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.

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

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 ↗