quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't watch cnn ... I prefer bbs or sky news because I think they are more impartial. But what are you getting at? You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of. You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

for the shit we did in vietnam, cambodia and laos, i think we shouldnt speak.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer for the shit we did in vietnam, cambodia and laos, i think we shouldnt speak.

I'm sorry, but accusations of hypocrisy are a form of fallacious argument.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't watch cnn ... I prefer bbs or sky news because I think they are more impartial. But what are you getting at? You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of.

Well ironically, despite all the faults of Iraq, it's the US that gets the brunt of the criticism. That's the part I dont understand. Maybe Saddam Hussein paid several european leaders off to spew anti-US sentiment.

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians

I have said it before, and will say it again .. GO LOOK FOR OSAMA BIN LADIN !!!!! Iraq is less of a threat, they werent the ones after the terrorist attacks, theres no proof of Iraq helping Osama, and even so, Osama poses more of a thread for an attack agains America, more now that there was a video tape found, now, WHY IS MR BUSHY still after IRaq and disarming it ? they are not the ones threating us. IF the US sparks a WAR against IRAQ , it will spark MORE terrorist attacks, they HAVE their POINT on why they want to attack the US, and one of their points is because US wants to RULE the world and so on, and what is BUSH proving by going to IRAQ, without a CONCRETE reason to bother them, and spark a WAR ? ..

I mean, I will not understand if any answers are given to this, but WHY isnt he focused on that OSAMA guy !!!!!!!! .. pisses me off .. they go on alerts, yet they give priority on sparking a war with IRAQ.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Oh goody..... another Iraq vs America thread.

quote:

Under the UN (not US) resolution, any hostile act against these planes is a violation of the resolution.

Actually, there was never a UN resolution supporting the "No Fly Zone" patrols. Or rather, there was, but it was never properly ratified.

The UN Security Council passed several post-Gulf War resolutions that Iraq agreed to (including, for instance, allowing weapons inspectors into the country) but the No Fly Zones resolution - as it was never agreed upon - is still technically illegal under international law. Theoretically, given that the UN SC has not given explicit authorization of these imaginery zones, Iraq has as much right, under international law, to shoot at American and British plains flying over sovereign air-space as the US and the UK would have to shoot down any Iraqi planes flying over the Whitehouse or Buckingham Palace.

quote:

Keep in mind the function of these planes are to enforce a no fly zone to PREVENT iraqi slaughtering of the kurdish people with chemical gas.

I think it's naive to assume that the American government gives two hoots about the Kurdish people.

Why?

Firstly, it may interest you to know that the US government in all-likelihood sold Iraq the gas used to kill the Kurdish people. Am I just making it up? Have I gotten this fact from some unreliable far-left newsletter or something? No, an American Senate report says as much.

Between 1985 and 1990, the US government approved licences for the export of some $1.7 billion worth of military, chemical/biological technology, a total of 771 licences in all during that period (only 39 licences were rejected). The substances include:

"Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin), Histoplasma Capsulatam (cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart), Brucella Melitensis (a bacteria that can damage major organs), Clostridium Perfringens (a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness), Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance), Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents."

It should also be pointed out here that the attacks that Hussein committed against the Kurdish people (that killed 5,000 and wounded 10,000) occurred, unless someone can tell me otherwise, in the year 1988 (although less catasrophic gas attacks began as early as 1984). The US government was so outraged by this attrocity that the exports of chemical agents to Iraq actually increased after the event, and - to my knowledge - the US government never condemned these attrocities (or bothered to stop exporting military chemical agents) until Iraq ceased to be the "enemy of the enemy" (namely Iran) and became hostile towards US interests.

The US government couldn't care less about the Kurdish attrocities at the time, yet - as soon as Iraq became the enemy in 1991 - they realised the propoganda value in condemning Hussein for these attacks after the event.

If you wish, you can read up on just how the US helped develop the enemy (remind you of the Taliban/Al Quieda situation?) here:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsear.../report_s01.htm

quote:

If you read your history books you'll find out out that before teh gulf war Hussein sent in planes and missiles with chemical warheads to exterminate the population. Is preventing a massacre reason enough to have those planes up there?

Once again, the US government has no interest in "preventing massacres". In fact, the World Health Organisation is left in little doubt about the fact that US sanctions have been responsible for more deaths than any attrocity Hussein could even dream of committing.

This report is fairly old now (1996) but the issues have not changed:

http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html

(Plenty of other condemning articles on the WHO site as well, for anyone interested).

quote:

The sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1990...... have contributed to delays or, in some cases, even cessation attempts by the Government to repair vital damaged facilities and programmes. As a result, the quality of life of the average Iraqi citizen has been adversely affected. Owing to the lack of financial resources from foreign exchange earnings, namely from oil, the import of food and medicine has been restricted.

quote:

The six-week Gulf war in 1991 resulted in the destruction of a large number of public facilities in Iraq, such as electricity generating and water purification plants and sewage treatment networks. As a consequence, provision of health care to the population was seriously disrupted. One example has been the complete disruption of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), the result being a decrease in the number of infants and children being immunized and as a result, an increase in many vaccine-preventable diseases.

^^ Side note - many of these facilities were specifically targetted by the US forces:

"Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create post-war leverage in Iraq... Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society... Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war a 'collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither..."
- Washington Post 23 June 1991

quote:

The per capita gross national product (GNP) is an indication of the economic status of a country. In 1989, before the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq had a GNP of about US$ 2 800. The effect of the six-week 1991 Gulf war and conditions surrounding the sanctions that were imposed on the country in 1990, is reflected by the GNP rapidly declining from US$ 2 800 in 1989 to US$ l 500 in l99l.

And so on.

Of course, you could argue that all Saddam had to do was let the Inspectors back in and everything would be okay - so in actual fault the sanctions are his fault for being such a bastard - but I would advise you to cast your minds back to a few months ago when Bush categorically stated that even Iraq allowing "uninhibited access" to UN inspectors would not result in the sanctions being lifted.

Admittedly, it's as much the UN's fault as it is the US (as the UN were the ones responsible for the instegation of the sanctions in the first place - justified as they probably were at the time), but it is Geroge Bush - with his dumbed down, barbaric war-mongering - who propogates the misery the sanction are causing. All he need do is accept that inspectors have - just today - flown into Iraq to inspect weapons facilities, back down from his misguided, dogmatic ideologies, and treat the Iraqi people with the humanitarian respect they deserve.

quote:

so dont do business... mexico is not forced to comply to US pressure, if it belives attacking iraq is wrong then by all means it may do so.

Yes, but the point is that America has such a strangle-hold on the world economy - and has also recently (or not so recently) adopted the "you're either with us or with the terrorists" stance - and if you put them together, then it's not too hard to realise that vehemently disagreeing with the US government is the quickest way to starve your own people.

I do wonder how much of the support for this war has been arrived at from an economic standpoint rather than from a moral standpoint, which, I would argue, is the perspective from which it would best be approached.

quote:

I think its more like buying a country to go for something, just because they are forced to ( for the need of money ) .. and not because they want to.

^^ Exactly.

quote:

You don't think Iraq is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by a corrupt dictatorship ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded neighboring, peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has used chemical weapons against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... it exhibits no humanitarian rights or system of civil liberties to speak of. You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

You don't think the US is winning a propoganda war? Hmmm lets see ... the country is run by corrupt capitalists ... it disregards treaty obligations ... it has invaded peaceful, sovereign, arab nations ... it has condoned the use of chemical weapons being used by a country against its own people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders ... recently it has exhibited no regard for humanitarian rights or any system of civil liberties to speak of.

You know what? I couldn't think of a worse reputation to have. What positive influences or gains can you possibly think of that this country has made on the world? Can you see ANY positive example that this country has made that the rest of the world should imitate? YET despite this ridiculousness, this country has garnered the support of numerous nations across the globe. It has sparked an attitude of sympathy with half the planet. This country has even divided relations among NATO countries that have historically stood by each other through thick and thin. So are they winning the propoganda war? I'm sorry to say it but they are.

(Don't necessarily agree with that, just trying to show you how easily that argument can change depending on one's bias).

quote:

by ignoring the terrorism and making new enemies. Id hate to see what would happen next. We live in the 21st century. War just leads to more wars. There always has to be an enemy for some reason. Why cant problems be solved in a more sophisticated way?

Exactly.

There is absolutely no justification for the compromise of the inherent sanctity of human life. Anyone who deems human life expendible, or the loss of it as merely "collateral damage" needs their priorities re-examined.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Bush decides to invade Iraq, he is - in my eyes - directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent human beings. By the laws of his own state, he'd deserve to be put to the chair by virtue of what he is proposing to do.

Having said that, given that the inspectors are on their way to Iraq now, with the situation having largely resolved itself peacefully I'm not sure why there's any need for this discussion. Imagine if Bush had got his own way from the beginning? How many innocents would be needlessly dead by now?

Anyway, I'm done. Have I gone too far this time? (I'm blaming it on the red wine ).

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Nov-25-2002 at 16:16

until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

quote:

Originally posted by BLATTMAN until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

Why? Does such unfortunate circumstances help you see things clearly? If that was the case, I cannot help wondering if what Palestineans and Israelis are doing is the right way to behave. They have both experienced losses and misfortune.

quote:

Originally posted by BLATTMAN until a friend or relative of yours was killed because of terrorism and you were personally affected, maybe you should think twice before you speak.

And you forgot to mention that the world revolves around you.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Why? Does such unfortunate circumstances help you see things clearly? If that was the case, I cannot help wondering if what Palestineans and Israelis are doing is the right way to behave. They have both experienced losses and misfortune.

Actually under those circumstances you would be less likely to be thinking clearly I suspect. After all, you would probably be quite emotional, and emotion is the enemy of critical thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Actually under those circumstances you would be less likely to be thinking clearly I suspect. After all, you would probably be quite emotional, and emotion is the enemy of critical thought.

I know. My post was an ill-fated attempt at sarcasm.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I know. My post was an ill-fated attempt at sarcasm.

Yeah, you were making a good point. I just felt it needed to be expanded upon a bit for the sake of clarity.