Interesting Blog about Iraq

[mr.Blacky]

Where is the suggestions what we _should_ be doing ? Perhaps putting Saddam back on the throne maybe ? When I hear reasoned argument on an alternative Iraq strategy maybe I can listen, but it is just so fucking boring listening to so much rhetorical bollocks from people who obviously have axes to grind.

Don't wait up, it is always easier to critisize then to add something constructive. Then again how would the world look if nobody was allowed to critisize?

Oh and illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?? ermm who's law? They are not illegal, though I think it is stupid to build more.

 

[Driwen]

It seems to me the America and it's allies have placed themselves in a no-win situation. If they pull-out too early they'll receive deserved international condemnation. You can't go around invading and fucking up other countries, then leaving them in a state of chaos and disorder. If they stay indefinately, then it will be a constant drain on manpower and resources, with a steady trickle of casualties. If they ever get around to holding free and fair elections in Iraq, they're not going to like the result... there will be some form of Islamic government elected. If they choose to forego that nasty democracy business and install an unelected governement (or regime as I like to call them), then, again, they risk international condemnation and years of civil unrest.

uhm if we pull out of iraq now we risk getting unrest in every middle eastern country and probably getting more terrorist attacks. Also if we stay to long there the same thing will happen.
And Iraq was already fucked up, if we can get atleast a semi decent goverment there it is worth the trouble we have gone through (off course the way the americans are going about it, that will most likely never happen).

The only way they could have avoided this messy business, would have been to fully involve the UN from the start. Which would have involved presenting a far more compelling arguement of the existance WMDs or whatever. That would have left the USA in the position of not being in charge though, and unable to hand out contracts and control of the oil to companies like Halliburton. I'll bet if they could somehow magically suck all the oil out in one go, they'd do so, and leave to country in an instant.

Instead, it's just going to get worse... much worse. They're preparing to move into Najaf to go after that cleric they don't like (*Sadr). Najaf is a holy city for muslims, Shiite muslims especially. And at the same time, Bush has basically destroyed any chance of a peace process in Palestine, by allying himself with Ariel Sharon, and his plan to keep illegal settlements on Palestinian territory.

the UN would have done nothing, it only acts when there is a human catastrophy going on (at that moment like bosnia or kosovo and not like Iraq where it happens all the time but not as active). Also countries having financial gain from Saddam staying in power means that getting an UN decision is even harde. Off course they wont say that it is because of their own profits that they say no, but because of things like disagreement how to build Iraq up after Saddam or it not being worth the risk (off the thing that seems to be happening now).


and about the ambulance, it is a vehicle it could have been used by terrorists or resistance fighters for all we know. That has a red cross on it, doesnt mean it is a real one automatically(assuming they had one or otherwise the Iraqi version of it) or that it hasnt been stolen.
Or do you think its wise not to kill the driver when you know there is enough explosives to blow up a building and its heading at a building? Basically we dont know what happened and what the americans thought would happen.

 

[Tom]

the UN would have done nothing, it only acts when there is a human catastrophy going on

Yeah, like Rwanda, just look what a great job they did there :/ And they were supremely ineffective in the breakup of Yugoslavia. It was also NATO and not the UN who acted during the Bosnian-Serb conflict.

10 years of the UN route to peace only helped let die many thousands of Iraqi civilians, albeit indirectly.

it is a vehicle it could have been used by terrorists or resistance fighters for all we know. That has a red cross on it, doesnt mean it is a real one automatically(assuming they had one or otherwise the Iraqi version of it) or that it hasnt been stolen.

Quite correct. These fighters have a track record of undermining the rules of combat to their advantage.

 

[Driwen]

Quite correct. These fighters have a track record of undermining the rules of combat to their advantage.

also just when saddam was gone, they did target civilian targets (like pipelines and even an UN building). Dont really know wether they have stopped with it or not.

 

[Ivan]

.
Hasn't it struck you that these people are journalists, you know, the ones that get paid to report what people want to hear and their proprietors want to publish ? You'd be happy to criticise the pro-Bush agenda of Fox News or any other mainstream US media, well it happens on the other side as well.

Correction, Reporters report.... journalists tend to give the news/story from their PoV. Besides that, there are editors with their own agenda who do not necessarily pass on the journalists work in its initial form.
And to put it bluntly there is no solution to the iraqi matter, in my opinion. Think about it, there is 2 ways this can go : Retreat from Iraq that will be displayed as "America has given up the fight against the terrorism" or stay in Iraq and roll over everything in a tank and gain even more casualties.
Terrorism is fought in several ways : direct elimination of the threat, attempt to cut the funds going to the terrorists .....etc What US government is doing now is by all means neither of these. The way i see it, they are protecting their investment by "camping" the spot with military, as well as trying to give Pro-US Iraqi politicians boost to hold the country intact.
Unfotunately history tells us that US pawns tend to turn sides on occasions, Segnor Bin Laden for example ..... who recieved help pro bono from the US during USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

This is just my lame pov, and yeah im biased some may argue, im Russian after all.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Everybody is biased, if they aint they are not human

Unfotunately history tells us that US pawns tend to turn sides on occasions, Segnor Bin Laden for example ..... who recieved help pro bono from the US during USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

Well Bin Laden went after the USA, I doubt that anyone would sit and do nothing when atacked.

 

[Ivan]

Well no, technically, he just went against capitalism [there goes my bias again]

 

[mr.Blacky]

Well truth: he just said that he wants peace with European countries

 

[Driwen]

Well no, technically, he just went against capitalism [there goes my bias again]

wasnt bin laden against the west interfering with things in the middle east?

 

[Tom]

I don't think Bin Laden knows what he wants, being a complete nutter an' all.

 

[Ivan]

wasnt bin laden against the west interfering with things in the middle east?

Im sure he was, but i think he put it down to generalized "capitalist regime"

edit: my longer post above was meant to imply " what if we get another Saddam in a few years from the pawn they will install now"

 

[xane]

Unfotunately history tells us that US pawns tend to turn sides on occasions, Segnor Bin Laden for example ..... who recieved help pro bono from the US during USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

This is the same story chucking up again and again. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, both the US and bin Laden were involved in supporting the resistance, but for different motives, one political and one religious, that does not automatically imply one was employed by the other, or indeed they even cooperated, although their objectives were the same.

Sure theres a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence, but that is totally overruled by the sheer hatred bin Laden has for America, why should he recieve American help anyway, certainly not for funding as he had plenty of his own ?

Stories like this, and the "ambulance sniper", turn up regularly, and eventually you realise its the same story originating from one, normally unverified, and frequently very biased, source. It snowballs everywhere and people then think it's true because everyone is saying so.

I remember tracing a story of increased leukemia in areas where depleted uranium ammunition had been used in the first Gulf War. You found the claims everywhere but tracing them ended up at the same source, which was John Pilger's report from an Iraqi hospital. There were no other reports, from any other recognised medical source, like WHO, Red Cross/Crescent, and none of the armed forces who use the stuff, etc. It was all started by one man, and a known anti-war correspondant at that.

Critical journalists frequently dispute "myths" propagated by the government, but are no strangers to starting one on their own.

Do a google search for that "ambulance sniper" story, see where it takes you ...

 

[Driwen]

Im sure he was, but i think he put it down to generalized "capitalist regime"

edit: my longer post above was meant to imply " what if we get another Saddam in a few years from the pawn they will install now"

I am actually pretty sure that bin laden has nothing against capiltalist system (hell he fought against the communist in the first place). He hates the west that is true, but it probably has more to do with our foreign policy (towards the middle east), our history with them and our attitude towards them.

Bin laden is fighting against china or russia simply because they play no (visible) role in the middle east.

and yes there is a risk that if we give an unstable goverment the power to Iraq that there will be a new dictator in power (actually havent seen any countries go to democracy without some sort of dictator getting to power). However eventually the country should become free and its either that or let tyrans rule Iraq for some more decades.

 

[Ivan]

During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, both the US and bin Laden were involved in supporting the resistance, but for different motives, one political and one religious, that does not automatically imply one was employed by the other, or indeed they even cooperated, although their objectives were the same.

You are right there, he had the funds but his goons didnt have the training of guerilla warfare, they didnt have AA weapons, both of which were supplied by the CIA. Now this has been documented just as well as the fact that Russian Migs and artillery were involved in Vietnam
Now to the point, all i was saying is that so long as the objective is the same they work together ... but it is also likely that, hypothetically....MrXXXX is installed to govern Iraq .... 5 years later when Iraq is back on the feet he decides its time to pay back for the invasion and starts "defensive build-up".

PS: you are correct about publicly available info it usually originates from one source, which typically is prone to be biased.

 

[Ivan]

I am actually pretty sure that bin laden has nothing against capiltalist system (hell he fought against the communist in the first place).

Bin laden is fighting against china or russia simply because they play no (visible) role in the middle east.

Well we have different opinion on the matter, i thought Bin Laden fought back since he plays by Coran [spelling] rules.
As for his attempt to fund Chechenian extremisist : it is his bread and butter .... the open route to Europe .... the majority of his income is based on drug smuggling operations, if he manages to make Chechenia an independant republic the gates to Europe would be half open.

 

[Driwen]

Now to the point, all i was saying is that so long as the objective is the same they work together ... but it is also likely that, hypothetically....MrXXXX is installed to govern Iraq .... 5 years later when Iraq is back on the feet he decides its time to pay back for the invasion and starts "defensive build-up".

I find it far more likely that we will install a goverment and that it gets overrun by some general or some charismatic person, but doesnt really change the fact that there is probably only a 20% chance that the people in Iraq wont have some time after there is a goverment installed where they arent free(could be a true dictator, one who manipulates elections or just manipulates the media).

 

[Wij]

I am actually pretty sure that bin laden has nothing against capiltalist system (hell he fought against the communist in the first place). He hates the west that is true, but it probably has more to do with our foreign policy (towards the middle east), our history with them and our attitude towards them.

I thought he should despise capitalism and communism equally. His ideal world takes us back to some mythical Islamic golden age somewhere in the Dark ages. I guess he's after some form of Feudalism then

 

[xane]

Bin Laden is against America simply because of their support for the "Zionist" movement in Israel. He wants complete Islamic control of Palestine and sees the continued support of America as a major obstacle.

The original "push the Jews into the sea" still burns strong in his heart, one that has since been abandoned by most Arab countries.

Opposition to communism is simply on religious grounds, as Marxism rejects any form of organised worship.

Wahabbism, the strain of Islam that bin Laden preaches, is extremist and focused on world domination, eventually he'd like to see Islam regain control of the Middle East and later the entire world.

 

[Munkey]

Someone needs to tell all the other arab coutnries then to stop hating the israelis.

 

[Driwen]

I thought he should despise capitalism and communism equally. His ideal world takes us back to some mythical Islamic golden age somewhere in the Dark ages. I guess he's after some form of Feudalism then

well I meant that he has nothing special against capitalism. He might be against it, but just as much as commustism then.
Allthough there are only two economic systems, you either lean to pure capitalism or towards communism/socialism. Thing in reality are a little bit more complicated as allthough there was a free market in the dark ages there wasnt much freedom to do what you want, if you were just a citizen/peasant.
However I dont think the Koran says anything about the economic system you should have (wether the goverment should take care of everyone or that if the poor are helped it should come through charity). I do think the earlier goverments (meaning before 1800) atleast leaned more towards capitalism than communism, so if Bin laden hates one of the economic system it is communism.


Did some digging and found this:

The principal aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Furthermore, it is bin Laden's goal to unite all Muslims and establish, by force, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

taken fromhere

an other site states that Al Qaedas goal is to get expel all westerners and non muslims from muslim countries and "to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate". Allthough this source seems to be from the american goverment, so it might be little biased with the non muslim part.

After the Sovjets pulled back from Afghanistan, Bin laden went back to Saudi Arabia. He probably started working on building Al Qaeda then. But it seems to me that the hatred towards the US putting troops in Saudi Arabia (to take back Kuwait from Iraq) was more the trigger than Isreal, as he was outraged by american troops being stationed in the birthplace of the Islam and got expelled in 1991 for anti-goverment activities.

 

[Wij]

What Bin Laden wants has very little to do with the Qu'ran. He wants a very specific form of Islamic state(s) the details of which goes beyond what is written in that book. I haven't read any of the details you mention above but Caliph rule makes sense being a Sunni.

Oh, I'm getting out of my depth. Any Islamic scholars here ?

 

[xane]

What Bin Laden wants has very little to do with the Qu'ran.

Not strictly true, as with most other religions, there are more definitive and more literal translations of the same book, a extreme Christian example would be Mormonism. Sharia law governs the way Islam is adhered to, but it is open to translation, and in a lot of Arab countries this law is enforced rigidly and "by the book".

When most Middle Eastern Arab countries were established after WW1, they experienced a tide of Arabic nationalism, this tended to push religious views to one side, even to the extent of becoming secular. Consequently, there were many Arab scholars at the time, ironically educated in the west and exposed to western "barbarism", who sought to redefine Islamic literature and bring about a more religiously inspired interpretation, a "pure" form of Islam.

It is frustrating to think of how Arab nations have developed. They either embraced fierce nationalistic ideals (Iraq, Egypt, Syria), similar to those adopted by 1930s Germany or Italy, or they transformed into theocratic states (Saudi Arabia) following this revised form of Islam. Neither is going to be acceptable in today's world.

The only ME Arab country to grow up and become more or less secular is Turkey.

 

[mr.Blacky]

The only ME Arab country to grow up and become more or less secular is Turkey.

Well there is one thing wrong with this sentence Turkey is not an Arab country.

 

[xane]

Well there is one thing wrong with this sentence Turkey is not an Arab country.

No, there should be a slash, i.e. ME/Arab.

 

[Mofo8]

Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and most of North Africa have secular governments. So did Iraq. Alright, Saddam was an unelected dictator, but there's plenty of them about.

The only country in the entire world I see moving towards the style of government favoured by 1930s Germany, Italy and Spain is the good ole US of A:

The Department of Homeland Security, imprisonment without trial, charge or access to legal advice, politicians wearing sinister little badges, invading weaker nations on the flimsiest of pretexts, erosion of civil liberties, fierce nationalistic ideals (well, the yanks call it patriotism, but is smells like nationalism to me), a government propped up by industrialists, the use of propaganda, contempt for the international community, very dubious elections and a handy shadowy enemy that can be blamed for everything. New World Order?

 

[xane]

Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and most of North Africa have secular governments. So did Iraq. Alright, Saddam was an unelected dictator, but there's plenty of them about.

No, they are nationalistic government, and I said they become secular, my point is the countries are of one extreme or the other.

The only country in the entire world I see moving towards the style of government favoured by 1930s Germany, Italy and Spain is the good ole US of A:

The Department of Homeland Security, imprisonment without trial, charge or access to legal advice, politicians wearing sinister little badges, invading weaker nations on the flimsiest of pretexts, erosion of civil liberties, fierce nationalistic ideals (well, the yanks call it patriotism, but is smells like nationalism to me), a government propped up by industrialists, the use of propaganda, contempt for the international community, very dubious elections and a handy shadowy enemy that can be blamed for everything. New World Order?

• Homeland Security - set up in response to a threat.
• Internment or Civil Liberties "violations" are not necessarily an indication of nationalism.
• Patriotism and National Pride is a virtue of every fucking country in the world, it is _not_ "Nationalism" though !
• Industrialists ? A nationalistic government retains direct state control of industry, not hand it over to private enterprise, who may even be foreigners !
• Propaganda - not an indication at all.
• Contempt - Seeing as America is one of the largest absolute doners of international aid and depends on trade to keep its economy sound, I doubt very much they have "contempt".
• Dubious Elections ? Oh yes, they have _elections_, something not present in a nationalistic country.
• Shadowy Enemy - you mean the one who just sent out a tape, no that must have been my imagination.
• Sinister Little Badges - you've lost it there.

 

[Mofo8]

[*]Homeland Security - set up in response to a threat.

I'me sure that's what Hitler's Nationalist Socialist government said when they set up the Geheime Staatspolizei. Interestingly the word Homeland was used by both the Nazis and the former Apartheid South African government. Also, the plans for both the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act (and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) were in the pipeline long before 911.

[*]Internment or Civil Liberties "violations" are not necessarily an indication of nationalism.

No, but they're an indicator of an oppressive regime.

[*]Patriotism and National Pride is a virtue of every fucking country in the world, it is _not_ "Nationalism" though !

Read your own previous post. You condemed Iraq, Egypt, Syria for embracing nationalistic ideals. Are you confusing Nationalism (Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.) with National Socialism (the Nazi Party)?

[*]Industrialists ? A nationalistic government retains direct state control of industry, not hand it over to private enterprise, who may even be foreigners !

Typically Socialist or Communist countries retain control over industry.

[*]Propaganda - not an indication at all.

:eek2:

[*]Contempt - Seeing as America is one of the largest absolute doners of international aid and depends on trade to keep its economy sound, I doubt very much they have "contempt".

The USA has consistently vetoed anything going through the UN which is not in it's narrow interest. The USA refused to pay it's dues to the UN (the owed $687,000,000), and was ejected from the Human Rights Commission. They pulled out of the Landmine Treaty. They pulled out of a treaty banning germ warfare. They, along with Israel, dropped out of The World Conference against Racism. The failed to ratify 3 core Human Rights treaties. America, the biggest polluter in the world, scuppered the Kyoto Protocol.

As far international aid, the UN sets a target of 0.7% GDP for aid. The USA gives 0.1%. Only Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands meet the target. Most of Americas aid goes to a small number of countries (Israel being the top of the list, followed by Egypt, Pakistan, El Salvador, India and the Phillipines). According to some sources, as much as 80% of the aid actually goes to American companies inside these countries.

[*]Dubious Elections ? Oh yes, they have _elections_, something not present in a nationalistic country.

I reckon you're still confused about the meaning of the word nationalism. BTW, you do know that Hitler's party was voted into power don't you?

[*]Shadowy Enemy - you mean the one who just sent out a tape, no that must have been my imagination.

Al Qaeda is regarded by many experts as not being an actual, real terrorist group or network. It's an ideal. As for Osama, surely the most powerful nation on earth should have no problem finding a man that has to lug a kidney dialysis machine around with him.

[*]Sinister Little Badges - you've lost it there.

What are you waiting for.... fucking armbands???

 

[Bodhi]

Mofo8, if you actually believe half of the shit you are spouting you really are an idiot.

 

[xane]

Civil Liberty violations are not indicators of "oppressive" regimes, because "liberty" is in the eye of the beholder, what you judge as a "violation" is not necessarily viewed by others, therefore it cannot be a reliable indicator.

Communist countries _are_ nationalist, they are probably the pinnacle of nationalism (and I am referring to the brand of communism that we experienced, not the one proposed in theory), "socialist" countries do _not_ necessarily control industry, although they may well nationalise some of the infrastructure or support trade union movements (which control the workforce).

America does _not_ have direct government control over industries, there are some limits enforced by regulation, there are some enforced through limits of foriegn control, but the industry is not controlled by the government in any sense of the word, in fact it is far more deregulated than it has ever been, and there is no government support for trade unions either, legislation is in fact bias against them.

America cannot be a "nationalist" country as far as industry is concerned, in fact it not only openly supports free market privately-owned enterprise, it tries to export that view elsewhere ! Hence my argument on propaganda, America certainly does use it to espouse the wonders of capitalism, but its still not an indication of nationalism.

The old chestnut of American international aid - by GDP. America funds more money, in absolute terms, even excluding the Israeli aid, than most other countries. The reason why it goes to American companies is because the recieving country lacks the technology, expertise, organisation or infrastructure to use the aid, and it is cheaper and less open to corruption than just plain hard cash, if the recieving country had its own companies, then there'd be no need for aid in the first place !

You'll be blathering on about "excessive" American military spending next, yet by GDP it is quite reasonable. Spin on.

How many elections did Hitler contend ? The fact he was voted in the first time is drawing a rather stupid parallel as that was the only way he could come to power, the country did not become nationalist until _after_ that event. Was there a limit to how many years Hitler could serve ? When Bush negates the next election result, then outlaws the Democrat party and changes the constitution to remove the "two terms and you're out" rule so he can rule indefinitely, then maybe I'll concede to your view, otherwise I'm afraid you'll have to concede to mine.

America also gave up many of its citizens lives in the war against facism and national socialism, to accuse them of becoming a similar regime is insulting in the extreme.

As you pointed out, Nazi's forced _other_ people to wear badges.

 

[xane]

I can't believe I am wasting my time arguing with someone who equates badge-wearing with Nazis, if a mod wants to delete the above post on the grounds it is too long and boring, be my guest.