles to prove a point.

 

.... which you completely ignored in order to continue your bitter little rant.

EDIT: Which also goes against your whole "watch and read the news" argument since you seemed to have missed this rather major story. Excuse me, I'm dying from laughing.

 

Well, which is it? Do we listen to the news or not?

I didn't respond to the article because I thought it wasn't relevant to the argument.

 

May I suggest you watch the news or read a newspaper.

Ha!

So there we have it. I disagree with you, so therefore it stands to reason that I am the one who doesn't read or watch the news.



Listen, I watch the news very, very carefully. I read the Washington Post and New York Times, as well as watching CNN, MSNBC, and the Beeb. And then there's all those online sites I go to.

I read very, very carefully, because I have loved ones whose lives are on the line at this very moment. So I'd appreciate it if you'd quit insinuating that I am ignorant of the facts.


Now, would you mind giving your definition of what anarchy is so that we can get on the same page, because I don't see simple unrest as anarchy whereas it seems you do. I've seen riots first hand (football riots are fun ) in Germany, are you claiming that they are in anarchy too? Anarchy, to me, is the complete absence of law and order, and that is simply not happening in Iraq. In some places, yes, there is a lack of law enforcement. However, it is not so widespread that I would ever classify it as "total anarchy."




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

he's gotta point

isn;t anrachy a dirty word in america thought?

 

isn;t anrachy a dirty word in america thought?

Not that I've seen.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Well, to start with, I'd say armed uprisings are fairly anarchic.

 

Well, to start with, I'd say armed uprisings are fairly anarchic.

Yes, but how many armed uprisings are there?

Now, you'll answer that, but now look at that list again, and ask "Which are uprisings, and which are just a few guys with guns?"

There is a difference. An uprising is organized, or at least more organized than a gang of toughs with AKs.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

I don't understand your insistance on continuing this argument.