Morning guys, have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks. The rules for this forum state "There is more
tolerance for stronger language on this forum,
but the rules for civility remain the same." so if you can't be civil, I can't be bothered wasting my time, so this will probably be my last post in relation to this, just to answer your questions...
TA Pilot wrote:What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?
Oh yes, which country did that again??
We did.
What do you think of it?
Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.
Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?
Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.
And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that your position -doesnt- change.
If you're going to force 'democracy' on a country, then it should be real democracy (i.e. a government of the people, by the people, for the people). IF the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government. This IS my position so why will it change when this happens, as promised. There is no legitimate government yet.
The insurgents are fighting the Iraqis, and us.
In order for your argument to hold water, you have to argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.
The majority of insurgents ARE Iraqis. They view Iraqis assisting the US as collaborators to the invading force. And I don't argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'. As I've stated SEVERAL times, Iraq presently has NO legitimate government. The present government is headed by a former CIA spy. Hopefully elections will change that. The vast majority of insurgents are this nations indigenous people fighting an invading force. Know thy enemy guys, understand their reasons for fighting and respect their opinions, then you can begin to win the peace.
Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative.
Why does it not surprise me that you'd say that.
Because its the truth. Think the Vietcong soldiers woke up every morning and said 'We're the bad guys, lets go kill nice american good guys'. It depends on weater you're the bomber pilot or the 'bombee', or weather you're an invader or invadee.
If you cannot, without hesitation, reservation or equivocation, denote the insurgents as the "bad guys", then you cannot possibly be reasoned with.
Well I can see the arguements from the otherside of the fence. But I guess it's like Bush said "You're either for us or against us". I'm in a neutral country and see non partisan reporting (explained next). Basically this: 'We're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMDs and can launch them within 45 minutes and his links with Al Quaida'. Then, no WMDs found, no conclusive link found, so.... 'We have freed the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam'. It stinks. The reasons given to go to war and kill so many don't hold water so lets change the reasons after the damage is none. Nice.
DrewKaree wrote: Since you've not explained your case factually regarding your assertion that your country reports news in a non-partisan fashion, I can only infer that when you state that we're not armed with facts, you in fact mean not armed with YOUR facts.
My news reports come from RTE (Radio Telef