|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2001 : 14:06:57 [Permalink]
|
My feeling about corporate displays of patriotism is that it just cheapens it. Soon we'll have McPatriot meals wrapped in red, white and blue. I don't see it as real patriotism.
Here's an interesting article about our policies:
http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/01-09-26_116247.asp
One thing about Iran...they do have elections. They might not have an American style democracy but then they're not American nor obligated to do as we do. It's not as if our democracy is so perfect.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 16:24:30 [Permalink]
|
Let's run with this improbable assessment once. The end result of the Iraq plan is that Saddam Hussein is more in power in Iraq than ever, millions have died, and there is no international control whatsoever over the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" program in Iraq. The only real threat to Saddam Hussein's power in Iraq are a younger group that thinks he's being to easy on the U.S. Add to that a growing number of average Iraqis who hate the U.S. in a country that ten years ago absolutely loved the United States. If what you say is true, then the U.S. has been run by the most incredbible group of morons ever assembled.
This just isn't true however. There was no reason for the genocide that the US/UK coalition has visited on the people of Iraq. This is murder. They (US/UK regimes) knew that these policies would kill millions, and they know that they have killed millions.
quote:
I think you have this backwards. The US invaded Panama because we were living up to our obligations. And thousands didn't die and we didn't take it over. We got rid of a thug called Noriega and left.
The Gulf War was another example of the US living up to it's obligations. Obligations to our allies there(Saudi Arabia,Kuwait) and an obligation to stop Saddam Hussein because we had made him what he was. The sad truth is that the Iraqi people have it tough, really tough, but some believe it could have been much worse. I shudder to think of the state of the world today if Saddam hadn't had his nuclear program stopped. Do you cry for the children Saddam has killed and would you have cried for the millions of dead children in a world where Iraq was allowed to have nuclear weapons?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org
Edited by - Gorgo on 09/28/2001 04:16:10 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 16:54:43 [Permalink]
|
Millions of Iraqis dead? Genocide?
If I called it sadistic equine necrophilism would that be beating a dead horse?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 17:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
United Nations Security Council
Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 1330 (2000)
Determined to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq, and convinced of the need for the equitable distribution of humanitarian supplies to all segments of the country's population, the Security Council this evening again extended the Iraq “oil-for-food” program for a further 180-day period beginning 6 December.
The Council took that action as it unanimously adopted resolution 1330 (2000), which was submitted by France and the United Kingdom.
Further by that text, the Council decided that during the 180-day period, the amount recommended by the secretary-general for the food/nutrition and health sectors in Iraq should continue to be allocated on a priority basis. That amount would come from the sum generated from the imports of Iraqi petroleum and related products. Also, 13 per cent of that sum should be used for the purposes referred to in resolution 986 (1995). ---UN
I suppose the UN Security Council is a terrorist organization too.
quote:
The Office of the Iraq Program (OIP) was established in October 1997 to implement the oil for food program for Iraq established by Security Council resolution 986 (1995) and subsequent resolutions.
In August 1990, the Security Council had imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq.
Concerned about the extended suffering of the civilian population as a result of the sanctions the UN Security Council passed resolution 986 in April 1995 with an "oil for food" formula as "a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people".
In May 1996, after extended negotiations with the UN Secretariat, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting out arrangements for the implementation of SCR 986.
The first oil under the program was exported in December 1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997.
To date, the Security Council's 661 Committee has approved contracts with a total value of $21 billion dollars, while another $6.8 billion worth have been approved through accelerated or "fast track" procedures by OIP. Supplies and equipment worth more than $15.3 billion have been delivered to Iraq. ---UN OIP
I think perhaps Saddam Hussein wants his people to starve.
Edited by - marvin on 09/27/2001 17:17:07 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 03:28:49 [Permalink]
|
Going back in history to resolution 678, the UN Security Council (not the U.N.) was bribed and threatened by the U.S. to begin acting against Iraq without having first negotiated, which is against the UN charter.
It is against the UN charter and the Geneva Convention to target civilian populations, which the U.S. has done. The US has manipulated the sanctions, holding up necessary supplies and continues a terrorist bombing campaign.
To go back to Panama, this terrorist action violated several treaties, and was condemned by the UN General Assembly, not just the 15 member Security Council.
quote:
I think perhaps Saddam Hussein wants his people to starve.
Edited by - marvin on 09/27/2001 17:17:07
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 05:08:52 [Permalink]
|
You're speaking of course of the problem getting medicines for diseases like hoof and mouth. Not a small problem.
quote:
If I called it sadistic equine necrophilism would that be beating a dead horse?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 08:05:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Going back in history to resolution 678, the UN Security Council (not the U.N.) was bribed and threatened by the U.S. to begin acting against Iraq without having first negotiated, which is against the UN charter.
It is against the UN charter and the Geneva Convention to target civilian populations, which the U.S. has done. The US has manipulated the sanctions, holding up necessary supplies and continues a terrorist bombing campaign.
To go back to Panama, this terrorist action violated several treaties, and was condemned by the UN General Assembly, not just the 15 member Security Council.
Support from a neutral site for the threats and the bribery?
Which resolutions specifically condemn the US actions in Panama?
As to earlier. I agree with you (well you may not agree with the method...) regarding serious consideration of staged withdrawls from Iraq and it's borders for humanitarian reasons and increasing/easing restrictions on humanitarian aid reaching the citizenry of Iraq.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 09/28/2001 08:08:34 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 08:16:52 [Permalink]
|
What's a neutral site? One that agrees with your distorted view?
quote:
quote:
Going back in history to resolution 678, the UN Security Council (not the U.N.) was bribed and threatened by the U.S. to begin acting against Iraq without having first negotiated, which is against the UN charter.
It is against the UN charter and the Geneva Convention to target civilian populations, which the U.S. has done. The US has manipulated the sanctions, holding up necessary supplies and continues a terrorist bombing campaign.
To go back to Panama, this terrorist action violated several treaties, and was condemned by the UN General Assembly, not just the 15 member Security Council.
Support from a neutral site for the threats and the bribery?
Which resolutions specifically condemn the US actions in Panama?
As to earlier. I agree with you (well you may not agree with the method...) regarding serious consideration of staged withdrawls from Iraq and it's borders for humanitarian reasons and increasing/easing restrictions on humanitarian aid reaching the citizenry of Iraq.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 09/28/2001 08:08:34
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 08:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Now Gorgo why are my views distorted? Because they are different from yours? Well, my apologies for not falling in line with you and believing everything you say without being able to form my own opinion regarding a subject. From now on I'll just completely agree with everything you say and not even attempt to practice any form of skepticism in regards to any position you postulate. Would that then mean my views are no longer distorted? How very dogmatic of you!
How about just the facts!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 09/28/2001 08:26:05 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 09:01:27 [Permalink]
|
Good tactic. Throw the insult you made back at me as though I'd made it.
quote:
Now Gorgo why are my views distorted? Because they are different from yours? Well, my apologies for not falling in line with you and believing everything you say without being able to form my own opinion regarding a subject. From now on I'll just completely agree with everything you say and not even attempt to practice any form of skepticism in regards to any position you postulate. Would that then mean my views are no longer distorted? How very dogmatic of you!
How about just the facts!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 09/28/2001 08:26:05
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 10:09:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Saddam Hussein wants the West to believe that sanctions are to blame for suffering in Iraq. He spares no effort to control the spin from Iraq: his party controls all the television stations and newspapers. Journalists visiting Iraq accept Iraqi government escorts; even when reporters escape from their minders, most Iraqis hesitate to speak critically, since they know others are watching.
The decline in infant mortality, the increase in fertility, and the general improvement in health in northern Iraq despite sanctions, show that sanctions are not the problem. It is hard for people to starve when, every month, the oil-for-food program gives each individual nine kilograms of flour, three kilograms of rice, as well as sugar, tea, oil, milk, cheese, salt and meat and vegetable protein. Fruit, meat and vegetables are plentiful in the markets. While there are humanitarian tragedies in parts of the south, sanctions have little to do with it.
When Slobodan Milosevic went about the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, the West did not respond by giving him money or business contracts. It is curious that they do in Iraq. ---The Washington Institute 8/13/01
Saddam Hussein needs to be indicted for war crimes, mass murder and possibly a hundred other crimes against the Iraqi peoples. I believe that after Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein will be next. I've always considered ‘sanctions' to be a socialistic idea, a compromise of the West's desire to blockade and apprehend foreign criminal statesmen. Sanctions are probably the only punishment for Saddam Hussein that could be universally agreed upon at the time.
quote:
As to earlier. I agree with you (well you may not agree with the method...) regarding serious consideration of staged withdrawals from Iraq and it's borders for humanitarian reasons and increasing/easing restrictions on humanitarian aid reaching the citizenry of Iraq. ---Trish
I disagree ‘we', the new coalition, need to take Saddam Hussein out of power, sooner rather than later. He was attempting to construct a nuclear weapon before the gulf war, and ‘we' have no reason to believe that he is not still at it.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 10:35:08 [Permalink]
|
How do you arrive at the idea that sanctions are socialistic? We had sanctions against the Soviet Union for years. What would you have done instead? Just allow all trade between the US-Soviets, bombed them or something else? Sanctions have been very effective in some cases. I can give a good example and that would be South Africa. Sanctions also helped turn the tide in Serbia. I know, I know....we bombed them too but that was just to stop the immediate threat in Kososvo. It was the sanctions that drove Milosovic out.
Forgot the above for a moment and also consider this: trade is capitalistic long before it's socialist. Seems odd to call withholding our trade "socialist." I just don't get it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 10:35:50 [Permalink]
|
The Washington Institute is the place to find State Department propaganda which the media spouts.
quote:
quote:
Saddam Hussein wants the West to believe that sanctions are to blame for suffering in Iraq. He spares no effort to control the spin from Iraq: his party controls all the television stations and newspapers. Journalists visiting Iraq accept Iraqi government escorts; even when reporters escape from their minders, most Iraqis hesitate to speak critically, since they know others are watching.
The decline in infant mortality, the increase in fertility, and the general improvement in health in northern Iraq despite sanctions, show that sanctions are not the problem. It is hard for people to starve when, every month, the oil-for-food program gives each individual nine kilograms of flour, three kilograms of rice, as well as sugar, tea, oil, milk, cheese, salt and meat and vegetable protein. Fruit, meat and vegetables are plentiful in the markets. While there are humanitarian tragedies in parts of the south, sanctions have little to do with it.
When Slobodan Milosevic went about the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, the West did not respond by giving him money or business contracts. It is curious that they do in Iraq. ---The Washington Institute 8/13/01
Saddam Hussein needs to be indicted for war crimes, mass murder and possibly a hundred other crimes against the Iraqi peoples. I believe that after Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein will be next. I've always considered ‘sanctions' to be a socialistic idea, a compromise of the West's desire to blockade and apprehend foreign criminal statesmen. Sanctions are probably the only punishment for Saddam Hussein that could be universally agreed upon at the time.
quote:
As to earlier. I agree with you (well you may not agree with the method...) regarding serious consideration of staged withdrawals from Iraq and it's borders for humanitarian reasons and increasing/easing restrictions on humanitarian aid reaching the citizenry of Iraq. ---Trish
I disagree ‘we', the new coalition, need to take Saddam Hussein out of power, sooner rather than later. He was attempting to construct a nuclear weapon before the gulf war, and ‘we' have no reason to believe that he is not still at it.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 10:39:26 [Permalink]
|
But Gorgo, you say that while providing links to Iraqi propaganda. How silly is that??? Fancy that, the Iraqi government having issues with an embargo...
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 11:41:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good tactic. Throw the insult you made back at me as though I'd made it.
What insult? I don't see anything that I might have said that could be construed as an insult. Insult was not my intention in anything I said.
Unless you mean my emphasis on a neutral site? Look, I've found several neutral sites on many controversial subjects - generally ending in .edu. Simply because it is a breakdown of the components of a situation as an exercise in understanding the whole picture.
That's the only thing that I can find in my statements that might even come close to being construed as an insult. Please, point it out to me that I won't make that error in future.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
