The United States of America has gone mad

Originally posted by Hobart
Let me just clear up the percieved insult to you, Man, before I go any further. I did not mean to insinuate that you are a NAZI. Mein Kampf was written in 1923, before the formation of the Nazi party. It is the Blueprint for the Third Reich. To quote a recent reviewer

Mein Kampf, in the mind of an evil genius
I believe that Mein Kampf is perhaps one of my most enjoyed, and probably my favorite books that I have read about history. It takes you into the mind of this evil genius and megalomaniac of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler. Being only a sophomore in High School, about 10% of the book I didn't understand to well but the rest I completely enjoyed and all though Hitler made a few good points here and there, his analogies were quite on target,.but his overall effort to persuade the masses just wasn't enough to persuade me , his ideas were to sick and didn't go in enough detail. This book I couldn't put down, even though i was criticized for being a racist Nazi, for reading this, who ever doesn't read this is ignorant and should read this before judging Hitler on his systematic extermination of the Jews. His ideas proved a lot of things, but you shouldn't judge him just because he killed a plethora of people, yeah of course it is wrong, but read this book to get the in depth argumentation of his ideas. This is by far the leading book in my desultory reading of History books, now I think I am a WWII, Holocaust buff. Just take my advice please read this book for your own benefit to understand Hitler's perspective before criticizing him like I hope that I require no further explanation.

If you still believe I was calling you a Nazi I apologise. Can I shake your virtual hand on that?

I did not mis quote you. I used the quotes on the words "anti western" no where else! I also thought that I had a pretty good idea about where you were coming from with the use of the word Sadamite. Did I not explain that correctly? That's your opinion, and You are welcome to it. OK

I'm glad, you now accept that I am welcome to my opinion,Hobart.
I thought that when you told me to "cop on" and used terms like "brainwashed" and told me to "grow up", that I wasn't allowed by you to have an opinion.
I have never read Mein kampf and quite frankly, would be insulted to be associated with anything to do with Adolf Hitler.

But I accept your apology.

and as regards where you inserted "quotes" , you attributed, something I did not say,to me when you phrased the next sentence with the words sweeping statement and the next line.

Quite a wide-sweeping statement, if you don't mind me saying so. And then you go on to say:

I do not care very much for your views hobart , but you are entitled to them, as I am to mine.
In the nature of friendly debate,if I disagree with you, I will say so and why, but I won't attack you with irrelevant screams of cop on, grow up and assertions that you have been brainwashed-which are also quite insulting.

mm

Hobart

Look. I'm not going to continue apologising. I have already publicly apologised and PM'd you. I do find some of your previous post's ill informed and naive, such as your statement on the CIA and MI5. But that's my opinion. And you have yours. If my retorts were too strong. Well ......................

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Meh
Well, Saddam isn't building his WMDs just for the fun of it.

It's certainly not for expansionist purposes. WMDs are meant to be the LAST line of defence. There is little point in showering Kuwait with chemical weapons now is there? He wants WMD to control his citizens (like it or not, they AREN'T his people, not to him anyway). He wants WMD to stave off potential border threats from Iran, which has already invaded Iraq twice in 20 years, both bloody wars, millions dying in the marshes of Fao.

He intends to either use them or threaten to use them.All that doesn't change the fact that there is no legal basis under international law to threaten Israel with military force.

Note also that there is no legal basis for Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land, occupation of the west bank, in fact any land that was in surplus to 1967 borders. Given that Israel, Saddam's most powerful neighbour is willing to flout any number of UN resolutions that get in the way of a settlement most of the world wants to see- why shouldn't he do the same? Geopolitics doesn't care about pithy phrases and moral context when so much is at stake. What are we supposed to tell Saddam: "Naughty, naughty- two wrongs don't make a right?" If we're talking about a government supressing the rights of civilians- look no further than indiscriminate Israeli bulldozing of Palestinian homes. Or shooting dead small boys throwing stones. If that's not oppressive, I invite you to tell me what is.

Also think about whether legal necessarily means moral. It was certainly legal to toss Nelson Mandela in prison, or to bomb villages in Cambodia during the Vietnam war- legal to close of 2/3 of Iraq's airspace, legal to block all but the essential products being imported, and that too *only* in exchange for oil.


Which brings me to my final point. This war won't be about oil. The last Gulf War was- Kuwai, Saudi and Iraq are the three highest producers in the Middle East. Having taken Kuwait, Saddam could have easily threatened the world's economies with oil prices. Currently, no such threat is posed. Despite the Venezuelan crisis- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and all the ASEAN oil-producers are firmly in the USA's pocket. We have massive, and I do mean massive national oil stocks and reserves- enough to last us through 4 black winters in the event of nuclear holocaust. Oil isn't a worry because of OPEC either- the key players of OPEC are strongly dependent on the US for investment and an ear(sometimes even a voice) on the global political stage.

The reason this war is being fought is for votes- pure and simple. Bush's support is waning fast at home, a slumping economy and murky national interest is creating a huge swing vote to be exploited. History shows us that outside of a great and powerful moral issue, nothing will move a swing vote quite like a war. And the Bush government is pressing both, trying hard to link Al-Qaeda to Iraq- when ideologically they are at opposite ends of the scale. This guy wants to make his mark in history, and begin with the removal of Saddam- pure and simple. Any benefits from oil would be sketchy and mainly confined to OPEC, where Iraq would become a Saudi pawn in the event of regime change. *Even* cheaper oil? Gas prices haven't gone up in decades, we already have the cheapest gas in the developed world practically. So how is this about oil again? Remind me.

Occy

Offy

Remember Bali? Explosive used = C4 which is only manufactured in America. Who is the biggest customer for C4? C.I.A. Wake up people. America wants a war so America starts a war using whatever methods necessary to gain public support. The real terrorists ARE the Americans. George Bush = WAR
The Israeli’s are backed by America so the same rules apply America = WAR
That is till some farmers with pitch forks kick their asses.

Cork

America or Isreal are not to blame for the Balli bombing.

Some Countries in the middle East only have to look in the mirror to see who is to blame for their own mis-fortune.

gandalf

Originally posted by Cork
......
Some Countries in the middle East only have to look in the mirror to see who is to blame for their own mis-fortune.

Cork can you explain and expand this please. I am getting fed up with your little sound bites with no elaboration or proof of your statements.

Gandalf.

Cork

I am not great at typing so you can see why I use soundbytes etc.

Iraq invaded Kewait - Who was to blame Iraq
Iraq burned some Oil fields belonging to Kuwait - Who was to blame - Iraq
Iraq got sanctions imposed upon it, Who was to blame - Iraq


Who threw out Arms inspectors over the last 10 years - Iraq.

It is about time Iraq took some responsibility. I think if they have arms they should come clean. I think - If the US goes into Iraq - We'll probably see what weapons Saddam has.

halkar

Originally posted by Cork
.... If the US goes into Iraq - We'll probably see what weapons Saddam has.

And if they find nothing, everything will be swept under the carpet. I am sure whatever they find will have Made in USA on it

Snowball

Originally posted by Cork
I am not great at typing so you can see why I use soundbytes etc.

Iraq invaded Kewait - Who was to blame Iraq
Iraq burned some Oil fields belonging to Kuwait - Who was to blame - Iraq
Iraq got sanctions imposed upon it, Who was to blame - Iraq


Who threw out Arms inspectors over the last 10 years - Iraq.

It is about time Iraq took some responsibility. I think if they have arms they should come clean. I think - If the US goes into Iraq - We'll probably see what weapons Saddam has.

As galdalf said before "little sound bites with no elaboration or proof of your statements". Come on, please, elaboreate a bit and explain what you mean, and how you came to that conclusion.

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq invaded Kewait - Who was to blame Iraq

(what I am asuming was his line of thinking) He was going to the home of his ancestors which someone had taken from him...

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq burned some Oil fields belonging to Kuwait - Who was to blame - Iraq

Sad am burned the oil feilds because he had to retrete and (again what I am asuming was his line of thinking) if he could not have the oil feilds that belonged to him and his people no on could.

The Saint

"Iraq invaded Kewait - Who was to blame Iraq"

There was a misunderstanding between Iraq and the US about extending its borders which the US had agreed to .

"Iraq burned some Oil fields belonging to Kuwait - Who was to blame - Iraq"

Well I'd think that you'd be pissed off if the country that supported you unquestionably went to war with you.

"Iraq got sanctions imposed upon it, Who was to blame - Iraq"

Sanctions which have killed 500,000 children and only stengthened Saddams power base.

"Who threw out Arms inspectors over the last 10 years - Iraq."

The UN. The UN removed the arms inspectors from Iraq for their own protection as the US were going to bomb Iraq regardless of an outcome. Funnily enough it was a day or two before Clintons impeachment hearing was to begin. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, hey look over there!"

Now let me ask you some questions.

Who placed Saddam in power? The US

Who gave Saddam the means to develop WMD? The US, Britain, Germany, ect.

Who kept selling him the means to develop WMD even after the gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds and through his worse attrocities? Answer as above.

Who has vetoed more UN security council resolutions than any other country in the world? The US with Britain in second place.

Why was Saddam left in place after the first gulf war? The Bush administration said that prefered an Iron fisted dictator in place for stability of the region.

Which country did nearly a mirror image invasion of another country just a matter of months before Iraq invaded Kuwait? The US when they invaded Panama.

Which country has supported/installed most recent brutal dictators of recent history? Yip, the US.

Which country has been involved in most military conflicts and coups in the last century? The good old USA.

Which country refuses to allow cheap drugs to be made to be sent to third world countries so they can save millions of lives? The US.

Which country has the largest stock of WMD in the world and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries if deemed fit? Yip the US of A.

Which country has the largest military budget even though their medical infastructure is in ****, terrible education, rampant racism and areas that are consider to be third world in conditions? America

Which country has no free press with the majority of media outlets being owned by multinationals with strong right wing political ties. The media portrays Americans being fully behind their president about the war on Iraq but in fact is the opposite. Who? You guessed it, Finland.


Only joking, USA.

I could go on with this for hours but I have work to do.

Cork

I am no apologist for Saddam. He used chemical weapons on his own people. UN inspectors are looking for arms out there at the moment. I am sure - the UN has better things to be doing than searching Iraq.

The truth is Saddam cannot be trusted.

He is making up more excuses than a 5 year old toddler.

Sanctions which have killed 500,000 children and only stengthened Saddams power base

This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating.

Where does Saddam get money for his lifestlye.

It is about time that this dictator got his comeuppance.

The Saint

"This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating."

I didnt know UNICEF did propaganda!

Cork

Which country has been involved in most military conflicts and coups in the last century? The good old USA.

[Soundbite removed - Gandalf]

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
"This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating."

I didnt know UNICEF did propaganda!

If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?

The Saint

"Thank God, for the USA - They rebuilt Germany afer ww2 & bailed us out aganist Hitler."

I think that you'll find that the Russians did a hell of a lot more against the Nazis than the Americans did. Anyway WWI, WWII and Bosnia, OK thats three. But what about Chile, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Venezuela ect ect. The list goes on and on. America has been involved in morally corrupt wars since the end of WWII. America has no moral compass, only a financial, they do whats good for them at the time and take none of the blame when it inevitably goes horribly wrong.

Hobart

If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?

Economic sanctions on this country have only hurt the People of Iraq, Not Saddam. As far as I can see Iraq is complying with the UN resolution. So in answer to your question, Leave them alone. As simple as that.

As I have stated Iraq is of no military threat to the UK or USA. It is of no more threat to it's neighbours than they are to it. So just leave them alone.

The Saint

"If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?"

No. Keep inspections going indefinitely, get food to the starving. Start opposition parties in the country and try to start an internal coup instesd of leaving all of the Shi'ites to be massacred by Saddam so the US can have an Iron Fisted dictator to keep the country stable. I dont think bombibg civilians will help. It will breed more resentment to the west and cause a surge in terrorism.

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
Keep inspections going indefinitely,

Inspections are taking place at the moment. However, having inspectors in the country is useless unless they have Iraqi cooperation. Hopefully the Iraqis will continue to cooperate with the inspectors and we can avoid war.

get food to the starving.

Already being done by the oil-for-food program.

To date, some $41 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been approved. Supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $10.5 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline.

Start opposition parties in the country and try to start an internal coup

The US has backed numerous coup attempts in Iraq since the Gulf war. All have failed (one example). It's obvious that Saddam has such a tight grip on power that any such coup attempt is doomed.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Yeah I think your 100% right there. Though I think hoping for pro west opposition parties might be a bit of an impossible task.

Saddam cannot be trusted for sure and he needs to be removed from his powerbase. However the whole gassing issue confuses me. Is it the fact that he used gas is the problem or the fact that he killed his own people? UK used gas before and neither the US or the UK has a clean slate on massacres either! Also they developed these weapons in the first place! Why did the UK and US develop them if not to use them! Which is the same argument being used against Saddam!

All that said Saddam needs to be removed, hes a madman.

I would guess that , various weapons are developed in respose to others developing them, or the risk that they would and mainly as a deterent, but shouldn't be used against your own citizens, thats not civilized.
It would be excellent at this stage for all concerned, if,full co-operation was achieved with the weapons inspectors as a start, lessening the justification if any for war.

But as I said earlier, it's my view that the U.S needs an incentive to get involved in world conflicts and thats understandable from their point of view, the grief wouldn't be worth it otherwise.
It's also understandable from their point of view that they might want to be pro active in the worlds largest oil producing region, in an effort to keep supplies flowing.
Whether it's necessary,though requires a crystal Ball.
Again from my perspective anyhow, rather than speculating( although very suspicious), I'm reserving judgement, untill all reports are on the table.
My suspicions as to what WMD's are in Iraq or at least the ingredients for them , being fed by the fact that the inspectors were turfed out for so long.

Reminds me, of the time when I was a student, and the TV licence inspector came a knocking...
I answered the door, and when We all realised who it was, said "hold on a minute..." leaving the guy standing at the door,from where he could clearly hear us moving furniture( we were in fact using it to block the door into the room where the telly was:D )
We then all disappeared out the back door, leaving the front door open...the man eventually went away, but we got the summons a few weeks later.

Now Sadam has had plenty of time to move the furniture around,and with respect, it wouldn't be in his nature to have an attack of conscience and destroy what he had.
mm

The Saint

"I would guess that , various weapons are developed in respose to others developing them, or the risk that they would and mainly as a deterent, but shouldn't be used against your own citizens, thats not civilized."

If you are referring to the Kurds thats like calling the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza Israelis but in principle I agree.

"My suspicions as to what WMD's are in Iraq or at least the ingredients for them , being fed by the fact that the inspectors were turfed out for so long."

In fact the UN removed the weapons inspectors for their own safety before the US started bombing Iraq. As I said in another thread, it was a day or two before Clintons impeachment hearing, mmm deceptive.

Cork

Sanctions have not worked. If Saddam is does not comply with the UN resolution. I think Saddam needs to go.

The Iraqi people are suffering under him.

The Saint

I agree that he needs to go but killing civilians is not the way.

Cork

Saddam only used chemical weapons on his own people.

I think that Iraq deserves more.

It is easy to sit on the fence but fair play to the US & UK.

Saddam is a cruel, vendictive tin pot dictator.

Who put him there?
I don't care.

What we need now is to get rid of him.

His people are living in fear while he is living in the lap of luxery spending money on himself & his military.

Meh

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Shoot first and ask questions later?

We've had ten years of sanctions, UN resolutions and limited bombing raids. Military action at this stage is hardly "shooting first".

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
We've had ten years of sanctions, UN resolutions and limited bombing raids. Military action at this stage is hardly "shooting first".

No, its more a "continue shooting, and shoot some more".

I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy has failed with Iraq, because you have just accurately described the nature of that diplomacy - limited military action coupled with the UN issuing "orders" on what must be done.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy has failed with Iraq

I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy hasn't been tried with Iraq. Saddam has had ten years of inspections, sanctions, resolutions and finally limited air raids to mend his ways. Yet we're supposed to believe that if we're nice to him for a change he'll turn over a new leaf. Yeah, Saddam is just misunderstood, poor guy...

growler

I nearly choked last night when i heard george pronounce that any iraqi soldier or officer should think twice about obeying orders because they would be charged with war crimes.

this is unbeliveable , surely international law allows a military to defend a sovreign state from invasion (if no un resolution is passed i imagine) but surely a soldier would be obliged to try and kill the enemy ? or be tried as a coward / traitor by his/her own state ?

and didnt america decline to sign up to a treaty recently that would allow us soldiers to be tried for war crimes ?

are there political points awarded for hypocrisy these days or am i missing something ?

Cork

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I don't see anyone defending Saddam, or anyone that has a problem with disposing him or his regime. The problem is with the bombing everyone else to get to him. All that achieves is turning the rest of the population against those doing the bombing.

What are the options:
To wait until Saddam goes into exile or gracefully goes into old age.

I think the world community has eniugh of Saddam and he deserves to go.

Are the Iraqi people expected to wait another 10 , 20 or 30 years?

There has been a lot of inaction.

A lot of inaction has good intentions behind it.

But inaction is only playing into Saddams hands.

Sanctions have not worked. They have not loosened Sammams grasp on power.

I think - Tin Pot Dictators around the world need to be sent a message.

Hobart

But is the question not a bigger one? Are we willing to allow the USA and to a lesser extent the UK, to be the worlds policemen? If the US does not like a certain leader should the West back him to go in and overthrow that government/'dictator'. If the US has certain intrests in that region, should we back them to do the same?

The UN has proved to be sterile when it's comes to agreeing policy. If the the US does not agree with a certain UN policy, well then it vetos it.

gandalf

Cork you are still just posting soundbites. You have not backed up your statements (when asked!), answered peoples points directly on any of your recent posts.

At the moment all I see is you increasing your post count by cutting and pasting the same soundbites over and over !!!

I expect this to change.

Gandalf.