PDA

View Full Version : liberating iraq?



DANINJA
22nd March 03, 07:40 AM
When u bomb the hell out of baghdad what makes u think that the people of Iraq will feel liberated?
Even if the bombs only hit military targets(i doubt it)-every soldier that dies has a wife and family etc.These people will be vey bitter and resentful and i really doubt they will feel liberated!!!!
if the american government really cared about liberating people why havent they done anything about the palestinian-isreal situation?maybe there is no oil there?of course the governmnt has said it will try to work towards a palestinian state after the iraq war but at the end of the day this is just a PR execise i.e to get arab support.
Even if they did create a palestinian state-it wont be much as Isreal keeps making settlements!!!
They also use the fact that saddam used chemical weapons against Kurds.They also used chemical weapons against iran!!!-but they never mention that because during the iran-iraq war america supported saddam and the western world supplied him with chemical weapons.This is called Hypocrisy!!!!!!!!
There is no link between Iraq and Sept 11th-American government has showed no evidence to prove it!!
Sept 11 was a very bad thing to happen to the american public but it doesnt give the american government to use this as an excuse to kill innocent muslims!!!!
If they want to stop terrorism they need to look at the root causes and deal with that.Not go around and act like the worlds police!!!
this is an illegal war and george bush should be tried for war crimes!!!
American government is just making more enemies and there will be more Bin Ladens springing up to attack the western world!!!

P.s i got nothing against american ppl it is the government i dont like.you should always use logic and dont beleive everything Bush says!!!And i hate Saddam,Arial Sharon and all the Arab leaders.

9chambers
22nd March 03, 08:20 AM
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

Vargas
22nd March 03, 08:52 AM
An 'illegal' war? So what would make it legal? A formal declaration by Congress? We stopped doing that after WWII, I doubt we'll ever see that again. Maybe getting the approval of the security council? Give me a fucking break. We didn't have their permission for Kosovo or Afghanistan and we're pressing on without it now. The U.N. is a slightly bigger version of a high school debating club. Legality is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when this kind of thing is happening.

As for bombing, trust me, we have used a LOT of restraint so far. If we didn't care about civilians getting killed, every city in Iraq would be rubble right now. The U.S. military is bending over backwards to avoid killing anyone (that includes Iraqi soldiers) that it doesn't have to. I know it, you know it and the Iraqis know it, so stop being a drama queen about the whole thing. Yeah, war is hell. Guess what, their life under Saddam and the Baath Party was hell too. Fortunately, they know why we're attacking and seem to be pretty happy about it from all the reports I've seen. Doesn't seem like too many Iraqis are in a big hurry to die for Saddam Hussein.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

Edited by - Vargas on March 22 2003 07:53:21

The Wastrel
22nd March 03, 10:30 AM
People are gonna look stupid when the overwhelming majority of Iraqis smile and say, "Thanks dude. That guy with the mustache was a dick." That's why I have never opposed the war on principle.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Vargas
22nd March 03, 11:05 AM
Right now, the only thing I'm really wondering about is the Law of Unintended Consequences. No matter how good (or bad) things seem to go, events always seem to turn out not quite the way you intended them. There are about a hundred different scenarios I can see playing out from us being in Iraq. Some good, some bad. I just hope people don't expect things to be totally one way or the other (ie the invasion turns out to be either a complete success or complete failure). I think the Iraqi people will be, for the most part, glad we showed up but they may become jaded as time passes on and eventually tell us to get the fuck out. Which is fine with me, I think we should let other countries do most of the post-war administrating and aid relief. The U.S. is pretty good at blowing shit up and kicking ass, but not so great at peacekeeping and other household chores. Letting the Canadians, Swedes, Egyptians, Malays, Pakistanis and other non-aligned states secure the post-war peace seems a smart way to do business. The French, Germans, Russians and Turks can suck a dick as far as I'm concerned. They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it. Being a diplomatic jackass can carry a price sometimes.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

elipson
22nd March 03, 02:28 PM
Hey Wastrel, just curious.
If you don't oppose the war on principle, why do you oppose it? (I'm assuming you still oppose the war, I remember you saying you did)

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Choke
22nd March 03, 02:56 PM
"Sept 11 was a very bad thing to happen to the american public but it doesnt give the american government to use this as an excuse to kill innocent muslims!!!!"

Saddam Huisein has allegedly killed over one million Muslims during his reign. He has invaded 2 countries both with predominately Muslim populations. The Butcher of Baghdad is the true enemy of Islam. Yet members of the U.N. Security Council even now are trying to pardon him. The idea of barring Coalition forces from removing a genocidal, paranoid tyrant blows my mind.


Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

Boyd
22nd March 03, 03:34 PM
You know, almost every Caldean that wound up in Michigan did so because they wanted to escape Saddam.

They don't call it the Nazi PARTY for nothing!

The Wastrel
22nd March 03, 04:03 PM
elipson,
There's no more opposing the war. What's the point? The prevalent arguments against the war were:

1. What WMD?
Answer: Give me a break

2. So many people will die.
Answer: People will die either way, why not make it a matter of professional soldiers deciding the outcome, instead of Baathis killing their opponents, and pretty much anyone else they want to.

3. What about the UN? This is unilateral!
Answer: the UN is composed of unilateralisms, and if anyone hasn't noticed or bothered to point this out: a single veto from a permanent security council member is a unilateral action.

4. We used to support Saddam.
Answer: And? Now we don't.

I could go on, but every one of the prominent objections fails in one or another of a number of different ways. I opposed a war on the grounds that the Bushies could have achieved, through more effective diplomacy, a resolution with the necessary components-the guarantee of consequences for non-compliance in the form of military force. That is the foundation of law. They however, bungled completely, and the France helped them push the whole thing over the edge by threatening to veto ANYTHING that the US put to vote. Okay...that's nice. Fuck off UN.

The burden of proof of disarmament was on the Iraqi regime. It always has been, but I thought that a few months ago we had a chance to avoid war. In late November when I realized it was not going to pass us by I was gripped with a panic and a depression that I doubt any of the vocal fatuous anti-war protestors on my campus can even possibly relate to.

I have a deep commitment to the mitigation of human suffering. One thing to remember is that simple, absolute opposition to war SOUNDS nice, and affords one the easy moral high ground, but it doesn't always improve the aggregate good.
At this point, it's time to start thinking about putting pressure where it's need most. I have a vague suspicion that after the end of this the anti-war clique will roll out unfounded accusation after accusation, and possibly be distracted into trying to figure out which side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a liberal is supposed to support, and they will have forgotten Iraq. Meanwhile, if the current administration has less than honorable intentions, they will be free to do as they wish, because it's much more sexy to protest against a war than to demand the draft of a Constitution, or to deal with the difficult question of how to deal with Ba'ath party members in future elections. I cannot stand the easy way out.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

elipson
22nd March 03, 06:28 PM
Dude, you're my new idol!!!
:)

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Sheol
22nd March 03, 07:16 PM
Wastrel:

Good summation. The U.N. isn't a world government, nor does it have innate international authority. It is merely a forum through which nations can conduct diplomatic negotiations and other inter-government business. The only authority it has is that which its member nations choose to exert through it. It was the replacement for the League of Nations which utterly failed to prevent World War II. It is a means, not an end.

Individual Iraqis must regain self-determination, but it should be understood that other nations, such as the United States, will have a vested interest in the country's social, political, and economic health. Another tyranny, whether by a secular or religious authority, should not be permitted by Iraqis. The U.S. made mistakes in rebuilding Japan's political system, but it shows that reconstruction can create a stable and prosperous nation. There are just so many difficult questions as to how this can best be done. We had better not walk away from Iraq, otherwise it will certainly be dominated by its neighbors or fall into the hands of ideological extremists.

The Wastrel
22nd March 03, 09:07 PM
Yeah, good point. One lesson to learn from Japan: if you're going to establish a democracy DO NOT allow a SNTV MMM electoral system.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Boyd
22nd March 03, 11:41 PM
One lesson to learn from Japan: if you're going to establish a democracy DO NOT allow a SNTV MMM electoral system.

*makes a mental note to never, EVER let those SNTV MMM bastards in charge*

They don't call it the Nazi PARTY for nothing!

The Wastrel
23rd March 03, 01:22 AM
Good job Boyd, I love a protege!

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

The Wastrel
23rd March 03, 01:27 AM
I was purposefully vague.

SNTV=single non-transferable vote

And I mistyped, I should have typed MMD, MMM is something else.

MMD=multi-member district

To summarize, a multi-member district is an electoral district in which there is more than one elected seat. So imagine a congressional district with 4 representatives. Now, imagine that you have one vote in an election, but that each party is running 5 candidates. If you vote for a member of the Liberal Democratic Party who has already exceeded the number of votes he needs to secure office, your vote is wasted; it is not credited to another LDP member. This means that parties seek to max/min vote totals in as many candidates as possible. They way to do that is for each candidate to target narrow and specific interest groups that can deliver on votes and campaign funds. But because many candidates from the same party are competing against one another in the same district, they cannot differentiate themselves from one another on the basis of policy. Instead, it becomes how much money can each candidate deliver to his particular interest groups. Imagine the consequences...

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Pandinha
23rd March 03, 09:49 PM
Posted on another board by a fellow MA's nickname Lady Mischief.

I think a little more background than just the Gulf War is in order.. it might be a bit of a read but well worth it.. A bit of a timeline...

Saddam grew up relatively poor in a small village in north-central Iraq. Well-read and tough.


Late 1950's: He joined the Baath Socialist Party, their goal is to rebuild the entire Arab region and improve life for all. Saddam fits in well being well read and open-minded.. he's a born leader.

1968 - Baath Party seizes control of government in Iraq, Saddam becomes the power behind the Revolutionary Command council. Through the 70's he spends his time as the Vice Chairman of the council, orchistrates a nation-wide literacy project, builds schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals.

He gets tired of having to share power with the council, decides to take some steps... culminating on July 22, 1979. He invites council members and party members to a Baghdad conference hall. Wearing his military uniform he comes in claiming there's been a betrayal, a Syrian Plot. Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, council secretary-general shows up and confesses involvement in the plot. He'd been tortured beforehand and starts naming names. 60 "traitors" are detained. 22 of those singled out were executed (their mouths were taped shut so they wouldn't yell in front of the firing squad). Videotapes of the event were circulated and Saddam was uncontested leader of Iraq.

Between 1981-1982 over 3000 Iraqis were executed with little more excuse than Saddam's word.

Another example of Saddam's "personality". Lt.-Gen. Omar al-Hazzaa was overheard speaking badly of Saddam in 1990. Not only was he sentenced to execution, but his tongue was cut out prior to his death. His son was also executed, and Saddam had his home bulldozed, leaving his wife and the rest of his children homeless.

Saddam has made it manditory that every Iraqi official must read a 19-volume official biography of Saddam. He's very vain, petty, but well-read. One of his favorite historical figures is Winston Churchill.

I hear these people talking about how awful this war is.. but think about what kind of man SADDAM is. Not that anyone is surprised. Think about what he did to the Kurds in 1988. He staged a 3-day attack in the town of Halabja. Poison gasses killed as many as 5000 Kurds. Most died where they stood. He used a bunch of chemicals, mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX. Not only did these chemicals kill people, they polluted the environment and caused genetic problems and defects for everyone who was involved/lived there afterwards (the effects are STILL felt there today and seen in the high number of birth defects in children in the area). He took one of most fertile areas of his country and turned it into a wasteland for an insult these people supposedly imposed on him. They backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and not him.

I'm not sure if any of you know what these gasses do. I'll give you a bit of an idea of some of the agents Saddam is supposed to have and what EXACTLY they do.

Anthrax: Causes fever, septic shock, difficulty breathing, death in 24-72 hours. He declared 85,000 litres of it.

BOtulinum Toxin (a form of botulism): Causes blurred vision, difficulty swallowing, paralysis, respiratory failure, death in as few as 24 hours. He declared 380,000 litres of it.

Aflatoxin: Causes hemmorrhage, convulsions, coma, liver cancer, death. He declared 2,200 litres of it.

Gas Gangrene: Causes tissue death, shock, kidney failure, coma, often death, is painful. He declared 3,400 litres of it.

VX Nerve gas: Disrupts nervous system, causes convulsions, respiratory paralysis, death. He declared 4 tonnes of it (intelligence suggests he has over 200 tonnes).

Sarin Gas: Attacks nervous system, paralyzes muscles used for breathing, can cause death within minutes. He declared 100-150 tonnes of it (intelligence estimates he has up to 350 tonnes)

Mustard Gas: As a liquid, it causes skin and eye burns and blisters. As an inhalent, it can cause long term respiratory disease and cancer. He claimed 500-600 tonnes of it, intelligence suggests he has upward of 800 tonnes of it.


This is the man that planned during the Gulf war to capture american soldiers, tie them to his tanks and drive right into Saudi Arabia because he was confident the americans wouldn't kill their own. He said it was a sign of weakness.

I'll leave those thoughts with everyone tonight. Take them as you will. Enjoy, and sleep tight.

SLJ
24th March 03, 04:37 AM
What a lovely chap he is.

And some people want to leave him to his own devices.

----------------------------------------------------------
Space may be the final frontier,
But it's made in a Hollywood basement.