Iraq War: an advanced political analisys

[Daishiman]

It seems to me that a lot of peopel are misinformed ocnerning the matters of the war against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

First of all, I'll clarify that I'm not an American. I'm not a leftists, I'm not a righitst; I'm just a guy that is tired of bullshit and wants to clarify some things.

I'm not going to accept stupoid and moronic replies. If you want to debate this here, then bring up facts and truths and reasonable arguments. AND READ WHAT I TYPE. Otherwise this will be pointless.

And let some thing be known: I hate saddam, but a war against Iraq is somethign i can't support for the following:

-First Argument for the war: Iraq represents a threat to the world

On the surface this seems like a fairly reasonable argument.
But let's think about this for a second: The US has enough nuclear capacity to destroy the world 100 times over. China and Russia have pretty much the same. Pyongyang of Korea wants to develop technology to do this.
So what threat does Iraq represent to the world in comparison to these other behemoths?
The answer the Bush adminstration replies is that he has weapons of mass destruction.

But how can they know and not tell the Security Council?
Resolution 1441 specifies that all member states MUST provide data about WMD on Iraq, otherwise they're in breach themselves.
So if the US had the data, then why not give it to the weapons inspectors so that they could inspect?

The answer is: because chances are Iraq has no WMD at all. It's illogical for the US to claim they have evidence (which seems rather dubious by the way) adn not give it away. Hence, the only conclusion we can draw here is that the US wanted this war.

-Second argument: Saddam is an evil man who has killed his own people and represents a threat to the Iraqis themselves

This is probably a very honest argument.

But there lies a disgusting truth behind it: the US knew what Iraq was doing, and supported Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

That site contains good information on how the US gave Iraq the very weapons it needed to fight Iran and gas Kurds, so I won't go into detail there.

Also, remember that soon after the Gulf War, Iraqis were actually rebelling aginst Saddam! That was great!

But what did the US do?

It helped Hussein crush the rebellion.

If anything, the reason Iraq is not democratic, is because the US has consistently aided Saddam at crushing his enemies, and only soon, (specifically in the year 2000, when Iraq switched to Euros to trade oil) has the Bush administration decided to take special attention to Saddam.


On a more legal issue, it seems many are forgetting international law. The American invasion violates article 51 of the UN charter, and also many parts of the Nuremberg convention.
And let's be honest: Iraqis haven't been receiving the US army with flowers and dancing on the streets, as Rumsfield said. Actually, if you've read international press, you'll have read that the Iraqis, while they hate Saddam, hate invasions worse. If anything, this invasion allows Saddam to untie many factions into one to drive out a common enemy.

Consider this: would you like your country to be overrun by peopel who seems to be there just to take your natural resources and impose their ways over yours?
Chances are you'll be reaching for a gun to drive out invaders.


Now let's talk about the USA a little but.

Ah the US, land of the free, home of the brave.

Or is that true?

Bush's claims that Saddam is evil are contradictory to none but Bush himself. He has supported scum as bad or worse than hussein.

Did you know the CIA overthrew a democratic Iran government in the 50s?

Did you know the USA is the only country convicted of terrorist charges by the World Court for deliberately attacking civilian targets in Nicaragua?

Did you know the US supported the dictatorship of Pinochet, leader of Chile in the 1980s?

Can you really trust these guys to set up a democracy on iraq, given how much they hate free thought?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This site (supported by the chicken hawks in the Bush administration) openly admits that the US government desires a unipolar world where it's their way or bust. If you haev an ounce of brain, you'll realize that nobody wants the wretched leadership of a man who went AWOL for a year and a half (that's mister Bush), or a man whose company has just won a contract to rebuild iraq (Mr. cheney, coincidence?), or a man who wants the police to deny you the right to a trial, and to end the right to privacy between an attorney and his client (Mr. Ashcroft)?

this war only incites hatred against the US. Hatred that will carry over to more terrorism, in an ever ending cycle that will inspire people to kill themselves in the name of what you believe is right.

If you know what's right, you'll realize that only through peaceful ways, such as lettin gthe inspectors find those damn WMD and thus let the entire world, and not just one country, take the matters into the hands.

And if not, you can expect Arabs to take arms, declare a jihad, and kill everything you hold dear.

Just because a few men in power want even more power and wealth.

Do yourself a favor and reclaim you Constitution, reclaim international law, and above all, reclaim peace.

I'm open to all intelligent rebuttals.

Here are some sites you might find interestingg:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
http://www.omjp.org//ArtLarryDisobey.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=368408
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/23/wls-goldin.php

[DrNaste]

first off, thanks to Daishiman for starting a thread that will (hopefully) only bring intelligent discussion. He has put forth his point and provided legitimate, although very disturbing, proof.

I think it is very important to realize one very important thing, because I have seen plenty of people on this barod continually prove that they don't yet. This important thing is that everyone here is against Saddam Hussein and everyone here would like to see him out of power. This includes all of the pro-war side and I would say upwards of 97% of the anti-war side.

The main point of disagreement is on how this goal should be accomplished. I'm not trying to put up a suggestion, because I am hard pressed to find one. War is the most obvious solution, and it is one that I am sure I do not support due to the inevitable death that comes along with it (military and civilian).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that please leave the anti- and pro- war steretypes and insults at the door. We both want the same damned thing.

[shade]

On the surface this seems like a fairly reasonable argument.
But let's think about this for a second: The US has enough nuclear capacity to destroy the world 100 times over. China and Russia have pretty much the same. Pyongyang of Korea wants to develop technology to do this.
So what threat does Iraq represent to the world in comparison to these other behemoths?
The answer the Bush adminstration replies is that he has weapons of mass destruction.

None of the countries you listed have used their weapons of mass destruction other than the United States in world war 2 when the true destructive force had to be demonstrated to end the war. If those two bombs didnt get dropped, many many more people would have ended up dying from carpet bombings and brutal man to man combat. Iraq on the other hand, has displayed a willingness to use his WMD, more than once. Not to mention, for countries like the US, we get a new administration every 4-8 years and our representatives are replaced or re elected every 2-6 years. So really, the current americans cant be blamed for actions in the past more than maybe 10-20 years ago because its an entirely different government.

So if the US had the data, then why not give it to the weapons inspectors so that they could inspect?

We did give a lot of data. Even some satelite photos. Powell gave a one hour presentation if you dont recall. We didnt reveal all of our info because we knew that the UN wouldnt be willing to go all the way and we didnt want to give up our intel abilities in the event we did (and did) go to war.

But there lies a disgusting truth behind it: the US knew what Iraq was doing, and supported Saddam.

We knew that Iran took american hostages and was an extreme islamisist state, where Iraq at the time was highly secular. Saddam was the lesser of the two evils. Also I would like to point out, at that time he wasnt as evil as he is now, and as soon as he used chemical weapons against Iran we stopped support and tried to distance ourselves from him. Then he invaded Kuwait, and we directly opposed him. Bill clinton shook hands with arafat, does that mean he supported palestenian suicide bombings? Pictures may tell a thousand words... that doesnt mean they are true.

Also, did you read your link? Iraq was using chemical weapons before the USA got involved. Here are some nice quotes from it.

On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq.
Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries.
"On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party." (the UN pussyfooting)

Im halfway through and thats really long and I want to finish this post some time tonight. That link is a <great> site in the defense of the US. Thanks for giving it to me.

and only soon, (specifically in the year 2000, when Iraq switched to Euros to trade oil) has the Bush administration decided to take special attention to Saddam.

WRONG. Bill Clinton repeatedly Tomahawked targets in Iraq throughout his administration (many joked about how they tended to coincide with his own personal troubles). Want to know why Hillary Clinton hasnt joined the democrat anti war bandwagon? She personally agrees with her husband (before he sold out because bush won).

On a more legal issue, it seems many are forgetting international law. The American invasion violates article 51 of the UN charter, and also many parts of the Nuremberg convention.

Nope, technically when we pulled out of Iraq after liberating Kuwait that was a cease fire. We have been enforcing the cease fire with the no fly zones since the gulf war. We are simply resuming agression now, legally speaking.

Consider this: would you like your country to be overrun by peopel who seems to be there just to take your natural resources and impose their ways over yours?
Chances are you'll be reaching for a gun to drive out invaders.

Thank god the US isnt there for that reason, and many Iraqis know that. Once the Fedahiim Sadaam has been removed and the Iraqi people can act without worrying about his secret police, well see their true feelings. They will be free and able to set up a new government... a representative government will help prevent us just making a puppet. Hopefully we wont be staying there too long and will let them be on their own asap.

Bush's claims that Saddam is evil are contradictory to none but Bush himself. He has supported scum as bad or worse than hussein.

Did you know the CIA overthrew a democratic Iran government in the 50s?

Did you know the USA is the only country convicted of terrorist charges by the World Court for deliberately attacking civilian targets in Nicaragua?

Did you know the US supported the dictatorship of Pinochet, leader of Chile in the 1980s?

Can you really trust these guys to set up a democracy on iraq, given how much they hate free thought?

Did you know that we elect a new government every 2 years? Did you know that all of your points are 100% null and void because there are completely different people running the government? Did you know that we are the longest standing powerful nation in the world because of that? That also means we have a longer history, which will include more blood, than any other modern nation. Bush himself didnt support anything you just listed, neither did I, or most americans. That is also why the CIA has had MANY more restrictions placed on them.

or a man whose company has just won a contract to rebuild iraq (Mr. cheney, coincidence?)

Halliburton rebuilt Kuwait after the Gulf War. Let me guess, that was a conspiracy too? I guess instead we should use slaves and not pay anyone to rebuild Iraq. We should just leave them on their own right? We certainly shouldnt pay people for work though, that would be called capitalism, which is the devil.

or a man who wants the police to deny you the right to a trial, and to end the right to privacy between an attorney and his client (Mr. Ashcroft)?

Only if are an enemy combatant not a US citizen... yeah... who cares?

this war only incites hatred against the US. Hatred that will carry over to more terrorism, in an ever ending cycle that will inspire people to kill themselves in the name of what you believe is right.

We shall see... hopefully you are wrong though. From what my arabic friends (from the UAE, Iran, and Kuwait) say, if we handle this well, we will come out much better than if we did nothing.

If you know what's right, you'll realize that only through peaceful ways, such as lettin gthe inspectors find those damn WMD and thus let the entire world, and not just one country, take the matters into the hands.

Find, yeah. You just made my point that I have said everywhere. They are there to watch Iraq declare and destroy weapons, not chase mobile weapons labs, be denied access to Sadams palaces, not be allowed to interview scientists while their families are out of the country, etc. That is the job for a US Marine, not a guy in a pin stripe suit.

And if not, you can expect Arabs to take arms, declare a jihad, and kill everything you hold dear.

Have you heard of any terrorists from Kuwait or United Arab Emirates? Nope. Want to know why? They are as technologically, politically, and economically advanced as we are. They are busy enjoying life and the benefits of their work that they earn. Once shithole countries like Iraq have such opportunities, they will be to busy with their enjoyable day to day lives to try to kill the great white satan.

Do yourself a favor and reclaim you Constitution, reclaim international law, and above all, reclaim peace.

Yeah, unfortanetly liberal judges keep writing laws and democrats are raping the constitution with Estrada.

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by shade



We did give a lot of data. Even some satelite photos. Powell gave a one hour presentation if you dont recall. We didnt reveal all of our info because we knew that the UN wouldnt be willing to go all the way and we didnt want to give up our intel abilities in the event we did (and did) go to war.


If we Gave so much data then why couldn't the UN find anything? And if we were certain they would find something why the rush to war?


As far as the Cease fire thing, I am sure one could look up several examples of countries that we only technically have only a cease-fire with. 10yrs is prob adequate time for a statute of limitations on permission for war.

Originally posted by shade


Halliburton rebuilt Kuwait after the Gulf War. Let me guess, that was a conspiracy too? I guess instead we should use slaves and not pay anyone to rebuild Iraq. We should just leave them on their own right? We certainly shouldnt pay people for work though, that would be called capitalism, which is the devil.

You don't see the conflict of interest here? The #2 guy in charge of blowing crap up benefits directly from the rebuild? So if his company wants to keep a certain building intact and instead of bombing it we go in with troops is that oK?

Originally posted by shade


Only if are an enemy combatant not a US citizen... yeah... who cares?

Have you read much as to what the "Homeland security acts" entail? basically anyone domestically can be held without charges or right to council. I can't beleive our government so blatenly defied the constitution.



Originally posted by shade



Have you heard of any terrorists from Kuwait or United Arab Emirates? Nope. Want to know why? They are as technologically, politically, and economically advanced as we are. They are busy enjoying life and the benefits of their work that they earn. Once shithole countries like Iraq have such opportunities, they will be to busy with their enjoyable day to day lives to try to kill the great white satan.

Can't argue there, but the old adage of attracting more flies with honey than vinegar holds true here.




Very insightfull post Daishiman I agree with you on most points. Shade I hear alot of what you are saying but I think in some things propaganda has muddled your ideas.

Seems like all who have posted so far in this link have an understanding of the situation (despite opposing viewpoints)that is well beyond the grasp of most of my fellow Americans.

[shade]

10yrs is prob adequate time for a statute of limitations on permission for war.

No, we have been actively, almost daily, destroying targets in Iraq since the "end" of the gulf war. The cease fire is entirely up to us.

If we Gave so much data then why couldn't the UN find anything? And if we were certain they would find something why the rush to war?

Because the info we gave the world is public. Iraq then knows what we know they have and where it is. It is then moved before the inspectors get to it. We were certain they would not find anything, which is why we had to go to war. Only through Marine inspectors will these things be found. If we went your route the inspectors would be run in circles for years; years that saddam could sell to terrorists and kill thousands of americans.

You don't see the conflict of interest here? The #2 guy in charge of blowing crap up benefits directly from the rebuild? So if his company wants to keep a certain building intact and instead of bombing it we go in with troops is that oK?

Dick Cheney is a multi millionaire. After this term is done he will resume his retirement. This doesnt benefit him. Have you actually looked at the numbers? For example, Halliburton is going to build a POW prison that is to house 2000-4000 people for $9.7 million. Halliburton is a multi billion $ corporation. They shit 9.7 mil in their morning dump. That is an extremely good deal for a prison. Halliburton like any business has costs. Its not like the materials and personel appear out of no where. They will end up making a very very small profit, especially if you consider the scale of such a business.

Have you read much as to what the "Homeland security acts" entail? basically anyone domestically can be held without charges or right to council. I can't beleive our government so blatenly defied the constitution.

I have read the bill, and you can too online with the library of congress. And.. upon doing so you shall see that you are incorrect. Also, that bill was passed almost unanimously by the senate, house, and supreme court. You cant play politics with it.

Can't argue there, but the old adage of attracting more flies with honey than vinegar holds true here.

Hopefully the sweet sweet honey of successful and happy lives will keep them busy and they wont become terrorists.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate non flaming posts.

[shade]

yeah, unfortunately ive got to admit that lots of pro war people make me cringe when i see them talk with poor methods.

[MikeW924]

I couldn't agree more with the civilized post thing, Shade. Please stop the stupidity with Riki. By the way, are you a veteran too?

[shade]

No Im not. Until they make unmanned/remote piloted fighter jets and bombers a more common and advanced thing, I can best help this nation in the private sector of technology and supporting our troops.

I do however have several friends in the military. An army quarter master (38/40), two regular marines (37/40 and 38/40), two special forces marines (one being 7 foot 2 and 260 lbs of muscle, 40/40 with M16, wanted to be sniper, but too tall), and a tank commander in the reserves (swat team in houston full time job). My best friends dad retired from the Air force as a Colonel, his brother is the tank commander. Im sure you can see why I support them so strongly.

[shade]

Riki really just pissed me off earlier... now i disregard what he says because I know he is just a kid starving for attention. What better way to get attention than to impersonate a member of the opposing military on a mostly pro war messageboard?

[MikeW924]

Of course, I support the people still in. But please, everyone, don't confuse supporting our country with militant agression! I love the country but hate the leadership. I love the military but hate what they are ordered to do. I love the innocents in Iraq but hate their leader. Is there anyone out there who is also on the fence?

[shade]

Some are similar to your view, but none on this board are veterans with the same view (that ive seen at least). I personally agree with the president on this, and know that my friends can hold their own, and are willing to do the job. However the protestors do bother them... I have to constantly remind them that the protestors are only a very small minority. My biggest fear is that they will be distracted and their fighting will be impaired by the protests.

[shade]

riki riki riki... stop breaking the rules..

[MikeW924]

One of the things that scares me the most is how ready all the Americans on this board are to ignore or throw out the basic constitutional rights that make me proud to live here, such as the right to free speech and the right to peacably assemble for protest. In the words (paraphrase) of a famous veteran, "I may not agree with the words you say but I will defend to the death your right to speak them." I think that anyone who tries to silence the protest in the name of keeping the morale up for the troops or for any other reason is the true anti-American.

[SSV]

Originally posted by MikeW924
One of the things that scares me the most is how ready all the Americans on this board are to ignore or throw out the basic constitutional rights that make me proud to live here, such as the right to free speech and the right to peacably assemble for protest. In the words (paraphrase) of a famous veteran, "I may not agree with the words you say but I will defend to the death your right to speak them." I think that anyone who tries to silence the protest in the name of keeping the morale up for the troops or for any other reason is the true anti-American.

We could just start a vicious cycle here...I can't express my opinion that I believe the protesting is doing more bad than good, and in turn you say I'm anti-american, but you can voice your opinion against the war and say that I'm anti-american and thats your freedom of speech? That makes no sense at all...you're basically saying your just as anti-american as anyone, becuase you want to silence the people protesting the protestors...I know its a little confusing, but do you see what I'm saying?

[BlueMind]

Originally posted by Rikimaru
I consider marines to be suicidal if they expect to take Baghdad.
That's bound to happen. It'll be another Somalia.
The Iraqis will probably be in 2-3 man snipeing, machine gunning, or artillery groups. You can't waste bombs on a group of 2-3 people. This, in turn, will lead to street fighting. As much as I hate to say it, it will be a mass slaughter.
-Bluemind.

[MikeW924]

Whew! I see what you're saying.... that's a fun little bit of unintentional irony there. I don't think that anti-war protests are going to cause any degradation in combat efficiency, and I think people should be free to protest. Beyond that, I think that all should express their opinions freely without resorting to name calling. I just wanted to make people think about what they were asking for when they wanted the protests to stop, or when they wanted the protestors to be punished or deported.

[Lenin's Corpse]

Riki don't you realize that civilian casualties are virtually gauranteed in war? And there is already evidence that sadaam ordered his soldiers to get into US uniform and shoot other soldiers to make us look bad. Some of our soldiers may have accidently killed innocents but the iraqi soldiers are the murderers not us.

[SSV]

Although I have strong feelings against war protestors, I'm not into punishing anti-war protestors or deporting them, thats the beauty of the country we live in.

[shade]

Mike, im not against their right to protest. I am one of those people that likes to attend the anti war protests to show onlookers and media that there is another side to the story. I tend to make the anti war protestors look really bad when they try to debate me because they tend to degrade to shouting out of frustration thinking that louder = more correct. 95% of the protestors are idiots trying to be a part of a fad. Fortunately most of those idiots dont post here and only the smart opposition has the attention span to talk here.

Heck, im hosting a support our troops march on April 10th at UNT in Denton TX. This is a non-partison and non-political rally purely to show support for our troops. It is being sponsored by the republican club... we invited the democrat club, but their president said "not a chance in hell." We will though be having lots of random students and the ROTC Color guard, local veterans, families with soldiers and wont be open for political debate (usually we debate for hours when we put on things like liberal iraq rallies).

[shade]

Riki, our army has killed 100s of your soldiers. Our tanks are vastly superior to your out of date soviet tanks. We get 3 shots for every 1 of your shots, and the reactive armor we use is very resistant to your stuff. Umm yeah and Al Jazeera has reported the coalition killing hundreds of your troops.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by BlueMind
That's bound to happen. It'll be another Somalia.
The Iraqis will probably be in 2-3 man snipeing, machine gunning, or artillery groups. You can't waste bombs on a group of 2-3 people. This, in turn, will lead to street fighting. As much as I hate to say it, it will be a mass slaughter.
-Bluemind.

You're making the Somalia comparison based off of "Black Hawk Down" aren't you? Using movies as a basis of argument is the hallmark of a young, unrefined thinker.

The marines won't be inserted into Bagdhad in little fire teams like in Mogadishu. In addition, they will be backed up by their own heavy armor and an entire heavy division form the amry, not to mention close air support. Sure, the US will have casualties, but you are just plain wrong if you think the US will not take Baghdad in a lopsided battle, like every other battle with Iraq.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Rikimaru
I didn't say your soldiers killed civilians. Your soldiers haven't killed anybody. Your PILOTS are the ones slaughtering women and children by the thousands.

Our ground forces have killed plenty of Iraqi ground forces. You really hate airpower, don't you? Maybe if Iraq acted in a resposible manner in the last 25 years, they would have a decent air presence as well.

[shade]

Maybe if instead of building hundreds of expensive palaces for himself he spent that money for <legal> weapons development like air planes, he would have an air force.

Fortunately, he just bought a couple jets from France, which suck.

[chris_78660]

regardless, we would have still owned the skies...
no matter what planes he could try to build, they would have all been destroyed in a 30 minute "shock and awe" attack on the first night...

[HiggsB]

Thank you for this thread its the best one ive seen on this site.
will reply again]
Peace the HiggsB

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by shade
Maybe if instead of building hundreds of expensive palaces for himself he spent that money for <legal> weapons development like air planes, he would have an air force.

Fortunately, he just bought a couple jets from France, which suck.

or maybe he could have done something really crazy with that money and maybe... um I don't know done something to IMPROVE the lives of his people? like food?

If the US was trying to kill civillians you would know it, RIki there would just be a few burning piles of debris left in Bagdad.

on a side note did anyone else notice the change in reports from our government. At first all we heard was how fast this was gonna be over, now they are saying that all along they told us it would take some time. very amusing

[BlueMind]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You're making the Somalia comparison based off of "Black Hawk Down" aren't you? Using movies as a basis of argument is the hallmark of a young, unrefined thinker.

The marines won't be inserted into Bagdhad in little fire teams like in Mogadishu. In addition, they will be backed up by their own heavy armor and an entire heavy division form the amry, not to mention close air support. Sure, the US will have casualties, but you are just plain wrong if you think the US will not take Baghdad in a lopsided battle, like every other battle with Iraq.

No, I'm not making the comparison based on the movie. Hollywood never gets anything right. I've researched the subject.
Although, the comparison I did make, refering to what actually happened, is about the mass slaughter of troops.

The Iraqis aren't stupid. They know that they can't meet a direct assault. The logical course of action would be to hide in civilian places. Since there are plenty of civilians still in the area, the U.S. will not be able to bomb each and every house. If they do that, Iraq will end up like Chechnya. The will be forced to send infantry divisions. Like I said, this will lead to street fighting and there WILL be heavy casualties on the U.S. side.


Reminding you to think before blabbering,
-BlueMind.

[Daishiman]

Ok, first of all, thanks a lot for providing real answers without resoting to name calling, showimg me that this is pretty much a hihgly civilized board.

second, I won't be replying to pelies to my post quote yet because I'm sort of busy at the moment, however I'll throw in some more stuff into the debate:

Continuing the argument that this is done to protect Iraqis from their own dictator, there's even more to wonder there, considering that, sadly many places in the world are off much, MUCH worse.

Examples? Consider Saudi Arabia. If you thought Saddam's policies against dissenters was bad, then words won't be enough to decribe the repulsive state of the Arab government. A government where the unequal distribution of wealth in Iraq is nothing, since the leaders are many times richer than Saddam could ever be, yet the people far poorer than Iraqis.

Not only that, recently the Saudi police let little girls burn inside a fire in their school because they were not wearing proper religious attire. In Saudi Arabia, women still have to wear special clothing. People who don't prach Islam (with the exception of a few ultra-rich investors) can get punishments that can be considered as inhumane as the worst torture Iraq could give to its dissenters.

And while I don't like this comparison, Iraq is still a laic regime. Christians are the third larget minority (Tariq Aziz is a Christian), there is equalty of the sexes for the most part (women comprise 40% of professionals in Iraq), and aside from the heavy punishments for dissent, it's one of the most moderate countries in the Middle East when you compare them to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

NOw, for the American media, all I can tell you is, if you want to get truth, get it from people who have no real interest on the issue. Get South American press, South West Asian press, Japanese, New Zealander and Canadian press for truth. But don't go to Al-Jazeera or the American news media.

The American news empire is comprised of a half dozen ultra large conglomerates. General Electric is part of one of such, as well as other arms companies.

If you ask me, I wouldn't be getting my data on news reports that have as an objective to sell war.
Propaganda is extremely easy to create and extremely difficult to spot. It's not necessarily the data itself, but how it's presented.

Example: Halliburton, the company under command of Cheney, winner of the bid to rebuild Iraq, and stil under legal scruntiny for tax evasion, was shown on FOX (which has a load of economic interests on arms companies, as well as owned by PNAC's memebers). Instead of saying such things that I mentioned above, not only did it make claims on what it supposedly did, and said was Cheney's "old" company.

Media Bias isn't about what you report; it's about what you omit.

[Unregistered]

I think you should think before blabbering.

You don't think the US will blow up Iraqi homes that are being used by militia to shoot out of? Don't start hoping for mass US casualties yet my son.

The US Military isn't the same as the poorly trained, unmotivated remains of what once was the Soviet Army. Remember, we were all supposed to be scared of sending our men into Afghanistan too, because they beat the Soviets back in the 80's.

[Daishiman]

Well speaking of Afghanistan...

there's so much to say about it.

The first thing is that the US has no control of things outside of Kabul. The warlords are still there, the talban are still there, and not only that, but the Afghani government had WARNED the US that there was an attack coming over their way by the Talis. Wonder how come so few people know that.

Second is, the US army practically commited a mass genocide in Afghanistan. The country's been living by international aid for a long time. For an entire month (in winter; extremely harsh there) UN Food Program was stopped completely. The commission had been practically begging the US army to stop the bombings so it could feed a malnourished population which is now no longer available to even teh US's reach to get food. Not to mention the 2.5 million land mines there. You don't hear that much on American mass media, but belive me, on South America we hear it loud and clear.

[BlueMind]

Originally posted by Unregistered
I think you should think before blabbering.

You don't think the US will blow up Iraqi homes that are being used by militia to shoot out of? Don't start hoping for mass US casualties yet my son.

The US Military isn't the same as the poorly trained, unmotivated remains of what once was the Soviet Army. Remember, we were all supposed to be scared of sending our men into Afghanistan too, because they beat the Soviets back in the 80's.


If you have any common sense, which I highly doubt, you'll realize that calling in airstrikes against 2-3 people is quite stupid. Sure they can bomb 1, 10, or even 40 homes; but, they will end up destroying the city and leaving it in ruins, and not to mention the Civilian casualties that will result from this. It is illogical to bomb a building just to kill 2-3 enemies.
Also, the only reason the Soviets lost was because the untied states was helping the Mujahideen with supplies and weapons.
Oh, and log-in when you reply to my post, unless of course you're a coward. Are you a coward, yellah-belly?

Laughing at the extent of your idiocy,
-BlueMind.

[Bergs]

Well up until that last statement that was atleast an intelligent arguement

But anyway you said back on page two that the Iraqis arent stupid and will hide in civilian houses, and we wont bomb them, and marines will be sent in, and many will die.

But you forgot something the marines aren't stupid either. They wont just rush in. Right now they are in the process of surronding Baghdad, they will lay siege to it and make use of constant bombardments of known military targets until there is not a single one left. Then special forces will sneak in and take out strategically placed enemies before they knew what hit them lastly the marines will be sent in.

There will be casualties but not in the numbers you seem to be perdicting.

And this strategy is not cowardice (riki). Eliminating an enemies ability to do battle before sending troops in harms way is anything but cowardly, its down right brilliant.

[BlueMind]

Oops, that was a mistake. I accidentally put won instead of lost.

[Bergs]

Riki, if American military forces wanted to they could roll over baghdad and annihilate ever last saddam lover. This would come at a tremendous cost to both civilians and the US military, i never said that there would be no casualties, i am not as ignorant as you to think that we would have no casualties as you claim iraq has had none. It is much more intelligent, not cowardly dumbass, as well as mush more respectfull of human life to do it the other way.

[Bergs]

now you are being completely ignorant...go read the post again dumbass....I said that they will bomb KNOWN MILITARY TARGETS UNTIL THEY HAVE RUN OUT THEN THEY WILL STOP AND ONLY BOMB TARGETS OF OPPOTUNITY

And another thing... defeat in somalia? CLinton pulled us out because he, not America, just Clinton, had no balls. What were the kill ratios in that one batle that you base evrthing on...19 Americans killed (RIP brothers) and 800+ somalies killed

800+ to 19....hmmm I wonder who won

[BlueMind]

You know what's funny Ricky? You call this cowardly; but, you overlook the fake surrender stunt of the Iraqis and the Iraqis dressing in civilian clothes. Is this also not cowardly?

[Bergs]

Oh right you love Clinton because his backbone was so weak that he bent over backwards for people like you just so he could advance his political aganda. Then a real leader who stands up for what is right and decent and protects American interest shows up and he is the devil

i get it

and dont pull that stolen election bullshit. If you followed American politics you would understand that Gore (the loser) not bush demanded the multiple recounts and bush won every single one. He is the true president so get over it

[Bergs]

if you cant even name the state you obviously dont know what you are talking about and any opinion you have on the subject was obviously forced down your throat by some radical leftist anyway so who gives a shit. Secondly I thought you hate democracy so why the fuck do you care how an election works. Oh but wait please tell me you acually believe the Iraqi "election" results where saddam got 100% cause that would be funny shit

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Daishiman
It seems to me that a lot of peopel are misinformed ocnerning the matters of the war against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

First of all, I'll clarify that I'm not an American. I'm not a leftists, I'm not a righitst; I'm just a guy that is tired of bullshit and wants to clarify some things.

I'm not going to accept stupoid and moronic replies. If you want to debate this here, then bring up facts and truths and reasonable arguments. AND READ WHAT I TYPE. Otherwise this will be pointless.

And let some thing be known: I hate saddam, but a war against Iraq is somethign i can't support for the following:

-First Argument for the war: Iraq represents a threat to the world

On the surface this seems like a fairly reasonable argument.
But let's think about this for a second: The US has enough nuclear capacity to destroy the world 100 times over. China and Russia have pretty much the same. Pyongyang of Korea wants to develop technology to do this.
So what threat does Iraq represent to the world in comparison to these other behemoths?
The answer the Bush adminstration replies is that he has weapons of mass destruction.

But how can they know and not tell the Security Council?
Resolution 1441 specifies that all member states MUST provide data about WMD on Iraq, otherwise they're in breach themselves.
So if the US had the data, then why not give it to the weapons inspectors so that they could inspect?

The answer is: because chances are Iraq has no WMD at all. It's illogical for the US to claim they have evidence (which seems rather dubious by the way) adn not give it away. Hence, the only conclusion we can draw here is that the US wanted this war.

-Second argument: Saddam is an evil man who has killed his own people and represents a threat to the Iraqis themselves

This is probably a very honest argument.

But there lies a disgusting truth behind it: the US knew what Iraq was doing, and supported Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

That site contains good information on how the US gave Iraq the very weapons it needed to fight Iran and gas Kurds, so I won't go into detail there.

Also, remember that soon after the Gulf War, Iraqis were actually rebelling aginst Saddam! That was great!

But what did the US do?

It helped Hussein crush the rebellion.

If anything, the reason Iraq is not democratic, is because the US has consistently aided Saddam at crushing his enemies, and only soon, (specifically in the year 2000, when Iraq switched to Euros to trade oil) has the Bush administration decided to take special attention to Saddam.


On a more legal issue, it seems many are forgetting international law. The American invasion violates article 51 of the UN charter, and also many parts of the Nuremberg convention.
And let's be honest: Iraqis haven't been receiving the US army with flowers and dancing on the streets, as Rumsfield said. Actually, if you've read international press, you'll have read that the Iraqis, while they hate Saddam, hate invasions worse. If anything, this invasion allows Saddam to untie many factions into one to drive out a common enemy.

Consider this: would you like your country to be overrun by peopel who seems to be there just to take your natural resources and impose their ways over yours?
Chances are you'll be reaching for a gun to drive out invaders.


Now let's talk about the USA a little but.

Ah the US, land of the free, home of the brave.

Or is that true?

Bush's claims that Saddam is evil are contradictory to none but Bush himself. He has supported scum as bad or worse than hussein.

Did you know the CIA overthrew a democratic Iran government in the 50s?

Did you know the USA is the only country convicted of terrorist charges by the World Court for deliberately attacking civilian targets in Nicaragua?

Did you know the US supported the dictatorship of Pinochet, leader of Chile in the 1980s?

Can you really trust these guys to set up a democracy on iraq, given how much they hate free thought?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This site (supported by the chicken hawks in the Bush administration) openly admits that the US government desires a unipolar world where it's their way or bust. If you haev an ounce of brain, you'll realize that nobody wants the wretched leadership of a man who went AWOL for a year and a half (that's mister Bush), or a man whose company has just won a contract to rebuild iraq (Mr. cheney, coincidence?), or a man who wants the police to deny you the right to a trial, and to end the right to privacy between an attorney and his client (Mr. Ashcroft)?

this war only incites hatred against the US. Hatred that will carry over to more terrorism, in an ever ending cycle that will inspire people to kill themselves in the name of what you believe is right.

If you know what's right, you'll realize that only through peaceful ways, such as lettin gthe inspectors find those damn WMD and thus let the entire world, and not just one country, take the matters into the hands.

And if not, you can expect Arabs to take arms, declare a jihad, and kill everything you hold dear.

Just because a few men in power want even more power and wealth.

Do yourself a favor and reclaim you Constitution, reclaim international law, and above all, reclaim peace.

I'm open to all intelligent rebuttals.

Here are some sites you might find interestingg:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
http://www.omjp.org//ArtLarryDisobey.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=368408
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/23/wls-goldin.php

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by Bergs
Oh right you love Clinton because his backbone was so weak that he bent over backwards for people like you just so he could advance his political aganda. Then a real leader who stands up for what is right and decent and protects American interest shows up and he is the devil

i get it

and dont pull that stolen election bullshit. If you followed American politics you would understand that Gore (the loser) not bush demanded the multiple recounts and bush won every single one. He is the true president so get over it

Completely false. Bush is the worst thing for America in quite a while. He managed to turn the unprecendented coperation and support for the US after 9/11 into the current state of affairs where even canada is not supporting us. In just a year and a half. What a brilliant man. :rolleyes: The past election showed a failure in our Political system. Rigged votes aside Gore won the popular vote and should be president. Gore would have won the electoral as well but he challenged a recount in the wrong counties. And I suppose Bush's boy JEB had no part in this either?? WTF anyone with a relative named JEB has no business being president. Why not have a supreme court justice named Cletus....

[Nocturnal]

that state was Florida Ricki

Governor JEB Bush.

[shade]

Consider Saudi Arabia...A government where the unequal distribution of wealth in Iraq is nothing, since the leaders are many times richer than Saddam could ever be, yet the people far poorer than Iraqis.
Iraq per capita income: $2,500
Saudi Arabia per capita income: $10,600
WRONG, next please.

In Saudi Arabia, women still have to wear special clothing.
As with almost every other islamic nation; I guess we should overthrow governments just because they base their laws off something other than christianity?

And while I don't like this comparison, Iraq is still a laic regime. Christians are the third larget minority (Tariq Aziz is a Christian), there is equalty of the sexes for the most part (women comprise 40% of professionals in Iraq), and aside from the heavy punishments for dissent, it's one of the most moderate countries in the Middle East when you compare them to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
100% true. Im glad you pointed that out. At the time when the US directly backed Iraq, it was because of this. We thought he was a great leader of a modern government that would be an excellent example to other nations in the middle east. It wasnt until he showed his evil side that we turned on him (or he turned on us, by letting us down, however you want to see it). Due to the Iraqi culture, hopefully these attributes will carry over in the new government, but without the whole evil destroy the west, lets torture and rape political opposition part.

NOw, for the American media, all I can tell you is, if you want to get truth, get it from people who have no real interest on the issue. Get South American press, South West Asian press, Japanese, New Zealander and Canadian press for truth. But don't go to Al-Jazeera or the American news media.
There is no such thing no interest in this war. Sout America doesnt really like the US because in the past we screwed them up. Japanese media probably would be pretty fair. New Zealander would probably be slanted a bit, since Australia is directly supporting the war, Canadian press is extremely slanted against the war. If you want the truth, i recommend you get your info from both American/British, and Al Jazeera news. Between the three, you will get the truth. Crossreference them. Although Al Jazeera's will be hard as many (including myself) dont speak arabic (but ive got friends that do for me).