Iraqis? are they worth it
-
I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but just for the sake of argument, suppose I do. You still have to offer a better option. If invasion doesn't work, and sanctions don't work, what does? Most on the left appear to want to pursue an appeasement strategy. That is, try to understand what the Muslims are angry about and try our best to ease their concerns on those issues. But, once we start down that road, how far do we go? Even you have to agree that not every thing they are angry about is our fault, and much of it is simply a reflection of problems innate to their own culture. How much of that do we tolerate to try to get them to not be angry with us? I, for one, am happy to try it your way, but not until I have a concrete answer to that question. Where are you willing to draw the line and say - fuck it, give them the bayonet...? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: If invasion doesn't work, and sanctions don't work, what does? First, ending the support to dictatorships. Next, most of the dictatorships failed during the 20th century because of internal movements: most of South America, Spain, Portugal, USSR and its satellites, Greece, Serbia... So IMHO the best way is to help the people inside the country to liberate themselves: give to the people inside the means to be informed with radio and TV broadcastings, help the people outside to be heard, in case of a rebellion helping the rebels, using military if needed, even with a ground support as long as there is no occupation: democracies are not good in occupation, they can't deal with it. Stan Shannon wrote: try to understand what the Muslims are angry about Not all of them, far from that! This kind of generalization worsen the problem, creating a spirit of "them against us", a thing OBL is dreaming of. Stan Shannon wrote: Where are you willing to draw the line and say - f*** it, give them the bayonet...? When they attack 'us', for example, Afghanistan. I am fully supportive of the ousting of the Talibans who ruled the country and helped to attack the US. I would also like 'we' react in case of violations of any human rights, but I believe it is irrealist, and think foreign policy should be based on Realpolitik[^] rather than ethics or theories.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
Oh just the usual empire stuff ;) No, seriously, after the first world war, during which many of the arab nations sided with germany, they fell to the british and french as protectorates, in line with the versailles treaty of 1919. We, the french and british, arbitrarially drew lines on a map and created modern europe, and the middle east. I guess we fiddled with the politics, tried to set up a friendly dictator, or so. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: during which many of the arab nations sided with germany, they fell to the british and french as protectorates, in line with the versailles treaty of 1919. Nutnut. There was no arab nations before 1919, only the Ottoman Empire[^] and french, british and italian colonies . That's why the Brits promised to create one if the Arabs accepted to fight against the Turks. Of course, the Arabs weren't aware about the Sykes-Picot agreement... fat_boy wrote: We, the french and british, arbitrarially drew lines on a map and created modern europe I've got a map[^] from these days. It is slightly different than today's europe.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
kgaddy wrote: The Iraqis were hampering the inspections Look at the March, 7 2003 report[^], the last one made by Blix before the invasion: "On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more [...] Lethal weapons are being destroyed [...] There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991 [...] One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January". kgaddy wrote: _http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873019&nav=EyB0NBHX_ "Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to the Persian Gulf War", a time when Western Nations were supportive of SH, and helped him to build such weapons[^]. Many toxic ammunitions were used during the Iran-Iraq war. It is higly probable munitions from this period will be found, as after any conflict. For instance, in China, in August 2003, 1 man was killed and 43 were wounded by mustard gas bombs found on a building site. These bombs were japanese, made during WW2. In France, non explosed ammunitions in the ground (from WW1 and WW2) are estimated to 2 millions of tons. Toxic bombs are found every year in France and Belgium (in April, 20 tons of ammunitions were found in belgium, among them shells containing yperite). There is probably tons of toxic ammunitions still in the ground of the battlefields of the Iran/Iraq war. kgaddy wrote: _http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/18/115119.shtml_ This article talks about precursors, tha
K(arl) wrote: "Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to the Persian Gulf War", a time when Western Nations were supportive of SH, and helped him to build such weapons[^]. This one is the best. So, since it was made during the first gulf war the weapons were ok. This is insane. He was supposed to get rid of them, case close. It does not matter if they were made in 1776 and George Washington helped build them. The argument is not valid. K(arl) wrote: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/18/115119.shtml This article talks about precursors, that is any chemical which may be used to produce chemical weapons, but can also be used for many other things. There is no proof these chemicals were intended to be weaponized. Not true. Read the first paragrah. There was Sarin gas in a artillery shell. If that's not a weapon what is? It does talk about precursors only to support the means and now the proof of weapons. K(arl) wrote: A very bad analogy, IMO. in the Iraq case, policemen were in the House searching for a weapon, and the madman was under heavy surveillance, a gun on the head. No, the madman was stalling. Not letting the police look in every room. The madman was given a deadline, he did not comply.
-
kgaddy wrote: I believe he was trying to take a swing at the US. I was also 'taking a swing' at our country and many other western nations as well. Neither of them have a true democracy. They both try their best, but neither get it quite right, hence 'pseudo'. What is democracy when our government was elected by only 30-40% of the population, hence 60% of the country not being represented by them? I know this isn't going to change for a long time because it gives the government power, but it doesn't mean it's the right way to run a 'democratic' country.
Jonathan Newman blog.nonny.com [^]
You need to read my earlier post. THe US is not a democracy. We are a Republic. A true 100% democracy is very bad. Let me give an example. What if the US population voted to kill all Musliums and Jews and make it a Christian nation? What if it were 51% for and 49% against? In a true democracy this would be ok. The US is a Republic with some democratic traditions. It's a country of laws protecting the individuals. And your take on the electorial college is ill informed. To you understand why we have a electorial college? I think if you do some reading on it you would be more impressed. You seem to be somewhat interested in politics so I'm guessing that you would be interested. Jon Newman wrote: I know this isn't going to change for a long time because it gives the government power. How would the goverment lose power in a popular vote?
-
You need to read more history before you go spouting off you know. Kuwait was crerated by the alies as part of the versailles treaty. Before that it WAS part of Iraq. Ever heard the saying: 'The war to end all wars has resulted in a peace to end all peace'? If not you have now, think about it, it was said abouty the versailles treaty. Considder what drawing those borders did, and how difficult reshaping them has been. Look at Yugoslavia, Czechoslavika, Ukraine, Moldovia, Georgia, Chechnya. All problems associated with redrawing national borders created by the versailles treaty. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: You need to read more history before you go spouting off you know. Can you tell what in my post was not historically accurate? fat_boy wrote: Kuwait was crerated by the alies as part of the versailles treaty. Before that it WAS part of Iraq. Never found anything that said the treaty pulled Kuwait from Iraq. And even it it had, you justify Iraq for invading, raping and killing the Kuwaits? Your way off argument, and your answer is sick. Borders have been drawn in a lot of places and peace ensued. It's not the borders, its the hatred for the guy on the other sode of the border.
-
fat_boy wrote: during which many of the arab nations sided with germany, they fell to the british and french as protectorates, in line with the versailles treaty of 1919. Nutnut. There was no arab nations before 1919, only the Ottoman Empire[^] and french, british and italian colonies . That's why the Brits promised to create one if the Arabs accepted to fight against the Turks. Of course, the Arabs weren't aware about the Sykes-Picot agreement... fat_boy wrote: We, the french and british, arbitrarially drew lines on a map and created modern europe I've got a map[^] from these days. It is slightly different than today's europe.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
-
fat_boy wrote: You need to read more history before you go spouting off you know. Can you tell what in my post was not historically accurate? fat_boy wrote: Kuwait was crerated by the alies as part of the versailles treaty. Before that it WAS part of Iraq. Never found anything that said the treaty pulled Kuwait from Iraq. And even it it had, you justify Iraq for invading, raping and killing the Kuwaits? Your way off argument, and your answer is sick. Borders have been drawn in a lot of places and peace ensued. It's not the borders, its the hatred for the guy on the other sode of the border.
-
'Your way off argument, and your answer is sick' The statement that Kuwait was once part of Iraq is sick? Hmm, you have an interesting sense of the meaning of words. Nunc est bibendum!
-
fat_boy wrote: The statement that Kuwait was once part of Iraq is sick No, read it again. Your argument is based around Kuwait was once a part of Iraq so we should overlook the ivasion from Iraq.
'Your argument is based around Kuwait was once...' Hmm, not quite there is it, perhaps you should have tried: 'Your argument is based around the premise that (or 'the fact that', or 'the supposition that' ) Kuwait was once...' Is English your natural language or do you just find it difficult? BTW, I think I know what my argument was, not surprising really since I wrote it. Dont you think? Nunc est bibendum!
-
about your sister wrote: The program found three main factors causing the high rates among the Arabs: infections, home births, and diseases resulting from inbreeding. About 40 percent of Muslim and Druze women and 70 percent of Bedouin women in the region were found to be married to first—or second-degree relatives. You stop inbreeding and stop writing sh*t, you motherfu**ing dipsh*t.
-
is this for real ??[^] it was sponsored by Isreal but nonetheless... The lead article in the August issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal reports success in lowering infant mortality rates among Arabs in the Western Galilee. These rates being generally twice as high among Israeli Arabs as among Israeli Jews, by 2002 an Israeli health program launched in the late 1980s had lowered the rate among Western Galilee Arabs to about 1.5 that of the Jews in the area. The program found three main factors causing the high rates among the Arabs: infections, home births, and diseases resulting from inbreeding. About 40 percent of Muslim and Druze women and 70 percent of Bedouin women in the region were found to be married to first—or second-degree relatives.
I rekon its a pile of half arsed crap put out by Jews to discredit Arabs. There might be more 'inbreeding' in Arab societies but the statement: 'and terrorism in the Arab world suggest that inbreeding is one of the causes' is a real give away of what the author really wants us to think. Nunc est bibendum!
-
I rekon its a pile of half arsed crap put out by Jews to discredit Arabs. There might be more 'inbreeding' in Arab societies but the statement: 'and terrorism in the Arab world suggest that inbreeding is one of the causes' is a real give away of what the author really wants us to think. Nunc est bibendum!
-
'Your argument is based around Kuwait was once...' Hmm, not quite there is it, perhaps you should have tried: 'Your argument is based around the premise that (or 'the fact that', or 'the supposition that' ) Kuwait was once...' Is English your natural language or do you just find it difficult? BTW, I think I know what my argument was, not surprising really since I wrote it. Dont you think? Nunc est bibendum!
Actually I'm doing about three things at once. But I believe you should have gotten it without a verbose explaination. fat_boy wrote: BTW, I think I know what my argument was, not surprising really since I wrote it. Dont you think? Given that we were talking about a dictator, and what he has done to Kuwait. Then you go off explaining that Kuwait was apart of Iraq, am I not supposed to believe you were making excuses for Iraq's actions?
-
And when it starts to cost lives, lives of soldiers, lives of innocents, is it not better to walk away from it and wait till that society is capable of being 'modern'? Do we nuke them? No, we stop using oil, and seal those countries up. Dont go near them, dont trade with them, leave them to it. Let their society mature at its own rate rather than at a rate imposed by us. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: And when it starts to cost lives, lives of soldiers, lives of innocents, is it not better to walk away from it and wait till that society is capable of being 'modern'? First, the lives of soldiers are a non-issue. We have an all voluteer force of adults who freely chose to join. Their job desciption is to carry out the orders of the commander and chief. To suggest that any national policy should not be pursued becuase it might cost the lives of soldiers is ludicrous. Certainly, the lose of innocent civilians is an important factor. But as a vulnerable population, they were dieing before our invasion, and the civilian casualties now are overwhelmingly due to the actions of terrorists, not us. So I think that is a weak argument to make also. fat_boy wrote: Do we nuke them? No, we stop using oil, and seal those countries up. Dont go near them, dont trade with them, leave them to it. Let their society mature at its own rate rather than at a rate imposed by us. Well, ok, thats an option. But you seem to believe that can be done without as large a loss of innocent civilians as any other course of action. Such sanctions cannot help but greatly increase the loss of life amoung the very same vulnerable populations that we are now criticized for causing violence within. How likely are they to mature without exposure to the resouces of the world that the rest of us enjoy? It was purely by such free access to resources that we ourselves matured. How do we stop using oil? Even if there were economically viable options to fossil fuels, oil would still be competitive on the global market and would still serve as a source of revenue for those countries. So, unless you have a nuclear fusion reactor in your back pocket, I don't think we are likely to stop useing oil for a long, long time. And that is not the fault of George W. Bush, the oil companies, or the US in general. It is simply a fact of life. So, sorry, but I think your option is laughably ludicrous. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Diego Moita wrote: I am complaining about american solutions. They are not even meant to be solutions, so stop selling them as that. And you have every right to complain. The US does assert influence over people who have no power to democratically influence our policies. I certainly think I would be upset in the same situation. But, I think you are wrong that we (and by 'we' I mean even our federal representatives) do, in fact, believe that we are doing what is in the best general interest of the global community. Ironically, I think it is that very "do gooder" attitude which so often gets us into trouble. I absolutely believe, for example, that Bush and company actually went into Iraq with the best of intentions. To help the Iraqis to establish democracy and security. That is what has caused all the problems. If we had only been interested in the oil or whatever, the entire operation would have probably gone far more efficiently and would already be over. In other words, I think the world might be better off if we actually were what you percieve us to be - an unapologetic empire overtly trying to militarily control the resources of the world rather than a clumsy giant causing as many messes as it cleans up. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: If we had only been interested in the oil If this were the case we'd have had more people involved in Oil-for-Food scandals as well as other shady deals behind closed doors. A hell of a lot easier and cheaper than attacking and toppling a government. BW
Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore...
-
Actually I'm doing about three things at once. But I believe you should have gotten it without a verbose explaination. fat_boy wrote: BTW, I think I know what my argument was, not surprising really since I wrote it. Dont you think? Given that we were talking about a dictator, and what he has done to Kuwait. Then you go off explaining that Kuwait was apart of Iraq, am I not supposed to believe you were making excuses for Iraq's actions?
That you believed I was making excuses for Sadams behaviour is your mistake. Sadam, of course, was just a dictator, who, in full validation of the prmise detailed in the book 1984, kept Iraq in a state of war as a way of staying in power. So, having finished a war with Iran, he starts on Kuwait. Nunc est bibendum!
-
K(arl) wrote: "Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to the Persian Gulf War", a time when Western Nations were supportive of SH, and helped him to build such weapons[^]. This one is the best. So, since it was made during the first gulf war the weapons were ok. This is insane. He was supposed to get rid of them, case close. It does not matter if they were made in 1776 and George Washington helped build them. The argument is not valid. K(arl) wrote: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/18/115119.shtml This article talks about precursors, that is any chemical which may be used to produce chemical weapons, but can also be used for many other things. There is no proof these chemicals were intended to be weaponized. Not true. Read the first paragrah. There was Sarin gas in a artillery shell. If that's not a weapon what is? It does talk about precursors only to support the means and now the proof of weapons. K(arl) wrote: A very bad analogy, IMO. in the Iraq case, policemen were in the House searching for a weapon, and the madman was under heavy surveillance, a gun on the head. No, the madman was stalling. Not letting the police look in every room. The madman was given a deadline, he did not comply.
kgaddy wrote: So, since it was made during the first gulf war the weapons were ok No, this means this ammo wasn't made after GW1. It isn't then a proof there were CW (chemical weapons) produced after the end of the war As I said, there are CW buried in the ground of battlefields. We have then to know now if this ammo was stored by SH army or found. It is possible that terrorist network in Irak find search for such ammunitions to reuse them. kgaddy wrote: It does not matter if they were made in 1776 and George Washington helped build them Of xourse it matters. As said David Kay, “I think all of us have known that because of the sheer volume of artillery [containing agents like sarin that were in the Iraqi arsenal prior to the Gulf War] ... that there were likely to be some of these still around Iraq [...] But [the discovery] doesn't speak to the issue of whether weapons of mass destruction were still being produced in Iraq in the mid-1990s.” [^] kgaddy wrote: Read the first paragrah. There was Sarin gas in a artillery shell First, many questions remain on this shella>[^] Even according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." It wasn't found in an ammunition storage or in a bunker. Also, at that time Rumsfeld said that "the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done". I searched for a confirmation of this field test, and didn't find any.
fat_boy wrote: I've got plenty of opinions, if you don't like them I've got plenty more
