Jump to content

Menchise

Members
  • Posts

    1,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Menchise

  1. Boy am I glad I resigned from this thread before all Hell broke loose. More sleep for me.
  2. quote:We are the ONLY true Republic on this earthFrance, Germany, and Italy are just a few examples of what you would call 'true republics'. Then there are the republics with mostly figureheads of state, e.g. Canada, Australia, and Japan. quote:THe rest of the world, EU, Australia, Canada, etc ad nauseum, are a bunch of socialist, superpower wannabes who will tear us down at the first opportunity.The EU is not even a country; it's an economic bloc. It's like referring to the USA as NAFTA. For the last time, Australia is NOT a socialist country!!! Just ask any Australian leftist. Better yet, ask the Australian government and watch them laugh their asses off.
  3. So many posts, so little time (this is getting familiar). I think I'll resign from this thread before I start sleeping on the keyboard.
  4. If you want to argue for a middle ground, then give us some "unslanted/uncontrolled" information to support it, OK?
  5. quote:It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDsIs that all? The article has absolutely nothing substantial to say about WMD. It's just a bunch of baseless and inane opinions that the writer has pulled out of his ass. His idea of "evidence" is one ambiguous reference to "many experts". Experts in what? Archery?! quote:Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11Pencils News for Kids? Are you serious? That article leaves out so much it's not even regarded as real news. quote:One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists. Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDsYou seem to have completely ignored the parts of the Banfield-Aziz interview to which I referred. Why should I bother responding to your sources if you're going to ignore mine?
  6. quote:I see, so if some 20 year old kid, doesn't have a job, hates the Israelis, and cannot support his family. It's NOT an incentive to go blow himself up if Iraq is gonna pay his family $20,000 if he goes out and takes out a few Israeli civilians? $20,000 for your surviving family member is NOT an incentive?Would that 20 year old kid still do it if there was no money involved? I think so. The bombings are motivated by vengeance more than anything else. I think the money only has a marginal effect. quote:The point of the article though, was that Iraq is getting potentially dangerous items regardless of the sanctions.They could only do that if other countries were violating the sanctions. It's not that difficult to determine who is sending this stuff to the Iraqi authorities. The US government has known about this for a long time and allows it to happen, because any intervention would cause opposition to the sanctions from the trading partners that benefit from the smuggling. quote:The article proves that the sanctions are being subverted. The goods gained by subversion is obviously being used to help his military and WMD program since it ISNT helping the Iraqi people.It is not even remotely obvious! It is more likely that the items are being used to maintain the regime's crippled infrastructure, without which they cannot maintain control. My conclusion still stands. [ 07-28-2002, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
  7. quote:The Iraqis are FUNDING the suicide bombers in Israel, just like we said earlier on this topic. That's decent justification for attacking Iraq right there. Iraq is directly funding attacks on one of our allies and destabilizing a region. As for "articles" that support our claim.Iraq is not "funding" the suicide bombers: they don't supply bomb materials or the capital for producing bombs, and they're not paying the bombers to do anything (it's hard to spend money when you're dead). Iraq is giving financial compensation to the family. I have yet to see any substantial argument indicating that such payments are incentives. quote:Sanctions aren't hurting his militaryThat article refers to dual-use items; some specific examples included chlorine and organo-phosphates, which are common industrial chemicals (chlorine for water treatment, organo-phosphates for insecticides). The article doesn't mention that graphite is also 'dual-use', probably because they don't want to sound too ridiculous (graphite is used in pencils), as if banning chlorinators isn't ridiculous enough. The article also makes a vague reference to "high-precision machine tools, which are ideal for weapons manufacturing" What the article doesn't say is that high-precision machine tools (which include such "suspicious" items as metal-cutting saws, lathes, punchers, pressbrakes, grinders, and shears) are also "ideal" for building anything that has shaped metal parts (e.g. cars). Let's not forget the "heavy construction equipment and other vehicles ideally suited for rebuilding and mobilizing the Iraqi military machine", such as cranes, excavators, loaders, forklifts, rollers, trenchers, and - the most "suspicious" of them all - dump trucks. This is a farce. The only reason why these items are impossible to track - by US intelligence of all people - is because they're not approved by the UN Security Council. Hint hint hint. Everything that is approved has been tracked effectively by UN monitors. Since a lot of these items are essential for civilian use - unless you don't think clean drinking water is essential - it would make more sense to approve them so they can be tracked. If, after doing that, similar items are still being smuggled, then there might be a case against the Iraqi authorities. I'll respond to the rest later.
  8. quote:Geez, I thought this thread had dies decent death, and then our man Menchise has to go and resurrect it.Dredd resurrected it. My post was a reply to his.
  9. quote:The very obvious reason why we aren't providing these articles you are is because if you turn on the news, you'll see government officials or news services providing evidence and giving statements putting Saddam somewhere between "a rogue nation" to "the most serious threat to our national security".If there are so many sources, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a few. I've already run around on one occasion earlier in this thread, looking into equivalent articles that you have vaguely referred to, and responded to them promptly (none of them convincingly supported your argument). quote:Turn on "On location" at about 2:00 AM EST....I think it's on one of the networks, and it's on after Chris Matthews: Hardball on weekdays. It's been on daily for the past week talking about how when Saddam's brother-in-law defected he told us that he has WMDs, and the government officials were making the same arguments we are. If Saddam didn't have anything to hide, he'd let weapons inspectors in.I don't receive MSNBC, so I went to the On Location website. I found nothing about a brother-in-law. The only relevant article I found was Ashleigh Banfield's interview with Tariq Aziz. on the 25th of July. I refer specifically to the parts of the interview where he discusses the WMD and weapons inspection issues.
  10. err...Hi! *Nick notices the airlock and tiptoes away with a wristlaser behind his back* [ 07-26-2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
  11. Wow. I didn't notice this thread before. Read ya later Ep5.
  12. I have provided sources throughout this thread, written by people who have been there in the middle of it, who contradict the argument that Iraq is a threat. I'm still waiting for you to provide something.
  13. quote:Actually, the eveidence overwhelmingly PROVES that Iraq is a threat, or soon will be. He has been trying to buy the tooling necessary to create a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy on the black market nuclear materials necessary for a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy missiles from China, Iran and others that are capable of carrying a payload the size of a nuclear weapon as far as Israel and other countries. His biological program is going great guns, and his chemical manufacturing capability is now up to par to where it was before the Gulf war.Give me a source. quote:Saddam had NOT abided by the UN peace agreement, or else there would be UN inspectors in Iraq inspecting for WMD weapons. Saddam is hiding his capabilities and has been hiding his capabilities. You have been listening to yourself too much.The evidence definitely contradicts that claim.
  14. quote:The anti-war movement in the US is a SMALL minority, they are also a bunch of throwbacks from the 60's as well as socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists etc.They were a small minority in the early years of Vietnam too. Then they became so large, and their opposition so disruptive to the system, that members of the elite in society started opposing the war too. quote:I don't really know who Khomeini is, but how is there not another people just like Khomeini now that they prefer Saddam to?Ayatollah Rumollah Khomeini was the leader of Iran (1979-89). quote:For some reason you seem to think that even *IF* your post is true, that it's somehow different from before the US invasion. At least there are more human rights under the current democratic government, and rights for women, as opposed to under the Taliban, which did at LEAST what is going on now.Here is another article worth reading: quote: Warlords bring new terrors The Observer (U.K.) Sunday, December 2, 2001 by Paul Harris in Chaman It is a hidden war that the world has ignored. But the chaos, rape, murder and pillaging that have swept southern Afghanistan are writ large on the faces of the fortunate few who escape. Abdul Abdullah was lucky. As an ethnic Pashtun living in a village near Herat, he fled the approach of the Tajik and Hazara forces which captured the city. He headed for the barbed-wire border with Pakistan. His cousin, Aziz Khan, was not so lucky. He and his wife Fatma went west toward Iran but did not make it. They and 20 other Pashtun families were stopped at a checkpoint, one of hundreds appearing across southern Afghanistan. The men, including Khan, were herded up into the mountains and shot. The young women were taken away. Abdullah will not say what he thinks happened to Fatma. But the truth seems obvious. 'I know they let most of the women go, but they kept the young and pretty ones like Fatma,' he said. The landscape Abdullah crossed on his trek south is a land of warring anarchy. In many areas Taliban forces are still in control, but in others local Pashtun warlords rule by rape, robbery and murder. Armed gangs rob and kill lorry drivers who are the economic lifeblood of the region. In the skies above US bombers seek targets to destroy. Noor Mohamed saw the effects of one of those missions. As a wheat trader plying between the Pakistani border town of Chaman and the Afghan city of Ghazni last week, he witnessed a terrible sight. Lying in a burnt-out, twisted mess just north of Kandahar were the smoking remains of a 15-lorry fuel convoy. The charred remains of the drivers and dozens of unfortunate souls who had bargained a lift from them was a sight Mohamed will not forget. 'I saw all the dead burnt people,' he said. 'How can you be a man if you don't feel something when you see that?' The south is the Pashtun heartland and the core of Taliban rule. The Northern Alliance, dominated by ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks, cannot march here. Instead, the Alliance and its Western backers are trying to persuade Pashtun tribal leaders and former mujahideen to revolt and overthrow a Taliban regime weakened by US bombing and the presence of 1,000 US Marines on a desert airstrip in the region. But the policy has created a vacuum of power. Into the void have flooded warlords, based over the border in the Pakistani city of Quetta, who ruled before the Taliban came. In the villages around Kandahar there is a name that provokes horror and fear. It is not Mullah Omar, nor is it Osama bin Laden. It is Gul Agha, the former mujahideen governor of Kandahar, whose tribal militia is backed and advised by the US. Ghlume Walli fled from Agha's men near his hometown of Khalat to a makeshift tent at the border. 'Gula Agha's men would have robbed me even of these water bottles,' he said, holding up two dirty plastic cartons filled with brown water. His friend Mohamed Sami agreed. He had been herding his cattle near Khalat when Agha's militia stopped him at gunpoint and slaughtered his herd. He draws his finger across his throat. 'They are looters. Everyone is afraid. They killed every last one of the cattle,' he said. Agha and several thousand fighters crossed into Afghanistan a day after Kabul fell. Police sources in Pakistan believe he is heavily involved in the lucrative opium trade. His followers are drawn mainly from the poor and destitute of the refugee camps. When he governed in Kandahar the city was ruled by warlords who stripped it of everything of value. Rape and robbery were commonplace. Pakistani intelligence officials say Agha and another Western-backed tribal leader, Hamid Kharzai, have struck a deal to let Agha reclaim his old governorship when the Taliban finally falls. It is the prospect of such men returning that has many in the refugee camps longing for the Taliban to rule as long as possible. They fled along routes controlled by the Taliban. Many say they owe the religious militia their lives. For the Pashtuns of the south, the Taliban did not mean oppression and taking away women's rights. They had never known anything different. However, the Taliban did bring freedom from thugs and the rule of the gun. 'In the time of the Taliban I could walk down the street with 30,000 rupees and no one would touch me. But the men of Gul Agha will kill you even if you have nothing,' said Walli. Such feelings have seen the Taliban win back some ground. Khalat fell for three days to local tribal forces. The bazaar was looted while residents cowered in their houses. Then the Taliban returned and the residents cheered. Takhteh Pol, a vital town on the road from Kandahar to Pakistan, was also recaptured by the Taliban last week, according to reliable Afghan and Pakistani sources. The town had endured several days of rule by Agha's men, when one of his commanders boasted of executing 160 Taliban prisoners. 'They were made to stand in a long line and five or six of our fighters used light machine guns to kill them,' the commander told a French news agency, adding that US special forces attached to Agha had tried and failed to stop the shootings. The US has denied the massacre happened, but after the slaughter of hundreds of Taliban in Mazar-e-Sharif, the Takhteh Pol killings sounded all too plausible. The collapse of Taliban rule over much of Afghanistan has laid bare the country's ethnic bones, exposing old hatreds. Hundreds of refugees in the crowded camps near Chaman are from Mazar-e-Sharif. They are all Pashtuns, who have fled rather than live under the rule of the Uzbek soldiers of Northern Alliance General Rashid Dostum. They tell of ethnic cleansing of Pashtuns in the north and say they had no choice but to flee south to the Pashtun - and Taliban - heartland. Haji Khira Ghol left behind his vineyard and market stall when he fled a day before Mazar-e-Sharif fell. 'The mercy of an Uzbek is worse than the greatest cruelty of the Pashtuns,' he shouted angrily. He said 5,000 Pashtuns from his region had fled their homes. Relatives arriving after him near Chaman told him how his abandoned house had been destroyed by Dostum's men and his stall looted of all its stock. 'I can never go back. Not with the Uzbeks there. There is no place for the Pashtun in the north,' he said. Other stories recounted by Pashtun refugees from Mazar-e-Sharif are similar. Mohamed Aslan fled his farm 10 days ago. He is terrified of the Northern Alliance and their men. He could not stay in the city of his birth. 'They know only war. If they want to they can just kill you and go unpunished,' he said. Just over 60 miles away from the refugee camps at Chaman, the US flag flies over the Marines' captured airstrip. But the attention of those forces is firmly focused on hunting bin Laden. The ravages going on around them are ignored. Among the refugees fleeing the anarchy, the US has few friends. 'If the Americans had brought peace, that would have been a good thing. But instead they have just brought us war and looting and the men of Gul Agha,' said Aslan. Above him in the bright blue sky the jet trail of a B-52 headed north. Its target was Kandahar. This hidden war goes on. Gul Agha is now the governor of Kandahar and one of the five members of the National Defense Committee. General Rashid Dostum is also on that committee and is one of the four vice presidents of the transitional government. Hamid Kharzai, who arranged for the return of Gul Agha to his former governorship of Kandahar against the interests of the people there, is now the president. quote:Also, I fail to see how the new DEMOCRACY is making it so the peoples voices arent heard? Sure, it's not as great as the US democracy, but it's a whole lot better than the Taliban. I also fail to see where there's rampant problems with the new leadership destroying the population. If it's been reported, i'm betting it's been stopped by now.The Afghan people had NO say whatsoever in the formation of the government or its membership. In fact, in my response above it was made quite clear that many Afghans preferred the Taliban to the warlords who now dominate the government. So much for democracy. quote:And no, i'm sorry, but we WILL use WMDs on Iraq if Saddam gets them, since the US population, unlike you, does not like DICTATORS who HATE THE UNITED STATES having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.That is low, Dredd. I am not pro-Saddam and you know it! quote:Besides, the US using them is irrelevent to the issue of Iraq. Iraq has no RIGHT to WMDs, and in fact I believe they are part of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), which states the only nuclear nations, and states that all non-nuclear nations will not get or attempt to get nuclear weapons. I don't know how many ways it can be repeated, but Iraq having WMDs is a major threat to the entire threat to the Middle East. The United States having them just makes sure no one else is going to be stupid enough to use them.Iraq does not have WMD and has NEVER had nuclear weapons. and you still haven't provided any evidence that Saddam is trying to get WMD. Even the idea that 'rogue nations' could be hiding nukes is totally ridiculous and ignorant of the ways of international diplomacy. Nukes are far more valuable as tools of intimidation than as tools of destruction. The mere fact that Saddam is not boasting to his enemies is another point against the WMD argument. quote:Follow international treaties? Follow agreements established after losing a war (reminds me of Germany not following em after WW1)? That'd be good for starters, and after awhile maybe stop oppressing his people and threatning to wipe out the Kurds in Northern Iraq?In that case, the USA is not a normal member either, because it violates international treaties all the time. By the way, the economic sanctions were imposed after the invasion of Kuwait. By 1991, they were already causing so much damage that the Iraqi government offered to negotiate a peace settlement for the complete withdrawal from Kuwait several times before the withdrawal deadline, but the US and Britain vetoed against all negotiations in the UN Security Council. As for that reference to the Kurds, could you be more specific? quote:Ok, lets think here for a second. Who invaded Kuwait? Saddam. Who didn't retreat when we told him we'd bomb him back to the stone age? Saddam. Who got bombed back to the stone age and lost the war? Saddam. Who got slapped by the *UN* *AND* the US with economic sanctions *for* invading to begin with? Saddam.Yes. quote:Who is REFUSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE UN in order to get the SACTIONS removed? Saddam.No. Saddam has met the requirements. quote:What is killing the "millions of people"? The sanctions. The CAUSE of the sanctions and them not being removed is Saddam.Wrong. The requirements set in the ceasefire agreement have been met. The sanctions are still there because the US and Britain are refusing to let them be lifted. quote:Under your "dream world", he either would have: A. Taken over Kuwait, no international intervention massacred millions of innocent people. OR B. Would have been invaded, beaten, then we just leave him alone to get better armed forces. (including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons!!!)Where do you get these crazy ideas?! A. There is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, indication that he intended to massacre Kuwaiti citizens. You're letting your imagination run away with you. B. I have already stated that I am for military sanctions, hence nullifying your claim. quote:The people weren't rising up prior to the invasion of kuwait or during it, so why are they going to rise up now?The same reason for any popular uprising: they've had enough, and they want something better. quote:Your logic makes no sense, and neither does your explanation of the US being militant and wanting to take over the region. We want the oil, sure, but we DONT want colonies, and we arent KILLING PEOPLE to get it.The US government doesn't use colonialism to take over the countries it invades; it simply arranges for the appointment of a pro-US majority in the new government's membership. It's a more efficient form of imperialism. The idea that the US government isn't killing people to take control is false. Its militaristic policies during the so-called 'war on terror' alone have already contributed to millions of deaths, and the US government knew all along that this was going to happen. quote:I fail to see how Bush has more "aggressive militancy" than Saddam. WE invade when threatened. He invades for the hell of it.The US government invades and intervenes wherever and whenever such action can benefit the American elite and can be 'rationalized' by propaganda as being in the national interest. Saddam does not invade for the hell of it. His attacks on Iran and Kuwait were both motivated by long-standing border disputes. quote:If we dont get what we want, we don't invade the country unless there's justification for it to begin with. Afghanistan had TERRORIST CAMPS *AND* was an oppressive regime.Afghanistan also had over 5 million Afghanis dependent on humanitarian aid organizations for survival. All of these organizations were against the war because they knew it would disrupt the flow of aid and risk millions of lives. They were begging the US government to not even threaten to bomb, because even the threat of it would cause disruption. The government knew the consequences and continued anyway. On the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan quote:Iraq is breaking international treaties, trying to get WMDs, is a threat to the Middle East AND the US.The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim that Iraq is a threat.
  15. quote:The EU is irrelevant, what the Euroweenies think is of no concern, they can b*&^% and whine all they want, we will do what has to be done.That article is what's irrelevant. The anti-war movement opposes US militarism (which is essentially what you glorified in your post) on a different basis, which is why it also has support in the USA and in the so-called "future allies". quote:Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up?Because they preferred Saddam to Khomeini. quote:It's the same flawed ideas as the people who were against bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 "We shouldn't bomb and invade them, then they'll stop. Bombing and invading is what they want" Well gee, if you look at HISTORY, you'll realize that sometimes it takes a little bit of violence to get things done. World War II, the softline European countries didn't do anything about Germany, and they paid for it in lives.Look at Afghanistan now. Two thirds of the territory is controlled by warlords (the former Northern Alliance) who rob civilians at will. They're even worse than the Taliban were. History warned of this too (these warlords did the same things before the Taliban took power and drove them out). In all cases, the interests of the Afghan people have been ignored. Now, once again, they have to worry about the troops - who are supposed to defend the people - looting the people's homes. You can thank the US government for that. quote:Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em?You should ask President Bush that question. The USA has more WMD than any other country. Does HE intend to use them? quote:And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with!Define a 'normal' member. quote:Also, why does everyone seem to forget that Saddam is one man, and he was aggressive once when he knew he'd probably get beaten, he's still in power, and there's no reason why he isn't going to be agressive again? That sorta proves what he's going to use the WMDs for if he gets em! There's a clear threat if he's even TRYING to get them, because it's obvious that he is an aggressive/militant leader and there's no reason why him getting beaten ONCE is going to change his mind.Bush has demonstrated more aggressive militancy than Saddam ever has. Saddam only wanted Kuwait, Bush wants the entire region, and recent history has clearly demonstrated that the US government has no regard for the civilians of the region. Millions have already died as a result of this. [ 07-17-2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
  16. quote:Do you honestly believe that a soverign nation, that wants Iraq to stop being a threat, is going to just wait for the people of Iraq is rise up? That is not going to happen, especially when there is NO guarntee they will rise up before there's a catastrophe.That argument is based on the relentlessly challenged assumptions that Iraq is a threat and that a catastrophe is not already happening as a result of economic sanctions. quote:Yes, it's common sense that the military would take over if we took out Saddam and left. But it's also common sense that we should act for OUR best interests and NOT ASSUME that the population will rise up.In other words, you're saying that it's in the interests of the USA to assume that the population will not rise up, because that assumption rationalizes the invasion and subsequent domination of Iraq by the US government. I disagree with the negative assumption. It is common sense that the Iraqi people will act for their best interests and rise up against Saddam. The economic sanctions are preventing this, among other things. [ 07-17-2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
  17. quote:Policy makers and cohorts will give people reasons to continue in the manner they see fit. Or there will be so much debate that one walks away confused. Pretty cynical picture but I can't feel any other way at present.....maybe one day a new leader will stand up....and hopefully not get shot.I'm sorry you feel that way, and I disagree with a few things that you wrote (time for more debate and more confusion ). First, debating is healthy, even when it merely causes confusion, because that confusion prompts an examination or re-examination of ideas. After all, if one's ideas were so solid, then why did one walk away confused instead of more certain? It is in our attempts to answer such questions that we can learn new stuff. Secondly, waiting for a new leader to fix things is not healthy, even if it's a good one with a bullet-proof vest, because that elevation of leadership prompts passivity among the people. Passivity in politics leads to a lack of substantial debate, hence it generates a complacent certainty about ideas that are never questioned. If we never question any ideas, then we can't learn any new stuff.
  18. quote:That's why you kill the dictator, then lift all the sanctions. No dictator=no problem with the country rebuilding. Just kill off Saddam and his cronies, then make a new government. Or for all of you "western puppet government" bad people, then remove his cronies, then leave the country without a government, then let THEM decide on it.Do you honestly believe that a military force, whether it's from the US government or the exiled Iraqi officers, is going to just let go of its power after defeating Saddam? That is not going to happen, especially with Iraq's strategic value. At best, you'll have a pseudo-parliamentary central government where the membership is stacked in favour of one group (e.g. Afghanistan). At worst, you'll have another dictatorship. quote:Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?Of course it would cost lives, but compared to invasion it would be virtually bloodless.
  19. quote:I think you all are bunch of dreamers, because if the US doesn't do something, the world will explode in about 10 years into something that you don't want to see. It is better to step in now and handle it then it is to wait and watch it turn into a worldwide catastrophe.I am not for doing nothing! I am simply against invasion, bombing, and economic sanctions. You say we shouldn't wait for it to turn into a catastrophe, but the sanctions and the bombings have already created a catastrophe, and invasion will only escalate it. If you want real democracy in Iraq, then Saddam must be overthrown by the Iraqi people in a popular uprising, otherwise the new government is guaranteed to be another authoritarian regime in a parliamentary disguise. The least that the West can do to support the Iraqi civilians is to lift the economic sanctions and tighten the military sanctions, because the people cannot revolt as long as they are dependant on the Oil for Food program for survival.
  20. quote:Africa right?North Africa has oil too. That's where the European oil companies go out to play.
  21. OK, I've looked into it. RE: Suicide bomber 'salaries'. The toppling of Saddam will only marginally reduce terrorism in Palestine, since most of the suicide bombers are not doing it for the money, and many of the families who received such payments were unaware of them beforehand. RE: Exiled Officers The statements made by exiled Iraqi officers that a military option is the best option are questionable at best when one considers the personal ambitions of the more visible personalities within the group. Another article: quote: Magnificent Seventy gun for Saddam Eyeing each other and their US friends, exiled officers gather in London to clear the path for democracy in Iraq Brian Whitaker Friday July 12, 2002 The Guardian Exiled Iraqi officers are gathering in London today for the most public plot ever hatched against Saddam Hussein, but without their most senior member. General Nizar al-Khazraji, the highest ranking defector from President Saddam's army, is staying away, for reasons that some believe are to do with his own political ambitions. Nevertheless, about 70 officers are expected, the organisers say. After an open meeting tonight, which the many Iraqi opposition parties will attend or boycott according to their inclinations, the Magnificent Seventy will spend the weekend gunning for Saddam Hussein behind closed doors. The White House, the Pentagon and the state department, which do not always see eye to eye on Iraq, are sending representatives to watch the proceedings, and possibly each other. Although all the participants want to rid the world of President Saddam, there is a wariness about the intentions of the US and their fellow officers to overcome. But the organisers, Major- General Tawfiq al-Yasiri and Brigadier Saad al-Obaidy, are encouraged by the response. "Our aim is to collect many officers and discuss strategy," said Brig Obaidy, who was formerly in charge of Saddam's psychological warfare. "We'll discuss how to change the regime, and the role of the army and democracy in the future of Iraq." The key purpose of the meeting, according to opposition sources, is to secure the officers' agreement to step back and allow democratic government to develop if President Saddam is overthrown. But Gen Khazraji has already shown his eagerness to take over the leadership. In a newspaper interview earlier this year he described it as an honour and "a sacred duty" - a remark that has left many in the opposition suspicious of his ambitions. More recently he has been linked in the Arab press to an alternative plan for a ruling military council of between seven and 10 senior officers. Gen Khazraji, who was chief of staff and led the army through the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait, now lives in Denmark, where a Kurdish group has sought to have him prosecuted for war crimes. This relates to his alleged role in the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. Gen Khazraji says the allegation was invented by Iraqi intelligence, and the London meeting organisers say they have no dispute with him. "He is our friend, we have good relations with him," said Brig Obaidy. But Gen Khazraji said by telephone "I don't attend such conferences," and declined to discuss it further. Major-General Wafiq al-Samara'i, former head of an Iraqi military intelligence unit, who now lives in London, is also understood to have reservations about the meeting, though it is unclear whether he will attend. He is close to Gen Khazraji and both are regarded as politically close to Saudi Arabia. "It's a very small minority who are not happy with this meeting," an expert on the Iraqi opposition said, asking not to be identified. "It will send a very strong message that the army should not fill the vacuum or have any role in the government after Saddam Hussein." About 1,500 Iraqi officers are believed to be living in exile, but not all are politically active. The identity of some who plan to attend the meeting is being kept secret but observers say the composition leans heavily towards the Sunnis, who account for about a third of Iraq's population. The organisers, known as the Iraqi Military Alliance, are anxious to play down links with the US, which could damage their credibility in the eyes of other Iraqis. They insist that the meeting is entirely financed by Iraqis. Among those confirmed as attending is Brigadier-General Najib al-Salihi, 50, who defected from Iraq in 1995 and runs a group in the US called the Free Officers Movement. He avoids giving the impression of being hungry for power, but earlier this year he was front-runner in an aborted internet poll organised by Iraq.net to find whom Iraqis would most like to lead a transitional government. Is it any wonder that the high-rankers claim a military option as best? RE: Smuggling I have found some reports of oil smuggling to Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, but nothing about weapons shipments to Iraq. What's interesting about this issue is that the West makes no serious attempt to do anything about it because such action would lead to more opposition to the economic sanctions.
  22. quote:Umm, your first article said at least 5% of WMD capability was left.That first article and articles that followed also included statements indicating that whatever is left is inadequate to produce a threat. quote:Also, I maintain that he is getting them, and we just don't know about it because of the lack of inspections.It doesn't take drug inspections to know that the US receives narcotics from Colombia, or that Australia receives narcotics from Thailand. In the early 1990s, it was logical to conclude that Iraq had WMD, not because they were found by weapons inspectors, but because it was known that the US and UK governments were the suppliers. There is more than one way to trace items; if evidence of WMD has not been discovered by other means, then 9 times out of 10 it won't be discovered by weapons inspections either. quote:Besides, him TRYING to get them is a good enough reason to get rid of him.No evidence has been brought to my attention that he is trying to get them either. quote:Are we supposed to wait until he succeeds? Same type of thinking that led to 9/11 to begin with. "They hate us but can't do anything to us....still can't do anything....holy ****, there went the WTC towers!!"9/11 was not caused by complacency. Before that tragedy, such schemes existed only in the imaginations of Tom Clancy and other fiction writers. Nobody realistically conceived of such a thing. Even the terrorists who planned the attack were surprised by the effect! quote:The facts say Iraq PAYS suicide bombers families. It was a big deal a few months ago, check just about EVERY news service and it'll be there. That's my source. Just go into google and type in "Iraq" AND "suicide bombers". Bet at least 3 news services will come up talking about the situation.I'll do that, but in the meantime I have a question. If Iraq is funding Palestinian terrorism, then why isn't Israel planning an attack? quote:If you watched today's INTERVIEWS with the exiled generals from Iraq, they state that the only feasible and quick way of getting Saddam out of power is US military support. They also say he's (Saddam) is weak now.I'll look into it. quote:Your last article merely says that they can't say that it's the Iraqi government's fault. That article never refutes the fact that if Saddam WANTED the problems that exist now to happen, that the oil-for-food program would somehow get around that. Your source is clearly operating under the premise that "Saddam thinks human life is valuable". Thus, they say that "the problem is there is no cash to get some stuff delivered, and there's no way to get spare parts." Your authors never ASSUME that he IS trying to most of his people in poverty, and argue against the premise.Apparently you ignored the other two sources in that article, describing the Iraqi distribution as effective and second to none, and in the source that you mentioned, they only said that there could be room for improvement. quote:You seem to have a problem reading daily news, such as msnbc.com, or watching TV news programs. I think that one was from 60 minutes AND MSNBC, so it should have been on just about anything you could have read. Same thing for the suicide bomber one, but that one was big news everywhere.I'll look into it. quote:What goods exactly are being restricted then? Last I heard it was only dual-use goods and military use goods that can be used to build WMDs or military equipment.A lot of the grounds for "dual-use" definition are just plain ridiculous when you look at some of the blocked items (e.g. pencils, chlorinators etc.). quote:Actually, the people in those groups, as their logic dictates, are anti-war because of the number of people dying. Then after they point out the HUGE "humanitarian disaster", they point out all the so called "facts" that say sanctions are evil and should be removed, and how invasion would cost MORE lives or isn't needed. They ignore the idea that maybe it's the government's fault.They don't ignore the idea; they dismiss it after looking at the facts! quote:The mainstream media is always going to be more credible because at least the sound bytes are meant to inform, not persuade. Sure, the way they are presented can sort of persuade, but when you watch interviews and read or listen to answers to direct questions, or watch notable parts of speeches, that is FACT.They only include the answers that comply with the sound bytes. In many cases they cut in the middle of answers, or present them out of context. A lot of people assume that mainstream media is more credible than alternative media because it doesn't report the news in terms of a political agenda, but the truth is that mainstream media is inherently more lacking in credibility because it follows a commercial agenda. Its primary function is not to inform or even to persuade people; it's to sell audience to advertisers. In terms of commercialism, portraying a phantom threat as a real threat is what gets the ratings up, so that's what they do.
  23. quote:Saddam has no problem allocating the resources in such a way that "his people" are good, and everyone else has to fight for food or starve.Again, the facts say otherwise. Here is a page from an FAQ on sanctions: quote: 7. Isn't the problem that the Iraqi regime doesnÔÇÖt distribute the supplies it receives? The UK government has persistently claimed that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is caused in large part because the Government of Iraq diverts resources that it imports under the "oil for food" scheme, either for supplementing the wealth of a small elite, or to sustain poverty for propagandistic reasons. This is an explanation that has been consistently challenged by UN agencies and personnel working within Iraq. Most recently, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in its report of September 2000 characterises the Government of Iraq's food rationing system as "effective". It notes that the availability of "cereal imports since 1997/98 under the oil-for-food deal has led to significant improvements in the food supply situation" (p. 31). Nevertheless, a major problem is that "food rations do not provide a nutritionally adequate and varied diet" (p. 33). The potential solution to this, complementing the ration with locally produced goods, is made difficult by the fact that "two consecutive years of severe drought and inadequate supply of essential agricultural equipment and inputs, including spare parts, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, have gravely affected the Iraqi agriculture sector" (pp.14, 31). In addition, poverty compounds this problem: "with the decline in household income, a significant number of Iraqis are not in a position to adequately complement the ration" (p. 14). Tun Myat, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, made similar comments in his first press conference on 19 October 2000. He said that the food distribution system in Iraq under the "oil for food" programme was "second to none", but that "in order to affect the overall livelihood and nutrition state of the people, of the children, you need more than food, of course". Unless the basics ÔÇô housing, electricity, water, and sanitation ÔÇô were restored, the overall well-being of the people would not improve. In addition to the collapse of such infrastructure, he said, the major problem was poverty. The Security CouncilÔÇÖs Humanitarian Panel report of 30 March 1999 commented directly on the question of Iraqi cooperation with "oil for food" (┬º37): "While there is agreement that the Government could do more to make the "oil for food" programme work in a better and more timely fashion, it was not clear to what extent the problems encountered could be attributed to deliberate action or inaction on the part of the Iraqi Government. It is generally recognized that certain sectors such as electricity work smoothly while drug supplies suffer from delays in distribution. But mismanagement, funding shortages (absence of the so called "cash component") and a general lack of motivation might also explain such delays. While food and medicine had been explicitly exempted by Security Council resolution 661, controls imposed by resolution 986 had, at times, created obstacles to their timely supply." The "cash component" bears explanation. In the areas of Iraq under governmental control, the government is not given cash in return for oil sales under the "oil for food" scheme, but only receives delivery of goods. As a result it is constrained in its ability to, for example, hire a lorry to make a delivery if it does not have one available at the time. - CASI (Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq) So much for the 'hoarding' theory. quote:Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material.Give me a source. quote:Another thing Saddam is using his money for is PAYING THE FAMILIES OF ISRAELI SUICIDE BOMBERS. I just remembered that after Jaguar's post. That's sort of straightforward: Money goes to suicide bombers. Not a stretch to say probably to their organizations too.Give me a source. quote:No effect on Saddam's dictatorial position? It helps stop the MILITARY from rebuilding, and the MILITARY is *CRITICAL* to any dictatorship!Military sanctions do that, not economic sanctions. His control over the populace is actually tightening as a result of the economic sanctions, because now the people are completely dependant on him for the necessities. If Iraq's economy was allowed to recover while the military sanctions were maintained and/or tightened, the people would be in a position to oppose Saddam. quote:Saddam is responsible for the sanctions by not complying with UN weapons insepctions. It doesn't matter if there was spying going on or not.It matters a hell of a lot that there was espionage last time, especially now that there is talk of a full-scale invasion plan! Read between the lines, Dredd. quote:In response to your final article, it is obviously biased lefist ****, moreso than most of the other stuff. You blame the main-stream media for being biased, but it's a LOT less biased than that. "Education for Peace in Iraq center"?!??! Gee whiz, I wonder how credible that is.Now you're being unreasonable. Just because an organization is anti-war doesn't mean that it's not credible. The people in that group are anti-war because of the facts, not vice versa! The mere fact that they use facts makes them more credible than the mainstream media, which depends on sound bytes more than anything else.
  24. quote:Saddam is doing his darnedest to get weapons of mass destruction, germ warfare, chemical warfare(which he already has and has already used), and of course the grandaddy of them all, Nuclear weapons.He may be doing his darnedest to get them, but he is not getting them! Iraq's WMD program is crippled and has been crippled for years! There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary unless you count the dubious sources that the media portrays as fact. quote:Iraq and Saddam are a very destabalizing force in the middle east, he finances a lot of the terrorists over there. He is paying the families of suicide bombers, along with Saudi Arabia, which you don't hear about of course.Again, the facts say otherwise. Information gathered from the invasion of Afghanistan points to many countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. They found NO evidence of an Iraqi connection! The only sources have been from so-called "defectors" that appear out of nowhere at the most convenient moments through Chalabi's back door. quote:Attacking Iraq IS in our best interest, is in the best interest of ALL the middle eastern countries and the west. Saddam is a trouble maker and a bully and must be taken out of the picture.I agree, but it must be done by the Iraqi people, not the US government. US intervention has been, at best, a series of blunders. They gave the WMD to Saddam in the first place, they assisted the Taliban's rise to power, and the thin veil of democracy in Afghanistan's interim government is already showing a few holes. If the USA topples Saddam, odds are 2:1 that the replacement will be Chalabi, and history has already shown that he is not trustworthy. For the people to stand up to Saddam, the economic sanctions need to be lifted, because at the moment, the people in Saddam's sphere of influence (south and central Iraq) are completely dependant on handouts from the Oil for Food program which are distributed by the Iraqi authorities. They cannot revolt in such conditions.
  25. Regarding the issue of weapons inspections, here is an excerpt from another article with some parts that may explain Iraq's current reluctance to let them in. quote: MYTH: Iraq ÔÇ£has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programsÔÇØ or complied with weapons inspections. Iraqi economic sanctions ÔÇ£prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destructionÔÇØ (U.S. State Department, March 2000). FACT: Interestingly enough, the State Department fails to address its role in helping Iraq develop its weapons programs. ÔÇ£...throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the government of Iraq, which was the government of the Baath party led by Saddam Hussein, was an ally of the United States. Iraq was a recipient of massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, most notably biological weapons stocksÔÇØ (May 1999 National Catholic Reporter). Yet despite this omission of history, the State Department proclaims that ÔÇ£Saddam HusseinÔÇÖs priorities are clearÔÇØ based mainly on seized shipments of baby milk, baby bottles, and baby powder leaving Iraq. It seems especially unusual to state that if Hussein had greater control of baby products, he would use them to rebuild his weapons programs, especially considering that the seized items were not even directly linked to Hussein. The truth is that Iraq has been, by and large, disarmed. ÔÇ£Following the Gulf War, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might has been considerably diminished by the work of UNSCOM. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler said that ÔÇÿif Iraqi disarmament were a 5-lap race, we would be three-quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.ÔÇÖ IraqÔÇÖs neighbors have said that Iraq no longer poses any threat. Even an Israeli military analyst has said that IraqÔÇÖs biological weapons program was over-hypedÔÇØ (Education for Peace in Iraq Center). As for UNSCOM inspections, the lack of success lies mainly with the United States governmentÔÇÖs hidden agenda. UNSCOM had eight years of virtually unrestricted inspections. Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that ÔÇ£95 percent of [uNSCOMÔÇÖs] work proceeds unhinderedÔÇØ (ÔÇ£PBS NewshourÔÇØ with Jim Lehrer, February 1998). But contrary to the UN goal of weapons inspections, the United States government has sought to use the inspections as intelligence gathering missions. Halliday states, ÔÇ£[T]he difficulty with UNSCOM has been the inclusion of espionage, of spies, of various intelligence organizations which, under the UN auspices, is something that is appalling to all of us. Now as it happens, UNSCOM staff, including Butler, are not staff members of the organization. They are hired from other organizations, but nevertheless we expect them to behave in a manner consistent of a civil servant, and that clearly was not done. And the CIA and others have owned up to what they did, in fact, that they used the UN as a cover for espionage, which is a very unfortunate thing and what, of course, the Iraqis had been saying for many years and the UN had denied for many years. They were right; we, obviously, were wrongÔÇØ (The Fire This Time, April 1999). Further evidence of this comes directly from former UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter. ÔÇ£Fingers point at the United States primarily in using the weapons inspection process not so much as a vehicle for disarming Iraq, but rather as a vehicle for containing Saddam and for gathering information that could be used to remove Saddam. The US perverted the system; not the weapons inspectorsÔÇØ (June 1999 FOR interview). Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because of this perversion. - Jeff Lindemyer, Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact [ 07-13-2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
×
×
  • Create New...