IRAQ vs USA/UK

[Embattle]

Originally posted by stu

I'll put it another way. The United States infringes human rights in a massive number of ways. Does that give anyone else a right to invade them and remove the government? Should we just "leave" George Bush in power?

Who exactly did you have in mind to remove him?

BTW I just saw a Challenger II tank roll over one of those 7ft brick walls with Saddam's face on it.....made me smile any way

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Embattle
Who exactly did you have in mind to remove him

The American people, because they have that option

 

[nath]

There's a lot more american civilians than there are dodgy people in power.

There's also a lot more iraqi civilians than there are republican guards etc.

Go watch A Bugs Life, that's how it's supposed to work!

 

[Sir Frizz]

 

[Furr]

Originally posted by nath
Go watch A Bugs Life, that's how it's supposed to work!

Dont you mean Antz?

 

[rynnor]

Al Jazeera

Its a pretty poor show that people keep hacking/ddos'ing the Al Jazeera website - they are showing us aspects of the war and Saddams mis-treatment of POW's that would otherwise be missed.

They are a broadly independent News service and unique in the Arab world for being so. They have made many enemies in the Arab world by speaking the truth - some of their reporters have paid for this independance with their lives.

They have shown us images of war without the sanitization popular on the other channels - some of what they have shown has been shocking but they are not responsible for it, they merely report it.

Isn't freedom of the press one of the freedoms our troops are supposed to be bringing to the Iraqi people?

 

[Embattle]

Yay Goodfellas is on tomorrow...oh sorry OT

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by Embattle
Yay Goodfellas is on tomorrow...oh sorry OT

The Harry Enfield sketch was better than the film "Hey you FUN my wife!!"

 

[Tom]

One thing about the oil argument - OPEC.

 

[nath]

NO furr, I mean a bugs life.

 

[rodidaleet]

dumb

 

[nath]

omg you could win a free xbox!!

 

[Munkey-]

Originally posted by xane
Munkey,

You are bringing straw men into the argument, by your deduction the UN or the US may not move against any dictator unless it moves against all of them at the same time !

The sad point is, tyrants live under the protection of international law, in Iraq's case they violated conditions laid down by the UN and gave a premise to authorised military action. France, Russia, China, etc may have wished to give inspectors more time but at the end of the day they would have endorsed military action if Iraq had failed to comply, it's no use arguing otherwise as the details are in UNSC Resolution 1441.

This gave the US an excuse, and I fully agree it was one driven by other motives and they may have been too hasty, but the initiative existed and they took it, only history will tell whether they did the right thing, so it is no use speculating on that point. In WW2 the Americans were castigated for being late, so whatever happens they'll be damned.

Israel and nukes: I'm not a big fan of Israel and I don't endorse their stance at all, but they do not possess any WMD apart from nukes, for which there is no worldwide ban (unlike biological and chemical), there is a non-proliferation treaty but Isreal hasn't signed it. On the other hand Iraq possesses, and has used, banned weapons, and _has_ signed the relevent treaties, which makes them a far greater violator than Isreal.

Kurds: have killed a lot of Kurds too, you forget there are a lot of rival groups fighting themselves as well, in any case its a purile argument to consider Saddam because he hasn't killed as many as Turkey.

Afghanistan: the "old ways" are pre-Taliban, and the intention was to lapse back into them anyway, there is no problem with that, and if you think tribal culture is beneath you then you're as guilty as the Americans promoting free market capitalism as the solution to the world's problems, if anything it's a sign America is _not_ interfering like everyone said they would.

UN ineffectiveness: this was apparent 12 years ago, despite repeated Resolutions to the effect, nothing was done about Iraq, the word "ultimatum" has a different meaning in the UN.

Palestine: maybe you are not aware of the enormous inroads made in this are since the first Gulf War. A Saudi peace initiative brokered by the Americans has been adopted by every single Arab nation apart from Syria, once they comply Israel will be forced to withdraw to 1967 borders, the US was even speculating on using financial pressure to achieve this. Then 9/11 happened, and that put a big spanner in the works, and now Syria, since the change of ruler, have become increasingly hostile to the peace plan, even though it's the only way they'll regain lost territory.

Bringing the Arab League into the argument is blatent hypocrasy, IIRC they have attempted unauthorized military action several times against another sovereign state, directly in violation of international law, to consider their opposition on another military intervention is pure chutzpah (that word was picked very carefully )

I pointed out the Kurds as quite a large number of them live in Iraq and everyone is always pointing out "LOOK! ABUSE! HE'S KILLING KURDS!!!! etc." If massive efforts have been made in Palestine I still have yet to see any evidence, recent death of Rachel Corrie as a tragic example.
Of course theres no worldwide ban on nuclear weapons, but it still doesnt stop the US and UK trying to stop them, unfortunatley the US supplied Isreal with nuclear weaponary. It still doesnt excuse Isreal from its human rights violations which, as pointed out earlier, everyone is so damn eager to pounce upon.
Since you're so eager to pounce upon the ALoN, couldn't their "unauthorized military action" actions be likened to what the US and UK are currently doing? If the UN proved so innaffective both this time and the previous time, wouldn't this lend serious concerns to the Iraqi situation after the war? Whats to stop another nation, by this I mean the US or UK as any other nation would be immediatly pounced upon, to declare their own instructions and methods for the reconstruction. Oil contractors are still waiting for the last of the mines to be cleared away before moving in whilst the war is still ongoing.
The "old ways", by that I meant the Taliban era of warlords and internal strife. I have nothing against "tribal culture" considering that I live amongst it and its people on a daily basis.

 

[maxi--]

think i saw a speech by Tony Blair yesterday declaring the 'whole world' will have to help(pay for) the reconstruction of iraq after the war.

but only 4 countries are destroying it?


i was shocked he could say something like that, antiwar press would/should have a field day with it.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Munkey-
Since you're so eager to pounce upon the ALoN, couldn't their "unauthorized military action" actions be likened to what the US and UK are currently doing?

That was my point, which is why I don't consider what the ALoN say as of any consequence whatsoever, equally applies to the US condemming ALoN military action.

Originally posted by Munkey-
The "old ways", by that I meant the Taliban era of warlords and internal strife. I have nothing against "tribal culture" considering that I live amongst it and its people on a daily basis.

No, the "warlords" were supplanted by the Taliban, who were almost exclusively from one religious faction.

Qatar only has one "tribe" in government (Al-Thani), so it is not like Afghanistan at all.

 

[Ash!]

xane

How come you know so much about everything ?

 

[Munkey-]

The Al-Thani's are the ruling family. Then there are the other familys that, although not as major, still hold some influence due to the tight nature of Qatari society. There are still a large number of Beddouhs (sp?) who are widely reviled by Qatari society yet still hold a part in it. Yet the ALoN do actually carry out some of their military actions, though mostly the arab countries take it upon themselves to do so.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by widow-maker
xane

How come you know so much about everything ?

XANE IS SADDAM!

Though seriously... how do you know so much???

 

[GDW]

Cut and paste?

 

[Tom]

More likely maturity, something lacking on most internet discussion forums.

 

[xane]

That's right, I've been cut n pasting way longer than most people.

 

[Furr]

how about we blow up the entire middle east, that would sort it all out

 

[GDW]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
More likely maturity, something lacking on most internet discussion forums.

and cheese

 

[GDW]

Originally posted by Furr
how about we blow up the entire middle east, that would sort it all out

Yes but only if we can sodomise the population and steal all their oil first

 

[maxi--]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,919538,00.html

he write good, make point well.

 

[Embattle]

Shame you don't

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
and cheese

Wot he said

 

[Mellow-]

Wine is another product that matures with age.

 

[Gef]

"Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet."

Scarily true ..

 

[Furr]

c'mon we all know that the human race has had empires since the dawn of civilisation. Egytian, Persian, Roman, Greek, British, Spanish etc etc.. now unfortunatly its the yanks turn