|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2002 : 13:01:34 [Permalink]
|
No, actually I don't wonder why you have a need to build yourself up by insulting other people.
"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 : 13:24:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You need to do your homework. There is no doubt that the infrastructure was targeted to hurt civilians
--What 'homework' did you do to arrive at that ridiculous notion?
Again we go back to the conspiracy. The idea that the last three american presidents had it in for the Iraqi people. You're essentially saying that the last 3 presidents (not to mention the entire coalition we fought with, the UN who brought the sanctions, et al) are specifically targetting the civilian population of Iraq.
Why? What possible reason would a good portion of the world have for that? What gain is to be made that would interest such a vast number of people and nations to single out your average Iraqi for persecution? This is where conspiracy bullshit runs into a brick wall.
Even Hitler had an excuse to target every jew on the street. So I'm still waiting, from the other thread, for you to enlighten us as to just what is the ulterior motive, since the obvious one just HAS to be a ploy.
Why is it that everyone is out to destroy the Iraqis? You sound more paranoid than Saddam himself.
You're convinced we're conducting our own Holocaust. Last I heard we wanted Saddam out, not the extermination of an entire people.
You seem to know 'the truth' about our plan of genocide, so just what is the reason? This ought to be funny.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 14:11:10 [Permalink]
|
I don't think they especially "had it in" for the Iraqi people, I just think they got in the way of U.S. plans for domination of the region. I think they would have been just as happy to let them live if they'd just would have been happy to submit.
The "allies" except for Great Britain were pretty much a fiction. Those that did go along were bribed or threatened for the most part and did so with little enthusiasm.
It was illegal, again, because there were no negotiations. This is required under at least the UN charter.
"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 |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 14:31:26 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and the reason. Well, a few reasons, probably, although again, one can only speculate since no one is telling me. Probably a defensive thing. To remain the only real superpower. Were there any kind of Arab/Russian alliance, the US couldn't be the big power in the region. Another reason is to put someone more pliable in, as was done in Panama and other places. Sort of cleaning up after the Cold War. Getting rid of problem people the US supported.
"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 : 15:34:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think they especially "had it in" for the Iraqi people, I just think they got in the way of U.S. plans for domination of the region
--You are suggesting a calculated effort at genocide for over a decade now. How that doesn't qualify as 'having it in' for someone is interesting. Like saying Hitler didn't have it in for Jews, they just stood in the way of Germany's rise. So you are saying that 3 presidents and the UN are committing this 'genocide' just for shits and giggles?
The people of Iraq pose no threat to US domination in the region. Saddam might, but not the average Iraqi. Genocide on the civilians doesn't amount to anything if you leave the enemy government in place. It is pointless and wasteful. If all we wanted to do was kill off the whole of Iraq, we could have nuked the country into a shiny glass plate. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. How would a decade of 'genocide' be in the interest of the US if what we wanted was domination of a region, yet we allow the regime to stand? This is the exact opposite of domination. If domination was our goal, we would have taken over Iraq in '91. Instead we have spent alot of effort on sanctions, believing in not toppling leaders if it can be helped. We tried to let Saddam stay in power and not force US puppets into power. That didn't work. And it had to be one of the most generous outcomes of a war for any aggressor. You get to start wars and invade peaceful neighbors for loot, but after having your ass handed to you, you get to stay in power. That qualifies as damn near unheard for leniency for the loser. That's like beating the nazis back to Germany but stopping there and walking away.
quote:
The "allies" except for Great Britain were pretty much a fiction. Those that did go along were bribed or threatened for the most part and did so with little enthusiasm
There was a 20+ nation coalition including all the world's leading powers except China. Hardly what I call non-existant. But you are correct that many gave very little assistance or had to be bribed. Oh well, that's global politics.
quote:
It was illegal, again, because there were no negotiations. This is required under at least the UN charter
--I'm not sure if you are talking about the Gulf war. But in case you forgot, there was an 8 MONTH build up (Desert Shield) prior to the actual war (Desert Storm) during which there was constant negotiations. The air war only launched following Saddam's ignoring deadlines to withdraw from Kuwait for the 5th or so time. After you start, and lose, a war is no time to demand or negotiate anything.
At anytime Saddam could have avoided the US firing a shot by stopping it's rape and plunder of Kuwait. He chose to fight and should bear the responsibility for his people's suffering.
quote:
Probably a defensive thing. To remain the only real superpower. Were there any kind of Arab/Russian alliance, the US couldn't be the big power in the region
--Huh? Iraq was no threat to the US as a superpower. The Russians? They can't afford gas for thier tanks or pay for thier soldiers. They are no threat as a superpower. They have thier own oil reserves, which makes the middle east of lower priority for them anyway.
Moreover, the Russians are some of the most hated in the middle east. They are the reason for the formation of the Mujahadeen and the terrorists that have sprouted from them. They are at war in Chechnya with muslims. Many of the Taliban and Al Queda are Chechen. Russia is in no position to re-emerge as a world power, especially in the middle east. This argument doesn't hold water.
quote:
Sort of cleaning up after the Cold War. Getting rid of problem people the US supported.
--Now there's a classic conspiracy notion if ever there was one. Sort of like NASA bumping off problem astronauts. That's as bad as saying it's a personal Bush/Hussein thing.
Again, none of that would account for the active 'genocide' of the Iraqis. If we wanted to bump off a 'problem', we would have taken Iraq in '91. There's no real gain in killing the civilians but letting the regime continue for the past 11 years.
quote:
Another reason is to put someone more pliable in, as was done in Panama and other places
--well no shit. Thanks for stating the painfully obvious.
But what would be the purpose of 11 years of genocide against the polulace only to install another regime? Why would we want to kill off the people, then install a leader of no one?
How would killing so many civilians, who have no control in the country anyway, help or further the cause of regime change? Especially when there is only a handful of Iraqis we won't accept as a replacement. The majority of our negotiations are with military leaders we want to march on Bagdhad. The average Iraqi is useless to us. So why bother exterminating them? Your argument just fails the most simple logic.
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 : 16:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--You are suggesting a calculated effort at genocide for over a decade now. How that doesn't qualify as 'having it in' for someone is interesting. Like saying Hitler didn't have it in for Jews, they just stood in the way of Germany's rise. So you are saying that 3 presidents and the UN are committing this 'genocide' just for shits and giggles?
Actually, I think Hitler, et al, would have preferred keeping the Jews, etc., as slaves but the war probably escalated their demise. However, it is clear that the U.S. understands that they meant to destroy, for one instance, the infrastructure. They also understood that many years of not being able to repair that infrastructure was going to and did have a human toll. They knew what they were doing and didn't stop it. That makes murder. They are changing the very culture of Iraq. That makes genocide.
quote:
The people of Iraq pose no threat to US domination in the region.
Exactly. So why do you support their genocide?
quote:
Saddam might, but not the average Iraqi.
Not even "Saddam," but thanks for making my point. There's no good reason to continue strangling the average Iraq for whatever reason it is that they continue.
quote:
But you are correct
Thank you for noticing.
quote:
--I'm not sure if you are talking about the Gulf war.
Remember Daddy Bush? NO NEGOTIATIONS. No letting the sanctions work.
quote:
--Huh? Iraq was no threat to the US as a superpower. The Russians?
Thank you for making my point. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., or Saudi Arabia, or anybody but Kuwait and Iran, and the U.S. wanted the war with Iran, and Kuwait and the U.S. seemed to want a war with Iraq. In fact, the Soviet Union wasn't ever much of a threat to the U.S.
I said, superpower in the region. In other words, the U.S. would have a greater say as to what goes on than they would with a Pan-Arab or even a Pan-Arab/Russian alliance. Pay attention when your elders speak.
quote:
--Now there's a classic conspiracy notion if ever there was one.
--well no shit. Thanks for stating the painfully obvious.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
Again, the U.S. leadership, I'm sure, would prefer not to (are you paying attention?) would prefer not to kill anyone. However, these people are in the way of what the U.S. wants. Look at the history of the U.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 : 17:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The people of Iraq pose no threat to US domination in the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. So why do you support their genocide
--I don't. The UN sanctions are not genocide. Only in your head is it genocide.
Genocide is the definition you have chosen. That doesn't make it the right one, or even a vaguely informed one. This coming from the same person who tosses about 'illegal' without knowing it's meaning either.
quote:
There's no good reason to continue strangling the average Iraq for whatever reason it is that they continue
--They continue only because of Saddam Hussein. He has had a decade to comply with the UN resolutions and has chosen not to, knowing that it's the population that will suffer, not him hiding in his palaces. He is the sole reason for the continuance of sanctions and military strikes. He could at any time comply with the conditions of his surrender.
It was amazingly lenient of us to allow him to retain power (and immediately slaughter thousands of Kurds and Shiites) after the war.
It was amazingly lenient to allow his defiance and continued WMD development for the past 11 years without toppling him already.
The US has shown nearly infinite patience with the man, in fact. We have had the authority and moral legitimacy to invade and dust him on any number of occasions.
We allowed alot less from Milosevic. So I'd say we've gone well beyond being patient in our approach to Hussein.
The question is more why we've waited this long to do something concrete.
11 years is long enough for a pariah to repent, which Saddam will not do.
quote:
Pay attention when your elders speak
--Gag. You are an idiot regardless of your age. You are a blight on this BBS. Obviously you didn't use all that time on earth to become informed or comprehend world affairs. You say nothing of real value and mostly just rip off other people by pasting in thier thoughts. Probably to make up for a lack of originals. You talk about wars you haven't or wouldn't fight, with enemies you do not understand, in places you have never been. Elder? I've read far better, more intelligent and original posts from teenagers on this BBS.
quote:
However, these people are in the way of what the U.S. wants. Look at the history of the U.S
--Ah, the heart of the conspiracy. And just what is it the US wants? You seem to know all about it already. What goal is it that we hope to achieve by this so-called genocide? What possible end is to be attained using these means? If genocide is the tool we are using for some agenda, what is that agenda? Being a superpower? Sorry, already got that t-shirt.
What historical reference are you talking about?
What is it that the average Iraqi is 'in the way' of that hurting them and not Saddam directly is a preferrable strategy?
quote:
Remember Daddy Bush? NO NEGOTIATIONS. No letting the sanctions work.
--Already went thru this, you must have forgotten in your old age.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of '90. The combat phase of the operation (Desert Storm) began in January. The ground war began a couple more months after that. In all, Saddam had 8 months to negotiate AFTER he had already invaded Kuwait. He did not negotiate with Kuwait at all before invading.
After the 100 hours of the ground war, he was slapped with sanctions (but generously was allowed to retain power) which he bucked and violated constantly. That forced the re-deployment of troops to the region at the cost of tax dollars no less than 4 times. I know, I went. You didn't, which was probably the single greatest contribution you made to the war effort.
Until we stopped even trying to have the UN inspectors do their job, Saddam could have complied with the resolutions and had the sanctions eased.
Saddam chose to keep his country under the severe sanctions by not complying with the resolutions. If he had been co-operative not only would he have gotten to retain power as long as he wanted, but the sanctions would be a footnote in history books by now.
The suffering of his people rests squarely on Hussein's shoulders.
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 : 18:58:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not even "Saddam," but thanks for making my point. There's no good reason to continue strangling the average Iraq for whatever reason it is that they continue
--But you're opposed to forcefully removing Saddam? So what exactly are we to do? Give Hitler, I mean Hussein, a free pass on invading Kuwait and the atrocities they committed there? Or the atrocities against the Kurds and Shiites? Or developing a WMD program in defiance of UN resolutions?
You're really starting to bore me, so let's just get down to brass tacks here. What's your solution? Just live and let live, huh? Go on, start yet another war if you want. Make all the WMD you want.
We have only two options, either enforce sanctions which undeniably hurt civilians but also cripple a madman's ability to make war on his neighbors. OR
Use military force to remove the single sticking point in ending the sanctions- Hussein himself. He simply won't comply so he leaves the world only those two options.
I think it's far more humanitarian to make Saddam a wet stain in the sand quickly and get down to helping rebuild Iraq.
With the current regime gone, there is no real need for sanctions.
Afghanistan is a good example. We are pouring hundreds of millions into that country to build an infrastruture from scratch. We're building schools and medical clinics. Special Forces soldiers are innoculating whole villiages against disease. Military convoys are making sure relief supplies reach the starving people and not warlord soldiers.
It would be far easier in Iraq. All this effort poured into a muslim country. Maybe the next generation won't be so quick to strap on a bomb if Iraq could be brought into the fold of civilized nations and be trusted and be a partner to the US. Saddam is the single thorn on the rose.
That's why I want a historical reference. Where have we gone since Vietnam that we didn't at least try to pour tons of humanitarian aid to? We've had our debacles in our efforts, like somalia, but you see how bad off the Afghans are now that we 'invaded' them.
Giving Hussein a free pass is just stupid. We did that (since we supported it) after the Iraq/Iraq war where he used chemical weapons. Not two years later he invaded another neighbor in open aggression.
We've been down this path before. Saddam's regime is all that stands between crippling sanctions and world acceptance/aid.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2002 : 03:19:27 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, Vietnam is a whooole lot better for being attacked by the U.S. Nicaragua was actually improving before the US attacked it as was Somalia.
You seem to be confused. You say that the sanctions have hurt the people of Iraq in this last post, but you seem to have said before that the U.S. only fed people and inoculated them against disease. You need to make up your mind.
Iraq cooperated with the inspectors to a great extent. There were some memorable exceptions, most of them not so memorable, but they made no difference, Iraq was "qualitatively disarmed" to quote Scott Ritter. The inspections worked, and the U.S. wanted them to end, so they made up a justification to bomb. There was never an indication that the U.S. held any promise of any letting up on the sanctions. In fact we find that the sanctions were only used to gain information to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to find out where to bomb. As the U.S. said on many occasions, there was no intent to let up on the war against the Iraqi people until they overthrew their leadership. Of course, when they tried to rebel, the U.S. made sure they didn't get any of Iraq's arms. They looked the other way when Iraq attacked back. They kept the sanctions going to make sure that those who tried to fight the leadership suffered even more. The U.S. double-dealt with the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war, and they made sure Turkey keeps up their repression against the Kurds.
You say it's "Saddam" that keeps the sanctions going? So, the United States or the UN did not impose the sanctions? It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions to target a civilian population for political purposes. Witholding parts to repair the infrastructure, witholding medical equipment, this is all to target the civilians. Look up the Genocide Convention and you'll see why I call it genocide.
"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 |
Posted - 08/28/2002 : 03:54:22 [Permalink]
|
So, you know every bar and whorehouse in the world.
"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 |
Posted - 08/28/2002 : 04:32:53 [Permalink]
|
What do "we" do? Well, it wouldn't make any sense to hang both George Bush's and Clinton, but I suppose it would show that "we" are serious by at least putting them on trial for their crimes against humanity. Then, I think "we" ought to work for a reasonable level of democracy and peace in the world rather than US world domination.
quote:
--But you're opposed to forcefully removing Saddam? So what exactly are we to do?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/28/2002 04:33:19 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2002 : 09:33:30 [Permalink]
|
Israel is engaged in "self-defense" and while their efforts are certainly clumsy, they are only engaged in a war on terrorism, and certainly not engaged in repression. Certainly Solly must be a conspiracy nut to think anything else. Why would he swallow other State Department propaganda whole, and not swallow this? Surely if he's going to be a nut, he ought to be a consistent nut?
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0307pwlisrl.htm
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2002 : 11:14:49 [Permalink]
|
In the interest of maintaining, well, interest, I've modified the title of the thread to better indicate the topic at hand.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
