Ok this may stark flame war, but you guys say IRaq and other arab countries are not really fit for democracies and are better under Monarchies, i just wonder why that is? I am not arguging just thought you guys could shed some light on it.

taken from the associated press:

quote:

"We're very happy... Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is a butcher," said a man in the back of a pickup truck, identifying himself only as Abdullah. A woman fell at the feet of the Americans and embraced them. U.S. tanks rolled through the town with messages painted on their turrets. "Got oil?" read one.

"The Iraqi army, a threat to the whole world." If Iran or North Korea came to their aid, it could actually make this a little more interesting. heh you know what's crazy .. ? these people don't even stand a chance.. it's like wolves slaughtering lambs ..

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

Last edited by dEsidEL on Mar-21-2003 at 19:45

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/m...eech/index.html

quote:

Full text: Robin Cook speech LONDON, England (CNN) --Robin Cook, former UK foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons, made an impassioned personal statement in parliament following his resignation on Monday. Cook last night won an unprecedented standing ovation after he called on MPs to reject Blair's call for the use of "any means necessary" to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The following is the full text of his speech: This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you. It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support. The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him. I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance. France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -- not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired. I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbors in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement. The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralized and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favorite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government. [Applause.]

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

sorry guys for all the WAR SPAM !

this will be my last one for this hour ..

quote:

Saddam addresses Iraqi people BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) --Iraqi President Saddam Hussein addressed the Iraqi people Thursday morning regarding war in their country. Following is a transcript of his remarks: In the name of God, most merciful, most compassionate. Those who are fought as they are treated unjustly, we're granted permission to fight and God will give them victory. Twentieth of March, 2003 corresponding to Seventeenth of the Muharram of 1422 Hejira. The criminal, the criminal junior Bush committed, he and his aides, his crime that he was threatening Iraq with and humanity as well. His criminal act comes from -- and the act of those who helped him, and his followers. This is added to the series of their shameful crimes against Iraq and humanity. This is a start for other additional crimes. Oh, Iraqis and those who care in our nation, sacrificing for you and for the values of our nation and the banners of fighting, and for its religion, and for the soul, the family, the son. And here I will not repeat what should be said. It is a duty on all people, good people, repeat what has to be done to protect and defend this dear nation and the values and sacreds. But I will say to each, this is a must on all of us. But I say on any of us -- on each of us in the family of Iraq, the believing, the honest family, that is being treated unjustly by its enemies, on all of us, on each of us, we have to remember what was said and what was pledged. And these days will go as God's will. This will add -- these days will add to your record, your right record. All you male and female dignified people, this is your share of dignity and victory, and everything that will raise the status before God, and will let infidels down, the enemies of humanity and God. And that you will be victorious, oh, Iraqis. And with you -- victorious will be with you are the sons of your nation. And you are victorious with the will of God. And your enemies will be in humiliation and defeat, God willing. Go use sword. Draw your sword, and I'm not afraid. Draw your sword. The enemy is making a fuss. And the enemy will not be stopped, except by -- let the reins be let go anyway, but hope is there. Let thunderstorms go until the guidance appears, and injustice goes away. And let dawn be the way to confront all bad. And pull your trigger and keep the fire on. Draw your sword. No one will be victorious unless he is a man, and a brave man. And prepare a banner and call for the will of God that the wounds will heal quickly. Dear friends, those who fight evil in the world, peace be upon you. You notice how Bush, the careless, underestimated your values that you declared against the war, and your call, your honest call for peace. And he committed this shameful crime this day. We pledge in our name and in the name of the command and leadership, and the name of the people, the fighting people and its heroic army in its history, a record of civilization, we pledge that we will confront the invaders and we will get them to, God willing, to the limit where they will lose their patience. And they will lose any hope in accomplishing what they were driven to by the criminal Zionists and those who have agendas. They will go to the lowest levels and they will be defeated; a defeat that we hope for them after they went far in injustice and evil. We love peace and we are working towards this peace. Iraq will be victorious. We will win. And with Iraq, our nation and humanity will win. And evil will suffer from what makes it incapable of doing any evil or crime at a level similar to the American Zionist alliance against nations. And at the forefront is our dignified nation, Arab nation. God is great. God is great. At the beginning -- at the forefront is our nation. God is great, God is great. And live long, Iraq and Palestine. God is great. God is great. And our Arab nation, dignified nation, let that nation live. And the human brotherhood, let it live with those who love peace and security. And the right of people in freedom, according to justice and equality. God is great, and let the losers lose. Let Iraq live. Long live Jihad and long live Palestine. Find this article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/m...ript/index.html

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

quote:

Originally posted by Tudo Beleza Ok this may stark flame war, but you guys say IRaq and other arab countries are not really fit for democracies and are better under Monarchies, i just wonder why that is? I am not arguging just thought you guys could shed some light on it.

Because civil participation in society is a prerequisite for democracy. Without it, democracy gets hijacked by crazy promises.

As for Iraq being governed by a monarchy since the dawn of time, check where the last monarchy to govern Iraq came from. A UK-friendly prince from Arabia. Prior to that, Turkish (Ottoman) control.

___________________
This is what you came for.

quote:

Originally posted by Guvaholic You guys should be thanking Bush for saving all of us from a deadly threat.

Rrrrright... and how in the hell is Saddam such a deadly threat to us, or the world peace? The fact that he has some deadly chemical weapons in his possession does not make him dangerous! If that was the case, US and other 10 countries with nuclear power/chemical weapons should be disarmed first...

___________________

Keep it real, and stay single, always mingle...

God is great, and let the losers lose. Let Iraq live. Long live Jihad and long live Palestine.


Ahh, yes, the Umma. Used in this case to draw Israel into conflict.



Another note on Arab unity:
If the other Arab nations were so firmly behind Saddam, then OPEC (composed primarily of Arab nations, which in turn are primarily, but not exclusively Muslim) wouldn't be so eager to keep the taps flowing to make up for the war-induced shortfall in production.

___________________
This is what you came for.

Fuck, I don't know who I'm arguing against, or what point I'm trying to make. It should be pretty clear by now that once things get to the point of open hostilities (in most situations) mistakes have been made and unreasonable stances have been taken by both sides.

I'll quote Winston Churchill (who some accused of being a warmonger) on this one:

"Jaw jaw is better than war war."
-Any amount of talking is ultimately better than killing.


But of course, I leave it up to the others here to point out why even that is wrong. However, if you give up peaceful co-operation as the basic premise under which people are to relate to one another, you are teetering toward the belief that Might Makes Right, which is more or less where we stand now in this unipolar world with one Empire posing as a republic.


God, that's almost as senseless as some of the drivel I have spouted off in my semi-intellectual babbling at parties.

___________________
This is what you came for.

Wurm.....u make some excellent statements..just thought id mention that

___________________
www.elkdee.com
Soundcloud sampler: www.soundcloud.com/elkdee

___________________
This is what you came for.

They are actually dropping bombs on Baghdad. On the CITY!!!
Ancient city that has history which hold historical marvels. Not to mention people. This are sad times for humanity. Sad times indeed.

___________________
DiS

Last edited by DiS on Mar-21-2003 at 23:48