|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2002 : 06:44:38
|
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2002 : 08:04:58 [Permalink]
|
Actually, if you'll recall, any gassing that was done was done while Saddam was "our son of a bitch." Any gassing that was done was done on those people that Iraq's leadership saw as enemies. Much as the U.S. is slaughtering thousands in other countries because they are "our" enemies. Yes, it's wrong to use gas, but it's wrong to use land mines, DU weapons, Air-Fuel explosives, napalm and economic sanctions combined with destruction of the infrastructure. It's wrong to arm the region to the teeth and support the largest terrorists in the region, Israel, because they're our "son of a bitch."
And in response to those who use the tired line, "Conspiracy Theorist" instead of real debate, a conspiracy simply means that people get together to commit a crime or a destructive act. People got together and decided to destroy Iraq's infrastructure and use debilitating sanctions against the populace. The intent is murder. If that is a conspiracy theory, then so be it. So is the Mafia. Are you a conspiracy theorist because you think Bonnie and Clyde got together to rob banks?
quote:
Ok, here it is.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/25/2002 08:08:47 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2002 : 08:31:40 [Permalink]
|
Let's not forget who supplied them the materials to gas these people as well.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 08:39:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, it's wrong to use gas, but it's wrong to use land mines, DU weapons, Air-Fuel explosives, napalm and economic sanctions combined with destruction of the infrastructure
--It is Illegal to use chemical weapons
All land mines employed by the US military have time delay detonators (or remote control) so they do not stay around for years. Current minefield technology favors using mines as point defense or to channel enemies already moving. They are also used for airfield denial, again with time delays.
Fuel-Air Explosives (FAE) is a replacement for Napalm, effective underwater as well. Neither napalm nor FAE are illegal.
The US does not carpet bomb population centers anymore. Nor have we since Vietnam. In fact, a healthy chunk of the Defense budget is aimed at making bombs as big as VW's able to be dropped down air ducts. An invasion of Iraq would not include flattening Bagdhad. The US goes WAY out of the way to avoid civilian losses. After all, CNN makes a big deal out of it, and so sways public opinion. But the US takes great pains to avoid wanton destruction.
Yes, we supported Saddam against Iran, which we perceived as the larger threat. That started way back while the Shah was losing his grip on Iran and the Ayotollah took over. Yes, it was a mistake.
For once we totally agree, Gorgo. Israel is just like Iraq in the 80's. Worse in my opinion. We put up with thier human rights violations because they are on our Okay list. I believe our support of Israel is a blight on our moral legitimacy, just like backing central american death squads, Afghan mujahadeen, the Shah, etc.
In each case we've chosen 'the lesser of evils' to associate with. That doesn't make them suddenly not evil bastards.
Like in Afghanistan, we are pouring money and support to the warlords (essentially buying them off not to try to take over themselves) that helped the Taliban and Al Queda escape.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 08:48:23 [Permalink]
|
They made a point of destroying the infrastructure in Iraq. Water plants, roads, bridges, sewage treament. The intent with the bombing was to make the population suffer, and the sanctions were intended to continue the genocide.
Hospitals and schools were bombed repeatedly. You know about the shelter where hundreds were killed. Those things were "accidents" of course, but they will happen. It wasn't carpet bombing but it was near carpet bombing and it wasn't meant to be nice to the civilians.
The U.S. isn't concerned with what is legal or illegal, so I won't bother attempting to check out what's legal or illegal. Napalm and Fuel Air bombs and landmines and bouncing betty type bombs are not any nicer than chemical weapons is the point.
I'm not excusing any of them, but you want one set of rules of the U.S. and another for everyone else.
quote:
[quote]Yes, it's wrong to use gas, but it's
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 09:12:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The intent with the bombing was to make the population suffer, and the sanctions were intended to continue the genocide.
--I disagree, all of those targets are legitimate military targets. Those same roads, bridges, etc were the main arteries of the Iraqi military. Not attacking them would be criminal incompetance in any general.
The sanctions you are so against limit money and imports of non-humanitarian materials. It does make it tough on civilians, but then Saddam is not cutting Defense spending to help his people.
The sanctions are still in place because Saddam has kept them there. If he had complied with the UN Resolutions following the war, they would have been eased (although doubtfully lifted entirely) long ago. If he could be trusted not to slaughter Kurds and Shiites, he wouldn't have half his country under No-fly zones.
So while the sanctions may hurt the Iraqi people, it is Saddam who has perpetuated the conflict. His argument is that he should be left alone (lots of harm- no foul?). Charlie Manson had the same argument.
He wants to be left alone so he can continue on the same path he was on until '91. He's pissed because we won't let him. He offers no legitimate reason to be let into the civilized world from the cold. He most definetly earned his pariah status.
The US sanctions and military efforts cost alot of money, and they are unpopular, so we would be saving a huge headache to walk away. Given the chance, we'd drop it and spend the money elsewhere. Politicians would love to stop having to deal with Iraq.
But Saddam has acted like a petulant child time and again, and so we remain engaged in keeping that maniac under close control. He is the reasons that the sanctions are still in place...not us.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 09:26:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not excusing any of them, but you want one set of rules of the U.S. and another for everyone else.
--wrong, I am talking about adherence to the Geneva Convention. Same rules for everybody.
Both the US and USSR had extensive chem/bio weapons programs thoughout the cold war. If they were entirely defensive (antidote research) then I would have no problem with it. But that doesn't explain all the bombs we have stored full of slime. So I think the gov't and military should have some explaining to do on that issue. So I don't hold America above the law.
This is the one place where America is kind of stepping on it's collective dick. Saddam's WMD program doesn't even come close to the US version. We are railing against a program that looks like a high school science class compared to our own bioweapons efforts.
While I'm all for blowing Saddam's greasy ass into dust, I doubt it would do anything but liberate the people. Mass civilian casualties will only occur if Saddam hunkers down in population centers and makes his population human shields.
Oh, but he has already done that. Those schools and hospitals we bombed were used by his military. This is a violation of the Geneva Accords as well. There is a difference in civilians killed knowingly and wontonly (like gassing whole villiages) and civilian losses because an Army is hiding behind them. Setting up an air defense battery on a school is no less a threat than one in the desert. It has to be taken out. It's Saddam's choice to use civilian areas to conduct a war.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 11:00:18 [Permalink]
|
As long as there is a bad guy there is tremendous motivation for the Iraqi population to follow and support Suddam. We are that bad guy. He is their hero because he takes a stand against what is their persecutor. If we want to get rid of Suddam the military is not the best option.
Suddam IMO is a crummy leader, but like a televangelist as long as he has an enemy to distract from his lack of skills he can drum up all the support he wants. He can blaim all of the problems on "outsiders" and "westerners", but if those outsiders were suddenly a friendly face to the Iraqi public all of the blame for Iraq's problems would fall squarely on Suddam's scrawny little shoulders.
As long as we continue to persecute the Iraqi people we will never have their full support (yes we will get a handful of civil rights and pro-democracy leaders, but the main populace will continue to lash out at what it perceives as its threat to existence, US).
Televangelists and preachers often use the message, "The poor persecuted church, please send your money." Suddam simply repackages that message, "The poor persecuted Iraq, follow me without question." In fact this message has been used over and over to inspire the populace to mass action, the American Revolution & Civil War, Hitler, modern terrorists groups, and so on.
As long as we keep acting like the bad guy Iraqi will support Suddam or his successor. Military action only makes us look more like the bad guy.
Edited by - jmcginn on 08/27/2002 11:00:43 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 11:12:41 [Permalink]
|
Fuel-Air explosives and Napalm are illegal, by the way.
Regarding humanitarian - just a for instance: The infrastructure still isn't completely repaired from the bombing, due to restrictions caused by the sanctions. Water and sewage treatment has been a major source of problems. This was all intentional as shown by Nagy in last September's Progressive and as shown in articles in the Post and elsewhere. There are many other examples which show that the U.S. intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people.
Use of public funds for infrastructure and the health of the people has always been a priority for the Ba'ath party. No evidence to the contrary has been presented to my knowledge. There is certainly some waste and corruption, but no more so than any other country. Most of this is State Dept. propaganda. Yes, money is wasted on the military, but it is in the U.S. as well. Saddam Hussein is a wealthy, but he is largely the government. Again, not a great guy, but then neither is Bush.
This is just a brief overview.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 11:24:50 [Permalink]
|
Excellent point. I didn't say I thought an invasion or continued sanctions were the way to go. But something HAS to be done. The sooner, the better. Saddam (and the very few honestly loyal to him) need to be removed. The Iraqis will only benefit. The US will benefit. The world will benefit.
Is it US expansionism? Yeah, but that's really not a bad thing. After Saddam, the US will pour huge amounts of money into the infrastructure. In the long run, the politicos figure it's cheaper to buy a country than fight it. Topple the leader, buy off the people. After we get a regime we can deal with in there, the sanctions will go away, the economy will be un-hobbled in oil production (with a back door sweetheart deal for us I'll wager, Kuwait style) and relief and NGO groups can do their job.
If we can broker an oil deal with Iraq, we won't depend on Saudi Arabia so much. Then we'll see just how close relations are between us. I don't trust the Saudis. They're ass deep in terror too, but we look the other way to have an ally and oil rich friend.
Unrestricted use of runways in Iraq would make lengthy coalition building and ass kissing a thing of the past. Afghanistan is a huge boon to US military power projection in the region. We could park B-52's there now if we wanted. Before that, we only had the US 7th Fleet in the Gulf or Diego Garcia way south as solid bases of US power. B-52's had to fly round trip from Diego Garcia to Afghanistan. That's a huge distance to fly just to drop payload for 15 seconds.
Also, Iraq leads the muslim countries in efforts to acquire weapons to be lobbed at Israel. The supergun, SCUDs, etc. Saddam spent alot on these programs (including WMD) to impress his richer arab neighbors. They all hate Israel, but Iraq stood out as a threat to Israel, which is considered 'vital' to the US. So taking down Iraq in particular alleviates the worst current threat. The one we can't negotiate with, as we do with Saudi, UAE, etc.
In the game of global expansion, Iraq is a solid target for the US.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 11:44:09 [Permalink]
|
"The sheer amount of explosive tonnage dropped over Iraq and Kuwai also, I think, tends to undermine any assumption of surgical strikes. Air Force General McPeak, Air Force commanding general, proudly proclaiming, "Probably the first time in history that a field army has been defeated by air power," estimated that some 88,500 tons of bombs have been dropped in over 109,000 sorties flown by a total of 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Of these flights somewhat over half were actual bombing raids while the remainder involved refueling, bomber escort, surveillance, and so forth. Of the actual bombing missions, about 20,000 sorties were flown against a select list of 300 strategic targets in Iraq and Kuwait; about 5,000 were flown against SCUD missile launchers, and some 30,000 to 50,000 against Iraqi forces in southern Iraq and Kuwait. In all, more than 3,000 bombs (including sea-launched cruise missiles) were dropped on metropolitan Baghdad. The total number of bombs dropped by allied forces in the war comes to about 250,000. Of these only 22,000 were the so-called "smart bombs" or guided bombs. About 10,000 of these guided bombs were laser-guided and about 10,000 were guided anti-tank bombs. The remaining 2,000 were radiation guided bombs directed at communication and radar installations. "
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 11:50:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Regarding humanitarian - just a for instance: The infrastructure still isn't completely repaired from the bombing, due to restrictions caused by the sanctions
--See above post about choosing to wage war from behind civilians.
How many surface to air missile batteries are in place around, say Dallas? How many AAA guns are stationed on alert in the suburbs of Malibu? Zero.
Most military reservations in the US started off way out in the boondocks for training room. The towns grew up near them. But there are no military encampments actively in place in major metropolitan areas. We don't put anti-aircraft systems in NYC. Military bases have their own power stations in the US. You could attack the base without destroying the civilian infrastructure.
Saddam has no such concern for his people. He houses soldiers and legitimate military targets smack in the middle of the civilians. Not only does he know full well the possible consequences of it, he's in fact counting on it. It's a conscious decision to use the civilians of his major cities as shields. An act of a coward.
You can not let that stop you from doing what is right for the world overall. No doubt if a military option is pursued, civilians will die. Saddam chose that fate for his own people. Hapless victims die in all wars.
But I believe that only a military option can possibly succeed. Nothing else has worked for the past decade, and however many Iraqi lives. So I'm pretty reseigned to it being violence. So I say let loose, kick his ass as violently and quickly as possible, so we can move on to something that works. The same way we justified nuking Japan to avoid invasion. But with modern technology, we can be MUCH more precise in our attacks.
Yes, some innocents will die. But the US is by far the most humanitarian military in the world. We spend billions on smart bombs to pinpoint an attack to avoid collateral damage. It would be almost free to just toss a couple nukes on them and take over. The US budget is loaded down with making wars as bloodless as possible. I think we've done more than enough in having such precision weapons to mediate our culpability for collateral damage in a place where the enemy has criminally entrenched itself among civilians.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 12:13:06 [Permalink]
|
No. This was done illegally and with no regard for human life.
Having said that, let's excuse the bombing and maybe the first year of the sanctions after the bombing. There is no doubt that the sanctions and the bombing intentionally targeted the civilians, but let's assume that that is wrong as well.
After many years of the sanctions and continued bombings killing and maiming people by the thousands, there is no doubt that this has been done to target civilians. The economic damage serves to destroy a rich culture. The two combined deserve the term genocide.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 12:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This was done illegally and with no regard for human life
--No it wasn't. We attacked in either enforcement of a UN sanction or weapons inspection violation, or we attacked AAA and SAM radar installations when they 'paint' one of our ships. That's akin to making the fist and drawing it back. Attacking them is self-defense. We just don't let them get that punch off. American pilots really appreciate that whole not getting shot down thing.
quote:
There is no doubt that the sanctions and the bombing intentionally targeted the civilians, but let's assume that that is wrong as well
--You're not assuming. Not only does this statement smack of conspiracy (the hidden agenda of genocide), but it doesn't even make sense militarily. There is nothing gained in wanton killing of civilians. From a totally practical, military point of view, it is a waste of ammunition.
You're saying that there is some personal prejudice of Bush's against the people of Iraq. Enough to warrant billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and all signed off on by the JCS. And you wonder why I call you a conspiracy nut?
Attacks were made to hurt Saddam's regime. He chose to intertwine his military apparatus with civilian population centers. Allowing him to hide behind innocent civilians cannot be an excuse to allow him to threaten the US, and with his WMD, the world. Every coward and despot has hidden behind civilians.
quote:
bombings killing and maiming people by the thousands, there is no doubt that this has been done to target civilians.
--What large scale bombing campaign has been conducted since the end of the gulf war? All the attacks have been extremely limited. There have been no "thousands" killed by US bombs since the war. Even during the war, there weren't that many civilian casualties. Iraqi propaganda would tell it otherwise. Certainly some died, but again, we did what we could (far more than any other country when it comes to concern for collateral damage) given the fact that Saddam simply hid behind civilians. He did it on purpose. To gain some level of victimization and moral legitimacy from dipshits dumb enough to believe it.
He's the one that turned his cities into military targets.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 13:00:10 [Permalink]
|
Thousands have died from the sanctions. Hundreds have died from the bombings, not to mention the terror factor involved.
You need to do your homework. There is no doubt that the infrastructure was targeted to hurt civilians.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
