Iraq

[hoggsboss]

More than 300 tons of depleted uranium, another weapon of mass destruction, were fired by American aircraft and tanks and possibly by the British.

Many of the rounds were solid uranium which, inhaled or ingested, causes cancer. In a country where dust carries everything, swirling through markets and playgrounds, children are especially vulnerable.

For 12 years Iraq has been denied specialist equipment that would allow its engineers to decontaminate its southern battlefields.

It has also been denied equipment and drugs that would identify and treat the cancer which, it is estimated, will affect almost half the population in the south.

*taken from this article which was originally printed in the daily mirror*

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/129139

john pilger is one of the few ppl i have read that seems to know what hes talking about and its his words and thoughts that have often made me question wether war is the way to go.


further articles here http://pilger.carlton.com/print

especially like this one http://pilger.carlton.com/print/123925
shows the hipocracy of both the uk and us governments

 

[Scouse]

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.

So, in your list Xane you list us as aggressors in Ireland and The Falklands! If you like then.....

The 1991 Iraq war, if I recall, was started by Saddam (rightly or wrongly). But you can have that too if you want it....

Korea and Vietnam... No, the Yanks definately never had anything to do with these two, nosiree... Sorreeee, my bad. :uhoh:


.............Your other "Wars":

Palestine - we left this for the Yanks ages ago - and it's gone downhill ever since.

Suez - Well bugger me if this wasn't all about Egyptian aggression and us setting it right again with UN backing and a multi-lateral force.

Kenya - don't offhand recall anything going on here. I do however recall Somalia - a nice big Oil-based objective for the USA. :mgwhore: :mgwhore2:

Oman, if I recall, was the subject of a Gorilla uprising - not started by us.

Malaya?!!! Well - I could not remember us doing anything bad in that region apart from stopping the USSR getting their hands on it. In fact - I was so baffled by your inclusion of Malaya I had to have a look on Google. Dya know what I found?? - Yes, thats right.... Fuck All. :kissit:



Now, I'll say it again (for effect):

I don't mind if we go to war with Iraq.

I DO mind that we're dressing it up as if we're doing it for "humanitarian" means....


Lets just go get the oil (and advance our hold on the region) and to fuck with everything else.

 

[Scouse]

STOP PRESS!!!

I found THIS on Malaya (in 1948):

The pre-war political instability in the British Empire continued at an accelerated rate following the liberation of Malaya from its Japanese Occupation during World War II. Huge numbers of refugees, poverty, an inefficient administration, and the growth of communism made Malaya ripe for social and political revolution.

On June 16, 1948, communist guerrillas (Communist Terrorists or CTs) began a campaign of terror attacks on the British planters and miners across the country. Their leadership was well versed in the doctrine of communist revolution and planned the campaign in advance.

FUCK ME!!! I WAS WRONG!!!

WE AER TEH AGGRESSSSORRRRRR!!!!! :mgwhore2:






(You've gotta love these new smilies!)

 

[xane]

Scouse, I was originally commenting on what wars (or more appropriately "conflicts") Britain has been involved in, not limited to who is the aggressor or not, and in any case in every situation there is much debate over who "started it".

What are you on about Korea and Vietnam, of course the Americans were involved but so was Britain, so were lots of other countries, what is your point ?

I fail to get your main point too, America might be aggressive, but isn't Iraq even more so ? After all, to date, Saddam has invaded (and attempted to occupy by force) two regions belonging to foreign states and caused huge imbalances in the ME through military might, attempting to build an army to rival even America's (not bad for 1/10th of the population).

I also don't see the logic in letting Britain off the hook because someone else started the conflict and the UN backed us anyway, isn't this exactly the case on the US over Iraq ???

(Okay the US _may_ go it alone, which is something I'm not too supportive of, but it's still not like they "started it" is it).

BTW Kenya was to help fight the Mau-mau, and we were asked nicely to help.

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Scouse

[Snip the load of self opinionated bollocks]

FFS dude... this arguments getting nowhere and your childish little taunts like your taking Xane's points personally is fucking annoying.... jesus... I don't care about the argument I can see truth in both sides of it... but maybe we could drop it and get back to appreciating what other people have to say on an issue... k thx tbfh...

 

[Scouse]

Scouse, I was originally commenting on what wars (or more appropriately "conflicts") Britain has been involved in, not limited to who is the aggressor or not, and in any case in every situation there is much debate over who "started it".

Looks like you missed my main point completely then doesn't it?

If you can be arsed go back and re-read my posts. - I'm on about America's current aggressiveness.....



And whoever the fuck Mr ^Danger is:

What's got your goat? Do you not think that direct rebuttal of each point is an appropriate way to redirect an argument?

I haven't taken any of this personally (in fact I credit Xane with brain-cells as he's made me think) - but you seem to have taken my argument with him personally.

Is there some sort of secret gay-love thing you have for him?? :kiss2:

 

[xane]

The analogy I thought up last night in the shower is this:

The school bully comes up to you in the playground and starts pushing you around asking for your dinner money*, your mate, Big Dave, who is considerably bigger than the bully intervenes and tells him to piss off, Big Dave likes you cos you give him sweets, it seems a bit ironic if you turn around to Big Dave and berate him for being "an aggro", even more so if you compare him as being just as bad as the bully !

(* = the modern day version this would be "mobile phone")

Basically, there is plenty of evidence of American aggression, but you need to take this in perspective, and more importantly its relevance to the overall global situation.

For an example of this misguided perspective, the above mentioned John Pilger "expose" of DU contamination in Iraq ignores two points (a) no weaponry would have been used if Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait in the first place, and (b) the extensive use of chemical and biological weaponry (most of it banned) over a much longer period used by Iraq in its war with Iran, plus the environmental tragedy caused by setting fire to all the oilfields when they left Kuwait, don't you think these have far greater effects on Iraq's (and Iran's and Kuwait's) population health ?

Do a search on this on Google and you'll eventually find all the information on DU contamination in Iraq leads to one person - John Pilger, who in turn got all his information from a select group of Iraqi medical staff. Additional information comes from people like the outspoken Dr Rokke, but this is more to do with military personnel being contaminated (aka "Gulf War syndrome") rather than sympathy for Iraqi civilians.

John Pilger is hardly a persona non grata in Iraq, unlike for example John Simpson, who visited and reported on the kurdish village of Halabja shortly after it was used as a testing ground for Iraqi chemical weapons. Simpson is no friend of the US and UK governments either, having been critical of them in the past, he actually highlighted how the chemical weaponry was supplied by British companies, I value his arguments way more than Pilgers.

I honestly do not think many people entirely comprehend just how really really bad the Iraqi regime is, how leaving them to devastate the ME region with their unrivalled aggression would be a far greater crime. To complain of US aggression in these circumstances is myopic in the extreme, you simply cannot ignore Saddam and his objectives.

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by xane

I honestly do not think many people entirely comprehend just how really really bad the Iraqi regime is, how leaving them to devastate the ME region with their unrivalled aggression would be a far greater crime. To complain of US aggression in these circumstances is myopic in the extreme, you simply cannot ignore Saddam and his objectives.

I really don't think they have a chance of invading anyone(maybe kuwait again). The other countries are generally more powerful than Iraq. As for being agressive, Iraq hasn't been agressive (to the outside) for ages unless you mean madman saddam saying things along the lines of 'the amercians are the devil and must die.' Which is just silly.

Another point to think about is this, if the Iraq was such a danger to the countries surrounding it why do theyu not want a war? They let the us&uk station troops in their country but thats due to the american stsance of 'If you're not with us you're against us.'

I'm not saying we should never 'go in' but there is no reason to go in now. I would consider Zimbabwe(sp) a worse regime because I consider mugabe more dangerous and he seems to be getting a hell of a lot of leeway from everyone.

 

[xane]

The reason why Iraq has not been aggressive in the last decade is precisely _because_ of the sanctions and determination of the UN resolutions, not to mention the counter-aggressiveness of America, yet still Saddam defies the world and thumbs his nose. The overriding disturbance from the Blix report was that Iraq has still not accepted that it must disarm and live peacefully, their aggression is grounded in, Saddam only sees military might as an answer.

After the Kuwait invasion, Saudi Arabia was scared shitless that it was going to be next on the list, and when Iraq fired missiles at Israel it got countries like Egypt, Syria and Pakistan (who did not have a working nuke at the time) thinking about the possible reality of a future confrontation.

Remember that the ME is a cookbook of different ideologies, most in the west think they are all just muslims, but each country has its own particular brand of Islam, not to mention the theological differences in the religion itself. Iraq is more of a nationalistic ideology than a religious one, it seeks to expand its borders and gain more resources, the war with Iran was to establish control of the waterway that is Iraq's only link to the gulf, the invasion of Kuwait was to get hold of it's oilfields.

The military power Iraq had built up prior to Gulf War I (4th largest in the world at one point) was crippling the country economically, it was only surviving because of the huge oil revenue and high prices. The reason so many foreign contracters were inside Iraq was due to a significant proportion of the adult male population being in the armed forces, they had no-one to do the actual work, when the price of oil dropped Saddam needed more control of oil to continue financing his military, that's why he invaded.

People are right when they say the war is about oil, but it is not America's oil that is the problem.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair there is a strong moral reason to go into Iraq. But there is an equally strong moral reason to not do the same thing.

The ideal solution would be for the Iraqi people to remove him but that's not going to happen.

I think, on balance, not going in against him would definately be the better solution - but only if the USA was prepared to pull their finger out and come up with a final solution to the Israel problem.

Separate Palestinian and Jewish states which do NOT have boarders along disputed towns is the only solution the experts seem to agree on.

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Scouse
I haven't taken any of this personally (in fact I credit Xane with brain-cells as he's made me think) - but you seem to have taken my argument with him personally.

Is there some sort of secret gay-love thing you have for him?? :kiss2:

OK frame conceded........ + yes he aer ma sugar daddeh!

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by Scouse


I think, on balance, not going in against him would definately be the better solution - but only if the USA was prepared to pull their finger out and come up with a final solution to the Israel problem.

Separate Palestinian and Jewish states which do NOT have boarders along disputed towns is the only solution the experts seem to agree on.

I agree totally Scouse. If America were to help in the Israel problem they may then see some of the more Fundamental states in the ME to soften there attitude towards the US and the tyrancial infidels of the west Israel is another topic worthy of an entirely separate debate. It is connected very closely to this issue. Some would argue that it is not America's problem. It's everyones problem as it is destabilising the whole region and in the long term maybe even world peace IMHO

The problems is getting the Israelies and the Palestiniens around the same table. A few weeks ago there was a middle east summit in London. Ariel Sharron would not allow any representative of Yasser Arrafat to be there. They had to do it via video link. Something about horses, water and drining:doh:

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by Scouse
a final solution to the Israel problem.

That's a rather unfortunate use of a phrase.

Rather like President Bush's use of 'Crusade', shortly after Sept. 11th.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
... but only if the USA was prepared to pull their finger out and come up with a final solution to the Israel problem.

Separate Palestinian and Jewish states which do NOT have boarders along disputed towns is the only solution the experts seem to agree on.

Well this is certainly a view I have a lot of solidarity with, my remarks about Iraq's military can equally apply to Israel, who despite being even smaller in population than Iraq have a huge military (around 500,000+) that is much better equipped and trained, although a majority are still conscripts.

Equally so, as with Iraq, Israel remains in violation of UN resolutions, but fortunately for them no sanctions were imposed at the time they were made, so they've been able to live with them. Arab lobbying in the past has been against the actual establishment of the state of Israel, only since the 1990s have Arab states (and the PLO) actually agreed to recognise Israel as a independent nation state as part of a peace deal, culminating with the Saudi plan last year to swap Arab recognition with Israeli adherance to the UN resolution. Thus, insistance for Israel to comply has been a very recent thing.

Saying all that, the aggression towards Israel in the region from the combined might of several equally strong nations, especially Syria and Egypt, who have attacked in the past gives Israel fair reason to have such a powerful force and to be reluctant to give up strategic occupation of land like the Golan Heights, it doesn't make it _right_ tho, the real answer is to halt the aggression altogether, which thankfully most of the peace deals have done, still Syria refuses to make a deal, and they have a large army too.

In fact, just prior to 9/11, America was actually starting to oppose Israel's continued abuse of the UN requirements and was starting to listen to Palestinian views, the situation of suicide bombers from one side with retaliatory action on the other was not going to be allowed to continue for much longer. Israel lost its real diplomatic peacemaker when Rabin was shot, the only remaining option was for America to start putting financial aid in question to force the issue.

9/11 changed all that, with terrorist attacks aimed directly at the US there is no way they will ever stop supplying Israel, right now the right-wing hawks have consolidated their hold in the Israeli government, the situation there is going to get a lot worse before a solution can be found, I personally think Arafat has not got much longer (he looks like he'll die of old age anyway).

Bleh - I go on too much, but the situation is far from simple, I just wish those opposing a war would come up with realistic solutions to the whole thing, not just bash America for bashing sake, that makes them look like they support totalitarianism.

 

[prime1]

There was a piece that no doubt explained this better on the bbc website a couple of days ago, supporting war.

The ultimate conclusion of the pice, was that, unitentionally, it is the anti-war movement that is likely to cause more deaths, than the war movement. It looks to history to explain this.

Oppressive/Brutal regimes, cause deaths within its own population. The numbers of people dying under these regimes is staggering, and its not caused by anyone else other than the government of said country.

Nazi Germany murdered more peopel than were killed by fighting in WW2, stalins regime in Russia killed millions, and Saddams regime in Iraq has killed, and will continue to kill, many thousands of people.

If the world had actually been able to stand up to Stalins regime back then, and had been able to depose it, potentially it could have saved many millions of lives.

If people had stood up to Hitler earlier (and there were plenty of opportunities), rather than appeasing him, thinmgs would have been very different.

We are faced with a similar situation, Saddam has shown he is not capable of changing, and that he is capable of terrible things. How much longer do we let it go on? At the rate pollitical deaths alone occur now, the death toll will be far higher than any war is likely to bring. A war may actually save now.

The difference between Iraq and lets say N.Korea is this :
We have an opportunity to do something NOW, that would not cost too high a price in terms of lives, and is likely to save lives in the long term. This opportunity does not necassarily present itself in many of the other "bad" nations. We cant invade Isreal for example, because loss of life would be catastrophic, and the costs are far higher than the "rewards" - ie no more tit for tat fighting.

We arnt going to war for material gain, theres nothing to gain, the costs will be high - military costs are incredible and once you've fired that shell theres no end product to sell on, its gone.
Regardless of what soem sceptics say about "defence contracts" etc, that dosnt help the government, any taxes they get back from the defense industry are relatively miniscule when compared to the costs of purchasing the equipment, afterall, tax is only a percentage of the money going in to the industry.

The only gain here is the chance of setting the foundations for stability in the area, and indeed the world and a good chance of saving a great many lives.

Another thing to consider is, that in the UK at the moment, going for war without a 2nd UN mandate (although it isnt necassary) is looking very unpopular. I cant see the leader of a democratic nation actively pushing so publicaly and so strongly for something that he knows is very unpopular. Tony Blair knows more than anyone else in this country about the current situation, and he is prepared to go to war, with the knowledge its likely to lose him a hell of alot of support. That says things to me about the necessity of disarming and removing Saddam. Oh and the fact that the same arguments are trawled agaisnt these wars over and over again, yet verythime as soons as they ahve passed, they are proven wrong (bosnia, afghanistan etc).


Sorry about the length of this post and the poor typing etc

 

[Scouse]

Another thing to consider is, that in the UK at the moment, going for war without a 2nd UN mandate (although it isnt necassary) is looking very unpopular

I've only skimmed through your post but I take issue with this.

If we fail to get a second mandate we look like much more the aggressor - and it ads validity to the arguments of those that would oppose us (and I'm not just talking Saddam).

There's a good reason that it'd be unpopular. I think the government has a duty to show that all that can be done has been done to avert war.

(Even if there's no way I'd believe them).