Iraq

[Scouse]

Scouse, have you ever actually _read_ the UN Resolutions on Iraq particularly those pertaining to the sales of oil for use for food and medicine ? Can you explain how this equates to punative sanctions ?

No - I've never actually read it. I have what is currently known as a "life"

Do you actually believe that the Americans didn't know that the Iraqi people would see fuck all for the "oil for food"? You're not that naieve.

Do you really think America is the _sole_ reason why people are starving and dying in Iraq ?

No.

Re: Afghanistan is ruled by Afghanistanis, not Americans, so how does this qualify as an "occupation" ?

Do the words "puppet government" mean anything to you?

Er, you mean _apart_ from the British Empire ? Oh sorry that was 227 years ago wasn't it ? My bad, I must read my history books a bit more

Yes - your bad. America was in no state to fight a war against us. The French, on the other hand, were. They sent troops out to the states to fight our second-raters that were out there, whilst the rest of their army was engaging us in Europe.




Don't be an American kiss-asser. Its an ugly country with an ugly arrogant regime under a twat of a president.

Still - they do do nice burgers and frankly that's enough for me

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
No - I've never actually read it. I have what is currently known as a "life"

Do you actually believe that the Americans didn't know that the Iraqi people would see fuck all for the "oil for food"? You're not that naieve.

A misinformed life perhaps, and BTW the sanctions are imposed by the UN, not the US, maybe they're as blind as you too, besides they weren't getting any food either before the sanctions.

Originally posted by Scouse
Do the words "puppet government" mean anything to you?

I freely admitted the Americans used underhand methods to influence foreign governments, but that is still not "occupation", remember that the previous incumbants, the Taliban, were just puppets of the Pakistani regime, not much has changed really, apart from the fact fewer people are being executed for having the wrong beard.

Originally posted by Scouse
Yes - your bad. America was in no state to fight a war against us. The French, on the other hand, were. They sent troops out to the states to fight our second-raters that were out there, whilst the rest of their army was engaging us in Europe.

Lets drop the point, the argument is America _has_ been involved in wars before 50 years ago, you can take Mexico and WWI as before your "50 years" if you like, but my fact remains, other countries have been just as bad, limiting the time period is just manipulating figures to isolate America.

Originally posted by Scouse
Don't be an American kiss-asser. Its an ugly country with an ugly arrogant regime under a twat of a president.

Blimey, if thats what you think of a democratic country, I shudder to think of your opinion of somewhere much worse, like for example ... Iraq ?

America is no angelic place, but neither are any countries in the world, you really need to start reading _facts_, pop over to the Amnesty International website and read one their reports on Iraq, here's an extract for you:

"Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks," said Amnesty International, based on interviews with hundreds of torture victims in Iraq over the years. "Some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Other methods of torture include extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock executions.

source

The UN special reports contain much of same is slightly less graphic language, wake up and see just how fucking utterly utterly terrible that place is and you may even believe that America may not be such a bad place after all.

 

[PR.]

While I admire the American populations blind patriotism I still think they are all over emotional pricks that think the world owes them something.

I think you people need to separate your misgivings, don't use Iraq to peddle anti-americanism, don't pretend to be indifferent but then refer to President Bush and Tony Blair as "George Dubble ya" and "lap dog Tony".

Its worth noting that "the blind patriotic pricks" that are the american people don't think the world owes them something and are not 100% behind a War, as has been repeatedly shown by the press and survey poles.

I think the Weapons inspectors should be given more time, say 2-3months of intensive inspections, also all the UN member countries should hand over all intelligence they have on Saddam and Iraq, even Mr Blix thinks there are things missing (Biological weapons) and wants explanations of what has happened to them.

While we in the West 'enjoy' this opportunity to say what we feel there are other countries out there that impose their thoughts on their citizens. In North Korea were school kids mission in life is to make their leader proud of them while they live in poverty and starve to death. We have Isreal and Palestine in endless 'eye for an eye' attacks on each other.

I was told by my mother that when she was pregnant during the Cold War etc. she was scared of what kind of world she was going to be bringing a child up in. 21 Years later and we've made little progress.

 

[smurkin]

I have, I believe a different perspective. And I have my head fairly tightly shoved up my own arse on this one.

USA and UK have been patroling Iraq's skies for 10 years with opposites taking pot-shots at each other. Keeping in Check.

With the current resentment in Arab countries....increased attacks on US bases and targets in say Saudi, Yemen, Kuwait etc...their presence itself is destabilising the region...and their presence is resented. It is beginning to cause civil unrest in these countries...and that aint good.

This is, imo the reason why all this is coming to a head (it happens to fit in nicely with the world terrorist theme also).

btw

1) They didnt care when the IRA were bombing London, or when other factions were bombing european countries yet as soon as they are hit with a terrorist attack they cry for unity and want everyone to stand together and stop terrorism.

good point, nicely put...in some ways 9/11 stuffed the IRA quite badly.

And the crap about Russia and France having oil contracts with the current Iraqi regime. The French thing was imo spot on. But the Russians are now major producers themselves...they are probably thinking of the effect of freeing Iraqi oil supplies on the revenues/prices from their own oil.

anyway...enough conspiracy theories for me

 

[Xtro]

I'm currently reading Saddam: The Politics of Vengeance by Said K errr something (oops). It covers the rise of Saddam and explains the history of Iraq over the centuries up to present day.

It's certainly opened my eyes, the author used to work for a major Arab consulting/procurement firm that Saddam employed now and then. At first to import scientific and technical expertise but then the author and his company were asked (and did) help in the construction of chemical weapons and helped to start Iraq's atomic weapons programme.

A great book, can't recommend it enough. I didn't realise Iraq used to be yet another state that Britain fucked over by occupying it and installing a puppet monarchy. It's also amusing how much the US, UK, USSR and France have all played parts in helping Saddam get to where he is now.

To their credit ICI refused to help Saddam with his (thinly disguised as plans for a pestocide factory but obvious to people in the know) chemical weapons programme, but then other US and UK companies nearly bit his hand off to get in on the act.

CIA backed the Kurds, then helped Saddam put down the Kurds, then went back to supporting the Kurds in the space of 12 months for example. What's funniest is that whilst in exile from Iraq and living in Cairo in 1960...Saddam was a very minor CIA informant and agent....

I'd tell you a lot more but read the book. Top stuff.

Personally I don't like Saddam, I just don't like the Bush administration either. I do think its about the oil, but I also think Saddam wants smacking down anyway.

 

[kameleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Originally posted by xane


To its credit, America has actually never tried a military occupation or invasion (yet),

obviously you arent including hawaii in this statement

 

[adams901]

Originally posted by PR.
Its worth noting that "the blind patriotic pricks" that are the American people don't think the world owes them something and are not 100% behind a War, as has been repeatedly shown by the press and survey poles.

A nice bit or selective quoting there , you will also notice I then go on to say

"I guess its the internet that has given me this feeling towards them, because 90% of Americans who use the internet are stupid"

I haven't met many Americans in real life so I am only going by what I see online, and over the last 6 years I have spent a lot of time on American gaming and community servers where if you are lucky you will see the odd European, anytime a topic about war appears the general attitude you get from many of the "online" American community is the world owes them something. I can point you to many forum posts that confirm my point.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
The thing that makes it funnier is that those weapons were supplied by the US, huzzah!

As per usual.

 

[Will]

Well, you all have been busy while I was away. I've given this impending war some thought (I didn't have a lot else to do with my time), and there isn't an easy answer. This from the out-there-and-proud hippy, no less.

Saddam is nasty, no doubt there. He is a dictator, but while you get some fairly fluffy dictators (Gadaffi has really mellowed out), you can't say that about Saddam. Its very hard to tell what he is up to.

Bush and Blair wind me up with the way they talk about this war. but they aren't selling it to well-informed liberals. Bush for one is selling it to poorly informed Americans. I get to say that because overseas news isn't a high priority in the US. So they break in into bite-sized chunks. The people in the White House are up to something, and its far more complex than they let out. American voters did black and white, good and evil politics, so that is what they get to see. I wonder about behind the scenes.

Blair...I'm not sure who he is trying to appeal to. Britain has a slightly better informed population, and more of us can see though. I can't see why it is so important to him to side with Bush over the rest of Europe. Its as if he is trying to appeal to the blue-rinse brigade. Voting lines in this country are very confused, and low turnouts seem to benefit him. Remember, this is a man who's job depends on ticks in boxes, that's his over-riding concern.

A few of you have mentioned the stock-market and oil prices...ooo, mental leap. This will sound pretty cynical, but bear with me. The only person in the Labour party who threatens his position is Gordon Brown. There isn't going to be a Tory or Liberal in Downing Street for a while. The economy getting worse looks pretty bad on Brown, doesn't it? Gold prices are up after the sell-offs, markets in free-fall (remember what happened to Nigel Lawson?). The victory over evil will bring the markets up a bit, but all the glory goes to the leader, President Blair.

Back on topic a little, the reason the markets are falling is uncertainty. War would push them up a little. A short, decisive war would push even higher and hold them there. A long drawn-out war would deflate them again.

I always thought Bush would put off the war as long as possible, while trying to look like he was always pushing. He isn't going to win the next election on the economy, is he? Remember his poor father, ended up finishing off too soon.

Damn, i'm too ill to type all this, my brain has totally wondered. I think I've spent the last 30 minutes typing this, on and off. I've written a lost of points to discuss, rather than made any sense. Work with me, I'm poorly.

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by xane
for this sort of thing ?

Do you really think America is the _sole_ reason why people are starving and dying in Iraq ?

In fact I challenge you to name a country where America is refusing to supply medical aid ? They even supply Cuba with humanitarian aid !

" ?

XANE

In respect of America is refusing medical supply I would suggest you look at the situation in Africa. The continent is over run with an AIDS epidemic which will increase 10 fold within the next 5 years. 90% of Aids research and drug manufacture is carried out in America.

Because of the ridiculous patent license laws maintained by the Americans, only the chosen few can make these drugs that are sorely needed by Children born with the terrible illness.

Yes little boy in your mud shanty you can have a cure for Aids.. By the way it will cost you 10 dollars per month. Sorry I forgot you only earn less than five dolls a year. Taking into account that it costs less than 25cents to produce the drugs for a years supply for one person. The maths indicate that they are in fact refusing aid to the needy.

 

[Teh Fonz!!1]

A cure for AIDS?

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by blade07

XANE

In respect of America is refusing medical supply I would suggest you look at the situation in Africa. The continent is over run with an AIDS epidemic which will increase 10 fold within the next 5 years. 90% of Aids research and drug manufacture is carried out in America.

Because of the ridiculous patent license laws maintained by the Americans, only the chosen few can make these drugs that are sorely needed by Children born with the terrible illness.

Yes little boy in your mud shanty you can have a cure for Aids.. By the way it will cost you 10 dollars per month. Sorry I forgot you only earn less than five dolls a year. Taking into account that it costs less than 25cents to produce the drugs for a years supply for one person. The maths indicate that they are in fact refusing aid to the needy.

That would be multinational drug companies then. Not the US.

 

[Gumbo]

That little bombshell must have passed us by....

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by Wij


That would be multinational drug companies then. Not the US.

That would also be Multinational companies heavily subsidised by the US. Also the same directors who sit in the house of representatives and numerous select commitee's. Thus US government although not in name

 

[Wij]

Or in any meaningful way.

 

[Gumbo]

Besides it's all bollocks anyway 'cos there is no cure, and as we are unable to cure any other virus, there is unlikely to be one in the forseeable future.

All you can do is take a cocktail of many different drugs, which simply puts off the inevitable. Up to 50 pills a day that have to be taken at very specific times, and missing just a few of these pills renders the whole program useless.

These also only help to prevent the onset of AIDS for those who are HIV positive. Basically once you start to experience symptoms, you're already dead.

Simply raining these pills on African people would be completely useless, and a complete waste of money which would be far better spent on trying to prevent the spread of the disease in the first place.

Besides, did you not study Malthus at school?

 

[~YuckFou~]

I think the point is where are the weapons that we know he had? The inspectors not finding anything significant is a bad sign.
He can show no evidence of their disposal.

Agreed he is not attacking anyone atm (with the exception of his own people), so should we wait until he does? How would we explain that to the 1,000's of relatives of the people killed by a chemical/biological weapon attack?

The fuckers in London that were manufacturing gas, should we not of arrested them until they used it? Just because they guy is 1,000's of miles away does not mean that we should be complacent.

 

[Munkey-]

diplomacy merley prolongs the inevitable in my opinion.

Bush is pushing for a war and is doing everything possible to make sure it goes ahead e.g. snide references to the UN and how they'll "go it alone" even though Blair backs him up on it all.

And to those who say that Bush wants it for oil, as are all wars so he is justified.......need i remind them of one of the major causes to the last gulf war?

Sure i dont support Saddam or condone what he does, but i feel that he is going about this the wrong way and merley antagonising people. Anti-american feeling here is starting to rival anti-jewish feelings and when there are protest rallys here against Bush that include flag burning it DOES kind of get a bit worrying. The US has already issued a worldwide alert to american citizens to prepare emergancy evacuation bags should anything happen (including "Terrorist" activites)

When will sanity resume?

and as to why the UK supports the USA? I think its because of the old "we support each other no matter what" agreement that was forged between FDR and Churchill.

 

[Munkey-]

reading up a bit and reading about Cuba, i really think Cuba should be allowed to join the modern world now.

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Munkey-
reading up a bit and reading about Cuba, i really think Cuba should be allowed to join the modern world now.

NONONO communism is baad mmkay?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by blade07
In respect of America is refusing medical supply I would suggest you look at the situation in Africa. ...

Er, sorry, I must have missed the sanctions or blockade imposed on all those African countries, strange how America is the largest supplier of food aid then.

If Africa can't afford it this is an entirely different issue. You claim Iraq is being denied medical supplies which is totally untrue, as can be seen by the UN resolution, this is NOT the same as whether an African country can afford drugs or not, there is no sanctions involved, and Iraq can certainly afford expensive drugs, by selling oil as allowed by the UN.

P.S. South Africa, who complained about the cost of AIDS drugs, was found to be spending quite a lot of money on submarines instead. A similar situation to how people in Iraq die of starvation yet the presidential palaces manage to get repainted in gold.

 

[whipped]

Can't eveyone just be nice to each other?

 

[Scouse]

Not bothered reading all of the posts since my last one - just Xane's immediate reply - but I'd like to say this:

Lets drop the point, the argument is America _has_ been involved in wars before 50 years ago, you can take Mexico and WWI as before your "50 years" if you like, but my fact remains, other countries have been just as bad, limiting the time period is just manipulating figures to isolate America.

No. Lets NOT drop the point. As of right now the most agressive country in the world is America. The past agressions of other countries have no bearing on this.

Your "limiting the time period is just manipulating the figures to isolate America" statement applies exactly the same the other way around - NOT limiting the time period makes America look just peachy - but only if you ignore the fact that HERE and NOW they're being agressive.

They should not be allowed "leeway" just because they haven't been starting wars for the past 200 years. Wrong is wrong.

America is no angelic place, but neither are any countries in the world, you really need to start reading _facts_, pop over to the Amnesty International website and read one their reports on Iraq

Here's your problem. Amnesty International is not exactly a paragon of unbiased information is it?

The UN special reports contain much of same is slightly less graphic language, wake up and see just how fucking utterly utterly terrible that place is and you may even believe that America may not be such a bad place after all.

It's never in dispute and has never been argued by me that Iraq is a good place. In fact - you may have noticed that I'm not bothered at all if we go to war on Iraq.

But how about you wake up and realise that there are loads of places around the world that experience exactly the same sort of shit that happens in Iraq. Why aren't the Americans (or us) there??

They spout shit about how "just" they are and how they're doing this for the Iraqi people. If that were true they'd be doing it all over the world. But they're not. Go figure.

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by xane

You claim Iraq is being denied medical supplies which is totally untrue, as can be seen by the UN resolution, this is NOT the same as whether an African country can afford drugs or not, there is no sanctions involved, and Iraq can certainly afford expensive drugs, by selling oil as allowed by the UN.
.

Xane

Read the posts care-full-y. I have never claimed that Iraq is being denied medical supplies.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Scouse
They spout shit about how "just" they are and how they're doing this for the Iraqi people. If that were true they'd be doing it all over the world. But they're not. Go figure.

The simple phallacy of 'If you can't help all then you shouldn't help any.'

 

[Scouse]

The simple phallacy of 'If you can't help all then you shouldn't help any.'

Or the simple reality of - "We've had 10 years to help someone else, but we've wanted to twat this cunt for ages, and thankfully someone attacked our country - so we've got an excuse now..."

 

[Gumbo]

I think it's more a case of one war at a time.

Tony Blair said only yesterday in PMQ's that once Iraq is dealt with North Korea is next on the agenda, Iraq is not the last war we'll see for a while.

BTW how much oil does North Korea have?

Or Kosovo that America got involved in, to bail out the muslims.

Or Bosnia, where the seige of Sarajevo was lifted with the help of the Americans.....

Not saying we wouldn't have done it without American help, but lets not forget that the Americans have helped to end wars/change regimes for what I think we can agree has been for the better. Maybe the Iraq thing should be seen in that light, It just so happens it's on a rather larger scale.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
But how about you wake up and realise that there are loads of places around the world that experience exactly the same sort of shit that happens in Iraq. Why aren't the Americans (or us) there??

Actually Iraq is by far and above one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes, you can only take North Korea as a possible contender, especially now that the Taliban are out of the way, the scale by which Iraq abuses human rights puts it in a different league to other "bad" nation states.

Amnesty may be biased, agreed, but the UN reports that show exactly the same incidents are not.

Originally posted by Scouse
As of right now the most agressive country in the world is America. The past agressions of other countries have no bearing on this.

Ok, I'll agree to that, right now because of one of the biggest military buildups since WW2, America is certainly the most aggressive, and its monopoly on superpower status makes it a likely contender on all conflicts since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I'll take the challange and look at the past 50 years, lets looks at Britain since 1950 for example; Ireland, Cyprus, Palestine, Suez, Kenya, Korea, Vietnam, Oman, Malaya (1948 actually), Falklands, Iraq. Quite a bunch there, we seemed to have calmed down a bit since 1982, apart from the Gulf War.

 

[adams901]

I think we will all find that America and any other country(including ours) will only get involved with a war when there is something they will gain from it (trade routes, oil, gold or what ever else there is out there).

All this talk about oppression doesnt mean a thing, no one goes to war out of the kindness of their heart or because its the right thing to do, they do it because there is something they will get from it.

At the end of the day the cold hard truth is why spend all that money on weapons and risk the lives of your military when there is nothing to gain.

 

[xane]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/nm/20030130/od_nm/sperm_dc