12 Italians Dead in Iraq!

[Datajack Franit]

Besides, you lefties are supposed to be the concerned, sensitive ones

Actually they are supposed to be sad for the families of the palestinians suicide bombers, but I am pretty sure that some israeli blood here and there will cheer them up in a second

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned


To the left, there no patriotism. There is only politics.

To the right, there is no discussion, only nationalism.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nationalism is sooo last century. We're into empire now, get with the program.

[laurentius]

Datajack: Um sorry to disrupt your trolling but it was Berlusconi who got you in there in the first place, wasnt it? If lefties were in power there wouldnt be any italians in Iraq-ergo this tragedy wouldnt have happend. Dont you see it hes using you like pawns to score some loyalty points from the states

[Gatekeeper]

It's turning into one helluva day in Iraq — wire reports indicate that 25 were killed in the Nasirah (sp) attack (soldiers, police, civilians, etc.) and now there's some sort of U.S. military operation under way in Baghdad.

Gatekeeper

[MichaeltheGreat]

Operation Ass Thumping or some such. It's long past due.

[Gatekeeper]

Ned:

The answers are:

1. No.
2. No again.
3. Hell no, we won't go!

[Gatekeeper]

MtG:

Yep. They're targeting a single structure ...

[Sandman]

When soliders die, the right hates it when people ask 'why'?

[Datajack Franit]

Datajack: Um sorry to disrupt your trolling but it was Berlusconi who got you in there in the first place, wasnt it? If lefties were in power there wouldnt be any italians in Iraq-ergo this tragedy wouldnt have happend

For what I was able to understand from your pathetic attempt of an english phrase: lefties didn't bother to bomb Yugoslavia for that matter, and that was just to turn attention away from Miss Lewinsky's oral attitudes- I think sending soldiers for humanitarian purposes like securing war zones and helping local police come first than bombing markets and chinese embassies to make people forget what the lefty president did in the Oval office with a woman, a chair and a packet of cigars

Please retrain from posting stupid things from now on, if your brain allows you to do so, of course

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman
When soliders die, the right hates it when people ask 'why'?

Not at all. The left tends more to gloat than to ask why.

Let me put it this way: I was opposed to the war up until when it started. I was opposed to it when it started, but mostly because of the lack of preparation.

The war is a done deal, so there's really not much point in "opposing" it - any more than "opposing" Hitler - he's dead, that issue is disposed of.

What isn't disposed of in Iraq is what happens now and in the future. Do all the "get out" lefties want us to give it back to Saddam? Or just let the armed and organized factions (Baathists and various Shiite factions plus Kurds) just fight it out and may the most ruthless win? Or just ***** about anything the US and the US' allies do?

What exactly is it you want to accomplish at this point? In realistic terms of the situation on the ground and the domestic factions in Iraq and their agendas? And how would you go about accomplishing this?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
A number of the Democrats think that if we let a UN commissioner take Bremer's position, that NATO would send troops to help out/replace American troops. The theory they advance is that the resistance by Saddam/outside terrorists is solely related to America running the occupation and that turning it over to the UN/NATO would end or lessen the resistance in some fashion.

1) Would European countries support turning Iraq into a NATO military operation if the UN were to take charge of the occupation (Bremer)?

2) Assume 1), would you think that France, Germany and other NATO members, besides those who already have sent troop, send more than token forces to Iraq?

3) Assume 1), do you think that Saddam/terrorists will stop trying to regain control if this becomes a UN/NATO occupation?

I don't think Clark is necessarily this optimistic, so you have to look a little deeper.

1) The European countries that have opposed the US have done so on a variety of grounds, but one big excuse is that they don't want to endorse a US policy that they opposed initially, and they don't want to be the US' boys in carrying out forward policy under US control and orders. Transfer that authority to the UN, and we have the UN to blame, and the Eurocoms lose the excuse of not supporting "US aggression" - they like to whine about international law and international organizations, so let's change who they have to say "no" to.

2) It doesn't really matter - they may send forces, or money, or they may take a hands off approach, but they participate in the solution, or cut any moral legitimacy they claim to have for their non-participation, and the heat still comes off the US and goes to the UN.

3) No, those *******s will fight, but their ability to recruit or gain domestic popular sympathy will be a lot less, particularly if you go Clark's route of constituting a sovereign government now through the existing elected regional coucils, and let the sovereign government deal with the UN on the manner of rebuilding Iraq.

Under the current situation, we're giving both ideological rivals and actual enemies in the field a lot of propaganda material to work with, and our execution in the field is having limited success, at best. Going native/UN isn't really likely to lead to a worse global result than what we're getting so far.

[Tripledoc]

When wars are irretrievably lost the narrators of history will shirk their responsibility towards truthfulness. The eternal truths of Kant, Montesquieu and Clausewitz concerning the justice of peace and war, the limits and logic of war, will be subject to derision and manipulation. The capital aim of conflict will be replaced by another until the antagonists will wonder what brought them there originally. They will fight on in serenity knowing that the end to war will eventually bring the horrible truth to bear on them. Thus the nature of war is that of a whore never satisfied.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


For what I was able to understand from your pathetic attempt of an english phrase: lefties didn't bother to bomb Yugoslavia for that matter, and that was just to turn attention away from Miss Lewinsky's oral attitudes- I think sending soldiers for humanitarian purposes like securing war zones and helping local police come first than bombing markets and chinese embassies to make people forget what the lefty president did in the Oval office with a woman, a chair and a packet of cigars

Please retrain from posting stupLid things from now on, if your brain allows you to do so, of course

I'm sorry if my english is not good enough for you, but if I have trouble writing it you obviously have insufficient skills to read it. You see, I dont recall talking about Bill Clinton, Ms Lewinsky,Yugoslavia, Chinese embassies or basicly anything you are talking about. Maybe you should read more carefully what I wrote before making an ass out of yourself.
Now read my words 3 times a l o u d : What I was talking about was if Italy had a leftist government instead of a convicted criminal who seems to have lost his mind completely there wouldnt be italian carabinieri in Iraq. What point did you not understand? I'm not americain by the way, so I dont really care about William H. Clinton or Monica Lewinsky so dont come ranting me about something americaines have done. Capisco?

[Datajack Franit]

What I was talking about was if Italy had a leftist government instead of a convicted criminal who seems to have lost his mind completely there wouldnt be italian carabinieri in Iraq

In the first place Berlusconi isn't a convicted criminal as in 10 years of fake processes he was never found guilty

By the way, my little, precious and probably challenged friend, there are italian carabinieri in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and there used to be carabinieri in Somalia as well- why don't you just pick up something like, er, a newspaper or a book? Maybe you would find out.. something?

So what if Berlusconi sent troops in Iraq? Previous italian PMs (lefty of course) sent soldiers war-ravaged countries for several missions aside the humanitarian purpose, and also gave permission of using italian airbases in order to perform bombings and air-strikes. So, a lefty PM can bomb countries and send people to die, while the others cannot send troops for humanitairna efforts.. my my, you really have got a point now, how blind I am

You see, I dont recall talking about Bill Clinton, Ms Lewinsky,Yugoslavia, Chinese embassies or basicly anything you are talking about. Maybe you should read more carefully what I wrote before making an ass out of yourself.

I see, some people recall only those actions that are useful to their rants.. very funny indeed

I'm not americain by the way

The day I'll meet an americain I'll give him your kind regards then

Capisco?

It's capito, as it's present, not past ptcle. From now on, try not to speak foreign languages, as the results are really awful- I should suggest you some good english and/or italian courses, which you should take BEFORE making fun out of two languages in one single post.. you poor thing