Skip to content

War - is it worth it?

Archived

120 replies · 2,838 views

This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.

Hot topic!

Yes it is.

I wonder, how do the american media reported all the con-war demonstration all over the world?

Honestly, I must be missing something out there, but what is war going to solve in this issue? Irak (hum, it's spelled Iraq in english I think) is not going to bomb anyone anyday, so what's the use of losing lifes for that, and create a tension between mulism and christianism for the next 50 years ?

Who cares about Iraq? Sure, they invaded Kowait, that was not a good thing to do, but now, they won't be stupid enough to do it again.. I'm more scared by the nuts in North Korea than Iraq, and why nobody is caring about that?

Live and let live, war is always the wrong answer to any conflict in the world, force them to have peace keepers always on their land, but what's good in declaring war to a people that is suffering from the last war with them already?

I'm curious to see all points of view, personally, I hate to see my own country backing the US only to "be nice" in case they would do economic pressures on us, and I'm not too confident when I see Mr Bush stating he's almost doing this because God told him to do so...!

Well, COMMENTS!

0 likes

Originally posted by Spotnick Hot topic!Yes it is.I wonder, how do the american media reported all the con-war demonstration all over the world?Honestly, I must be missing something out there, but what is war going to solve in this issue? Irak (hum, it's spelled Iraq in english I think) is not going to bomb anyone anyday, so what's the use of losing lifes for that, and create a tension between mulism and christianism for the next 50 years ?Who cares about Iraq? Sure, they invaded Kowait, that was not a good thing to do, but now, they won't be stupid enough to do it again.. I'm more scared by the nuts in North Korea than Iraq, and why nobody is caring about that?Live and let live, war is always the wrong answer to any conflict in the world, force them to have peace keepers always on their land, but what's good in declaring war to a people that is suffering from the last war with them already?I'm curious to see all points of view, personally, I hate to see my own country backing the US only to "be nice" in case they would do economic pressures on us, and I'm not too confident when I see Mr Bush stating he's almost doing this because God told him to do so...!Well, COMMENTS!

Hey there Spotty!

First of all, let me say that I respect your opinions. However, I would like to share some of my own.

How's the media in the United States covering the protests? It depends on what you watch or who you listen to. For the most part, from CNN to FOXNEWS, the consensus is that the protests are decidedly anti-Bush and sometimes anti-American. None of the protesters have been reported to call on Saddam to disarm/comply with UN mandates/stop killing his own people.

You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. The current U.S. policy is to work through those governments in conjuntion with the UN to bring North Korea into compliance with IAEA rules.

I'm troubled by your comment that war is always the wrong answer to any problem in the world. What are your thoughts on World War II? Just as the case was made that Milosevic should be removed from power, so now the case is being made about Saddam with the Hitler analogy being applied to both.

Just a few more points to keep in mind: this whole mess is based on UN Resolution 1441. As with any document that was crafted by parties with decidedly different interests, it has now become open to interpretation.

And , the larger question that now faces the UN is: will it's apparent inability to reach consensus on Iraq and enforce it's own resolutions relegate it to the status of toothless debating society?

0 likes

I wondered how long it would take for debate on this conflict to make its way onto NOOL

it cuts your life like a broken knife

0 likes

I think George Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet. He's got no intelligence, and yet he's the most powerful man on the planet. Scary.

He just wants oil, it's all a farce... his personal war. He's going to fuck the world just to get his own way.

Did you know that the US keeps stockpiles of missiles in the UK that we can't inspect but if they all explode its OUR fault and not the US?

Its all just soooooooooo shit and pointless.

0 likes

I was a supporter of the first Gulf War... for the same reasons I'm AGAINST the Second Gulf War. This time it's Iraq the invaded country!

And by the way... why is Dubbia not reacting the same way towards North Korea?

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Hey there Spotty!First of all, let me say that I respect your opinions. However, I would like to share some of my own.How's the media in the United States covering the protests? It depends on what you watch or who you listen to. For the most part, from CNN to FOXNEWS, the consensus is that the protests are decidedly anti-Bush and sometimes anti-American. None of the protesters have been reported to call on Saddam to disarm/comply with UN mandates/stop killing his own people.You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. The current U.S. policy is to work through those governments in conjuntion with the UN to bring North Korea into compliance with IAEA rules.I'm troubled by your comment that war is always the wrong answer to any problem in the world. What are your thoughts on World War II? Just as the case was made that Milosevic should be removed from power, so now the case is being made about Saddam with the Hitler analogy being applied to both.Just a few more points to keep in mind: this whole mess is based on UN Resolution 1441. As with any document that was crafted by parties with decidedly different interests, it has now become open to interpretation.And , the larger question that now faces the UN is: will it's apparent inability to reach consensus on Iraq and enforce it's own resolutions relegate it to the status of toothless debating society?

Of course it's not anti-American, it's anti-War, that's it. As for your WWII example, that does not apply, as I said, the US was right to help Kuwait in the Gulf War, no country should invade another these days, this is totally unacceptable.. and I believe the afghan war was a good one, the talibans were nuts and were closed to all other cultures but their own (the destruction of the buddahs were one of the worst thing they could have done.. Bin Laden or not, I feel it was a good thing to do for the people there, even though an internal revolution would have probably been the best way to get rid of the talibans.

Do you seriously think Saddam would be stupid enough to declare war on anybody? I don't think he's a threath to anyone right now, most of the world still think the only point in this war is to change the government for one that favors the US to have access to their petrolium...

Anyways, I have to go to work, I'll write about it later...!

0 likes

Originally posted by JE SUIS EGG I was a supporter of the first Gulf War...for the same reasons I'm AGAINST the Second Gulf War. This time it's Iraq the invaded country!And by the way... why is Dubbia not reacting the same way towards North Korea?

You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. The current U.S. policy is to work through those governments in conjuntion with the UN to bring North Korea into compliance with IAEA rules.

0 likes

I was wondering when somebody would start a thread about this....

As far as the anti-war protests, I agree with Mike that the coverage has been decidely against them, and that's a shame. While you or I may not agree with their message, this is a country where open debate of the issues is prized as a checkpoint on the gross abuses of those in power, and it's shameful to see how really slanted a lot of the news people have become. Granted, we were attacked first, so any anger that we may have towards Bin Laden and his crew would naturally find a target in anyone even remotely breaking from the majority opinion. But the protesters, whatever their motivations, deserve to be heard if they have legitimate questions about why this war needs to be conducted.

That being said, I can't really say I agree with what the prevailing tone of the criticism of our policy in Iraq is ("blood for oil" and all that). It strikes me that this is just woefully misguided to boil down a complex issue like the legitimacy of going into Iraq into nice, easy-to-read slogans that fit nicely on a bumper sticker. I don't buy for a minute the whole "Iraq will be our new oil reserve" arguement, I think it just smacks of paranoia.

But my concern is this: In the past 100 years we have taken it upon ourselves to "police the world". While this has produced positive results, such as the outcome of World War II and the liberation of the Jews from death camps, it has also brought more pain than reward. Vietnam began very much like our current situation in Iraq, with so-called "experts" (chicken hawks, mostly) saying it would be a short war, that "we'd be home by Christmas". Indeed, the whole history of warfare is marked by such predictions, from the Civil War on down. It is this arrogance or willfull disregard for the realities of war which is alarming to me.

Say we go in, and the war goes exactly as planned...until we reach Baghdad or some other urban center? What then if it boils down to house-to-house combat, much like the last days of Berlin or the urban battles of Vietnam? Will we still be "out of there by Christmas"?

I feel like Bush isn't necessarily the bad guy in this (obviously Saddam's a danger to his own people), but the people in his administration are whispering sweet nothings in his ear about a "potential threat" from a country that has been economically barren since 1991. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are the real pariahs, they actually did business with Saddam back in the day, and I can't help but feel a certain amount of disdain for those two. Now that Colin Powell has jumped on board the war wagon, I can't help but feel a little let down: he was the one voice of sanity left in Bush's cabinet.

I worry for our country, and i worry that we're heading to war too recklessly, blind to the very real consequences of our actions. I'm not saying it would be wrong to take out Saddam, but it feels as if we'd be playing right into Bin Laden's hands by focusing on a man who really hasn't been a viable threat to the USA for several years now.

I hope to God that we don't get bogged down in a senseless war, but I fear that we will. And somehow I don't think the hawks get that. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it will be a quick easy war. But as any student of history knows, even the shortest wars are brutal in their destruction.

0 likes

Originally posted by JE SUIS EGG I was a supporter of the first Gulf War...for the same reasons I'm AGAINST the Second Gulf War. This time it's Iraq the invaded country!And by the way... why is Dubbia not reacting the same way towards North Korea?

Probably because they don't want to piss off China...

0 likes

Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

0 likes

Actually, the coverage of the protests over here is very favorable...we've had a war here and it sucks. It does appear thet the US administration wants a war at any price.

0 likes

Originally posted by Major Tarantino I think George Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet. He's got no intelligence, and yet he's the most powerful man on the planet. Scary.He just wants oil, it's all a farce... his personal war. He's going to fuck the world just to get his own way.Did you know that the US keeps stockpiles of missiles in the UK that we can't inspect but if they all explode its OUR fault and not the US?Its all just soooooooooo shit and pointless.

You are right about one thing, oil is a big sticking point in the discussion. I'll give you three words: TOTAL - ELF- FINA.

I hereby call for all those who are against oppression, murder and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to boycott TOTAL - ELF- FINA. Every Euro spent to purchase pertol from these companies is a Euro in Saddam's pocket.

As for your perception that President Bush lacks "intelligence", then by extension, you must also think that Condi Rice and Colin Powell also lack intelligence. I would venture to guess that any of the three would happily compare CV's with you.

0 likes

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

0 likes

Trevor,

I too worry for our country. We will be sending our best and bravest into harms way. We don't exactly know (but I think we have a pretty good idea) what the repercussions of war will be. But what, really, is the alternative?

We, along with the UN have painted ourselves AND Saddam into a corner. The question is: how to get out? How can the UN be taken seriously when it can't (if we bail) or won't (France/Germany unzipping their trousers and unfolding their manhood on the Security Council table for all to see) enforce it's own resolutions?

I liked your explanation as to why "no war for oil" is overly simplistic at best and bogus at worst. And since it came from you it will carry more weight.

A few friendly observations:

I think Cheney and Rumsfelds prior dealings with Saddam can be looked at throught the prism of an old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Remember, foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

Hey, are you going to see "Gods And Generals" Friday?

0 likes

intersting points all around...

George the Younger may not have all the knowledge in the world, but he has done a fairly good job of surrounding himself with knowledgeable people...

If Saddam had been taken out the first time, we wouldn't be having this problem now..(but that wasn't part of the mandate at that time...just goes to show the shortsightedness of that plan)...

North Korea is a very scary player on the international scene...the people of that country seem to almost believe that their leaders are some type of deity...and would probably follow Kim to the gates of hell...

What I would be most worried about, is what happens to the region after Saddam is toppled...the United States wishes to instill democracy, but these people have no idea what democracy is...they were headed by a monarchy until Hussein came to power...and look at what a wonderful job we have done intsilling democratic processes in Afghanistan...

unfortunately, there is no blanket answer for every situation throughout the world...what worked in half of Europe after World War II may very well be out of the question for the middle east in the year 2003...

Do I want a war...no...

Will I support a war...yes...not because of my undying love for Mr. Bush...but because this is my country...

okay...everybody start flaming me...I'm a big boy, and I can take it!!!!

but I might try kicking a couple of you in the balls!!! :lol:

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes> Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

Sure - and old Bed Linen or whatever his name is. Your elite couldn't find him though.....

0 likes

And what about all these pacifists that have gone across to Iraq on double decker buses and camped outside Saddams suspect areas forming a 'human shield' in an attempt to stop the bombing?

:nonono:

"Human shields" set to take up posts

By Khaled Yacoub Oweis BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A band of 100 "human shields", who drove to Baghdad from London in double-decker buses and a taxi, say their presence will help keep U.S. guns silent. "There will be no war on Iraq," Peter van Dyke, an organiser of the Human Shields group told Reuters on Tuesday. His group includes professionals, students, housewives and several Americans. They plan to sit near power stations, water plants and other facilities that were hit during the 1991 Gulf War. "These sites are essential for the people of Baghdad to live," said van Dyke, 38, who served in the Royal Navy. The group paid their own way but are guests of the Iraqi government, staying in a hotel across from one of President Saddam Hussein's palaces on the Tigris river. "The British members of the team outnumbered the rest but we picked up a number of Turks on the way and I am not so sure who is the majority now," van Dyke said. Adele Peers, a Liverpool teacher, said the United States must not be allowed to wage war on Iraq just because it had a score to settle with Saddam. "This war is going to destroy international relations," said Peers. "The United States says the Iraqi regime is the problem, but it's going to be bombing civilians." Other peace groups have descended on Baghdad as the United States and Britain amass forces in the Gulf. They plan actions similar to van Dyke's Human Shields to show solidarity with Iraqi civilians, who bore the brunt of the 1991 war. One group, the Iraq Peace Team, includes U.S. veterans from the Vietnam war. They have been hanging banners on bridges and power plants that say a U.S. bombardment of these sites would amount to a war crime. A pacifist group from Spain's Catalonia province arrived on Tuesday, saying there was no support among Catalonians for using Spanish troops or air bases in a war. Loles Olivarn, a spokeswoman for the 18-member group, said its intention was to express solidarity but also "to say to our government that we will have a Spanish presence here and that it will "be responsible for what happens to the Spanish citizens".

0 likes

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes> > Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.>

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

Sure - and old Bed Linen or whatever his name is. Your elite couldn't find him though.....

Actually, that would be "our" elite....... I memory serves, there were/are some SAS/SBS fellows that are part of the team. :)

0 likes

If I were an American, I would stand for the war. Being not an American I'm kinda against it.

0 likes

i'm being a bit of a fence-sitter on this topic, maybe cuz i'm canadian ;). i don't agree with US methods at all, but they do have a bit of validity and i see the reasoning behind them. what is saddam *exactly* hiding, if anything?and Iraqis still fear for their life and are afraid to speak out against the regime..granted, its a horrible shame the US has to act as a world-wide policing force as it will only increase polariazation and distaste with american politics. so what to do? in perfect world the UN would have more power. right now, they just seem to be dragging their heels. will they find weapons? will they oust saddam? who knows....but if the UN *was* more effective, global-esque government resolutions could be found easily without one nation becoming the 'aggressor' and the other 'the victim,' as it would be a collective decision. but, yeah, i oppose war, but i think saddam *could* have something hidden.. ramble ramble ramble...i have to check on my perogies.

0 likes

Originally posted by DoN And what about all these pacifists that have gone across to Iraq on double decker buses and camped outside Saddams suspect areas forming a 'human shield' in an attempt to stop the bombing?:nonono: "Human shields" set to take up postsBy Khaled Yacoub Oweis BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A band of 100 "human shields", who drove to Baghdad from London in double-decker buses and a taxi, say their presence will help keep U.S. guns silent. "There will be no war on Iraq," Peter van Dyke, an organiser of the Human Shields group told Reuters on Tuesday. His group includes professionals, students, housewives and several Americans. They plan to sit near power stations, water plants and other facilities that were hit during the 1991 Gulf War. "These sites are essential for the people of Baghdad to live," said van Dyke, 38, who served in the Royal Navy. The group paid their own way but are guests of the Iraqi government, staying in a hotel across from one of President Saddam Hussein's palaces on the Tigris river. "The British members of the team outnumbered the rest but we picked up a number of Turks on the way and I am not so sure who is the majority now," van Dyke said. Adele Peers, a Liverpool teacher, said the United States must not be allowed to wage war on Iraq just because it had a score to settle with Saddam. "This war is going to destroy international relations," said Peers. "The United States says the Iraqi regime is the problem, but it's going to be bombing civilians." Other peace groups have descended on Baghdad as the United States and Britain amass forces in the Gulf. They plan actions similar to van Dyke's Human Shields to show solidarity with Iraqi civilians, who bore the brunt of the 1991 war. One group, the Iraq Peace Team, includes U.S. veterans from the Vietnam war. They have been hanging banners on bridges and power plants that say a U.S. bombardment of these sites would amount to a war crime. A pacifist group from Spain's Catalonia province arrived on Tuesday, saying there was no support among Catalonians for using Spanish troops or air bases in a war. Loles Olivarn, a spokeswoman for the 18-member group, said its intention was to express solidarity but also "to say to our government that we will have a Spanish presence here and that it will "be responsible for what happens to the Spanish citizens".

sounds like a bunch of Michael Jackson's loony relatives to me...but I'm just a filthy warmonger...

0 likes

If America / Britain and the rest of the allies were as fuckin useful as they said, then why did they not get Saddam at the first time of asking? And correct me if I'm wrong, but is Osama Bin Laden not still at large?

9/11 was just the excuse Bush needed to go to Iraq. Have we seen sufficient proof linking Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you have the other arguments about the Middle East and now North Korea:nonono:

I'm finished work in a minute, I will rejoin this sensitive subject later.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Trevor,I too worry for our country. We will be sending our best and bravest into harms way. We don't exactly know (but I think we have a pretty good idea) what the repercussions of war will be. But what, really, is the alternative?We, along with the UN have painted ourselves AND Saddam into a corner. The question is: how to get out? How can the UN be taken seriously when it can't (if we bail) or won't (France/Germany unzipping their trousers and unfolding their manhood on the Security Council table for all to see) enforce it's own resolutions? I liked your explanation as to why "no war for oil" is overly simplistic at best and bogus at worst. And since it came from you it will carry more weight.A few friendly observations:I think Cheney and Rumsfelds prior dealings with Saddam can be looked at throught the prism of an old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.Remember, foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.Hey, are you going to see "Gods And Generals" Friday?

Mike,

Is war really the only alternative left, though? Granted, we HAVE painted ourselves into a corner with all the war rhetoric (I don't think we can disagree that this administration has been pretty open about seeking a military solution), but it just feels like not all the options are being explored. I can help but think those around the White House are dismissing at hand any sort of peaceful resolution for this.

I agree that WWII was a "good war" in the sense that

a. it couldn't be avoided

b. once we got involved, a lot of people who otherwise would've died were saved.

but the reason there was a WWII was because WWI left everything unresolved. There was so much animosity left over on both sides, and the Brits and French wanted to bleed Germany dry, ironically enough paving the way for a madman like Hitler to take control and lead the world into a far worse conflict than the "War to End All Wars".

If we go in and the war ends with no tangible results, such as the elimination of terrorists groups from the area or a stable Middle East, will all the blood in the world have been worth it? I think those in the military (who are, after all, paid to contemplate war) might be in a rush to engagement, much like the generals and politicians of August 1914, and are not really cognizant of the realities of an Iraqi occupation or the repercussions. If there is a real threat to our national security posed by Saddam, then I will support our troops but still hold reservations about the men and women behind the lines who made this war.

My thing is, it seems as if we're blindly marching off to war when we know better.

As for Gods and Generals, I'd like to see it, but I'll be busy with a Philosophy paper due Tuesday so I doubt it (I always like to wait for the DVD anyways). The "prequel" Gettysburg from a few years back felt a little iffy as a major motion picture depiction of the Civil War

0 likes

Originally posted by ShugZV©
If America / Britain and the rest of the allies were as fuckin useful as they said, then why did they not get Saddam at the first time of asking?And correct me if I'm wrong, but is Osama Bin Laden not still at large?9/11 was just the excuse Bush needed to go to Iraq. Have we seen sufficient proof linking Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you have the other arguments about the Middle East and now North Korea:nonono:I'm finished work in a minute, I will rejoin this sensitive subject later.

Greetings ShugZV,

In the first Gulf War, the UN had only mandated that Saddam be removed from Kuwait. It is my opinion that is why there was such a broad Anglo-Arab coalition. That coalition would have immediately broken down had the decision been made to remove Saddam from power. I think the old saw goes, "He might be a bad guy, but he's OUR bad guy." The Arab world couldn't be down with Iraq invading Kuwait but they damn sure weren't going to have a bunch of White Christians sacking one of their own.

It's a little different now.................

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, yeah he still might be running around. However, contrary to popular opinion, the US military can walk and chew gum at the same time.

0 likes

0 likes

Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

0 likes

Originally posted by Human Shieldless Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

0 likes

Those in POWER are riddled with CORRUPTION and feed us a whole heap of LIES...

0 likes

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Human Shieldless> Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Greetings Grahame,

There is an old proverb that goes something like, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Remember that foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

As far as "planet rape" is concerned, I would wager that there is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Here's a test for you, Grahame. Do you or have you ever purchased TOTAL-ELF-FINA pertol products? If you have, you may be looking at a hypocrite in the mirror. That is if you are against the rape and murder carried out by the Iraqi government on a daily basis.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > > Originally posted by Human Shieldless> > Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!! >

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Greetings Grahame,

There is an old proverb that goes something like, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Remember that foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

As far as "planet rape" is concerned, I would wager that there is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Here's a test for you, Grahame. Do you or have you ever purchased TOTAL-ELF-FINA petrol products? If you have, you may be looking at a hypocrite in the mirror. That is if you are against the rape and murder carried out by the Iraqi government on a daily basis.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > > Originally posted by Human Shieldless> > Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!! >

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Greetings Grahame,

There is an old proverb that goes something like, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Remember that foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

As far as "planet rape" is concerned, I would wager that there is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Here's a test for you, Grahame. Do you or have you ever purchased TOTAL-ELF-FINA pertol products? If you have, you may be looking at a hypocrite in the mirror. That is if you are against the rape and murder carried out by the Iraqi government on a daily basis.

I don't/cant drive (through choice) so to my knowledge I have never purchased petrol other than bungin' my mate a few quid to take me to IKEA.

Anyway to personalise and trivialise this issue misses the point Michael. America has sponsored some of the most brutal and violent regimes in the history of the modern world including Iraq in the 80's. Why was the use of biological weapons in the Iran-Iraq war not seen as cause enough to unilaterally storm Iraq back then? Or at the very least to withdraw US military support?

As I said the irony of all this "weapons of mass destruction" smokescreen thrown up by Bush is it it was his daddy and the failed actor who provided Saddam with the means of creating them in the first place.

It's got bollocks all to do with the existence or non-existence of these weapons. It's to do with US imperialism justified to the masses as a necessary reaction to the horror of 9/11. Fortunately the rest of the world can see this as Saturday's marches proved. Having been fortunate enough to be in San Francisco on the day of their demo (18th Jan) I'm confident that it wont be long before the majority of the good American people realise this too.

0 likes

Oh yeah. And on the subject of the "rape and murder being carried out by Saddam on a daily basis"...Of course I'm against it you clown. Don't even go there. I could seek your opinions on the murders that take place in Texas every year via the electric chair/lethal injection/ hanging by the neck or whatever "humane" means you use but I reckon I could already safely guess your standpoint.

Don't personalise this debate.

0 likes

Michael McDermott wrote: "You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. "

This doesn't make sense. Danger is danger, regardless of where it comes from, in fact North Korea appears to be much MORE dangerous than Iraq because we know they have nukes and they have been publicly threatening to use them, whereas all of our intelligence indicates that Saddam does not have any. Saddam is totally surrounded and has been policed and routinely bombed since the early 90s and spied on constantly (not that I have a problem with that part of it), whereas the Koreans have largely been doing what they felt like. But even if we were to ignore for a moment that NK is more dangerous than Saddam, and pretend they were exactly equal in the danger to the USA that they represent, why would Saddam warrant immediate military action while NK is considered a diplomatic issue ? It just doesn't hold water as a plausible, single explanation. Clearly there is more to it than the actual danger they represent - 1) oil - Bush has openly discussed the economic benefit to the USA of getting access to Iraqi oil in a post Saddam scenario - 2) personal revenge, which political leaders and evangelical christians are supposed to be above - and 3) the old switcheroo - al qaeda for Iraq, to cover up the fact that we haven't gotten Osama and can't honestly say we have eradicated al qaeda as a threat even after going to a huge amount of trouble to invade Afghanistan, put a puppet government in place, fill it with troops and bomb and search and destroy anybody we could find that we thought might have been al qaeda, or at least non centralized tribal powers, which seems to be close enough for the USA to justify killing them. This all goes to show the real cost of the illegal covert operations of the USA in the 50s to the 80s as engineered by the Republican administrations during that time. We need to learn some important lessons - they are expensive enough in money, human life, and morality to warrant being learned and never forgotten - you cannot do the kind of insane shit the CIA has done. In my opinion the people that engineered everything from the assasination of Allende to the overthrow of democratically elected Communist governments in central America and the support of people like Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and drug running to pay for that stuff, if that can be proven - must be exposed and brought to justice for their crimes, domestically as appropriate and also in the countries where those things took place.

0 likes

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson Oh yeah. And on the subject of the "rape and murder being carried out by Saddam on a daily basis"...Of course I'm against it you clown. Don't even go there. I could seek your opinions on the murders that take place in Texas every year via the electric chair/lethal injection/ hanging by the neck or whatever "humane" means you use but I reckon I could already safely guess your standpoint.Don't personalise this debate.

First you call me a clown and then you (again) admonish me not to personalize the debate????????

Your hypocrisy is astounding....no wait, it really isn't. That's just what I've come to expect.

The whole point of asking your about your petrol purchases was to point out the French government's 50 BILLION DOLLAR investment in Iraqi oil. So, let's be honest when we talk about who wants, or much more importantly, who does not want war in order to shield their own posteriors using the long suffering women and children of Iraq.

French, German and Russian indignation seems to lose much of it's sincerity when viewed through the prism of the MASSIVE amounts of money owed by or invested in Iraq.

Please define "imperialism". Please tell me where it is that United States is installing viceroy and anexing lands and peoples. :nonono: Furthermore, I don't nedd a citizen of the freaking UK to lecture ME about imperialism. :nonono: Pot and kettle, old sod, pot and kettle.............

If you mean the bankrupt phrase "cultural imperialism", all I have to say is that people are buying what we sell. NOBODY put a gun to other peoples heads and forced them to eat McDonalds or use English/American phrases that don't translate to their native tounges.

Finally, what you incorrectly term "murder" is the death penalty. I would invite you to study our system of government and discover how the death penalty became law in Texas. And, conversely, how it's not not legal in other states.

And while you're at it, why don't you study what the actual role of the governor is in executions. I fear you might find it gravely disappointing.

0 likes

for me, the bottom line is this: we're supposedly doing this massive invasion to reduce the threat of terrorism against the US (something the administration has failed to tie Iraq to other than vague hypotheticals and invoking the mantra of 'remember 9/11', but anyways..) but it makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO sense to accomplish this feat when all the US is going to end up doing is polarize the entire middle east against the 'crusader nations' and offer up thousands and thousands more recruits to al qaeda. osama bin laden wants this war, needs this war, and the president is playing right into his hands.

when you look at the political climate in the world today, it looks like the terrorists have already won. the united states in trying to blow up the middle east and could care less if they fundamentally realign the system thats ensured a relative amount of peace for the past 50 years. feel free to dissect my arguments or whathaveyou, but this is where i stand on the issue..

0 likes

People are people so why should it be, you and should get along so awfully!

No, course don't. God, did you even need to start this topic Nic? :D

0 likes

war - what is it good for ?

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium war - what is it good for ?

Frankie says absolutely nothin' :D

0 likes

I've got it...instead of sending armed combatants against each other...let's have Saddam and George W. sit down to a nice game of tiddlywinks...or checkers, I would say chess, but I don't like chess,so it's out...

sounds like a much nicer way of resolving our differences...

okay...I'll go sit in the corner now!

0 likes

i have some good arguments as to why entering a war with iraq is a bad idea, but i have a cold so i'm too lazy to type them out.

i'll simply defer to mr. rasputin on the tiddlywinks idea.

and i now have that damn culture club song stuck in my head. thanks hacienda.

0 likes

[Content deleted by murv on 2/20/2003 12:39:14 AM EDT]

0 likes

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Human Shieldless> Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway...:explode: Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Mustard gas and anthrax supplied by the US?.... Those DICKS are just giving credibility to a murderous dictator.

and BTW no reason to get personnal ref.. your last comment

0 likes

Let's take a look at who also was selling dual use technology and weapons to Iraq. In addition, a little back up for my numbers on French oil investments in Iraq. I over estimated by a few billion. A thousand pardons....

France, Germany protect Iraq ties By David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 France and Germany, the two countries at the forefront of opposition to the U.S. hard line against Iraq, have a long history of commercial and other contacts with the regime of Saddam Hussein. 

 TotalFinaElf, France's huge oil firm, holds the contract to develop Iraq's southern Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, which could contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves.
 German firms were the market leaders in supplying sensitive dual-use technology to Iraq in the years before the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and they have been trying to boost civilian commercial contracts in more recent times.
 Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi defector who once headed Saddam's nuclear weapons program, recently called Germany "the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s."
 Iraq analyst Kelly Nugent Motz, in a recent analysis of Iraqi dual-use purchases that have helped build the country's arsenal of biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, noted that many of the materials U.N. weapons inspectors are now seeking are "things the West supplied."
 "The real targets in Iraq — whether of inspectors now or of soldiers later — are the West's own exports," said Ms. Motz, editor of IraqWatch.org, published by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a Washington-based research group.
 The issue of Western economic interests in Iraq has sparked an angry trans-Atlantic debate over motives of those supporting or opposing a potential U.S.-led military strike against Iraq.
 European critics — and many of the hundreds of thousands of protesters in the United States and Europe in recent days — contend Bush administration policy is driven not by Iraq's weapons but by its oil.
 U.S. energy firms largely frozen out by Saddam's regime could get priority deals to develop huge new Iraqi fields under a new regime in debt to Washington, they contend.
 But France and Germany are vulnerable on the same score, according to those who support the Bush administration tack.
 Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, at a recent Senate hearing on the future of a post-Saddam Iraq, recalled being told repeatedly during a recent European trip by skeptics that the debate about an Iraq war was "really about oil."
 "And I agreed with them," Mr. Biden recalled. "It is about oil — French oil and Russian oil."
 Richard Perle, a leading supporter of war with Iraq and head of an influential civilian Pentagon advisory board, last week said that TotalFinaElf was given a highly favorable deal on exploration rights in Iraq as part of an effort by Baghdad to buy allies against the United States.
 "The French interest in the propagation of contracts that will only go forward with this regime is perfectly obvious," Mr. Perle said in a speech in New York.
 Iraq has not been shy about dangling threats and rewards to its trading partners in order to bolster its international support and end the diplomatic and economic sanctions it has endured since the end of the Gulf war.
 In December 1999, the Iraqi newspaper Babel, edited by Saddam's elder son, Uday, warned France that its support for a U.S.-backed U.N. resolution toughening the existing trade sanctions could directly hurt French interests in Iraq.
 French oil firms might be forced to close their Baghdad offices and "lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited," wrote Abdel Razzak Hashemi, a former Iraqi ambassador to Paris. "The numerous advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be halted."
 Baghdad followed through on the threat in July 2001, announcing that French firms would no longer be given preferential treatment in oil-development deals, citing Paris' support for the "smart sanctions" program then being pushed by the Bush administration.
 At the annual Baghdad international trade fair in November, the Iraqi Information Ministry reported that Saddam himself had ordered domestic buyers to "give priority" to German companies as a reward for "the firm positive stand of Germany in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq by the U.S."
 Some 101 German companies were represented at the Baghdad exposition, including companies offering air-conditioning equipment, energy and transportation services, cosmetics, textiles and other products.
 Direct two-way trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, while another $1 billion is sold via third countries, according to Iraqi authorities.
 All Western countries — including the United States — have long involved economic ties to Saddam's regime. American firms were among the many suppliers of dual-use equipment and support that built up Iraq's conventional and unconventional military arsenals in the 1970s and 1980s.
 Even now, despite the extreme hostility between Washington and Baghdad, the United States buys nearly 5 percent of Iraq's oil exports under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program.
 German firms were particularly active in striking deals with Iraq. Their relationships with Saddam's regime date back to the 1970s.
 The German daily Tageszeitung reported recently that it had seen portions of Iraq's 12,000-page arms declaration to U.N. weapons inspectors in December showing that German firms were the market leaders in supplying Iraq, even in the decade after the Gulf war.
 The paper reported that 80 German firms were named as suppliers in the Iraqi declaration.
 Even before the latest escalation of tensions, U.N. weapons inspectors had filed numerous reports of German firms complicit in aiding Iraq's covert programs in weapons of mass destruction.
 One April 2000 U.N. "activity memo" regarding the German firm Water Engineering Trading, found that between 1984 and late 1988 the company had, among other violations:
 • Sold, without license, $10 million worth of machinery and equipment, and tons of chemicals.
 •Supplied parts of the Samarra chemical weapons complex (identified by U.S. intelligence as Iraq's prime production site for mustard gas and nerve agents).
 •Supplied machine tools for converting conventional 122 mm artillery shells and rocket-propelled grenades into chemical munitions, exported as cooling containers for powdered milk.
 •After March 1987, sold most of the components for the $20 million Falluja chemical weapons plant to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization.
 French firms show up far less frequently among the companies cited by the U.N. inspectors, although Iraq did acquire French Mirage jet fighters and French-made Exocet missiles during the 1980s.
 It was a French firm that won the contract to help build Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak, which was bombed by Israeli jets in 1981 shortly before it was to come on line.
 Mr. Hamza, the former Iraqi nuclear engineer, recalled in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece that many of the French projects in Iraq enjoyed huge profit markups.
 Saddam's regime paid $200 million for a small French research reactor in the mid-1970s that had a then-market price of about $50 million, Mr. Hamza recalled.
 "With these kinds of deals, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?" he asked.
 But it is French oil interests in Iraq that have attracted the most attention as the debate over war intensifies.
 Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, and many of its most promising fields have been largely unexplored since the economic freeze imposed after the Gulf war.
 Russia and France have the largest contracts, while the major U.S. energy giants, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, have been largely shut out.
 Iraqi exile groups, including the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), have only increased speculation by issuing conflicting signals about the future of the energy concessions negotiated by Saddam.
 "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," INC Chairman Ahmed Chalabi said last year.
 But a senior leader of one of Iraq's two Kurdish opposition groups said the future of Iraq's oil wealth remains an exceedingly sensitive subject in the discussions with U.S. officials about a post-Saddam Iraq.
 "We know there are countries such as France and Russia with very important issues, but our first priority will be to ensure that our country's oil wealth is used to benefit Iraqis," the Kurdish official said.
 The Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based human rights group, released an extensive study of foreign economic interests in Iraq on the brink of a likely new war.
 French, Russian and Chinese oil concessions, with an estimated top value of $38 billion, are the biggest interests in play.
 Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin, in a phone call yesterday, reportedly agreed they continue to oppose military action while U.N. weapons inspections proceed, a day after Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin agreed on the need to continue the inspections process.
0 likes

[Content deleted by Michael McDermott on 2/20/2003 11:15:17 AM EDT]

0 likes

I hope George W. hasn't read this...he may want to bomb France, Germany, Russia and China while he's at it...

0 likes

Originally posted by Coen van der Voort I hope George W. hasn't read this...he may want to bomb France, Germany, Russia and China while he's at it...

Actually, he might want to pump a few torpedoes into them........just like they're doing to us.

0 likes

Peeps, peeps, peeps.

I want a civilized debate on this, or I lock the thread. Granted, that everyone holds many different theories on this subject, who's to blame and who's not, lets keep the debate going with no personal attacks.

This is the voice of the mysteron.......sorry.......This is the voice of the Moderator;)

Right serious bit done with.

The whole point of this bollocks with the UN and the second resolution has not been brought up properly yet either. Basically if the UN grants it, it's OK to go to war? Load of ole bollocks. The second resolution is being used (mainly) by Blair to free his conscience, we all know that the US is gonna go to war no matter what the second resolution may or may not bring. I really hope a half way point can be reached, that will save hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott

I called you a clown because in your previous post you quite blatantly infered that I would somehow be in favour of "the rape and murder of Iraqis which occurs on a daily basis". How dare you. Believe me pal calling you a clown was the politest thing I could come up with.

Death Penalty = Murder. Read your Catechism Michael and tell me what screwed up way you misinterpret it to justify taking another life in the name of revenge.

In fact don't bother cos I aint gonna visit this post again, it depresses me to think that there are people like you and that other clown from Down Under who visit this place.I'm away back to the real world where it's very easy to avoid your type.

0 likes

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Michael McDermottOoooooo forgotten your handbag Fergie?......Surely in a Democracy we are all entitled to an opinion.

0 likes

Okay, let's say the US acts unilaterally in Iraq, and for the purpose of arguement it is indeed a quick surgical strike and everyone is happy. What if North Korea lobs a nuke at Alaska or even worse the West Coast (not saying it wouldn't be less worse for Alaska, in case I offend anyone)? Would the UN, who we've quite publically thumbed our noses at, come to our aid? Would they be willing to cooperate?

No, because we nullified their importance by our actions alone in Iraq. However the war turns out, if we go in alone we are no longer viewed as a nation that respects international order and the opinions of others (that is how we will be SEEN. As with all hypothetical arguements, our actual position will depend on the circumstances).

Also, I was watching Frontline on PBS last night and some very interesting facts emerged: Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and some other guy in the Bush cabinet outlined a policy of preemption in the early 90s, in relation to Iraq, that basically turns 200 years of American policy on its head. I don't have the time to get into it here, but the fact that these guys are the same ones advising the president in the current situation scares the bejesus out of me.

One final statement, then I have to go to class: Our dependence on foreign oil will be our downfall, but I'm on the fence about drilling elsewhere, like in Alaska. Enviromental concerns should dictate the search for a better source of fuel and at least some rationing of oil. It'll be a pain in the ass, but it might just help us get out of supporting regimes in the Middle East who we otherwise would not deal with. In that sense, this war is about oil (but I still don't think it's a grand conspiracy to take over the oil fields in Iraq)

0 likes

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Okay, let's say the US acts unilaterally in Iraq, and for the purpose of arguement it is indeed a quick surgical strike and everyone is happy. What if North Korea lobs a nuke at Alaska or even worse the West Coast (not saying it wouldn't be less worse for Alaska, in case I offend anyone)? Would the UN, who we've quite publically thumbed our noses at, come to our aid? Would they be willing to cooperate?No, because we nullified their importance by our actions alone in Iraq. However the war turns out, if we go in alone we are no longer viewed as a nation that respects international order and the opinions of others (that is how we will be SEEN. As with all hypothetical arguements, our actual position will depend on the circumstances).Also, I was watching Frontline on PBS last night and some very interesting facts emerged: Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and some other guy in the Bush cabinet outlined a policy of preemption in the early 90s, in relation to Iraq, that basically turns 200 years of American policy on its head. I don't have the time to get into it here, but the fact that these guys are the same ones advising the president in the current situation scares the bejesus out of me.One final statement, then I have to go to class: Our dependence on foreign oil will be our downfall, but I'm on the fence about drilling elsewhere, like in Alaska. Enviromental concerns should dictate the search for a better source of fuel and at least some rationing of oil. It'll be a pain in the ass, but it might just help us get out of supporting regimes in the Middle East who we otherwise would not deal with. In that sense, this war is about oil (but I still don't think it's a grand conspiracy to take over the oil fields in Iraq)

Trevor,

You make some good arguments. However, for the purposes of the hypothetical debate me must agree on the definition of certain terms. More specifically, how do you define "unilateral"?

Merriam Webster defines unilateral as: of having, affecting, or done by one side only.

Using that definition, that would mean the U.S. acting by itself with no allies of any kind.

What say you?

0 likes

It is the ease by which the current US government are now apperantly willing to go to war and the simplistic and dangerous view that everyone who is against the war is supporting the Iraqi regime and terrorism, which is making the current situation so scary and easily escalated. There's still a possibility to avoid war, but I believe the current people in charge are not interested in that.

0 likes

Originally posted by Coen van der Voort It is the ease by which the current US government are now apperantly willing to go to war and the simplistic and dangerous view that everyone who is against the war is supporting the Iraqi regime and terrorism, which is making the current situation so scary and easily escalated.There's still a possibility to avoid war, but I believe the current people in charge are not interested in that.

I, of course, do not agree with your assesment of the "ease" to which my government wants to go to war. In fact, my government has been waiting in a state of unease since the end of the first Gulf War. UN resolution after UN resolution has been defied by Iraq. Connections have and still are being made between Iraq and Al-Queda. So, the mantra of GWB being in a "rush to war" simply holds no water. It is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

But, you a right on one account. The threat of war could be removed tomorrow. All Iraq has to do is comply fully and immediately with UN resolution 1441(and the sixteen previous resolutions).

A question about anti-war protesters: has anyone ever seen a demonstrator with a sign demanding that Iraq fully and immediately comply with all UN resoltions? Has anyone seen a protester burn an Iraqi flag? Has anyone seen a protester call or portray Saddam as Hitler? Has anyone seen a protester with a sign demanding that Saddam stop torturing and killing his own people?

Just wondering......

0 likes

not saying it wouldn't be less worse <

Nope, you lost me there.

0 likes

The title of this thread reminds me of a Pet Shop Boys song.

thats all.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott A question about anti-war protesters: has anyone ever seen a demonstrator with a sign demanding that Iraq fully and immediately comply with all UN resoltions? Has anyone seen a protester burn an Iraqi flag? Has anyone seen a protester call or portray Saddam as Hitler? Has anyone seen a protester with a sign demanding that Saddam stop torturing and killing his own people?Just wondering......

I'm sorry, but this point is simply silly. What would be the point of a march to complain about Saddam's behaviour? Why would Saddam listen? The US is susceptible to influence, being a democracy, and Blair is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush, not Saddam. A march demanding some specific course of action from Western governments with regard to Iraq, that might make some sense, but your point doesn't.

0 likes

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > A question about anti-war protesters: has anyone ever seen a demonstrator with a sign demanding that Iraq fully and immediately comply with all UN resoltions? Has anyone seen a protester burn an Iraqi flag? Has anyone seen a protester call or portray Saddam as Hitler? Has anyone seen a protester with a sign demanding that Saddam stop torturing and killing his own people?> > Just wondering......>

I'm sorry, but this point is simply silly. What would be the point of a march to complain about Saddam's behaviour? Why would Saddam listen? The US is susceptible to influence, being a democracy, and Blair is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush, not Saddam. A march demanding some specific course of action from Western governments with regard to Iraq, that might make some sense, but your point doesn't.

Actually, the United States is a democratic republic.....

And my point, which you missed, is why does there seem to be no vitriol aimed at Iraq by the protesters? It would seem that if enough pressure were applied to the Iraqi government via world wide protest, then major Western investors such as France and Germany might be compelled to bring pressure of their own upon their trading partner.

And to put more of a point on it, why is that you think that anti-war protesters and so called "human shields" have such luck in gaining hard to get travel visas from the Iraqi government? And, do think that these same people mind being "useful idiots" to Saddam?

Finally, the organizers of the human sheild movement can be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention if any of their minions are killed during battle due to their specific and knowing placement near operational targets.

0 likes

McDermott wrote: " Connections have and still are being made between Iraq and Al-Queda."

no, they haven't. If you believe otherwise, please refer us to your source or some kind of evidence.

"So, the mantra of GWB being in a "rush to war" simply holds no water. It is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst."

only if you look at it in your contrived supposed time frame going back to the Kuwait invasion. Somehow I doubt you, or GWB, were biting your nails that whole time about Iraq. The UN has inspectors on the ground in Iraq, doing their work, Iraq has apparently been more compliant lately, and it remains to be seen what the international involvement will be, but Bush wants to drop his precious bombs now and not wait for any of that to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion: that is a rush to war. The verbal gyrations you went through to try and make it look otherwise are as good an example I have seen of your buzzword "intellectual dishonesty".

"Finally, the organizers of the human sheild movement can be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention if any of their minions are killed during battle due to their specific and knowing placement near operational targets."

Minions ? Give me a break. Contrary to your paranoid delusions, people that oppose the war or disagree with your right wing views in other areas are not involved in some kind of secret command structure with each other. If someone chooses to participate in something like that, it is their personal decision and their responsibility alone, obviously.

As for the 'pre emptive strike' business, that's exactly what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. We were pretty indignant and self righteous about it afterward as I understand it, and our disgust with it was a huge factor in motivating the country in general to join the war and work hard enough to win it. Surely you can see the hypocrisy of us now embracing that doctrine - we're supposed to be better than that. As an example, let's say hypothetically that war commences in Iraq with just the US, and maybe England. North Korea sees this and quite correctly concludes that the USA represents a danger to their 'security' since we could well do the same thing to them for the same reasons. Suppose they go ahead and launch a 'pre emptive' nuclear strike on the USA. We know they can do it, and our anti missile systems are not yet up to the task of stopping ICBMs. Needless to say this scenario would involve millions of deaths and large areas of the country rendered inhabitable for thousands of years. This is not a wild exaggeration or a remote possibility, it is a logical extension of the idea that Bush is pushing; we simply could not handle the consequences of another country following his example.

At some point, when your logic leads to a situation like that, you have to examine how good the logic was in the first place. Now is the time to do so, there may not be a later.

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium McDermott wrote: " Connections have and still are being made between Iraq and Al-Queda."no, they haven't. If you believe otherwise, please refer us to your source or some kind of evidence."So, the mantra of GWB being in a "rush to war" simply holds no water. It is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst."only if you look at it in your contrived supposed time frame going back to the Kuwait invasion. Somehow I doubt you, or GWB, were biting your nails that whole time about Iraq. The UN has inspectors on the ground in Iraq, doing their work, Iraq has apparently been more compliant lately, and it remains to be seen what the international involvement will be, but Bush wants to drop his precious bombs now and not wait for any of that to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion: that is a rush to war. The verbal gyrations you went through to try and make it look otherwise are as good an example I have seen of your buzzword "intellectual dishonesty"."Finally, the organizers of the human sheild movement can be tried as war criminals under the Geneva Convention if any of their minions are killed during battle due to their specific and knowing placement near operational targets."Minions ? Give me a break. Contrary to your paranoid delusions, people that oppose the war or disagree with your right wing views in other areas are not involved in some kind of secret command structure with each other. If someone chooses to participate in something like that, it is their personal decision and their responsibility alone, obviously.As for the 'pre emptive strike' business, that's exactly what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. We were pretty indignant and self righteous about it afterward as I understand it, and our disgust with it was a huge factor in motivating the country in general to join the war and work hard enough to win it. Surely you can see the hypocrisy of us now embracing that doctrine - we're supposed to be better than that.As an example, let's say hypothetically that war commences in Iraq with just the US, and maybe England. North Korea sees this and quite correctly concludes that the USA represents a danger to their 'security' since we could well do the same thing to them for the same reasons. Suppose they go ahead and launch a 'pre emptive' nuclear strike on the USA. We know they can do it, and our anti missile systems are not yet up to the task of stopping ICBMs. Needless to say this scenario would involve millions of deaths and large areas of the country rendered inhabitable for thousands of years. This is not a wild exaggeration or a remote possibility, it is a logical extension of the idea that Bush is pushing; we simply could not handle the consequences of another country following his example.At some point, when your logic leads to a situation like that, you have to examine how good the logic was in the first place. Now is the time to do so, there may not be a later.

I believe the Secretary of State made a presuasive argument at the UN connecting Iraq and Al-Queda. I think I will defer to him and not you or our "allies" with billions of dollars in oil investments in Iraq.

My time frame is not contrived. Iraq has been violating UN resolutions since before the ink was dry on them. The most current (as opposed to the previous SIXTEEN) resolution calls for a "serious response" to violations (meaning military action). Wonder of all wonders, the United States actually means for UN resolutions to mean something. There has been no "rush to war". However, I realize that is an argument that you must hold on to for dear life.

Article 51 of the 1977 amendment the 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits human shields.

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations."

How, exactly, are all the "common folk" affording the cost of travel, lodging and time away from work in order to be human sheilds? How are they all just happening to arrive at the same time? I think the money trail would be interesting to follow.

Your example of Japan and Pearl Harbor is bankrupt. If memory serves, the United States was not in violation of any resolution handed down by a world body. Furthermore, Japan DID act unilaterally, whereas the United States, if it comes to war, will not.

I too fear what the North Korea will do. Again, it is a direct result of the inability of the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. It is also a direct result of our previous administration following the exact course you seek with Iraq.

0 likes

McDermott wrote: "I believe the Secretary of State made a presuasive argument at the UN connecting Iraq and Al-Queda."

I don't think so. What part specifically are you saying establishes such a connection ?

"My time frame is not contrived. Iraq has been violating UN resolutions since before the ink was dry on them."

I'm well aware of the resolutions, etc.

"How, exactly, are all the "common folk" affording the cost of travel, lodging and time away from work in order to be human sheilds? How are they all just happening to arrive at the same time? I think the money trail would be interesting to follow."

I doubt it would be nearly as interesting as you are imagining. Some people put their money where their mouth is, and it wouldn't take that much to get over there. But, by all means, go ahead and launch an investigation, maybe you'll learn something.

"If memory serves, the United States was not in violation of any resolution handed down by a world body."

So what ? I'm sure the Japanese thought they had good reasons, but it really doesn't matter what the motivation behind a bomb is, at least not if you're underneath it.

"Furthermore, Japan DID act unilaterally, whereas the United States, if it comes to war, will not."

This remains to be seen

"I too fear what the North Korea will do. Again, it is a direct result of the inability of the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. It is also a direct result of our previous administration following the exact course you seek with Iraq."

What are you talking about ? Our intelligence found out about these nukes within the past few months. Kind of hard to blame that one on Clinton, although I realize that it's something that you have to try to do "for dear life".

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium

What are you talking about ? Our intelligence found out about these nukes within the past few months. Kind of hard to blame that one on Clinton, although I realize that it's something that you have to try to do "for dear life".

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/183623.shtml

"The Clinton administration's 1994 agreement placed the Yongbyon and Taechon reactors under supposed monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for shipments of heavy fuel oil and assistance in constructing a light-water nuclear reactor."

I'm sure the Clinton administration was assured by the Dear Leader that they'd NEVER build a nuke from the material they made at their reactors. Just like Saddam had passed a decry a few days ago outlawing WMD's inside Iraq.

0 likes

Those aren't weapons, they are nuclear power facilities like many countries have. The US doesn't decide who gets to have nuclear technology in general. You are deliberately distorting the issue.

0 likes

this war is typical of US leaders. they help putting presidents all around the world in order to keep their influences intact and their business relationships fluid. but eventually these characters turn their back to the US because they find out they aren´t useful anymore. so they start making noise. examples? quite a few. they needed saddam to fight komeini, bin laden to fight the russians out of afghanistan, militars in southamerica to "clean" up the countries of "left" sympathizers, etc. all those became useless since US achieved its goals. so no more help for them, no more money, no more promises of leaderships, etc. and when you give weapons to fight your enemy, once there is no enemy that weapons could be used against anyone. that "anyone" is the US because now they hate US because promises were broken or whatever. so I blame US leaders first. they started the fire. and now they want to fight the fire with gasoline! because we´re not naive. we know they want to control all the oil they can. look what happened in Venezuela (the third productor of oil worldwide) a couple of months ago. they tried to bring their president down in order to take control of the state oil company by a muppet supported by US government. yes! the US leaders! there´s democracy on venezuela, they voted for chavez for good or for bad. let the venezuelans decide for their own. I won´t defend chavez as I won´t defend bin laden or saddam. but I´m pretty tired of US leaders first. I don´t know why. maybe it´s because more than 20 million people are under the line of poberty in my country and all because of the foreign politics of the US goverments over the years. maybe if they start being more "human" with the world then all the world would start being more "human" too for the US. but since they don´t care about what happens outside their frontiers but only to make businesses... let me explain myself when I say "being human". I don´t know if the US people knows that all around the world millions of people smiled when they first saw the twin towers burn. I mean, the first image of US pretentious behaviour hurted. of course it was just a second and then everyone started to think and care about inoccent people that were in the towers. and that was painful and horrible and unfair and sad. but I would challenge anyone outside the US to say he didn´t think about "well, finally they messed so much with the world that the world now is messing with them" when first seeing the tv images. and this is for the US people, this is the image you give to the world, this is the rage you produce almost everywhere when anyone talks about "americans". because american foreign politics kills millions of people of hunger all around the world every year. realise that! and I know US leaders are NOT the US people and I don´t want anyone to die. but the leaders are the image of an entire society. you can change it if you care. it´s all up to you, guys.

0 likes

The US is a democratic republic.....does that mean the people are gonna have a vote whether we go to war? I certainly know that it's not gonna happen over here, it doesn't matter how many people go on the marches, the UK and US governments couldn't give a flying fuck. As for the ease bit that was mentioned, I am in total agreement. It looks more and more likely that France, Belgium and Germany will back down on their stance, and thus give the green light for war.....but if they do stick with the veto, America and Britain will pile in anyway, I believe this as a certainty, and shows the ease by which was mentioned, yes they've held back, but let's face it, we all knew it was gonna end up as a war.

0 likes

Originally posted by ShugZV©
The US is a democratic republic.....does that mean the people are gonna have a vote whether we go to war?I certainly know that it's not gonna happen over here, it doesn't matter how many people go on the marches, the UK and US governments couldn't give a flying fuck.As for the ease bit that was mentioned, I am in total agreement. It looks more and more likely that France, Belgium and Germany will back down on their stance, and thus give the green light for war.....but if they do stick with the veto, America and Britain will pile in anyway, I believe this as a certainty, and shows the ease by which was mentioned, yes they've held back, but let's face it, we all knew it was gonna end up as a war.

Shug,

No, having a democratic republic does not mean that there will be a nation wide referundem on the issue.

On the national level, having a democratic republic means electing senators (2 for each state) and representatives to the U.S. House (allotment based on the states population). Each member of the house is elected from a specific district within a state. The senators are voted on state wide. And so it goes from state to local politics.

In almost every instance, most major legislation or policy decision is made within the elected bodies. However, there are some issues that are put to state wide referendum. Petitions must be obtained to have them put on the ballot.

One note on protests. It seems that there is great consternation among the anti-war crowd that the government is not listening to them. That, by their sheer numbers, they should hold sway over elected officials.

Let's do a little math: for the sake of argument, let's say that the total amount of protesters that have shown up for the major events in the U.S. has been five million folks. That's probably generous by a factor of two or three, but we'll go with it. The United States has an estimated population of 280 million people. That means, with my VERY generous people count, that less than two percent of the population of the United States has chosen to take to the streets and protest. Now, this does not take into account the phone calls, letters and emails that anti-war prosters send to Washington.

However, I'll tell you what is not taken into account by the protesters: the phone calls, letters and emails that are sent to Washington SUPPORTING the presidents policy on Iraq. In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security."

Bush said that ? If that were true, he would have to recuse himself and let Congress decide. With their lengthy and substantial ties to the oil, oil processing and defense industries, GWB and his administration are among those that have the most economic interest in the Iraq issue as a whole. Cheney in particular profited probably more than any other individual from the last little shindig in Iraq, he was the first US businessman to go back to Kuwait (for Harken) to sell them new pumps and processing equipment to replace those that Saddam blew up (big dollars). No need to worry about the business side of things though, those people know just how to rake in the cash, and they don't care where it comes from. For example, Cheney was dealing with Iraq until just before the Kuwait invasion, but he needed government loan guarantees in order to deliver the huge amount of stuff that Saddam wanted. No problem if you have the connections: James Baker personally worked with Tariq Aziz (a name you may recognize) and got uncle sam to cosign in 10/89. I guess Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other members of that presidential admin as well as the current one didn't think Saddam was such a bad guy then, eh ? Of course, after the war started the loans defaulted, so the USA taxpayers ended up financing Saddam's oil rigs along with Cheney's commission (total in the ballpark of 2 billion USD). Makes you wonder what kind of damage these guys could do if they were running the Federal Reserve. Naturally Cheney came out ahead, not only on that score, but he also conveniently sold his Harken stock a couple of months before the invasion, which roughly coincided with Harken reporting huge losses (which would of course taken a heavy toll on his stocks, if he had still had them), something he refuses to discuss with the SEC to this day.

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium MacDermott wrote: "In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security."Bush said that ? If that were true, he would have to recuse himself and let Congress decide. With their lengthy and substantial ties to the oil, oil processing and defense industries, GWB and his administration are among those that have the most economic interest in the Iraq issue as a whole. Cheney in particular profited probably more than any other individual from the last little shindig in Iraq, he was the first US businessman to go back to Kuwait (for Harken) to sell them new pumps and processing equipment to replace those that Saddam blew up (big dollars).No need to worry about the business side of things though, those people know just how to rake in the cash, and they don't care where it comes from. For example, Cheney was dealing with Iraq until just before the Kuwait invasion, but he needed government loan guarantees in order to deliver the huge amount of stuff that Saddam wanted. No problem if you have the connections: James Baker personally worked with Tariq Aziz (a name you may recognize) and got uncle sam to cosign in 10/89. I guess Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other members of that presidential admin as well as the current one didn't think Saddam was such a bad guy then, eh ? Of course, after the war started the loans defaulted, so the USA taxpayers ended up financing Saddam's oil rigs along with Cheney's commission (total in the ballpark of 2 billion USD). Makes you wonder what kind of damage these guys could do if they were running the Federal Reserve.Naturally Cheney came out ahead, not only on that score, but he also conveniently sold his Harken stock a couple of months before the invasion, which roughly coincided with Harken reporting huge losses (which would of course taken a heavy toll on his stocks, if he had still had them), something he refuses to discuss with the SEC to this day.

Oh goodness....

GWB did not say that. I was paraphrasing the opinion expressed by many ( that our "friends" on the UN security council just might be acting more out concern for their own pocket books than for the long suffering women and children of Iraq) and allued to by the president when he says that at the end of the day he hopes our "allies" will do the right thing.

I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president.

As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

0 likes

McDermott wrote: "I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president."

I'll bet you would. If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Weren't you the guy that was preaching to me a few threads back about what you claimed were liberal tactics of doing exactly that ? I've heard of Cheney's Harken days many times and did a quick google search on it to make sure what I heard was correct about part of it, and I found more than I expected. Go see for yourself, I gave you enough specifics. Of course, sources for information like that are not likely to be found in far right mouthpiece publications, and you can't get it from the horse's mouth since Cheney won't talk about it even to people whose job it is to oversee such matters for the government, so in your terminology they come from the 'liberal media'. By the way, Bush himself also sold his Harken stock around the same time Cheney did, I'm sure you've heard of that. Both of them failed to notify the SEC of their sales until months afterward, breaking the deadline to do so.

"As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class. "

nice condescending attitude; FYI the Iran Iraq war ended in August '88, while the Harken deals in question were in '90. Care to try again ?

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium McDermott wrote: "I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president."I'll bet you would. If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Weren't you the guy that was preaching to me a few threads back about what you claimed were liberal tactics of doing exactly that ? I've heard of Cheney's Harken days many times and did a quick google search on it to make sure what I heard was correct about part of it, and I found more than I expected. Go see for yourself, I gave you enough specifics. Of course, sources for information like that are not likely to be found in far right mouthpiece publications, and you can't get it from the horse's mouth since Cheney won't talk about it even to people whose job it is to oversee such matters for the government, so in your terminology they come from the 'liberal media'. By the way, Bush himself also sold his Harken stock around the same time Cheney did, I'm sure you've heard of that. Both of them failed to notify the SEC of their sales until months afterward, breaking the deadline to do so. "As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class. "nice condescending attitude; FYI the Iran Iraq war ended in August '88, while the Harken deals in question were in '90.Care to try again ?

Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. "

I fear that you protest too much concerning my "attack" of you as messenger.............

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Shug,No, having a democratic republic does not mean that there will be a nation wide referundem on the issue.On the national level, having a democratic republic means electing senators (2 for each state) and representatives to the U.S. House (allotment based on the states population). Each member of the house is elected from a specific district within a state. The senators are voted on state wide. And so it goes from state to local politics. In almost every instance, most major legislation or policy decision is made within the elected bodies. However, there are some issues that are put to state wide referendum. Petitions must be obtained to have them put on the ballot.One note on protests. It seems that there is great consternation among the anti-war crowd that the government is not listening to them. That, by their sheer numbers, they should hold sway over elected officials.Let's do a little math: for the sake of argument, let's say that the total amount of protesters that have shown up for the major events in the U.S. has been five million folks. That's probably generous by a factor of two or three, but we'll go with it. The United States has an estimated population of 280 million people. That means, with my VERY generous people count, that less than two percent of the population of the United States has chosen to take to the streets and protest. Now, this does not take into account the phone calls, letters and emails that anti-war prosters send to Washington. However, I'll tell you what is not taken into account by the protesters: the phone calls, letters and emails that are sent to Washington SUPPORTING the presidents policy on Iraq. In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security

I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

0 likes

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. ""

that's interesting, because on the same website, you'll find the following:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

"The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. "

..........

"I fear that you protest too much concerning my "attack" of you as messenger............."

Fine, you can have at it with the many media sources of that information, as I indicated. A good place to start is the Columbia Journalism Review which has a page online with detailed notes on all of the contemporary coverage of that particular piece of Cheney business and a lot more that I didn't get into. It's all grouped together as 'Iraqgate'.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

Presumably ancient Greece doesn't count as a democracy, in spite of their articulated democratic ideals, because they were a slave-holding society and slaves did not have the vote. Now the early US on the other hand...oh...er...hang on a moment...

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

first I´m not insulting THE democracy. I´m insulting the fact that the US internal democracy leads us all to a war. but there´re many ways of democracy: US democracy is sustained by economic values. they way of thinking and living is far away from what, let´s say, spain and argentina. and I say these countries because we have a history in common, probably the same values and thoughts even though we´re different in many ways. what do we have in common to the USA?!?!?!? absolutely nothing. but in spite of that our leaders usually wants to follow them everywhere they go. and now to a war. as for the "US invented democracy"... I won´t fight with you about this because I´m fond of you Budvar. but I´m only saying this: if they say "jump off a building" would you do that? because that´s what they saying. and, last, for the "Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie" I wonder if you are that naive to think they sent them because their belief in democracy! they send them because they wanted to be on war, because is a country that is economically based on wars, because that´s how they sustent their way of life. tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

0 likes

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso> tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

You should check your facts about just what race will be on the front lines.

When the racist congressman from New York, Charles Rangle, initially introduced legislation to bring back the draft, he did it on the grounds that it was to insure that minorities were not over represented on the front lines. Well, USA TODAY (of all publications) did a little article about how over 90% of the frontline infantryman, pilots, tank drivers etc. are European-American. They went on to talk about how most black recruits chose rear echelon positions which, in most cases, would provide them with a marketable skill after their service in the military. So, you can put the race card back in the deck........ It will mostly be white folks that are put in harm's way.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. ""

Of course, regardless of which of these dates is accurate, either way that war was over before the Cheney/Harken deal with Saddam, so your excuse doesn't work, and there's just no way to spin it to save face for the Bush/Cheney crowd. Either they knew damn well Saddam was "evil" in 1990 and gave government backing to the loan anyway so Cheney and GWB could make a bunch of money, which is extremely unethical on several levels, or else they thought Saddam was peachy keen in '90 - (several years AFTER the gassing of the Kurds, which was reported worldwide at the time) - meaning that the current characterization of Saddam as having been evil for a long time and their stance as the war being some kind of humanitarian mission is crafted political speak that they don't really believe, particularly them bringing up the gassing of the Kurds as justification. Or both.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso> tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

You should check your facts about just what race will be on the front lines.

When the racist congressman from New York, Charles Rangle, initially introduced legislation to bring back the draft, he did it on the grounds that it was to insure that minorities were not over represented on the front lines. Well, USA TODAY (of all publications) did a little article about how over 90% of the frontline infantryman, pilots, tank drivers etc. are European-American. They went on to talk about how most black recruits chose rear echelon positions which, in most cases, would provide them with a marketable skill after their service in the military. So, you can put the race card back in the deck........ It will mostly be white folks that are put in harm's way.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRDraft103.html

"Department of Defense figures dispute the claim by Rangel plan supporters that minorities would suffer a disproportionate number of frontline casualties in an Iraqi conflict. While 20 percent of soldiers are African-American, only 10.6 percent of the Army's combat infantry is black. Black personnel also are underrepresented as pilots and in high-risk commando units.

Military sociologist Charles Moskos told USA Today: "If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites." As for the class disparity, Hoover Institution research fellow Stanley Kurtz points out that liberal opposition to JROTC and ROTC presence in high schools and colleges since the Vietnam era has led to fewer college graduates considering the military as a career option.

A 1997 survey of 76,000 servicemen found that minority soldiers had an overwhelmingly positive view of race relations in the military. Over one-third believed conditions in the military were better than in the civilian world. Good race relations are an important factor in ensuring troops' combat readiness."

0 likes

Originally posted by 404 error **> Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso>**I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

No it's not. I said that the Greeks had put the idea forward, and then French encyclopedists and English (and Scottish!) philosophers gave it shape but the first Democracy was the US. Of course it did not start as a perfect entity. Complete from minute one. It took years to develop the concept and I am sure you'll agree with me it is not perfect yet. The huge influence in the outcome of the funds raised by the candidates and the distorting power of the media spring to mind. The fact remains, though, that US democracy became a new landmark in its development and started acting as a beacon for democratic movements all the world over.

0 likes

Originally posted by almanso **> Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso>**I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

first I´m not insulting THE democracy. I´m insulting the fact that the US internal democracy leads us all to a war. but there´re many ways of democracy: US democracy is sustained by economic values. they way of thinking and living is far away from what, let´s say, spain and argentina. and I say these countries because we have a history in common, probably the same values and thoughts even though we´re different in many ways. what do we have in common to the USA?!?!?!? absolutely nothing. but in spite of that our leaders usually wants to follow them everywhere they go. and now to a war. as for the "US invented democracy"... I won´t fight with you about this because I´m fond of you Budvar. but I´m only saying this: if they say "jump off a building" would you do that? because that´s what they saying. and, last, for the "Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie" I wonder if you are that naive to think they sent them because their belief in democracy! they send them because they wanted to be on war, because is a country that is economically based on wars, because that´s how they sustent their way of life. tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

Alejo, of course we are not fighting here. We can have different opinions on a number of questions and remain friendly. I do respect your views and I'll happily stand corrected if you prove to me that I am wrong. Anyway I do not think that our positions are that dissimilar. I am sure that we can find a common base for both of us.

1-Democracy is better than tirany. Always. For everyone. 2-Prosperity is better than scarcity. 3-More freedom is better than less freedom.

See...we agree on the basis. 95% of what we think is exactly the same and we only disagree on a mere 5%. It would be quite ridiculous to get too worked up over that meagre 5%.

Once said that I must admit that I am naive enough to think that the US went into the II World War impelled by a sense of duty towards Democracy and towards its allies, namely Great Britain. What was the economic advantage to be gained from entering the war? US could have remained sitting on the fence, selling to both combatants, basking in the anticipation of the rewards to be got from post war reconstruction. From a solely economic point of view there was no gain in getting in at that point still very much undecided war.

0 likes

The big economic and political interest for the US to enter the war in Europe was to stop communism from becoming the main force in Europe. Don't get me wrong; I am glad it happened and that I am now one of the couple of hundred million people in the world living in a democracy. I'm not saying it's purely selfish motives that drives the US foreign policy. But the US has supported various very undemocratic regimes over the years when it considers that to be the best way to protect its interests.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by 404 error

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

No it's not. I said that the Greeks had put the idea forward, and then French encyclopedists and English (and Scottish!) philosophers gave it shape but the first Democracy was the US. Of course it did not start as a perfect entity. Complete from minute one. It took years to develop the concept and I am sure you'll agree with me it is not perfect yet. The huge influence in the outcome of the funds raised by the candidates and the distorting power of the media spring to mind. The fact remains, though, that US democracy became a new landmark in its development and started acting as a beacon for democratic movements all the world over.

While I regret putting the point quite so harshly (this being a more light'n'fluffy forum than a hardcore vicious political one) I still see absolutely no reason to single out the US version of democracy for any special credit. US democracy was indeed 'imperfect' at the start, as was that of the UK it broke from. Both countries, and much of the rest of the world, have moved gradually in the direction of democracy. The creation of the US did not represent any qualitive leap in that process, and indeed the US was slightly behind some other countries.

There's no possible basis for declaring it to be the 'first democracy'. Blacks did not have the vote, nor did women, nor did the poor - in that respect it was scarcely any more democratic than parts of the rest of the world at that time. Even if one could argue that it was, it was simply another quantititive step rather than a radical break.

The desire to give the US some special status as regards democracy seems to me to be special pleading on behalf of a particular ideology or nationalism.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber Alejo, of course we are not fighting here. We can have different opinions on a number of questions and remain friendly. I do respect your views and I'll happily stand corrected if you prove to me that I am wrong. Anyway I do not think that our positions are that dissimilar. I am sure that we can find a common base for both of us.

1-Democracy is better than tirany. Always. For everyone. 2-Prosperity is better than scarcity. 3-More freedom is better than less freedom.

agreed. but NOT at any price. i do not like US proceeds and I do NOT like the US deciding about MY life and YOUR life. simple as that.

See...we agree on the basis. 95% of what we think is exactly the same and we only disagree on a mere 5%. It would be quite ridiculous to get too worked up over that meagre 5%.

of course. I still love you! :D

Once said that I must admit that I am naive enough to think that the US went into the II World War impelled by a sense of duty towards Democracy and towards its allies, namely Great Britain. What was the economic advantage to be gained from entering the war? US could have remained sitting on the fence, selling to both combatants, basking in the anticipation of the rewards to be got from post war reconstruction. From a solely economic point of view there was no gain in getting in at that point still very much undecided war.

it seems you´re forgetting the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, both created and controlled by US after the WW2. they´re one of the explanations of why US became what it is nowadays: the number 1. if those were not political AND economic gain for the US then explain to me what gaining is. you seem to forget that US pays its sallaries and its wars with money of countries like mine and yours. if not tell me why Aznar is supporting this war. because he believes in democracy or because he doesn´t want to say no because of eventual US reprisals after the war or because he wants to "divide the cake" with the winners? I know the answer but what do you think?

0 likes

[Content deleted by Grigori Rasputin on 2/26/2003 3:12:32 AM EDT]

0 likes

So what have we learned so far?

Gotta say, for all the different arguments so far, I still haven't changed my mind that Bush is an arse, Blair licks de arse, and I still haven't been convinced by anyone that we should be going to war with Iraq.....not yet anyway:nod:

ShugZV Give Peace a Chance.

0 likes

If you look at the current situation in Iraq, you will see that there are large numbers of US troops and equipment in the region, heavy monitoring of the area by the US and the UN, and basically our highly trained people on the ground in Iraq going around wherever the hell they want 7 days a week looking for forbidden weapons (and not finding squat, really, just a few missles that may be a little too long range). The country is run by a guy (Saddam) that was supported by the US because he wasn't as bad as the alternatives. This already sounds more like a post war situation than a pre war situation. What would be different after a war ? A bunch of dead Iraqis, probably a few dead Americans, lots of money spent on the military (which the presidential administration has extensive financial and political ties to, not coincidentally), and some other guy running the place.

Perhaps the initial post war gov't would be an intended precursor to some form of democracy whether they want it or not, but whomever it would be, it will be the lesser evil in some form. That is, any leader that a middle eastern country (except Israel) is going to have will have a certain amount of anti American, anti Israel, pro Arab (politically, culturally and ethnically) sentiment, because that's pretty much the way everybody is over there. The most moderate person we could find is going to be regarded as scary to the paranoid Americans that don't trust any Arabs, and it goes without saying that we wouldn't leave anybody in power that is radical or tied to or sympathetic to violent terrorism. It would have to be somebody from that area, since in this day and age I don't see us putting some white foreigner in charge, that wouldn't fly with anybody.

You can't say that any threat to US/Western interests would be eliminated in the whole country; even if we achieved absolute perfection in a puppet government, all it takes is a few bad apples to do some damage, they needn't have any ties to the government. We can't find every single terrorist or potential terrorist or other risk in our own country, how could we do it over there where we are all easily identifiable as outsiders ?

Even ignoring the human cost, where is the value for the money in this war, given the above lack of potential that this war really has to change anything ? Is this supposed to be a roundabout way to revive the US economy ? There are more ethical (and effective) ways to achieve that.

I suppose there could be legitimate concern for the well being and quality of life of Iraqi citizens generally, but really, where is the evidence that what they have now in Iraq is any worse than the other countries in that area ? Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan have serious problems, and they aren't on the USA's shit list, at least at the moment. It's not like we could promise to make life golden for everybody over there, or even as safe as eastern Europe or South America. We've got lots of military in Afghanistan after our invasion there, but we can't stop the heroin from being produced and exported, in fact the exports have gone up 600% since the fall of the Taliban according to some news reports. Small wonder we couldn't find Osama, maybe he was driving a heroin truck !

0 likes

I wanted to put here something colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez once wrote, after the 9/11/2001 attacks. I´ll put it on its original language (spanish) because I don´t want his words to be translated badly by me. I beg your pardon, english speakers. please, if someone has the time and the will to translate it to english, please do it. I do want everyboby reading it.

CARTA A BUSH DE GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ ¿Cómo se siente? ¿Cómo se siente ver que el horror estalla en tu patio y no en el living del vecino? ¿Cómo se siente el miedo apretando tu pecho, el pánico que provocan el ruido ensordecedor, las llamas sin control, los edificios que se derrumban, ese terrible olor que se mete hasta el fondo en los pulmones, los ojos de los inocentes que caminan cubiertos de sangre y polvo? ¿Cómo se vive por un día en tu propia casa la incertidumbre de lo que va a pasar? ¿Cómo se sale del estado de shock? En estado de shock caminaban el 6 de agosto de 1945 los sobrevivientes de Hiroshima. Nada quedaba en pie en la ciudad luego que el artillero norteamericano del Enola Gay dejara caer la bomba. En pocos segundos habían muerto 80.000 hombres mujeres y niños. Otros 250.000 morirían en los años siguientes a causa de las radiaciones. Pero ésa era una guerra lejana y ni siquiera existía la televisión. ¿Cómo se siente hoy el horror cuando las terribles imágenes de la televisión te dicen que lo ocurrido el fatídico 11 de septiembre no pasó en una tierra lejana sino en tu propia patria? Otro 11 de setiembre, pero de 28 años atrás, había muerto un presidente de nombre Salvador Allende resistiendo un golpe de Estado que tus gobernantes habían planeado. También fueron tiempos de horror, pero eso pasaba muy lejos de tu frontera, en una ignota republiqueta sudamericana. Las republiquetas estaban en tu patio trasero y nunca te preocupaste mucho cuando tus marines salían a sangre y fuego a imponer sus puntos de vista. ¿Sabías que entre 1824 y 1994 tu país llevó a cabo 73 invasiones a países de América Latina? Las víctimas fueron Puerto Rico, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Haití, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, República Dominicana, Islas Vírgenes, El Salvador, Guatemala y Granada. Hace casi un siglo que tus gobernantes están en guerra. Desde el comienzo del siglo XX, casi no hubo una guerra en el mundo en que la gente de tu Pentágono no hubiera participado. Claro, las bombas siempre explotaron fuera de tu territorio, con excepción de Pearl Harbor cuando la aviación japonesa bombardeó la Séptima Flota en 1941. Pero siempre el horror estuvo lejos. Cuando las Torres Gemelas se vinieron abajo en medio del polvo, cuando viste las imágenes por televisión o escuchaste los gritos porque estabas esa mañana en Manhattan, ¿pensaste por un segundo en lo que sintieron los campesinos de Vietnam durante muchos años? En Manhattan, la gente caía desde las alturas de los rascacielos como trágicas marionetas. En Vietnam, la gente daba alaridos porque el napalm seguía quemando la carne por mucho tiempo y la muerte era espantosa, tanto como las de quienes caían en un salto desesperado al vacío. Tu aviación no dejó una fábrica en pie ni un puente sin destruir en Yugoslavia. En Irak fueron 500.000 los muertos. Medio millón de almas se llevó la Operación Tormenta del Desierto...¿Cuánta gente desangrada en lugares tan exóticos y lejanos como Vietnam, Irak, Irán, Afganistán, Libia, Angola, Somalia, Congo, Nicaragua, Dominicana, Camboya, Yugoslavia, Sudán, y una lista interminable? En todos esos lugares los proyectiles habían sido fabricados en factorías de tu país, y eran apuntados por tus muchachos, por gente pagada por tu Departamento de Estado, y sólo para que tu pudieras seguir gozando de la forma de vida americana. Hace casi un siglo que tu país está en guerra con todo el mundo. Curiosamente, tus gobernantes lanzan los jinetes del Apocalipsis en nombre de la libertad y de la democracia. Pero debes saber que para muchos pueblos del mundo (en este planeta donde cada día mueren 24.000 pobladores por hambre o enfermedades curables), Estados Unidos no representa la libertad, sino un enemigo lejano y terrible que sólo siembra guerra, hambre, miedo y destrucción. Siempre han sido conflictos bélicos lejanos para ti, pero para quienes viven allá es una dolorosa realidad cercana, una guerra donde los edificios se desploman bajo las bombas y donde esa gente encuentra una muerte horrible. Y las víctimas han sido, en el 90 por ciento, civiles, mujeres, ancianos, niños, efectos colaterales. ¿Qué se siente cuando el horror golpea a tu puerta aunque sea por un sólo día? ¿Qué se piensa cuando las víctimas en Nueva York son secretarias, operadores de bolsa o empleados de limpieza que pagaban puntualmente sus impuestos y nunca mataron una mosca? ¿Cómo se siente el miedo? ¿Cómo se siente, yanqui, saber que la larga guerra finalmente el 11 de septiembre llegó a tu casa? Gabriel García Márquez

0 likes

Let's just turn Iraq into Texas, okay?

0 likes

Originally posted by Texas hooligan Let's just turn Iraq into Texas, okay?

You sadistic bastard.....do you not think the poor people of Iraq have suffered enough;)

0 likes

Shuggy...that was ALMOST funny...

okay...it was funny!!! :thumb:

but I've got a better idea...just give Iraq to France...they will turn it into a wonderful place for the Foreign Legion to go on holiday!!!!

then they will get their surrender happy butts kicked out by Saddam Jr.!!!!

0 likes

For a moment i thought SHUGZV had some compassion and then i read it AGAIN!:jawdrop:

0 likes

I just hope that WAR is overted!:nod:

0 likes

Originally posted by Rocket Mick I just hope that WAR is overted!:nod:

unless it was by U2...it probably was overrated!!!

0 likes

Oh ive just come from the land of the sun from a war that must be one in the name of truth with our soldiers so brave you freedom we will save with our rifles and grenades and some help from god i want to see my family my wife and child waiting for me ive got to go home ive been so alone you see.

ASK THE MOTHER AND CHILD IF WAR IS WORTH IT.......

0 likes

Just a few more words......

I've been thinking and what if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Just a few more words......I've been thinking and what if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

i don't like the idea of saddam hussein possessing WMDs either, but if iraq is developing WMDs, it is only one of roughly 20 states which are currently breaking international law by developing WMD programmes.

as for iraq's development of WMDs, any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme is tenuous at best--he is hardly building the alarmist-sounding 'arsenal of devastating destruction' you refer to. any uranium iraq may have imported is unenriched, and enrichment facilities needed to produce HEU (highly-enriched uranium) are expensive and cannot be easily hidden. also, considering that israel has bombed iraqi nuclear reactors (not necessarily HEU producing ones) several times in the past, both when the US was allied with iraq and during the past 13 years, it is unlikely that israel would allow any development of a weapons programme to continue. also, considering israel's covert activity within iraq, they are better qualified to find hidden weapons factories than the IAEA or the UN. if israel hasn't acted militarily within the past few years, i doubt saddam's 'arsenal' is of any threat now or in the future, particularly with iraq's dearth of functional launchers. finally, saddam hussein knows that if he were to use WMDs now without provocation he would face a full military onslaught. he may not be nice, but he's not stupid. the US protected him when he used WMDs in the 1980s against his own people and the reagan administration blocked a senate resolution calling for sanctions against iraq, allowing saddam hussein to, literally, get away with murder without facing international consequences (and no, the US was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds, but we were certainly compliant). now, however, he knows that he stands alone and he covets his own power far too much to commit political suicide.

as for biological and chemical weapons, the united states should think twice before providing a dictator with a seed stock of anthrax spores, or any other WMDs for that matter, as our government did during the 1980s in iraq. american national interest is far too myopic and how our foreign policy is decided needs a drastic overhaul. we are no longer living in the world of douglas mccarthy and the marshall plan, and american tanks rolling into baghdad will not be met with iraqis waving american flags--many anti-ba'athist iraqis are equally as skeptical of the united states' interests in their country as they are of saddam hussein. the US is learning the hard way that sometimes national interest and international interest are not mutually exclusive.

0 likes

My main objection with action in Iraq is this: At no time during the investigation of 9/11 was there any evidence supporting an al-Qaeda/Iraqi connection for the attack. Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other, so it would be very unlikely they'd mix with one another. It seems as if we're playing "sloopy seconds", going after one admittedly bad guy who we have a grudge against after the main bad guy can't be found (Bin Laden is probably dead by this point anyway, or else in very good hiding). It's wrong to do that, imho

0 likes

I hope, that as Blair's stand seems to be wavering a bit, that we Canadians won't be stuck in the difficult place of deciding whether or not to go to war with the US and Britain. If Britain pulls out, it will be easier to stay out of a pointless war!

0 likes

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 My main objection with action in Iraq is this: At no time during the investigation of 9/11 was there any evidence supporting an al-Qaeda/Iraqi connection for the attack. Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other, so it would be very unlikely they'd mix with one another. It seems as if we're playing "sloopy seconds", going after one admittedly bad guy who we have a grudge against after the main bad guy can't be found (Bin Laden is probably dead by this point anyway, or else in very good hiding). It's wrong to do that, imho

you're absolutely right about bin laden and saddam hussein. in fact, al-qaeda would be one of the parties to benefit most from the iraqi dictator's removal. islamists and arab nationalists have been enemies for decades, and al-qaeda supports smaller organizations which seek to overthrow secular arab nationalist governments--including that of saddam hussein. egypt has had a hell of a time maintaining order and keeping al-qaeda supported terrorism under check. any american-led invasion of iraq will also give al-qaeda even more legitimacy not only in the middle east, but further afield. al-qaeda's hatred of the U.S. stems from the location of american troops on arab and particularly saudi soil, which is holy land to muslims (imagine how catholics would feel if muslims or hindus fortified the vatican). removing saddam hussein and installing an american military regime will provide al-qaeda with the perfect excuse to say 'i told you so'. the bush administration claims that any U.S.-led military regime would be short-lived, but this would not be the case. iraq is what is known as a 'false state'. it was carved after the colonial period, and consists of a mix of kurds, marsh arabs and various tribes, many of whom do not get along. not to mention the tension between the ruling minority sunni muslims and majority shi'ite muslims. finding a democratic consensus in iraq would take years, if at all, and possibly only after a civil war--after which time it is entirely possible that islamist (anti-western) or islamic-based (religious/anti-secular state) parties could gain a popular mandate, as they did (peacefully) in turkey several years ago. this is what the U.S. is walking into.

as for bin laden's health, i'm sure he is still alive, possibly in pakistan. i don't think he can hide forever, though.

0 likes

As I said in another post:

"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense."

yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom.

I support Bush. The only way to stop terrorists is to keep on attacking until they are gone. And if that means we have to attack 10 more country's to get then all, then thats what we need to do. Because waiting for another 911 to do something, is just dumb. Bush didn't start this, 911 started this. Bush and Blair and the few others are the only ones to do something about it. Afghan is not the end of the war against terrorists. They are still out there. Take a look at Bali, or the Philippines.

And for all you people who think War is bad. We would not have freedom without war.

I'm very disapointed in Jean Chretien our Prime Minister of Canada. He's old and out of touch and a wimp. I just hope the people in Eastern Canada get it right next election.

And Finally I know that a majority of people don't want to see war, nobody wants to see war, but I think, the majority of the world wants to take whatever steps are necessary to secure world peace.

0 likes

Originally posted by Jim "The Him" As I said in another post:"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense."yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom. I support Bush. The only way to stop terrorists is to keep on attacking until they are gone. And if that means we have to attack 10 more country's to get then all, then thats what we need to do. Because waiting for another 911 to do something, is just dumb. Bush didn't start this, 911 started this. Bush and Blair and the few others are the only ones to do something about it. Afghan is not the end of the war against terrorists. They are still out there. Take a look at Bali, or the Philippines.And for all you people who think War is bad. We would not have freedom without war.I'm very disapointed in Jean Chretien our Prime Minister of Canada. He's old and out of touch and a wimp. I just hope the people in Eastern Canada get it right next election.And Finally I know that a majority of people don't want to see war, nobody wants to see war, but I think, the majority of the world wants to take whatever steps are necessary to secure world peace.

But the problem with your first paragraph above is that there is no evidence Iraq is training terrorists, so your point rather falls apart.

The point about attacking country after country just seems absurd to me. Are you sure you have the manpower to garrison such an ever-increasing empire? Or is it just going to unravel behind you as you go?

And who says "war is bad" in that absolutist fashion? Sounds like a straw man to me. Disagreeing with Culture Club and the Quakers, doesn't, therefore, mean that ALL wars are good in ALL circumstances, for heaven's sake. Sometimes war is necessary, sometimes it isn't - attacking silly absolultist pacifist arguments that almost nobody holds is a waste of time.

(Incidentally, I keep seeing the cut-and-paste conservative comment that 'war solved nothing, except fascism, nazism and communism' around the web and in the paper. I think someone should point out to the cut-and-paste brigade that war didn't actually 'solve' communism, which collapsed of its own economic contradictions. The attempt to defeat it with war, Vietnam, was a fiasco. And while war certainly defeated Nazism, lets not forget that it also helped create it in the first place.)

Actually, as far as the war is concerned, shamefully I'm still unable to definitively make up my mind. Though everytime Blair or Bush or another pro-war politician appears on the TV, insulting my intelligence with endless cynical and dishonest arguments (e.g. trying to retrospectively rewrite resolution 1441, as though we are all too dumb to read it for ourselves, or shedding crocodile tears over the victims of Saddam, most of whom died while we were happily doing business with the old butcher, or desperately trying to manufacture links to Bin Laden which we can all see are not there) I have to switch channel, lest they push me into a knee-jerk anti-war position.

The only basis for supporting this war is if one believes it will lead to a net reduction in the suffering of the Iraqi people. The rest is all self-serving propaganda. And frankly, that particular peice of necro-accounting is too tough for me, hence I still can't make up my mind.

Fortunately Blair isn't listening to me anyway, so it doesn't matter what I think.

0 likes

Well here come the bombs... :nonono:

just a quick point as im sure this thread has more steam left in it in the light of recent events, everyone please try and refrain from cutting and pasting - we'd much rather hear what YOU have to say :)

0 likes

Jim wrote: "yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom."

In that case, past US foreign policy of exactly the sort that Bush is pushing now is one of the biggest threats to our freedom. It wasn't so long ago that we thought Osama and Saddam were great guys, well deserving of large amounts of our money and military training and equipment (plus billions in oil business, with Saddam). We created this situation. Look around and ask yourself, how did we get here ? By interfering in other countries' affairs, taking out governments we didn't like and putting nutjobs in charge(or at least giving them a fighting chance (in Afghanistan in the 80s), because they said they were pro-America at the time and we apparently honestly thought they would be an improvement. Can you seriously suggest that we could get out of this situation by doing more of the same ?

0 likes

Originally posted by Jim "The Him" As I said in another post:yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom.

don't forget that the united states helped train the contras in nicaragua in the 1980s. i imagine thousands of nicaraguans would have no problem considering them (the contras) terrorists. who was threatening who's freedom in that case? note: the largest terrorist training camps in the world are located in...argentina. this does not mean the argentinian government necessarily supports these groups (including an eclectic collection of islamist, colombian FARC, IRA and american militia groups who share training tips), it means that they have found a remote place that is well hidden. it is also very well known (and well documented) that syria, iran and libya (and perhaps even our ally, saudia arabia, on occasion) all give more government dollars to terrorist organizations (they don't train them, however)--so why is iraq the primary target?

terrorists are rarely trained by states. sometimes they are supported, either covertly or overtly, by states (including the united states in the past, mind you!), but the reason terrorist warfare is so effective is because of the guerrilla nature of terrorism--they are small cells, independent of the state system, and when facing terrorism it is hard to determine who is or isn't the enemy. to assume that attacking states will somehow help us win the 'war on terrorism' is naive at best and dangerous at worst, as it will simply lead to greater instability in already fragile states.

and a final point: two IRA members are on trial in colombia for allegedly training FARC rebels. FARC rebels are currently attempting to wrestle the colombian cocaine trade from the drug lords, their members have killed hundreds of innocent civilians in the colombian civil war, hijacked an aircraft, blown up buildings, and they often kidnap foreigners for ransom, including two american citizens who they are holding at the moment. so, the IRA is possibly aiding in the training of FARC guerrillas (they also work together in argentina, as i mentioned above), and where does the vast majority of IRA money come from? citizens of the united states. interesting how that's rarely mentioned when we talk about the war on terrorism.

0 likes

Originally posted by DoN Well here come the bombs... :nonono: just a quick point as im sure this thread has more steam left in it in the light of recent events, everyone please try and refrain from cutting and pasting - we'd much rather hear what YOU have to say :)

Its gonna take me until the end of the war to read it all!

0 likes

You know, it just doesn't make any goddam sense. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We're using rhetoric from 12 years ago to justify a war over.....over what, exactly?

It's madness, absolute fucking madness, and I hope Bush and his cronies are well aware that the American people will not stand for it if this war is in ANY wy unjust.

Saddam's an asshole, to be sure, the Iraqi people deserve better. But don't use 9/11 as a justification. that's just blasphemy. I got real angry last night when I was flipping the channels and came across some hick on CMT singing a song called "Have You Forgotten?". I choose not to quote his awful and inarticualte lyrics, but let's just say if you were offended by Toby keith's little "anthem" last year you would best be served by avoiding this piece of contempablie jingoism.

Anyway, I'v probably earned another yellow card :shrug:

0 likes

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Jim "The Him" As I said in another post:yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom.

note: the largest terrorist training camps in the world are located in...argentina. this does not mean the argentinian government necessarily supports these groups

really? where did you got this information from? we always had a big problem with the triple frontier Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay. always suspected as a terrorist zone. even i heard osama was there after the 9 11 events. but i thought the main zone was in africa in countries like sudan.

the IRA is possibly aiding in the training of FARC guerrillas (they also work together in argentina, as i mentioned above), and where does the vast majority of IRA money come from? citizens of the united states. interesting how that's rarely mentioned when we talk about the war on terrorism.

the IRA and the FARC working together in Argentina? sounds too crazy for me. i´m not saying is not true, but i just can´t believe it. never even a rumour about this situation you´re mentioning.

0 likes

almanso,

the 'triple frontier' you referred to is exactly where these groups are located. this information is now being reported more widely in the media. there was an article in 'vanity fair' several months ago on this terrorist 'hotspot' and articles can also be found in the international herald tribune and from the BBC, amongst other sources. as you may know, this area is difficult to reach and easy to hide in, hence it's desirability as a location for terrorist training camps. the middle east still contains such camps, some in sudan as you mentioned, but it is easier to locate them because of the terrain, and since the downfall of the taliban, al-qaeda has lost its main base of operations in afghanistan. also, since the end of the lebanese civil war, training camps in lebanon are losing ground. what makes south america so interesting is the wide variety of terrorist groups operating there--leftist/marxist, right-wing and religious organizations are all represented. however, most attention is now being paid to the islamist organizations. according to the IHT, so many islamic extremists are located there that one Argentine official noted that after september 11 the spies sent to infiltrate their operations are 'bumping into each other.'

as for FARC and the IRA working together in the triple border region, all of the groups with camps in this region share weapons, training and intelligence if necessary. it's a long tradition for terrorist organizations to aid one another, particularly if they share a similar ideology, and if not, it is more of a case of survival and maintaining trust amongst potential enemies.

being from argentina, however, you may have a brighter future. since paraguay has no anti-terrorism laws, i imagine most camps now located in argentina will relocate next door for their own benefit. not so good for the politicians in ascuncion.

0 likes

wow, you know your stuff. but let me add something. the largest spots of islamic people in that Iguazu Falls zone (just islamic, not terrorists) are in the brazilian territory (Foz do Iguaçu) and in paraguayan territory (Ciudad del Este). maybe terrorists are there too. what is true is that on the triple border people go from one country to another with very little security because of the Mercosur, the common market down here. so maybe terrorists are everywhere and jump from one city to another when they feel the heat around the corner. that must be the situation although i don´t know if they actually had training camps there.

0 likes

i studied international terrorism and middle eastern studies for my masters' degree and doctoral research, this is why i'm so interested in the topic. it's my 'thing', i guess!

anyway, back to south america. as you said, there are large arab/islamic populations (mostly of lebanese descent) in the triple border cities in paraguay and brazil (some of whom, unfortunately, support islamist terrorist organizations) while the argentinian side has a smaller arab population. their economic clout is immeasurable in the region because of their numbers (in brazil and paraguay) and, in argentina, because of the constant cross-border trade (as you mentioned). as you may remember, the bulk of islamic terrorism within the region has affected argentina, however. for example, in 1992, the israeli embassy in buenos aires was bombed by hizballah, killing 29 people, and in 1994 86 people were killed in that same city when a jewish community centre was bombed.

0 likes

006, the IRA came out with the statement that they had no business with any rebel training, it was two dissident republicans, choosing their own cause, I think they were reffering that they were continuing in the peace process and couldn't help what ex dissulusioned memebers were up to. On the case of America funding / aiding all these regimes, yer not far wrong, unfortunately for the US, they have been haunted several times in the ole "bitten by the hand that fed them" Tabsy, I understand yer frustration, obviously I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I was to give you a warning for swearing;) As long as your views expressed are not aimed at members, and you're stating a strong case, then yer free to write what you want. I never saw the Oscars this year, but I read reports in the papers about Michael Moore winning the oscar for his documentary about Colombine. Then went further by saying "Shame" on all those who attended....at least that's what I picked up. As for the war itself, if yer objective enough you can understand both the reason for this war, and the reason why the war should not have started in the first place. It was agreed by all that they wanted it to be over as quick as possible. Well it looks like it's gonna take longer than 7 days, which was originally mentioned by the state committee. Both the US and the UK have lost members of their forces, you can only hope for a "just" end to all this, otherwise those poor people will have died in vain. My thoughts and prayers are with ALL the people who have had members of their family killed in these hard times. The other question I have is "who's next?" India / Pakistan? Israel / Palestine? Korea? Afghanistan? Northern Ireland?

0 likes

shug, i'll start believing the IRA when gerry adams gives up the name of the omagh bomber (he knows the person who did it, but won't say). my friend, peter, from the falls road, also told me that it's a given that martin mcguinness is still involved in dodgy dealings. there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.) to know if everyone's put their weapons down these days. i'm sure the leaders know more than they're saying.

0 likes

Originally posted by AgentWood shug, i'll start believing the IRA when gerry adams gives up the name of the omagh bomber (he knows the person who did it, but won't say). my friend, peter, from the falls road, also told me that it's a given that martin mcguinness is still involved in dodgy dealings. there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.) to know if everyone's put their weapons down these days. i'm sure the leaders know more than they're saying.

Totally understandable, I'm not condoning anything, just given you the information I had. I certainly don't want to bring Ireland into this, the poor ole place has suffered enough;)

0 likes

Originally posted by AgentWood i studied international terrorism and middle eastern studies for my masters' degree and doctoral research, this is why i'm so interested in the topic. it's my 'thing', i guess!anyway, back to south america. as you said, there are large arab/islamic populations (mostly of lebanese descent) in the triple border cities in paraguay and brazil (some of whom, unfortunately, support islamist terrorist organizations) while the argentinian side has a smaller arab population. their economic clout is immeasurable in the region because of their numbers (in brazil and paraguay) and, in argentina, because of the constant cross-border trade (as you mentioned). as you may remember, the bulk of islamic terrorism within the region has affected argentina, however. for example, in 1992, the israeli embassy in buenos aires was bombed by hizballah, killing 29 people, and in 1994 86 people were killed in that same city when a jewish community centre was bombed.

yeah, of course I remember that. those were the only two "foreign" bombs this country ever had. but that was because of president Menem´s decision to send troops to the Gulf war. as you may know Menem is an islamic converted to catholicism who had islamic economic support on his way to the goverment. this was never prooved, of course. neither the strange dead of his son. but rumours say all these incidents were because of him turning his back on islamism and supporting their "enemies". other voices say the bombs were not planned but were passed by Menem´s goverment. as you see, nothing´s for sure ´round here. but that´s what happen when you support a war that is not yours and you have no ways to defend yourself from the eventual reprisals...

0 likes

Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

0 likes

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

Its true, but theres a growing shift in emphasis from what is a largely educated and sensible population in our country that, ok we didnt want this war to start but it has, its going on so lets get it over as quickly and as bloodlessley (is there such a word!?!) as possible.

Its a double edged sword but my view remains this conflict will leave shockwaves for many many years to come which will im sad to say affect our children and our grandchildren to come. :nono:

The human race has fought for power, territory and supremacy since we first set foot on this earth, its naive to think that our psyche has changed and world peace will win the day :nonono:

Feel free to flame me at will to further reinforce my point... ;)

0 likes

Originally posted by DoN > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

Its true, but theres a growing shift in emphasis from what is a largely educated and sensible population in our country that, ok we didnt want this war to start but it has, its going on so lets get it over as quickly and as bloodlessley (is there such a word!?!) as possible.

Its a double edged sword but my view remains this conflict will leave shockwaves for many many years to come which will im sad to say affect our children and our grandchildren to come. :nono:

The human race has fought for power, territory and supremacy since we first set foot on this earth, its naive to think that our psyche has changed and world peace will win the day :nonono:

Feel free to flame me at will to further reinforce my point... ;)

You are completely right Don - unfortunately for all of us in times to come.

0 likes

Originally posted by AgentWood there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.)

Don't forget the "I can't believe its not the IRA"

0 likes

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by AgentWood> there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.)

Don't forget the "I can't believe its not the IRA"

the scene in 'life of brian' where they argue about the 'judean people's front' and the 'people's front of judea' is totally true when it comes to terrorists. that scene is a classic amongst terrorist scholars, who enjoy sitting in the pub and quoting it while pissed.

one example:

palestinian liberation groups the palestine liberation organization (umbrella group) the palestine liberation front the people's front for the liberation of palestine the people's front for the liberation of palestine--general command the democratic front for the liberation of palestine the popular democratic front for the liberation of palestine the arab liberation front

0 likes

You're leaving NewOrderOnline

This link goes to an external website we don't operate, which has its own privacy policy and terms.

Destination:
Continue ↗