Simplistic view of the war on Iraq

[13788]

Tender: i see no reason the US SHOULD back down from its unwavering support of Israel. ?
when something is the right thing to do, you do not back down for the sake of peace, or your own comfort zone.
ok lol now i realize ive opened a can of worms...
but I support the US stand of Israel.
and this war in general....

Tender

 

[13788]

headbang8: When will you lame-ass pinko liberals learn?  You can't hope to understand the complexities of contemporary international geo-politics if you insist on using simplistic terms like "right", "wrong" and "oil".   Get with the program, Sammygirly!

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=Tender link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#20 date=10/24/03 at 11:05:48]i see no reason the US SHOULD back down from its unwavering support of Israel. ?
when something is the right thing to do, you do not back down for the sake of peace, or your own comfort zone.
ok lol now i realize ive opened a can of worms...
but I support the US stand of Israel.
and this war in general....

Tender
[/quote]

Tender,

Until about 4 months ago I always felt that I wouldn't comment on the Israeli/Palestinian situation as I was certain that I didn't know the complete facts behind it. I still don't profess that I do, but I am certain enough that I have heard a lot more atrocities from the Israeli state than the Islamic militants.

How about asassinating people ad-hoc due to claims of belonging to a militant organisation with no jury trial?

Having intense gunfire battles and sending missiles into heavily populated areas and inflicting huge innocent civilian casualties in attempts against said militants.

How about building a huge impenetrable wall cutting into swathes of non-Israeli areas, splitting people from where they live and where they work/go to school, so they now have to wake up at 4 each morning to do a journey which used to take 5 mins?

How about shooting towards populated residential areas from fortified bases at regular intervals?

Sending missile attacks into a neighbouring country due to a disused base and subsequently violating said country's airspace with military aircraft over civilian areas?

How about building settlements in another countrys land and then claiming that land as your own?

All these were just in the past few months, but there is so much more that I haven't added here.

I know that this is against the background of suicide bombings etc., but then the case has progressed so far in this area that every Palestinean man, woman and child will have had at least one friend or family member killed by the Israeli forces. Such a feeling of desperation and despair in a population is only going to breed more resentment and more bombings. Shooting and killing more innocent people will only exacerbate this situation, and Israel having such a powerful ally standing by them giving them a green light:

For instance, the US has used their UN veto no less than 37 times to defend Israel, even though in almost every single vote it was only the US against it (surely there must be something correct in the resolution to have a 13-1 majority???) source - http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html . For an idea of how frequent this is, in the years since the security council has been set up the US has used its veto 76 times in total, Russia/USSR 44, UK 32, France 18 and China 5.

 

[13788]

balls: Longtimelurker,
You can turn your UN information around to prove the point that the UN is a tool of oppressive and corrupt regimes. China has vetoed 5 times? What does that tell you about the UN agenda? Does it mean that China, the world’s largest communist country where her citizens have very few rights, agrees with the majority of what the UN is doing?
Arafat is equally if not more to blame for Palestine’s problems than the US and Israel. Arafat and fucking religion on both sides.
Both sides have innocent blood on their hands and there isn't damn thing we can do to make the situation better, at least not until Arafat is dead and gone.

 

[13788]

Tender: [quote author=balls link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#23 date=10/25/03 at 11:41:09]Longtimelurker,
You can turn your UN information around to prove the point that the UN is a tool of oppressive and corrupt regimes. China has vetoed 5 times? What does that tell you about the UN agenda? Does it mean that China, the world’s largest communist country where her citizens have very few rights, agrees with the majority of what the UN is doing?  
Arafat is equally if not more to blame for Palestine’s problems than the US and Israel. Arafat and fucking religion on both sides.  
Both sides have innocent blood on their hands and there isn't damn thing we can do to make the situation better, at least not until Arafat is dead and gone.
[/quote]


i agree.
also as far as im concerned the United States is the greatest country in the world (call it pride if you have to... )
and to that i say....
we vote our own way,
we dont need to follow anyone...
or please anyone.
or make excuses for doing what we feel is right.
This 'war' has continued for generations, and will not end any time soon.
Religion is playing a major role in it as well, so add the points up and you get a mess.
While i disagree with some of the choices our country has made, i will be the first to say, i do not understand all of those choices.
I am not in the President's shoes, thank goodness.
It does not matter what path he chooses, someone somewhere will still be angry.
People cannot be pleased.
I wonder how things would be different right now, if Gore had gotten the office? Probably just as much chaos.
I still think half of the mud slinging we are seeing is the Democrats pouting over not having their win...
and now use September 11 as an opportunity to turn up the water.

Tender

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=Tender link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#24 date=10/25/03 at 12:37:22]


i agree.
also as far as im concerned the United States is the greatest country in the world (call it pride if you have to... )

we vote our own way,
we dont need to follow anyone...
or please anyone.
or make excuses for doing what we feel is right.

Religion is playing a major role in it as well, so add the points up and you get a mess.

I am not in the President's shoes, thank goodness.
It does not matter what path he chooses, someone somewhere will still be angry.
People cannot be pleased.

I wonder how things would be different right now, if Gore had gotten the office? Probably just as much chaos.

I still think half of the mud slinging we are seeing is the Democrats pouting over not having their win...
and now use September 11 as an opportunity to turn up the water.

Tender
[/quote]

Well I have pride in my country. I'm a 'liberal' (when did that become such a bad word ???), but I still feel pride in this country. The country that lets people like me express opposition to the government. Pride is not a bad thing.

I admire people who don't feel bound to 'party'. I wish I could say the same.

I take issue with "We don't have to follow anyone". I totally disagree. We need our allies in my opinion. The way I see it, keeping our allies close (dispite being irresolute at times) is prefferable to having a whole lot more enemies.

You hit the nail on the head. No matter what Mr. Bush does the Democrats will still hate his guts and wish the worst for him. Thats just the way it works.

The simple answer to the question about Gore is...He wouldn't have done any better (admitting it with extreme reluctance).

Wether you like it or not 9-11 is a political issue and has been since it happened. Bush was the first to make it one...in the last election thats all he had to campaign on. So if your upset that 9-11 is in the political arena blame Bush!

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=balls link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#23 date=10/25/03 at 11:41:09]Longtimelurker,
You can turn your UN information around to prove the point that the UN is a tool of oppressive and corrupt regimes. China has vetoed 5 times? What does that tell you about the UN agenda? Does it mean that China, the world’s largest communist country where her citizens have very few rights, agrees with the majority of what the UN is doing?  
Arafat is equally if not more to blame for Palestine’s problems than the US and Israel. Arafat and fucking religion on both sides.  
Both sides have innocent blood on their hands and there isn't damn thing we can do to make the situation better, at least not until Arafat is dead and gone.
[/quote]

Well, for the China situation, I don't think that it shows that much on the nature of the resolutions, rather the Chinese reluctance to be seen as making a stand in world affairs (they have enough of their own problems IMHO). As for Arafat - I do agree that he is a problem, however - I believe that Sharon is moreso, after all the recent rise in violence in the region stems mainly from his heavy-handedness policies regarding the sitation.

[quote author=Tender link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#24 date=10/25/03 at 12:37:22]
and to that i say....
we vote our own way,
we dont need to follow anyone...
or please anyone.
or make excuses for doing what we feel is right.
This 'war' has continued for generations, and will not end any time soon.
[/quote]

And Tender, surely that isn't the entire picture - remember that free speech does have limitations and you can't just go around mouthing everyone else off. With freedom comes responsibility - the responsibility to behave reasonably and with consideration for others and not just to bite your thumb at everyone else.

 

[13788]

Tender: i dont remember saying that that was the whole picture??
i did say it involves alot of issues, no one will ever win, and it involoves religion to boot...

Im just saying that our country does not have to answer to anyone else to do what they feel is right.
and we should not back off from a stand, just because we face others that dont like it.
yes, allies are good. but id die friendless before giving in on something i felt was wrong.

yes free speech has limitations, i dont know if that statement there was aimed at me personally or not, ?
but i dont recall mouthing anyone off in that reply ???
just gave my view. everyone else is entitled to theirs.

in other light,
no i dont beleive a country has the right to go around mouthing another off. but then Saddam had no right to slaughter his own...and Hitler took up some rights of his own too...
like i said, there is not right way to handle any of it, everyone will be the loser in the end...there are too many pros, and too many cons...

with great power, comes great responsibililty.


Tender

 

[13788]

aj2181: I tried to hold me tongue but its just not possible, sorry.

[quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#26 date=10/25/03 at 14:03:22]

As for Arafat - I do agree that he is a problem, however - I believe that Sharon is moreso, after all the recent rise in violence in the region stems mainly from his heavy-handedness policies regarding the sitation.


[/quote]

Preach It!!!!!!

People seem to forget that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple mount that sparked the recent violence. Thats a piece of the puzzle that was forgotten. I remember clearly that was the spark that set the current uprising in motion. As far as I can tell Israel has acted with uneeded harshness and far to much force.

Why do the Palestinians want to blow up Israel? Because they feel that as human beings they are entitled to the same standard of living as Israel. Arafat is no help to the situation I'll agree on that.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=Tender link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#27 date=10/25/03 at 14:18:00]
yes free speech has limitations, i dont know if that statement there was aimed at me personally or not, ?
but i dont recall mouthing anyone off in that reply  ???
just gave my view.  everyone else is entitled to theirs.
[/quote]

No Tender, I didn't aim that personally at you, just making a general point.

And yes - by all means, fight for what you believe is right, but then you need to make sure that you aren't being hypocritical in what you are fighting for, and if everyone else is fighting against you, then at least take some time to sit back and try to see exactly it is that everyone else sees.

Which brings us nicely around to our original post...

Basically, your government is making noises about fighting terrorist breeding grounds but then cajoling some of the very same countries that are the worst offenders!

PS - don't you hate the ??? smiley? I regularly use ? ? ? to end questions and its annoying having to edit your posts to tick the 'don't like smileys' box - esp. if you want to use them elsewhere! Grrrrrrr...

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=aj2181 link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#28 date=10/25/03 at 14:19:12]I tried to hold me tongue but its just not possible, sorry.


Preach It!!!!!!
[/quote]

Aah, AJ - I think I've found my political soulmate

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#30 date=10/25/03 at 14:32:23]

Aah, AJ - I think I've found my political soulmate  [/quote]

You got it ;D

Maybe we can form a group..The Liberal Dicks Association LOL

 

[13788]

Tender: [quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#29 date=10/25/03 at 14:30:41]

No Tender, I didn't aim that personally at you, just making a general point.

And yes - by all means, fight for what you believe is right, but then you need to make sure that you aren't being hypocritical in what you are fighting for, and if everyone else is fighting against you, then at least take some time to sit back and try to see exactly it is that everyone else sees.

Which brings us nicely around to our original post...

Basically, your government is making noises about fighting terrorist breeding grounds but then cajoling some of the very same countries that are the worst offenders!

PS - don't you hate the ??? smiley? I regularly use ? ? ? to end questions and its annoying having to edit your posts to tick the 'don't like smileys' box - esp. if you want to use them elsewhere! Grrrrrrr...[/quote]

OK.
gotcha!

i was like, huh?

yep i know what you mean about the smiley thing...
i am frequently using threes (...) as you see, and that doesnt work with ? as you noted! agh!
anyway,
yes i agree with the concept of fighting 'terror' and then ignoring some of the big 3 so to speak. that has been my pill abut this as well. from what i know of Korea and China, it is contradictory to me, to be pestering the others....
i have always thought of china as an evil personally...
(no offense to anyone...)--the country and its government in general, the way its people are treated, and such.
it all boils down to two things usually, sometimes power....or just plain politics, --but mostly money and religion...
It is hard to support something one doesnt understand, and yet i respect the choice Bush has made, and i see valid points on both sides. the truth of it all we may never know, but it IS sickening to be appeasing other countries (ie, china...) guilty of far worse...

as far as Saddam, was it our place to get into that? dont know. but do know he has alot of innocent blood on his hands, and plans for more...
at what point then do we let it continue before it is too far out of hand to control? he was a murderer, and last i knew murderes are given the longest rope in Texas so to speak, so yeah, i favored taking him out.
i mean at what point should Hitler have been ousted?
perhaps that is the trouble with China and some of the others... too far gone and too large to handle? :-/ but, then again back to the vicious cycle of the mighty $, which can be the root of evil...
well, cant win for losing lol!

Tender

 

[13788]

balls: Longtimelurker,
As far as China, I was just making a general point.
Just so you know I am also a long time liberal who is now disillusioned and see the left in America and Europe as being morally adrift. It seems like the most recent war has turned most liberals on their head when it comes to human rights and what free countries must do to free oppressed peoples. It is obvious that the only reason liberal organizations are against the War is because Bush is a conservative. Where were the liberals when Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in Sudan? Where were they when we bombed the fuck out of the Balkans? So I say fuck identity politics, loyalties to ideologies, and religions, they only sway with who is in power and both sides of the political spectrum are full of hypocrites.
All about oil my ass, France and Russia did more for Saddam and had more contracts for oil, it was in THEIR interest to keep Saddam in power to have access to the OIL. French and Russian oil for Iraqi blood. I work with many Iraqis in my profession and they are all extremely happy Saddam is gone and grateful to the US for getting him out.
Sharon may be a butcher but Arafat has helped to poison the peace process at every turn. He has also poisoned the minds of the palestinians and created a cult of personality. Sharon has killed many but Arafatwill have the blood of future generations on his hands.
I am rambling, it is late, and I am tired.
This board is great.

 

[13788]

Inwood: Oh, so many things to respond to but I've got to go to bed.

Let's see, our support of Israel. I think the Arab countries just wish they had somebody who would stand by them in the way we do with Israel. Personally I think a pox on both but if I have to chose I'll go with the democracy every time.

Reasons to hate Israel. Well if you read Winston Churchill's a history of World War II before there was even an Israel to hate. He talks about having to arm the Jews in Palestine so they can defend themselve from the Arabs when the British have to move out soldiers to fight elsewhere during the war. It isn't Israel they hate. It's the Jews. They don't need any other reason apparently.

Al Gore. Who knows. But since the adminstration previous to the current appointed one was very worried about al queda by the end of their term I think there is a slight possibility we might have had that field agent's report about arabs only wanting to learn how to pilot a plane but not land it passed up the chain of command and paid attention to.

Sharon/Temple mount. Marwan Bargouti, secretary-general of Arafat's Fatah movement in Judea and Samaria, told the Jerusalem Times last week, "the intifada did not start because of Sharon's visit," but that the violence "began because of the desire to put an end to occupation and because the Palestinians did not approve of the peace process in its previous form."

Oh so many more to comment on but I'm tired. Carry on. These are just some ramblings on my part. I have strong opinions about all of this but since my term to rule the world has been delayed they'll just have to wait.

PS I support the war against Saddam. Just not the du jour reasons given. He was a bad, bad man. There are more of them that should go but at least we're rid of this one. Still don't like Shrub but have a soft spot for Rumsfeld.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Ok, from what I lightly skimmed, I can see this topic went in the direction of Israel and US's support for it and so on. Anyway, I am bringing this topic back to my initial opinion about the article that Sammy presented. When I read it, I found a lot of it fishy and questioned the legitimacy of many points presented... satire or not. It is quite easy, as I have said before, to agree with something that side with your political opinion without questioning the legitimacy of the "facts" presented. I spent several days gathering information and reading other articles and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth:

The following is a quote from Pres Bush's last State of the Union address.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Notice that he NEVER said that the threat was imminent. Also, a large part of the justificiation for Iraq was to free the people of Iraq. The Kay report, which has been misrepresented in the press, has confirmed that the WMD program was very much alive and well.

It was not the UN inspectors job to find weapons, it was Sadam's job to destroy them, under the supervision of the UN inspectors so that the weapons that the U.S., Britain, AND THE UN all acknowledge existed were destroyed. Since all agreed that the weapons existed, without Sadam's cooperation it could not be proved that they did not still exist and could be used. Without conclusive evidence of their disposition, combined with the fact that HE HAD USED WMD ON OTHER COUNTRIES AND HIS OWN PEOPLE, yes, invasion and destruction of his regime became the only option.

Where are the weapons now? The recent Kay Report confirmed that he had an active, ongoing program of WMD, including nuclear weapons. A great deal of evidence has been found to confirm this and was included in the Kay Report. Unfortunately, no major stock of these weapons has been found. Since we know he had them and Sadam gave no evidence of having destroyed them, what happened?

There are two possibilities: (1) he destroyed them but didn't want to admit it. This action is consistent with Arab culture in the sense that a ruler cannot admit weakness (voluntary destruction of weapons), but would like to have the threat of their use to ward off enemies. But I think he believed we would not actually invade so why would he destroy them? (2) he had them hidden and their whereabouts are still unknown. After the first Gulf War, Sadam signed a agreement to suspend hostilities in which he agreed to destroy WMD, which, by the way kind of confirms he had them or else why would he admit he had them!?! (the 12 point agreement contained promises to restore human rights and reform government to be more democratic!). How long did he have to do all this - 2 WEEKS!! According to you 12 additional years were not long enough to prove HE WAS NOT GOING TO COMPLY UNTIL HELL FROZE OVER WITH THE TERMS HE SIGNED IN 1991.

I frankly can't believe that the WMD were destroyed. If they were it is because communication from Sadam to the weapons storage facilities was knocked out in the first days of the war and the officers in charge took it upon themselves to destroy the weapons so we wouldn't hang them when the war ended. They are still hidden and those who know (and in a dictatorship the number of those would be real small, maybe even only Uday and Qusay, and they can't talk) are still afraid of Sadam. I think this is a strong possibility. They other really frightening option is that they have been shipped out. If so, we are all in real serious danger. We have to figure this out soon.

The bottom line though is that if we cut and run, the Arab terrorists will conclude we don't have the stomach - as that paragon of virtue Clinton demonstrated repeatedly in Somalia, after the Africa embassy bombings, after the USS Cole - to carry the fight to them. I estimate that if we retire from Iraq before stability is installed, within 12 months there will be a major terrorist attack on the U.S. (I mean here) involving nuclear, chemical or biological agents causing the death of many thousand more than 9/11. We are at war. Osama and others like him continue to make their intentions perfectly clear. What is the surrender weasel anti-terrorist policy? It's a mystery to me.

This is a summary of the important conclusions in the Kay Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200310031526.asp

IRAQ DOES HAVE WMD: ARMS MAN
By DEBORAH ORIN

Click on the link below to access the story.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/7396.htm

One last link for those of you that are still interested:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200310240838.asp


Alright, I am done.

-Gig

 

[13788]

gigantikok: whoops, accidently clicked "quote" instead of "modify". Damn.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: omg, I am such an idiot, I did it again. Ok, disregard this one too.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=headbang8 link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#21 date=10/24/03 at 20:49:12]When will you lame-ass pinko liberals learn? ?You can't hope to understand the complexities of contemporary international geo-politics if you insist on using  simplistic terms like "right", "wrong" and "oil". ? Get with the program, Sammygirly![/quote]
Why, when the POTUS says things like "You're either with us, or against us."

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Inwood link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=20#34 date=10/25/03 at 21:47:36]Let's see, our support of Israel. I think the Arab countries just wish they had somebody who would stand by them in the way we do with Israel. Personally I think a pox on both but if I have to chose I'll go with the democracy every time.[/quote]
Israel's an oligarchy, not a democracy. It's also the only country in the world to use torture. There's no separation of church and state; there isn't even a constitution. Palestinians aren't considered citizens. I could go on, but let's just say, if I were in that kind of situation, I'd suicide-bomb (OOPS! The new PC term, straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, is "homicide bomb". But we can have that discussion later, over some "freedom fries".) the Knesset myself.