Attack on un building in iraq

[kwiz117]

chonabot,

Ok..For your personal request, I will write my last opinion in this subject and to answer your questions.

I am a Sri Lankan national, Sinhalese Buddhist studied UK examinations and holding memberships in two leading UK professional bodies and currently LIVING TOGETHER with my Thai Girl Friend in Thailand with the intention of getting officially married in this December.

I work as a Consultant for Finance and IT for an American BOI Company in Bangkok.

Previously I was the Financial Controller for a leading Swedish Cosmetic Company in Bangkok. Hope my Background is clear to you.

I wrote this only to answer your question and to eliminate the falls impression that you and some others are trying to give others, labeling me as an Anti American.

I started the UN building discussion the day someone bombed it and killed the UN Ambassador to Iraq and the staff in it. In my personal feeling, I consider it as the worst thing ever happened in Iraq. For me, it is more serious than US and UK troops Invading Iraq.

It was a blow to the entire UN system and the attacks on institutions like Red Cross, UN should strongly condemned and express public concerns where ever you live or what ever your background, where you come from or what your profession is.

But the responses I have got from many Falang in Thailand was very disappointing and all of the views were directing towards Iraqi’s [Terrorist/Muslims] blowing up the UN, instead of expressing independent views and many giving misinterpretations about my post.

One reply even going to the extent of asking from me, why I started this topic in this forum. My answer to that was “this is a General Forum and the Forum rules does not stipulate that we should discuss only Visa Matters, Bar Girls, Prostitution etc”

I enjoyed the constructive discussions in this forum with some of the members.

I used my free time to express my own views as an Asian living in Thailand. Further, I never talked only about American/Iraq war matters in this forum. If you have followed my replies under other topics that I have participated under various subjects such as BOI Matters, Thai Women in fallang land, How much is a Bar Girl income, Thai girlfriend and so on, you will understand it.

Bot some of you are keep on relating one opinion I expressed to all other topics. In my opinion, It is not the way to go ahead in this forum and if all of other members adopt that type of an approach, it will not be possible for anyone to express any independent opinion about any new topic.

So that is the dilemma that I faced in this forum.

Then regarding the situation in my country [sri Lanka], it is nothing to do with International Terrorism. It is just another conflict similar to the conflicts in Ireland, India, south of Thailand etc.. So it is not the correct way to judge a person from the background of the country that they have come up with.  But, giving many examples to the existing conflicts all over the world, both parties have compromised and come to negotiation table. The talks are going on with the facilitation of Norway. Many countries such as Thailand, Japan has contributed in many ways to host the talks. Even many significant contributions from US itself. The UN Secretary General will visit Sri Lanka for the first time to recognize the efforts from both parties. All people in Sri Lanka and even Neighboring countries are gaining the benefits of this 2-Yr. long settlement.

Interestingly LTTE is still a Banned organization in US, UK and many other countries under the list of terrorist organization. It is true, that they have engaged in a Battle against Sinhalese and even assassinated the late Prime Minister of India Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. But the solution to the problem is not to kill all of them or not to go behind defining them as terrorists or trying to isolate them from the world map. The important thing is to understand that the fact of “Every action has a reaction” and respect all views. No LTTE person will suicide unless they are so much frustrated of Sinhalese people. If any one say that LTTE Brainwash them, then it can not apply to the majority. I think people are not so stupid to get carried away so many times and carry out so many assassinations over a period of 17 Yrs. At the end of the day, all people in my country are living peacefully and happily after 19Yrs.  So this is about some insights from the conflict in my country for those who are interested.

Hope I have answered your questions.

From here onwards,

I will only read some opinions in this forum, as some of them are very useful for a person like me hoping to live in Thailand for a long time.

But I am very disappointed the way this forum is managed by allowing some people to condemn other members, some people to do business promotion, some to insult Thai Ladies. This is my personal opinion.

Cheers,

[chonabot]

Nice post Kwiz , thanks , but if anyone can look at my posts and see where I a) insult Thai women; accuse you of being anti American

I would like to see that.

Another question , as you are a Non-Thai happy using the genralisation of the word "Farang" , are you in turn happy with the generalisation of the word " Kairk" towards any East Indian looking people in Thailand?

Or "Jek" towards Chinese?

Please don't stop posting , I for one enjoy a debate , it's a shame you aren't happy when people don't agree with you , mate thats half the fun!

The reason I like to know peoples backgrounds is probably because , I'm in the middle of an OU degree course in Humanities , one of the things this teaches is you is to examinine sources etc to see  how opinions are based , sometimes witting sometimes unwitting, it helps a lot regarding bias in situations.

Peace

Chonabot

[francois]

after-war ... still war, and in it's worse kind.

steet-figting, bombing and all these kind of hidden stuffs.

this the fate of invaders, they have to face resistance!

from Vietnam to Irak america did not learn a thing!

it is not a question of why they are ovethere, they are there!

for petrol and all the subsides ...

like it had been shouted out loud "long time ago" ...

US go home!

let the UN do the job,don't stay  like conqueror, this will bring more horror to your army and possibly to your country.

this is just a guess, muslims are not going to give up like this,

I don't think so, they are nuts enough to think that they will win this "holy war"

everyday, this dirty war bring more casualties! what for?

a future without terrorism ... I doubt  

[Membrane]

Well I, for one, am getting tired of hearing anti-American crap on this board.

Have the ones who spout anti-American rhetoric tried listening to the reasons why America ousted Saddam?  It's so easy to mimmick what everyone else is saying and pick on America; to call them invaders after oil, etc.

Saddam was a tyrant who brutalized, terrorized and killed his own people.  Saddam and his sons ruled by terror, rape and murder.  Look at what they did to the Kurds.  They used... (are you ready for this) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!  (Or are you going to say that all those dead Kurdish bodies were some kind of CIA hoax or Hollywood special effect)??  

It's simple: America went after Saddam because he was holding his country hostage, not using the profits from oil to help his people.  He used profits from oil for his own gain and to fund terror.  And YES, he did have weapons of mass destruction (again, proof is with all those dead Kurds).  Just because the Americans haven't uncovered vast store houses of them (yet), doesn't mean that he didn't have them!  SADDAM IS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND--ARE YOU GOING TO SAY HE NEVER EXISTED TOO?  Come on!  How naive is that?

Even if America WERE to find huge, vast acres of Anthrax, the people who are already of the mind set to be against America (like the French), would just say it's a big hoax "created by the CIA".  That kind of conspiratorial, lunatic thinking also produced rumours that the U.S. (and/or Israel) intentionally rammed the Twin Towers in New York on 9-11.. Crazy and pathetic...

No, America always has to be the one to come in and whip these dictators back into shape or get rid of them.  And SOMETIMES the countries he was doing business with don't like it (like the French, for instance)...  But it's because of the loss of their profits, not because the Americans were in the wrong.

America and the U.N. gave Saddam more than 10 years to comply with the U.N. inspectors and he didn't.  He refused and played games at every turn.  That is an absolute, documented fact.  It finally came time to do something about it.  Enough games.  Enough time was given for him to cooperate.  No one else had the balls to do it, so America took the job on by themselves.

Sure America has an interest in the oil, but only as a good, paying customer.  The plan, (just in case you don't know it), has always been and will continue to be to 1) oust Saddam 2) rebuild Iraq (with profits from their oil) 3) create a stable, democratic government, run by the Iraqis themselves then 4) the U.S. will withdraw, making sure Iraq is not run by a dictator and that the U.S. can be a customer of it's oil and that profits do not fund terrorism world-wide.  Again, the plan was never to be "conquerors" or "invaders", it was to give the people of Iraq a chance at a free, democratic society, and to live their lives and prosper, without living in fear.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Show me someone who has a problem with that and I'll show you someone who has power or money to lose from the Americans being in Iraq.

Unfortunately, (as always) it's American money, lives and blood that have to be spent to make that happens.  Why does America have to be the one to do this?  Why?  The answer is simple.  It's not because all Americans are blood-thirsty, greedy war mongerers...  It's because they are the last remaining super power capable of pulling it off.  And the rest of the world will benefit because of it.  

It's too bad they don't get the recognition they deserve.

[chonabot]

Don't forget , theres still British troops over there....

[taxexile]

people hate america because america,as the only superpower,dictates to the world what it thinks the world should be like, and then persecutes,either by economic means or by military pressure any country that does not conform to the american view.it runs the wto for its own benfit,it pollutes

indiscriminately,its foriegn policy is purely for the betterment of itself.it is a rich selfish nation,giving less per capita in aid than any other of the wealthy countries.the wars in iraq and afghanistan have achieved very little,were hostile acts without world backing. civilians have been the usual casualties.the use of violence abroad in order to make the world safe and compliant to the american way has been the history of the last half of the 20th century.that this stimulates endless protest and a firm conviction of secondary status among people of the third world is one agenda that america chooses to ignore.i could go on and on and on.american foreign policy is one of bullying,in the mistaken assumption that we all agree with the american model of what the world should be like.tell your politicians to back off.we've had enough of your violence,your macho,your coca cola,your stinking hamburgers,your empty smiles,your oversized teeth,your swaggering,your subsidised farmers and rice exports,your stupid films,your dumbass tv,your always trying to appeal to to the lowest common denominator cos its easy money,enough is enough.we dont need it or want it.

but please, give us more of your jazz,your blues,your rock,your new york humour,your enterprise,your novelists,your confidence and your get up and go.

[Membrane]

Don't forget , theres still British troops over there....

True!  Absolutely true.  ...And Thank You.

we've had enough of your violence,your macho,your coca cola,your stinking hamburgers,your empty smiles,your oversized teeth,your swaggering,your subsidised farmers and rice exports,your stupid films,your dumbass tv...

Yeah, but how do you really feel?  

Your posting is obviously heart-felt, but actually, America does not "dictate to the world what it thinks the world should be".  America doesn't think other governments should murder and brutalize their own people, or develop weapons of mass destruction to bully their neighbors... and yes, in order to put a stop to things like that, economic or military pressure is used.  But it's hardly like America wants the whole world to eat at McDonald's so we use military force.

So much of what you are claiming is simply your perception and is myth.  Yes, I agree there is greed and not all is perfect.  But if you were to dig in and do unbiased research into the truth, and if you were to keep your mind open and not rely on heresay or rumour, you would find that the Americans are for the most part not a bad lot after all.

Also, one more thing.  There is a difference between the U.S. government and the U.S. people.  Most would give you the shirt off their back if it would help you.  Don't let "ugly Americans" on holiday in Thailand, burping and belching and eating their hamburgers give you a distorted view of the average American back home.

OK, I'll get off my soap box now...  

[Axel]

Also, one more thing.  There is a difference between the U.S. government and the U.S. people.  Most would give you the shirt off their back if it would help you.  Don't let "ugly Americans" on holiday in Thailand, burping and belching and eating their hamburgers give you a distorted view of the average American back home.

Well I, for one, don't think everything said against the US (and Brits) going into the Iraq is anti-American, but frankly speaking I do not like G.W. Bush, elected or not, and his policy. He rushed and pushed against advice of many to go to Baghdad. To do so it appears he lied to the American people of evidence on WMD (believe you saw Hans Blix' comments today) perhaps even implied that Saddam was behind 9/11, he retracted this just 2 days ago.

In my eyes Bush is the one who risks American money, lives and blood on causes not worthwhile. I agree on what you said against Saddam but also let slip in the question, who supported Saddam for years and years.

The USA is a super-power and the only remaining one. But why waist her energies in the Iraqi desert? I do not think because she had the balls to do the job but for her present government to show the strength.

France was against, I doubt for business interests which could not be materialized over the last 10 years during the embargo.

By having been against that war France might lose more now. Let's say Chirac just was against Bush, as always. Germany was against, just because a slip of tongue during their election campaign. In fact by a mistake Schroeder pushed himself against Bush and got reelected for this.

In many things I do admire the USA, although having travelled there for about 30 times does not make me an expert.

But my advice would be to Bush: "FINGERS OFF. If you feel something must be done, do it through the UN, make the UN stronger and admit some members there would know more about the Iraq than Bush/Rumsfeld etc. "

No need to rush, the UN is slow, because too many members have differing opinions. However, this as well includes members who do have the knowledge, understanding and feeling for the Iraq, for its factions and religions which I do not have and the US-soldiers from GI to General do not have.

I just do not believe that guys like Bremer can built up and understand what the Iraq needs. Democracy is a nice thing and works among Caucasian peoples. The same thing is not really welcome in the ME and other areas.

Finally, Bush wants to bring democracy on the wings of jet-fighters and by tanks. This makes enemies and explains the present situation. Settle the dispute under UN-control, get other nations to participate. perhaps, at this moment it is too late, so let Bush first clean up the mess he made, and let him pay for the damages done. I believe in democracy and I believe the next election will show what the American people think of Bush.  The USA is rich, but rich enough? The money spent in the Iraq could have been nicely used in the USA itself. As it stands, the EU might be laughing, (except UK) having saved a lot of money which would have had to be spent by participating through UN-forces.

Superpower? I said yes the USA are, but take a few figures:

Population: USA 275 million  EU: the 15 original countries 375 million, incl. new members/applicants 439 million

Per capita

GDP PPS

(in Euro)     USA 34 800       EU: 22 500, incl new members est. 33 300

(these figures of 2000, by now should be higher)

To close, I am not against the US and def. not against her people, where I have lots of friends. But I am against being accused of Anti-Americanism for having a different opinion than G.W. I was in favour of the first Iraq war (UN-sanctioned) although I feel G.W. sen. made a mistake by not going into Baghdad. I was in favour of the intervention in Afghanistan, although I admit that I was happy my son did not have to join as he was just going to be discharged from national service, his comrades went to Kabul.  

Oh yeah, I was an admirer of JFK and Bill Clinton. For the latter a last word, he managed a nice plus on the US budget difference, G.W. brought it down and managed to do worse than his father.

[taxexile]

my rant is against the government of the usa,not the people,i have  no problems with americans and believe that the "ugly american" to be a myth and also a very insulting comment to use. americans are gregarious,outgoing and larger than life,the world needs more people like that with positive attitudes.many europeans (especially brits) find that aspect of their character intimidating and hence adopt anti american sentiment as a protective mechanism .many americans have a similarly jaundiced view of their countries antics on the world stage as well.i hold similarly rancid opinions about my own government(the british government),but i feel i have to have a go when i read someone whining about anti american feeling. as if they can do no wrong.

[francois]

alright, I do agree with axel,

but, why american people forget that a little more than 200 years ago, they were glad to get military help from france in order to get their independance, does it sound fair?

like you said Chirac is not france !

and as many, I dislike any kind of war, there is no right or just or clean war, there are civilians casualties, wounded, starved people, waiting for help ...

you might be right whe you say that Irak had to get rid of this tyran, but at what cost?

saddam even used them until the end ...

and now some muslims troubleshooters are targeting "their old enemy", it sounds like war is not ended yet.

and the plans to restore an Iraky regime, "politicaly correct",

USA compliant  

well, let the time pass a little, but without thinking bad,

I do not think that it's going to work, might be that an intervention of the Un could solvve some problems, like the security of the army still there US and UK, and some more if UN requires it ... long way to go  ???

[parryhandy]

Well I, for one, am getting tired of hearing anti-American crap on this board.

Have the ones who spout anti-American rhetoric tried listening to the reasons why America ousted Saddam?  It's so easy to mimmick what everyone else is saying and pick on America; to call them invaders after oil, etc.

Saddam was a tyrant who brutalized, terrorized and killed his own people.  Saddam and his sons ruled by terror, rape and murder.  Look at what they did to the Kurds.  They used... (are you ready for this) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!  (Or are you going to say that all those dead Kurdish bodies were some kind of CIA hoax or Hollywood special effect)??  

It's simple: America went after Saddam because he was holding his country hostage, not using the profits from oil to help his people.  He used profits from oil for his own gain and to fund terror.  And YES, he did have weapons of mass destruction (again, proof is with all those dead Kurds).  Just because the Americans haven't uncovered vast store houses of them (yet), doesn't mean that he didn't have them!  SADDAM IS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND--ARE YOU GOING TO SAY HE NEVER EXISTED TOO?  Come on!  How naive is that?

Even if America WERE to find huge, vast acres of Anthrax, the people who are already of the mind set to be against America (like the French), would just say it's a big hoax "created by the CIA".  That kind of conspiratorial, lunatic thinking also produced rumours that the U.S. (and/or Israel) intentionally rammed the Twin Towers in New York on 9-11.. Crazy and pathetic...

No, America always has to be the one to come in and whip these dictators back into shape or get rid of them.  And SOMETIMES the countries he was doing business with don't like it (like the French, for instance)...  But it's because of the loss of their profits, not because the Americans were in the wrong.

America and the U.N. gave Saddam more than 10 years to comply with the U.N. inspectors and he didn't.  He refused and played games at every turn.  That is an absolute, documented fact.  It finally came time to do something about it.  Enough games.  Enough time was given for him to cooperate.  No one else had the balls to do it, so America took the job on by themselves.

Sure America has an interest in the oil, but only as a good, paying customer.  The plan, (just in case you don't know it), has always been and will continue to be to 1) oust Saddam 2) rebuild Iraq (with profits from their oil) 3) create a stable, democratic government, run by the Iraqis themselves then 4) the U.S. will withdraw, making sure Iraq is not run by a dictator and that the U.S. can be a customer of it's oil and that profits do not fund terrorism world-wide.  Again, the plan was never to be "conquerors" or "invaders", it was to give the people of Iraq a chance at a free, democratic society, and to live their lives and prosper, without living in fear.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Show me someone who has a problem with that and I'll show you someone who has power or money to lose from the Americans being in Iraq.

Unfortunately, (as always) it's American money, lives and blood that have to be spent to make that happens.  Why does America have to be the one to do this?  Why?  The answer is simple.  It's not because all Americans are blood-thirsty, greedy war mongerers...  It's because they are the last remaining super power capable of pulling it off.  And the rest of the world will benefit because of it.  

It's too bad they don't get the recognition they deserve.

well i can think of a number of countries that brutalize and terrorize their people but you wont see america invading them cos they aint got NO OIL.zimbabwe, north korea (who have even publicly declared reopening their nuclear programme) too name a couple.its about world power and continuing to be the only superpower. they need for the future a foothold in the middle east and sadam who was once funded by america had stopped playing ball.without the ability to buy oil at the price they dictate the american economy collapses.look at somali they actually were trying to do something good there but pulled out before they managed to complete the job.no oil again not worthwhile.

as for wmd where did iraq get these chemical weapons and also something which is not publicly acknowledged is that both sides in the kurdish conflict had chemical/ biological weapons and that it was more likely to have been their own weapons that killed their own people unofficial tests have proved.

do you honestly think if they had WMD they would not have been found by now.theres enough rewards floating around and surely someone would have spilled the beans by now.

why is it that none of the baddies in the war against terror  that are wanted and captured will never be given any kind of public trial? its because the stories they could tell would be just as damaging to america as it would themselves.

dont get me wrong inspite of all this im not anti american. im english and to continue to have the prosperity both countries and the west enjoy  bad things  must be done. but dont you think its time politicians stopped bullpooping people and told it as it is rather than this nauseating humanitarian rubbish which you can see looking at afghanistan now and iraq and many other countries in the world is just  not true.why did we not finish sadam after kuwait when he had reportedly lost control of most of the iraqi provinces and instead helped him to regain control after encouraging the iraqi people to revolt?we the general public know very little about what really goes on at all but the spin nowadays is sickening sometimes.youll find at the end of the day most if not all the deaths and wars in this world are just business conflicts between some pretty big world players.