America to withdraw troops from EU

Seaneh

popinfresh wrote:

. And there is an awful lot more people being killed by milirary personel than there was when saddam was around

That's just not true.

In the 12 yeards of UN medical and food sanctions on Iraq an avrage of 4500+ people (mainly children) died as a direct result of the UN medical sanctions because they were denyed even the most basic of medical supplys such as penicilian.

So why is it ok for the UN to kill 4500 people every month for 12 years, but it's wrong for a far smaller number to die in the short term to make sure than for the next 12 years 4500+ people don't die needlessly every month?

Also add to that the people who "dissappeared" every day because they deared talk about a new government, add to that the countless Kurdish families wiped out because they deared think about setting up thier own country where they would be able to lave safely, add to that the Christian population of Baghdad which was constantly harassed by the "government" and you have a far greater ammount of people dieing as a result of Sadam Than could ever die in this conflict.

Seaneh

Hobbes wrote:

That may be true, but I believe after Saddam was removed the Iraqis asked the US to leave the country.

Yeah and Nato should leave the balkins aswell, after all who cares if a few warlords and religious fanatics devistate a country as long as they are doing it to themselves?

bonkey

Seaneh wrote:

So why is it ok for the UN to kill 4500 people every month for 12 years, but it's wrong for a far smaller number to die in the short term to make sure than for the next 12 years 4500+ people don't die needlessly every month?

Well, see....

if it was the UN who were killing them, then removing Saddam was far from the necessary step to stop killing them. Considering the US was one of the main nations opposed to lifting sanctions......

Kinda pus a hole in that argument.

There were unquestionable humanitarian reasons for ousting Saddam, but the cessation of death caused by sanctions continued primarily at the insistence of the two main invading nations is hardly one of them.

jc

Seaneh

Humbug.

RicardoSmith

All the US is doing is protecting its economic and political interests. Until Sadam came into conflict with those interests the US would have left him pretty much alone. As they had done up to that point.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

Then Bush is even more fuk'ed up then I give him credit for. Do you really think a president who uses all the countries resources and money to settle a personal vendetta is a good president?

I think he is an extremely sub-par president as far as American presidents go - I sincerely hope he loses the upcoming election. But I am quite certain he is a fairly decent person, a moral man, and probably great fun to have in a party! History will be much kinder to him than current opinion is, I would guess. History is funny like than - think of all the Pearse and Collins streets in Ireland, and how they were spat at by Dubliners in the aftermath of the 1916 rising. I am confident that in a few decades you will see streets named after Bush in Baghdad. And the vast majority of Iraqis will remain happy (as they are today) that someone came along and got rid of Saddam...

Victor

Seaneh wrote:

So why is it ok for the UN to kill 4500 people every month for 12 years, but it's wrong for a far smaller number to die in the short term to make sure than for the next 12 years 4500+ people don't die needlessly every month?

Not that it makes much difference to the victims, but there is a difference between "kill" and "let die".

Assuming Saddam* killed 1m-1.5m** people over 24 years. Thats 3,470-5,200 per month.

The war has probably killed in the order of 35,000+*** people in 17 months. That 2,060 per month.

It's still sh1t being an Iraqi.

* To be (un)fair Khomeni, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Bush II also have this blood on their hands.

** Including the Iranian, Kuwati and American wars, the 1991 civil war, the Kurdish campaign and internal repression.

***Probably 10,000 civilians and 10,000 soldiers in the first six weeks. Probably 5,000 civilians and 10,000 combattants since then.

ionapaul

RicardoSmith wrote:

All the US is doing is protecting its economic and political interests. Until Sadam came into conflict with those interests the US would have left him pretty much alone. As they had done up to that point.

As every other country would do or has done (if we could have successfully attacked to get paid for that beef, obviously we would have)...so why ignore the reality of politics, history and the world by continuing to attack the Americans about it. They are giving ordinary Iraqis their best chance to date (even if it is looking unlikely) at democracy and a better life. Maybe people hold America up to higher standards than each and every other country in the world, because of their role (self-proclaimed) as leaders of the free world and whatnot.

Its not that we all hate the powerful so much...its more that we hate not being powerful ourselves...(either that or we so enjoy the sense of moral indignation criticising those damn Yanks! H.G. Wells said it best: 'Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo').

Night all

keu

I've always wanted to be American.





I would think that the 10 million people who protested (globally) against the American invasion weren't insanely jealous of US status. I would think the majority of them were insanely irate about the fact that the US can do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants, without listening to the voices of the rest of the people on this planet.
The truth is they can and do. The rest of us will just have to get used to that fact and put up with it.

edit: getting my figures right: linky

keu

First and foremost, it is imperative to combat the utter hypocrisy of the charges against Iraq concerning it's "weapons of mass destruction". Of all nations on the planet, no nation holds a larger arsenal of nuclear weapons than the US, and it is the only nation to have actually used them against civilian populations - not once, but twice - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and that too when it was abundantly clear that Japan was practically ready to surrender. Since then, the US has used a variety of weapons of mass destruction (including chemical weapons) against several small nations - (such as Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Yugoslavia). In several instances, it violated the Geneva Conventions by specifically targeting civilian areas and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, bridges, power plants and sewage facilities. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, it even bombed the Chinese embassy, and damaged the embassies of several other nations. But to date, no nation has dared move a resolution against such crimes against humanity. The world's greatest user of weapons of mass destruction has faced no strictures whatsoever. Neither have any of it's partners in war (such as Britain, or France, or other NATO allies) been subject to any restrictions.

maybe this is why I would like to see the US get its butt kicked.

Moriarty

If I were you, I'd go and actually read up about rhetoric like that before I decided to believe it all. But hey - when have facts ever really stood in the way of a good rant..

keu

ahh..ok moriarty..I wuz just jealous of the US. (silly facts)

Moriarty

You take that entire passage at face value?

keu

nup..I was just expressing some moral indignation.

Moriarty

...

RicardoSmith

keu wrote:

....when it was abundantly clear that Japan was practically ready to surrender. ....

While I agree with much of what you said. This bit is tosh...

keu

I didn't say it....

but I think the fact that the US is actually the only nation (correct me if I'm wrong) to have actually used nuclear weapons against civilian populations in the past and shouldn't be overlooked.

Moriarty

keu wrote:

I didn't say it....

Are you in the habbit of pasting in quotations and then inferring that you agree completely with it only to later disassociate yourself from it, or is this something out of the ordinary for you?

keu

I think the piece highlights the hypocrisy that many people feel the US posseses.

(ah havent slept in two days, words, jumbled, brain)

RicardoSmith

keu wrote:

I didn't say it....

but I think the fact that the US is actually the only nation (correct me if I'm wrong) to have actually used nuclear weapons against civilian populationsin the past shouldn't be overlooked.

Fix the quote tags then...;)

Taken in historical context whats the problem with their use of Atomic weapons to end the war in the pacific. Remembering that Japan did not surrender until the 2nd bomb was dropped.

keu

Taken in historical context whats the problem with their use of Atomic weapons to end the war in the pacific. Remembering that Japan did not surrender until the 2nd bomb was dropped.

In todays climate, to order the removal of such weapons is hypocritical comming from the nation which has readily used them (and holds the greatest arsenal of)
Its little wonder why they're not treated with much respect by the nations they give these orders to (and is probably the basis behind such resentment)

c'mon brain work baby..work.

Moriarty

The US haven't used WMD in today's (or yesterday's) climate.

keu

The US haven't used WMD in today's (or yesterday's) climate.

not even in the balkans or vietnam?
I suppose those nukes they dfropped on nagasaki and hiroshima weren't real weapons of mass destruction.

Moriarty

No, not even in the balkans or vietnam. DU and agent orange (which you're no doubt about to refer to) aren't WMD.

See earlier point about historical context for ww2.

RicardoSmith

keu wrote:

In todays climate, to order the removal of such weapons is hypocritical comming from the nation which has readily used them (and holds the greatest arsenal of)
Its little wonder why they're not treated with much respect by the nations they give these orders to (and is probably the basis behind such resentment)

c'mon brain work baby..work.

You saying, that the US use of Atomic weapons in Japan to end the Pacific War is the same as Sadam using WMD to attack other neighbouring countries to expand his terrority and power in the region?

keu

no..I'm saying that for the US to order other nations to hand over their weapons like good little children or we will blow you all up, is hypocritical. (and has resulted in such resentments twowards the US). = moral indignation.

keu

See earlier point about historical context for ww2.

the US used nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction) in ww2, its not a question of trying to justify the use of them, the fact is they have. Now for the same nation to preach unto the rest of the global population and wage war on them because they claimed they possessed wmd (when they themselves hold an arsenal of), is sheer hypocrisy.

RicardoSmith

So if you are an armed policeman, and you ask a armed bank robber to handover his gun thats "sheer hypocrisy"?

Your saying the use is irrelevent? Once you have them?

keu

lol..geezez..look read back, I was responding to this...

ionapaul wrote:

Its not that we all hate the powerful so much...its more that we hate not being powerful ourselves...(either that or we so enjoy the sense of moral indignation criticising those damn Yanks! H.G. Wells said it best: 'Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo').

I'm being morally ingdignant..apparantly.

I'm not trying state that the nations of the Middle East have been paragons of virtue, I'm not trying to justify Saddams regime, but I dont look at the US at the global policeman either.

Moriarty

keu wrote:

the US used nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction) in ww2, its not a question of trying to justify the use of them, the fact is they have. Now for the same nation to preach unto the rest of the global population and wage war on them because they claimed they possessed wmd (when they themselves hold an arsenal of), is sheer hypocrisy.

The US used nuclear weapons to end ww2. The UK, Russia and Germany had well developed nuclear weapons programs. Somone was going to use them, it was only a matter of who was fastest in developing and using the weapon first. The intent was there in each country. The decision was made by the US to use nuclear weapons on japan to try to overwhelm them into immediate and unconditional surrender, rather than a conventional invasion of the mainland which would have resulted in far more deaths than the use of those nuclear weapons. The US has never since used it's nuclear arsenal.

It could have very easily expanded the use of nuclear weapons during the korean war - which could have quite reasonably resulted in the acceptance of the use of nuclear weapons today - but they decided not to.

The intent was there on all sides to use these new weapons, the US were just (un)lucky enough to be able to develop them faster than the others. The fact that they used them during ww2 is effectively irrelevant in todays world.