iraq and suicide bombers-the great leap forward?

[ric]

hello
in iraq the main type of attack is suicide bombing (due to jihad) but is this just a waste of lie?
i beleive it is because they should form a organise guerilla network
every suicide bomb is another attack against the coalition but at the cost of a pair of hands to operate another gun
guerilla or suicide bombings
what are your thoughts
rik:ph34r:

[James]

Its very effective in what it is trying to achieve; cause terror; fear; doubt; anarchy; resistance; anger; chaos.

All these things however I personally am against. I support the coalition in Iraq, and what they are now trying to do. I do not support the attacks on the coalition.

[cormacobear]

well a guman is not very effecient against heavily guarded targets, tanks, and soldiers wearing bullet proof vests.

But what suicide bombers make up in enemy casualties they lose in credibility. It makes them look like fanatical terrorist lunatics, rather than a national peoples army.

On the other hand we're not talking about England and Northern Ireland. We're talking about the U.S. whose people have never shown any empathy towards the foriegn victims of their empirialistic wars, the only thing that has ever made them reconsider foreign occupation is the number of american body bags landing on the ptarmac in D.C.. Interesting dilemna, good question.

[Sabocat]

What would you do if your town or country was occupied by a hostile force killing your family members and other civilians with helicopters, tanks and snipers and stealing your natural resources? It sounds like you'd stand idly by.

These people are resisting a sadistic occupation and doing it by any means they have available to them.



All these things however I personally am against. I support the coalition in Iraq, and what they are now trying to do. I do not support the attacks on the coalition.

Please tell me, the suspense is killing me. What exactly are the occupying troops trying to do?


But what suicide bombers make up in enemy casualties they lose in credibility. It makes them look like fanatical terrorist lunatics, rather than a national peoples army.

How are they supposed to fight if they have no other weapons? Yes, they should be more concerned with their credibility than ridding themselves of an occupying army. :huh:

[James]

well a guman is not very effecient against heavily guarded targets, tanks, and soldiers wearing bullet proof vests.


I think you miss the point of such attacks.
"They" use RPG's and MG's against those other targets.

But what suicide bombers make up in enemy casualties they lose in credibility. It makes them look like fanatical terrorist lunatics, rather than a national peoples army.


Thats because they are... Do you actually think they are a national people's army?
These people are more like the Iranian's, than the Cubans.

What would you do if your town or country was occupied by a hostile force killing your family members and other civilians with helicopters, tanks and snipers and stealing your natural resources? It sounds like you'd stand idly by.


Killing??
Okay, i can understand the hotspots, where it is effectively a war zone - but Basra??? Since when have the British been doing that?
Stealing my natural resources?
The brits and american's are actually repairing the oil facilities - oil is going to be the life blood of Iraq. Saddam neglected it to an amazing extent - it is dire need of repair. Do you think the suicide attacks on the oil rigs helped regain iraqi soverignty over the oil?
Do you think they owned the natural resources before hand? I don't! Saddam did!

So yes, i would stand "idly by" in your book. But your book seems to be fiction - so that doesn't really worry me too much.

These people are resisting a sadistic occupation and doing it by any means they have available to them.


A sadistic occupation??
Compared to Saddam - who had mass executions; sadistic? You think Saddam's son's weren't sadistic??

These are not even "the people". The People of Iraq are being targetted by outside insurgents - the people of iraq are being murdered in these attacks. Men, women and children. Now THAT is sadistic. coalition may from time to time accidently kill innocents - but these attacks are pre-meditated. They target innocents. Why? Because they want to spark civil war, so when the coalition leave, they can move in like the Taliban did in afghanistan.


Please tell me, the suspense is killing me. What exactly are the occupying troops trying to do?


Well you obviously think that the Brits are raping women and shooting children each day.

Don't be a bloody fool - they are trying to insert some form of an inferstructure. This is no easy task, because the regime was so corrupt. The west certainly has its faults: but the UK's police system certainly is better than the Iraqi's of Saddam's day.

What on earth do you think they are doing???

No, i did not support the war - i think it did "have a case", but the motives and manner it was carried out with was horrendous. Thats why i took to the streets; was visited by the police; wrote letters to the police - my MP - the Home Office blah blah blah. What did you do? What could be done?

The fact of the matter is that Saddam is now removed. Its impossible to go back now. The only logical solution is to go forward - i support this. You can't just pull out like in afghanistan; otherwise you get what happened in afghanistan. So many lifes have been lost, families ruined - for what? Iraq now has a real chance to move forward.

How are they supposed to fight if they have no other weapons? Yes, they should be more concerned with their credibility than ridding themselves of an occupying army.

Do the majority want the coalition out?
Did the majority not welcome the coalition?
Who carries out these attacks?
Who is targeted by these attacks?
What is the purpose of these attacks?

[Sabocat]

Do the majority want the coalition out?

Yes, I've read that as much as 80% want the occupation troops out.


Did the majority not welcome the coalition?

No, the majority did not welcome the coalition. This has been shown and proven time and time again. Recently, the coalition has done nothing more than unite the Sunni with the Shia in common cause against the occupation.


Who carries out these attacks?

Sunni's and Shiites certainly. We know that much from reports. Probably Baathists and anyone who has had a family member killed as well. Take a look at the people protesting in the streets in Iraq. That's your fighters.


Who is targeted by these attacks?

Coalition troops, Iraqi quisling security and police forces.


What is the purpose of these attacks?

Most likely to drive public opinion at the participating countries and get the populace to remove their troops from sovereign soil. Look at Vietnam. I think that was a good example to guerilla's all over the globe. I would suggest that they are trying to accomplish the same things as the Vietcong.


Thats because they are... Do you actually think they are a national people's army?

Prove that they're not a people's army. From what I've seen, they are not uniformed soldiers forming the resistance, they are civilians.


The brits and american's are actually repairing the oil facilities - oil is going to be the life blood of Iraq.

They're repairing the oil fields so they can extract the oil. Are you insinuating that the Americans and Brits, are going to altruistically repair the oil facilities and then walk away? That's a bit naive.


A sadistic occupation??

Yes, when they shoot civilians, kick in the doors to their houses and take away and imprison without trial family members, when sanctions kill close to a million people because they can't buy chlorine to purify water supplies, when water and power plants are criminally destroyed....yes, I would call that sadistic.


Well you obviously think that the Brits are raping women and shooting children each day.

I don't know what they're doing specifically as I'm not there, but I'm quite sure that they're not handing out tea and crumpets. Maybe they're the kind and loving oppressors. :rolleyes:


Iraq now has a real chance to move forward.

Yes as long as they move forward within the sphere of influence of the U$ and Britain. Do you think Chalabi is going to lead Iraq forward?


In 1992 Mr Chalabi was sentenced to 22 years' hard labour in Jordan for bank fraud and embezzlement.

Ask yourself, what if they had elections in 6 months and Sadr won by a landslide, do you think that he would ever be allowed to take over?

[Funky Monk]

Whilst i may not have agreed with the motives for the attack and the way in which it was carried out it is pointless to argue that the troops should all pull out.

What potential outcomes do we have from the troops pulling out of Iraq?

*The country is split between rival warlords
*A new Saddam emerges
*A benign dictator emerges


Which of these do you think is most probable?
Occupation and restructure looks like the best course of action at the moment

[cormacobear]

Saddam didn't control the oil he controled the country the oil was in and the counrty the oil had to pass out of. lucrative yes, but let's look closer.

it's the oil thing. British and Russian oil companies owned the majority of the oil well in Iraq, Russia was owed billions by Saddamthat they new they'd never see if there was a regime change. Enter the Texas oil man owned by US oil comp. outright. He starts a war destroys lots of crap, puts in a US friendly govt, badda bing US oil Companies get a greater share of the pie.

Enter Cheney CEO of Haliburton, makes millions, leaves job joins Bushes team retains stock in Haliburton, US starts war destroys crap. Haliburton gets largest Oil feild reconstruction bid ever handed out by the US govt.

What's that you say why yes Bush is giving taxpayer money to his oil buddies......all ligit like.

and by putting a US puppet govt in power assures more US oil wells in the future, while screwing Russian oil Comp.

[Urban Rubble]

I'll never buy into the thought that killing civilians is an acceptable way to fight a war. If you feel like blowing yourself up is going to help and that's your only option, I acn't critisize, but the minute you attack a civilian target you've lost my support.

[James]

Yes, I've read that as much as 80% want the occupation troops out.


Read where? Links please

No, the majority did not welcome the coalition.

Prove that

This has been shown and proven time and time again.

?

Recently, the coalition has done nothing more than unite the Sunni with the Shia in common cause against the occupation.


They are being ridiculous. They are angry because the coalition fails to protect them; yet then they go and jump on burnt out coalition jeeps etc.
There insurgents have united them against the coalition, yet also divide the sunni and shia. Like that festivel (which under saddam would not have been allowed) the other month which was bombed. Or did the coalition do it? Are you familiar with the divide and rule concept?

Sunni's and Shiites certainly. We know that much from reports. Probably Baathists and anyone who has had a family member killed as well. Take a look at the people protesting in the streets in Iraq. That's your fighters.


What reports?
The people protesting in the streets are not the fighters.
What were they protesting about before the brits got burned? answer: lack of jobs.
They also protest about lack of water, electricity etc - all the things the coalition is trying to repair. Or do you think they are too busy shooting babies? How on earth the coalition leaving will help this situation is beyond me and logic. Its irrational. YOU seem to think it is possible because you are thinking with a leftist mind set.
IF the coalition pulled out the would be extreme civil war. See monk's post.

Coalition troops, Iraqi quisling security and police forces

Like at the religious festivel - because obviously the coalition would be there... you have such tunnel vision! You completely ignore the attacks on civilians.
The coalition and civilians are targets. Do you support the attacks on the police?

Prove that they're not a people's army. From what I've seen, they are not uniformed soldiers forming the resistance, they are civilians.


Where are the statements?
Where is the philosophy?
There is lots of religious mumbo jumbo spurted out by these terrorists - but thats it. They want the country for themselves; to even suggest it is a peoples army is bone headed. There is not one bit of evidence. It is pure assumption. And poor assumption at that - all the evidence points to them being insurgents and religious fanatics. I don't think that such a regime should be allowed.

They're repairing the oil fields so they can extract the oil. Are you insinuating that the Americans and Brits, are going to altruistically repair the oil facilities and then walk away? That's a bit naive.


no - i didn't say that at all.
Of course western companies will benifit - but so will iraq. How will walking away now help? Do you think they even have the equipment or skills yet? Do you think they have the national internal structure yet to co-ordinate any national policy?
Yes, when they shoot civilians,

When did the brits do this? PROVE these wild accusations.

when sanctions kill close to a million people because they can't buy chlorine to purify water supplies,

Do you know about the oil for food system? Saddam was diverting foods and medical supplies to keep the population oppressed. Also it was good propaganda - hard done by iraqi's being murdered and oppressed by the evil west - not the heroic leader saddam. The BBC exposed the vast hordes of medical supplies.
The death rate was also greatly over-exagerated. Often the coffins of children were empty (in the monthly rallies where thousands of coffins were carried on taxi rooftops - pre invasion). Who neglected the countries inferstructure? WHO is trying to repair it now?

when water and power plants are criminally destroyed....yes, I would call that sadistic.

The brits did what???
HANG ON - thats what your so called "people's army" did the other day.
I agree - its sadistic!
Yet you seem to support these people...

I don't know what they're doing specifically as I'm not there, but I'm quite sure that they're not handing out tea and crumpets. Maybe they're the kind and loving oppressors.

OKAY. lets look at this specifically.
I agree - you arn't over there; so how do you know the rest of the crap that you spurted?
The Brits were trying to patrol (not to shoot civillians, but to prevent crime you moron), not in combat gear - in berets. They work on building relations. What country are you from? It seems you don't understand the british army at all; i can't talk about the US, but the Brits don't do it that way. Ireland was very good at training our army...

Ask yourself, what if they had elections in 6 months and Sadr won by a landslide, do you think that he would ever be allowed to take over?


Firstly; do you think Sadr would be good for Iraq?
Secondly; do you think that he would be inline with your personal political philosophy?
Thirdly; do you think that Sadr would be able to deal with insurgents?
Fourthly; do you think that if the coalition pulled out, there would even be elections?

Like i said - i was anti war. But now i'm pro iraq "nation building". This can't be allowed to be another afghanistan. The best we can do is keep applying pressure. Calling for withdrawal makes it easier for them to pull out at the end of the day, and forget about it all.

What do you propose the coalition, now, does?

[trotsky1917]

In a similar way to the Palestinian resistance, the Iraqis would not have to revert to suicide bombings if they had the guns, tanks etc.
They are resisting with the only means available to them.

[Sabocat]

The Brits were trying to patrol (not to shoot civillians, but to prevent crime you moron), not in combat gear - in berets. They work on building relations. What country are you from? It seems you don't understand the british army at all; i can't talk about the US, but the Brits don't do it that way. Ireland was very good at training our army...

Try pulling your head out of your ass and try reading something about your glorious military in Iraq. Above and beyond using cluster bombs on the civilian population for which the UK and US are being investigated for war crimes, there's this little tidbit..


LONDON: Allegations of persistent and serious misconduct by British soldiers in their treatment of the civilian population in southern Iraq are being investigated by the military authorities.

One soldier has revealed details of savage beatings meted out to hooded captives in Basra to the Sun newspaper, which it said would lead to a charge of manslaughter being laid against a private in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

"You take a baby's cry, multiply it a thousand times and add hurt and anger and pain into it," the soldier told the tabloid, which has backed British involvement in the invasion of Iraq to the hilt.

Military police are reported to be investigating allegations that members of the regiment humiliated prisoners by forcing them to drink urine and by hurling racist abuse at them.

The incidents are reported to follow the death of an officer in the regiment as a result of a roadside bomb. The Guardian, which has steadfastly opposed the war, reported last weekend the Ministry of Defence was facing lawsuits over the deaths of at least 18 Iraqi civilians.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/26/int3.htm

Here are various reports from a group actually in Iraq.


Resistance grows more determined with escalation of US aggression

Saturday 10 April, from IDAO's correspondent in Baghdad

General strike-The General Strike that was organised to take place across Iraq went ahead with around 80% participation. All universities were closed in Baghdad and the streets were remarkably empty.

http://www.idao.org/daily-report.html


An uprising in support of democracy


by Salim Lone, Guardian
April 13th, 2004


US policy makers and commentators have been left reeling by the breadth and speed of Iraq's April rebellion. Particularly crushing have been the absence of any public Iraqi support for the US during these stunning setbacks, the decision by the country's security forces to step aside or even join the insurgents, and the resignations from the US-appointed governing council. Some US pundits have now accused Iraqis of not having the stomach to fight for democracy, and US spokesmen have condemned the "thugs" they claim are fighting to prevent democracy taking root in Iraq.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4137


No, the majority did not welcome the coalition.

Prove that

Take a close look at this picture of all the Iraqi's welcoming the coalition troops while they pull down the statue of Saddam. Ooops, where are the crowds throwing flowers?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm



There is lots of religious mumbo jumbo spurted out by these terrorists - but thats it. They want the country for themselves; to even suggest it is a peoples army is bone headed. There is not one bit of evidence. It is pure assumption. And poor assumption at that - all the evidence points to them being insurgents and religious fanatics

Well they certainly have more right to it than the US and Brits. Imbecile.


I don't think that such a regime should be allowed

Well, as I assuming you're not an Iraqi citizen, so who gives a shit what you think should be "allowed". That's up to the Iraqi's to decide.


Do you support the attacks on the police?

Yes of course. Absolutely. Especially when those police are trained by and tools for the US occupation, to suppress dissent amongst the civilian population.



Do you know about the oil for food system? Saddam was diverting foods and medical supplies to keep the population oppressed.

Read carefully....I said that under the sanctions that they were not allowed to purchase certain chemicals to purify their water. It had nothing to do with money. What good is money if you're not allowed to even buy the material? The number one killer of children in Iraq before the war was Cholera you half wit. They were dying from drinking water contaminated from sewerage. This of course because the treatment plants had been bombed by the "coalition" even though condemned by UN sanctions on targeting civilian infrastructure.


The Sanctions Against Iraq
and the Consequences of
the "Oil-for-Food" Programme

By Christian Hårleman, TFF Board Member


Two weeks in Iraq are not sufficient to acquire the knowledge necessary to produce an extensive and detailed analysis of the conditions prevailing in this part of the Middle East. It is, however, long enough to be able to verify the picture so powerfully presented by the individuals and organisations involved who fight daily for the several humanitarian issues that plague those most ignored and forgotten developing countries. The aim of this text is not to try to influence one's opinion with emotionally charged expressions but to discuss some of the reasonable arguments concerning the "Oil-for-Food" programme.


A Short History of the Sanctions

For more than a decade the UN has been imposing sanctions against Iraq. During the last few years, three of the highest UN representatives have left their positions in protest against the unreasonable character of the sanctions programme. Various organisations (the UN and others) involved in the so-called "Oil for Food" programme have in different ways expressed their opposition to the sanctions and demanded the abolition or the reformulation of the sanctions programme. Why? Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council, based on Chapter VII of the UN's Constitution, decided to introduce sanctions against Iraq. Essentially, this implies that all economic and diplomatic relations with Iraq have been interrupted, including all forms of traffic (sea, land, air and television). The Security Council decided in 1991 (UNSCR 687) that the sanctions would only be abolished after Iraq had fulfilled the following requirements: the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction; the promise not to develop or to acquire any other weapons in the future, and co-operation with the UN's inspection programme aiming at verifying that Iraq does not possess or develop weapons of mass destruction. In addition, Iraq also had to agree to recognise the 1963 international border agreement with Kuwait; not to support and carry out international terrorism; to repatriate all Kuwaiti as well as all other nationals to their respective homelands; to return all Kuwaiti properties; and to offer compensation to those who suffered from losses and injuries caused by the invasion.

Iraq has for the most part fulfilled the Security Council's requirements. But the vital issue of the weapons of mass destruction has not been resolved in a way judged satisfactory by the UN. The politics and the mediatisation of this particular issue have been feeding a most heated debate.

The Oil-for-Food Programme: No Income for Iraq

Despite the fact that the UN has proposed two resolutions since 1991, it is only in 1996 that Iraq first accepted that a programme based on the previous year's decision (UNSCR 986) could be implemented. The resolution authorises Iraq to export a certain amount of oil and to buy food and other "humanitarian necessities" with the income of authorised oil exports. During the first six months of that mandate period the value of these exports raised up to 2,000 million US Dollars and during 2001 (two mandate periods) up to approximately 11,000 million US Dollars.

Unfortunately this is not the whole truth. Of the sold oil "income", only 53 percent is allocated to the part of Iraq under the control of the government, which represents approximately 20 million inhabitants. The rest is reserved partly (30%) for the compensation of those who suffered losses or injuries during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, partly (13%) for the three Northern Provinces (3.5 million Kurds), and partly (4%) to cover the operation costs of the UN for the so called "Oil-for-Food Programme" (OFFP). Consequently, in 2001, Iraq only had 6,000 million US Dollars at its disposal to buy medicines and other essential goods. In other words, the Iraqi government is supposed to support and answer for the welfare of a population that is double the size of the Swedish population with one quarter of the Swedish State's annual costs for social expenditures. The income from Iraqi oil goes directly into a certain UN bank account from which the UN remunerates foreign suppliers of goods and services. Thus, Iraq does not dispose of the incomes in liquid capital. Rather, the exchange can be seen as an ancient barter trade system. Iraq delivers the oil and the UN delivers the food and other goods (Oil-for-Food).

The List of the Goods Forbidden To Iraq Is Unlimited

Within that system, Iraq states and sends its collective needs for the upcoming six months. Through the so-called Sanction Committee, the UN controls and ensures that the needed goods and services traded to Iraq conform to the content of the sanctions - i.e. that the goods and materials acquired cannot be used for military purposes. The difficulty is that high technology is a necessity for the economic and general development of a "normal" modern society. Today, such material is used in most countries, as much in civilian as in military structures; nevertheless, Iraq is not authorised to import such goods.

The list of materials forbidden to Iraq that could eventually be used in a military context is infinite and, unfortunately, pathetic in its detailed formulation of technical details. The strict and rigid character of the list is comprehensive. For example, is it reasonable that the import of chloride (one of the WHO recommended products for the purification of drinkable water) is not allowed for fear that the product could eventually serve a dual purpose - i.e. as a component of a chemical war product. When reading through the thousands-of-items-long list, one wonders if the objective is to prevent the use of the listed articles for military purposes or if it is to hinder the development of a sovereign state - or even worse &emdash; its survival.

A Welfare Society in "De-development"

As a result, Iraq is deprived of the bulk of what constitutes a country's wealth and competitiveness. One is forced to conclude that we are presently witnessing the "de-development" and the delaying of a country's progress, a country which, until no more than 15 years ago, counted among the world's most progressive with a blooming industry and an extensive free health-care system. A significant number of reports reflect the devastating effects of the sanctions on the individual. Although certain people live relatively well (even in times of shortages), the majority of the population lives in unacceptable conditions - although not necessarily in terms of kilocalories. Through a comprehensive food distribution programme, each family receives the amount of calories necessary to survive (2472 kilocalories per day per individual along with 60.2 grams protein per day per individual). Through the ongoing "Oil-for-Food Programme", the UN has created a dependency that is totally unique for its kind.

Between 1991 and 1998, the World Food Programme (WFP) distributed a total of 500,000 tonnes of provisions, while today the total amount of provisions distributed through the UN programme is as high as 350,000 tonnes per month. In other words, in a country that owns the world's second largest oil resource, people are nearly fully dependent on a share of provisions that would otherwise be distributed to those developing countries "really" in need. Seen in that light, Iraq's dependency on the provisions distributed through the "Oil-for-Food" Programme appears completely absurd.

Implications for the Average Person

For a middle-class earner (although that term has lost much of its relevance today), for example a teacher, this quantity of provisions represents 83% of his/her total monthly income. In real terms, a teacher is paid 25 of his/her 30 USD salary in provisions. The result is, among other things, an increase in black market exchanges and trade, emigration, and, regrettably, prostitution. The amount of kilocalories that is provided to the individual citizen by the UN is sufficient to ensure his/her survival. However, the educated middle-class of the pre-Gulf War era has been reduced to such a degree that will surely affect Iraqi society for many generations to come. The fact is that money exists in very limited quantities. As mentioned previously, the "Oil-for-Food" Programme is a "natural trade" system. Even if in theory it does include a so-called "cash component", for political reasons that part of the programme has never been implemented. With the inflation of the Iraqi Dinar (ID) from 1 ID against 3 USD in 1985 to 2000 ID against 1 USD today as well as the scarcity of liquid capital, the notion of "salary" as we know it in the West loses all meaning. Unemployment has thus taken on absurd proportions and left up to 40-50% of the population without jobs.

The Worst Consequences of the Sanctions Are "Hidden"

Teachers (like many other professionals) cannot be paid and students do not have the means to pay tuition fees, which did not exist previously. Consequently, the number of teachers per student has diminished drastically, both at the university and pre-university levels. We can already speak today of a lost generation. The consequences of this will affect society for the next 20 to 30 years. Reports from different organs of the UN, human rights organisations, aid agencies, members of parliament and researchers all say the same thing: the sanctions programme is devastating. Malnutrition and unserviceable drinking water have produced a negative transformation of the country's general health profile. This, along with the lack of healthcare resources, has given way to an increase in the mortality rate and a decrease in the birth rate. The dramatic increase of child mortality reflects the seriousness of the situation. The amount of students attending educational institutions has diminished, and the declining number of female students is highly significant. Increased gender segregation and a diminished secularisation are other features indicating the transformation of the social structure. At the same time, an intellectual impoverishment is taking place, which is partly due to the scarcity of educational tools and partly to the emigration of the middle-class that has taken place and continues to do so. To this, one must add the lack of economic and material resources, which render impossible the maintenance and upholding of the industrial, economic and social infrastructure.

Famine and War Politics of the Middle-Ages

To sum up, in 10 years, the UN sanctions against Iraq have transformed a nearly fully developed country into a developing one. The "Oil-for-Food" Programme has not become the solution to the problem - it has become the problem itself.

http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002...qSanctions.html (http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002/pf154_IraqSanctions.html)

Here are some of the items that the Iraqi's were not allowed to have...


Accumulators

Adhesive paper

Aluminium foil

AM-FM receivers

Ambulances

Amplifiers

Answering machines

Armored cable

Ashtrays

Auto polish

Axes

Bags

Baking soda

Balls (for children, for sport)

Baskets

Bath brushes

Batteries

Battery chargers

Beads

Bearings

Bed lamps

Belts

Benches

Bicycles

Books (all categories included)

Bottles

Bowls

Boxes

Brass

Broilers

Busses

Calculators

Cameras

Candles

Candlesticks

Canvas (yes, there are also painters in Iraq, didn't you know ?)

Carpets

Cars

Carts

Carving knives

Cellophane

Chairs

Chalk

Chess boards

Chiffon

Children's wear

Chisels Clocks

Cloth

Chlorine

Clutches

Coats

Coaxial cable

Cogs

Coils

Colors for painting

Combs ( I guess the spelling was just a little too close to bombs)

Compressors (for cooling equipment) (Iraq is a hot country)

Computers and computer supplies

Copper

Cupboards

Cups Desk lamps

Desks

Detergents

Dictaphones

Dishware

Dishwashers

Dolls

Doorknobs

Doormats

Drawing knives

Dresses

Drills

Dryers

Dustcloths

Dyes

Dynamos

Easels

Electric cookers

Electric cords

Envelopes

Eyeglasses

Fabrics

Fans

Fax machines

Fibers

Files

Filing cabinets

Filing cards

Films

Filters

Flashlights

Flowerpots

Forks

Fountain pens

Furniture polish

Fuses

Gas burners

Gauges

Generators

Girdles

Glass

Glue

Gowns

Grills

Grindstone

Hairpins

Hammers

Handkerchiefs

Hats

Headlights

Headphones

Hearing aids

Hedge trimmers

Helmets

Hoes

Hooks

Hookup wires

Hoses

Hydraulic jacks

Ink (read: The prohibition on writing)

Ink cartridges

Insulator strips

Interruptors

Jackets

Jacks

Joints

Jumpers

Kettles

Knives

Lamp shades

Lathes

Lawn mowers

Leather

Levers

Light bulbs

Light meters

Lime

Magazines (including scientific and medical journals)

Magnesium

Magnets

Masonite

Mastic

Matches

Measurings equipment

Mica

Microfiche

Microphones

Microscopes

Mirrors

Mops

Motorbikes

Motors

Mufflers

Mugs

Music cassettes

Music CDs

Musical instruments

Nail brushes

Nail files

Napkins

Notebooks

Oil cans

Oil gauges

Oil lamps

Oscillators

Packaging materials

Pails

Painters' brushes

Paints

Pans

Paper clips

Paper for printing

Paper for wrapping

Paper for writing

Pens

Percolators

Pesticides

Photocopiers

Photometers

Pincers

Pincettes

Pins

Plastics

Plates

Plexiglas

Pliers

Plugs

Plywood

Porcelain

Pots

Potties

Press drills

Pressure cookers

Printing equipment

Pulleys

Putty

Radiators for cars

Razor blades

Razors

Reels

Relays

Riveters

Roasters

Rubber

Rugs

Rulers

Sandals

Sandpaper

Saucers

Saws

Scales

Scoreboards

Screws

Seals

Seats

Shampoo

Sheers

Shelves

Shirts

Shock absorbers

Shoe polish

Shoes

Shoppint carts

Shovels

Silicon

Silver polish

Skirts

Soap

Soap pads

Sockets

Socks

Solder

Soldering irons

Spark plugs

Spatulas

Sponges

Spoons

Stamps

Staplers

Starters

Stoves

Straps

Suits

Sun hats

Swimming suits

Switches

Tables

Tacks

Tags

Telephone cables

Telephones

Tents

Thermomethers

Threads

Timber

Timers

Tin

Tire pumps

Tissue paper

Toasters

Toilet paper (not considered medicines)

Tongs

Toothbrushes

Toothpicks

Towels

Toys (read: UN punishment of children)

Tractors

Transformers

Trash cans

Tripods

Troughs

Trousers

Trowels

Trucks

Trunks

TV sets

Typewriters

Vacuum cleaners

Valves

Vans

Vaseline

Vases

Venetian blinds

Ventilators

Videotapes

Voltage regulators

Waffle irons

Wagons

Wallets

Wallpaper

Washing machines

Wastepaper baskets

Watches

Water pumps

Wax

Welders

Wheelbarrows

Wheels

Window shades

Wood

Wool

Wrenches

Zoom lenses




Firstly; do you think Sadr would be good for Iraq?

If he were popularly elected then I would have to say that yes, self determination and representative democracy would be good. I would of course prefer that the working class take complete control of Iraq but it seems unlikely.


Secondly; do you think that he would be inline with your personal political philosophy?

Most likely not, however, what do my personal political philosophies have to do with the right to self determination for Iraqi's? It's their choice. Not mine, not yours.


Thirdly; do you think that Sadr would be able to deal with insurgents?

Probably not. Certainly not the subversion that would be soon to follow from the CIA and MI6.


Fourthly; do you think that if the coalition pulled out, there would even be elections?

Possibly. There might be civil unrest. General strikes. It might be out right civil war. It would be their responsibility, to find their own direction without fear of outside inteference.



What do you propose the coalition, now, does?

I propose the "coalition" pull out unconditionally, and the US and UK pay full reparations.

[ric]

read most posts
an organised militia will be alot efficent for the iraqi people including suicide bombers for members of all iraqis
not just the hard cell of the few
but the many
rik

[DaCuBaN]

In all honesty I can't see what the discussion is: the US has done it's usual and disrregarded international law and done it's own thing, with their pet uk and chums in tow. The suicide bombers are just doing the tried and tested method - after all, doesn't the majority of the world - excluding USA as they tend to forget most of us exist :P - condemn Israel for infringing on Human Rights even though the palestinians are being just as bad? It's an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Until this is figured out we're just going to see an escalation of the situation

'One, Two, Many Vietnams'

People never do learn :rolleyes:


Here are some of the items that the Iraqi's were not allowed to have...

uhhh :lol: :D I get that you were making a point, but couldn't you have just linked the list? took me more time reading that than the rest of the thread ;)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:34 PM

Do the majority want the coalition out?

Yes, I've read that as much as 80% want the occupation troops out.


Did the majority not welcome the coalition?

No, the majority did not welcome the coalition. This has been shown and proven time and time again. Recently, the coalition has done nothing more than unite the Sunni with the Shia in common cause against the occupation.


Who carries out these attacks?

Sunni's and Shiites certainly. We know that much from reports. Probably Baathists and anyone who has had a family member killed as well. Take a look at the people protesting in the streets in Iraq. That's your fighters.


Who is targeted by these attacks?

Coalition troops, Iraqi quisling security and police forces.


Yes, I've read that as much as 80% want the occupation troops out.

I think it really depends on what specific part of Iraq you are in, but 80% is probably a realistic figure for a lot of area's.

Recently, the coalition has done nothing more than unite the Sunni with the Shia in common cause against the occupation.

Thats actually a tiny minority which have resorted to violance.

Sunni's and Shiites certainly. We know that much from reports. Probably Baathists and anyone who has had a family member killed as well. Take a look at the people protesting in the streets in Iraq. That's your fighters.

A large number of foreign nationals have also been reposted as being part of the force. Fundermentalists eager to fight the US etc.

Coalition troops, Iraqi quisling security and police forces.

yes... but it does seem to me that mosto of these locations kill far more civillians than occupation troops and "Iraqi quisling security and police forces".

Everything else I am in complete, or near enough, agreement with you.

[James]

try pulling your head out of your ass and try reading something about your glorious military in Iraq. Above and beyond using cluster bombs on the civilian population for which the UK and US are being investigated for war crimes, there's this little tidbit


Cluster bombs on the civilian population eh, well thats an interesting claim - again care to support it?
It is not the policy of the British Army to target civilians with cluster bombs. It would also be very stupid anyway, because the British Press (rather anti war, some would say) are THERE, reporting. Something like that would not get missed out.

War Crimes - what about crimes against humanity? I am of course, refering to Saddam.

The Pakistan paper that your source, itself says - often because they've shot people by mistake. This sort of thing happens from time to time i'm afraid. Lets look at the british situation though - some Military Policemen, were murdered by a mob - the same mob then tried to do the same to a para squad; this squad WAS armed though, and a number of GUNMEN were shot dead in self defence.
Lets not get carried away here though; when british troops were actually burning they did not respond in the way alot of other countries would.
The Iraqi's are not helping themselves at all.

http://www.idao.org/daily-report.html
Ah yes, very balanced view.
When Iraqi's go protesting en-masse; against "oppression" - then your arguments will have any actual value. Whilst they go out protesting primarily against lack of water supplies etc, however, you are quite wrong. The occupation is used as a scape goat. The fact of the matter is that if the coalition pulled out, iraq would fall into the hands of another saddam. Do you want that?
This is my argument here - yes, i was against the war; but its happened now, its pointless crying over spilt milk. Now we need to look at whats best for Iraq.


Well they certainly have more right to it than the US and Brits. Imbecile
Insurgents have more of a right to it than other "insurgents"??

Please be civil.


Well, as I assuming you're not an Iraqi citizen, so who gives a shit what you think should be "allowed". That's up to the Iraqi's to decide.


Let me phrase it in language you like: its my "right" to an opinion. It is also a well founded opinion, not based on a wishy washy philosophy. Its real politik.
I personally don't want to see another Iran - and NO, i don't think the "people" always know "best".
Thats why i don't support lynch law.
Thats why i support the rule of law.


Yes of course. Absolutely. Especially when those police are trained by and tools for the US occupation, to suppress dissent amongst the civilian population.

I think this is a very sad sad situation - you are supporting the murder of people who have come forward, because they want to get their country up and running again.
I think we are going to disagree on this area on fundamental basis. No doubt you see the police as "pigs", tools of oppression.

How would you enforce "your" laws anyway? If you/your philosophy, came to power?

The police are vital parts of a society. It is very sad that you support murder.


Read carefully....I said that under the sanctions that they were not allowed to purchase certain chemicals to purify their water. It had nothing to do with money. What good is money if you're not allowed to even buy the material? The number one killer of children in Iraq before the war was Cholera you half wit. They were dying from drinking water contaminated from sewerage. This of course because the treatment plants had been bombed by the "coalition" even though condemned by UN sanctions on targeting civilian infrastructure.


It seems you didn't read what i wrote either.
Saddam killed innocents. Saddam diverted basic medicines. Saddam chose to throw out the weapons inspectors. If he hadn't, then the sanctions wouldn't have been nesecary.
Cholera - yes, the sanctions were morally wrong in my opinion (i was anti war etc etc etc), but saddam diverted the medicines which would have saved thousands. Also millions die each year from this - what have you done to prevent it?
Lets look at your freedom fighters too - they target these sort of facilities to make the people turn on the coalition. They are just as evil as saddam, and those people who drew up the sanctions and plans to bomb the inferstructure.

And yes, we have all read the pilger style essays on how saddam is actually the good guy, and its all the evil wests fault - but care to supply the link to the list?


If he were popularly elected then I would have to say that yes, self determination and representative democracy would be good. I would of course prefer that the working class take complete control of Iraq but it seems unlikely.


Exactly. He's a religious nut. He'd make Iraq another Iran. Don't think Iran is the best it could be. And lets look at iranian democracy - they don't have it if the high religious authorities don't want it! I think we all want Iraq to have a stronger element of democracy than iran...
How would he be good for Iraq?


Most likely not, however, what do my personal political philosophies have to do with the right to self determination for Iraqi's? It's their choice. Not mine, not yours.

I assume that you have a basic grasp of Iraq's people. They are divided into three, the Sunni's, Shiites and the Kurds.
Now do you think that one extremist, representing ONE extreme faction, of ONE of these bitterly divided groups would be a good idea? Or even democratic.
Hardly the people's choice: maybe one tiny part of one group. But not the people's choice. Or is it called democatic leninist stalino centralism or something? Forgive me... i'm quite ignorant obviously.

I used to like the arguments you court, but you have to face the reality of the situation. Iraq is a ticking time bomb. If national determination means civil war and mass murder... well i think we have a responsibility as HUMANS (thats above being a "anharco-redy-real-life-communisto-socialist-leftist-leninist" i'm afraid) to do everything possible to prevent it.


Probably not. Certainly not the subversion that would be soon to follow from the CIA and MI6.

ahem; it is a current situation - not a situation which the secret services will hatch up later on.
Its a current situation which even the coalition struggles to control. Be practial, if not logical.


Possibly. There might be civil unrest. General strikes. It might be out right civil war. It would be their responsibility, to find their own direction without fear of outside inteference.


Possibly? hehe
Civil unrest? Are you kidding, the shit really will hit the fan. I think your arguments are extremely naive.
Their responsibility?
Well again we differ over a fundamental issue - i'm not an isolationist.


I propose the "coalition" pull out unconditionally, and the US and UK pay full reparations.


Luckily though you don't really have a say in the matter :)
So thousands of iraqi lives are safe for now

[bunk]

The US and UK should hand over immediate power to the UN

[James]

I agree. But that doesn't mean pull out.
They shouldn't have gone off without the UN in the first place - and the UN shouldn't have pulled out when they got attacked; and the UN shouldn't be sidelined... (thats a two way thing).

I love should haves and would haves.

[DaCuBaN]

LOL i think we all love the should've would've could've ;)


How would you enforce "your" laws anyway? If you/your philosophy, came to power?

I know it wasn't directed at my but I couldn't resist answering as unlike most people who seem to post in here you seem to like a good reasonable debate. I'm a peoples militia man - arm every citizen and set 'em loose. The bastards in society will wipe each other out, and we'll be left with the cream, not the cheese :D

and yes, I'm a dreamer


They shouldn't have gone off without the UN in the first place

and I'm determined to get the UN to sanction the UK and US - even though I'm a UK citizen and would suffer directly from this - for going against their ruling. I think a trade embargo would be suitable :rolleyes: :D

[James]

I know it wasn't directed at my but I couldn't resist answering as unlike most people who seem to post in here you seem to like a good reasonable debate. I'm a peoples militia man - arm every citizen and set 'em loose. The bastards in society will wipe each other out, and we'll be left with the cream, not the cheese

and yes, I'm a dreamer


Feel free to get involved: I love reasonable debate. People's militia... Arming every citizen seems very dangerous to me. Thats what my Lynch law comment was in reference to. Alot of the time, the mob does not know or do what is best. And as you said - it means arming every citizen.

As we both agree, "should haves" are very good - but when people's lives are at risk... well... its a classic example of being "too late".

[Sabocat]

alot of the time, the mob does not know or do what is best.

I think it was Alexander Hamilton that said primarily the same thing...That the faceless, nameless horde needs to be led by "exceptional men".

Utter crap.

[James]

What about the thousands of lynches that took place in America?
What about the race riots in Oldham?


Yes, the mob may often think they are doing the right thing.
And you of course have to think this, or rather - a leftist mob that does what you agree with, is a good mob - in that it is "the mob"; an example of the masses.

[Funky Monk]

Mobs are seriously misguided.

First they are at the mercy of the leaders, people can be excited to do pretty much anything by the right people.

Secondly people are willing to do things they would never do or particularly wish for when alone, when they are part of a mob. Its part of tribal psychology, bit like being at a football match.

[James]

I totally agree monk.

Most people who have been in a heated riot, for example, know that they acted in ways they wouldn't normally dream of. You get taken by the atmosphere.
Anyone who claims mob rule - is good rule - quite simply; isn't thinking on a very practical basis.

[DaCuBaN]

yet a mob without a leader is unlikely to act.... so is the problem the mob or the leaders?

I say neither - the problem is that many people have this desire to 'identify' with others - something I believe totally preposterous as all it achieves is grouping of different racial/sexual/political (to name but a few) peoples, which in turn leads to intolerance.

[James]

I think leaders emerge from the mob... although i really am no expert on the matter. I'm speaking purely from my own limited personal experiances, and the little i have read on the matter.

So what are you saying? That the mob would work if it had communist leaders?

[DaCuBaN]

I'm not sure in all honesty, but I think the mob would work if they were without leaders. I don't think even the best intentioned leader can ever succeed.

I wish I did have a real answer to that one though <_< :(

[James]

lol
So the police will do then?

[DaCuBaN]

well I&#39;m not out there throwing molotovs, so I guess so :rolleyes: :D

I&#39;m very interested in the swiss militia model though - I&#39;m going to have to go do some reading on that. If anything it&#39;d be a good way to decentralise power in the USA without pissing off all the gun nuts. Hell they&#39;d be delighted mostly at being made to carry m16&#39;s :rolleyes:

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:47 PM
hello
in iraq the main type of attack is suicide bombing (due to jihad) but is this just a waste of lie?
i beleive it is because they should form a organise guerilla network
every suicide bomb is another attack against the coalition but at the cost of a pair of hands to operate another gun
guerilla or suicide bombings
what are your thoughts
rik:ph34r:
It brings attention to a very desperate situation and really shows people who have nothing to loose but thier chains, but it will not win them a real lot.
Its just very sad, especially when its children.
They could have grown up and been some thing and had children of their own, but those dreams are obsolete in their worlds. And it is such a tragedy.