RIP

[Totalitarian Militant]

Fuck this topic. You idiots are too savage and backward to even type three god damn letters.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 2 2005, 10:10 PM
http://icasualties.org/oif/

The one dead British soldier:

On another board, this persons(who originally posted this) friend, is this soldiers cousin.

Rest In Peace and bless his family.

And in general, rip to all the soldiers who died in this war, especially the Iraqi police men and soldiers who are currently training or working.
They are struggling for their country, and pay with their lives.
You have to respect them.

You have to respect them.

no i dont... neither side of this struggle deserve any respect as both are terrorists. The only difference is their strength.

[redstar2000]

And in general, rip to all the soldiers who died in this war, especially the Iraqi police men and soldiers who are currently training or working. They are struggling for their country, and pay with their lives. You have to respect them.

I do? Will Yahweh strike me dead if I don't?

I guess it's a risk I'll have to take!

Listen up, asswipe! :angry:

The soldiers who occupy Iraq are criminals, murderers, and torturers!

The quisling cops in Iraq are the same.

They deserve death!

As do those who sent them there.

If you want to kiss imperial ass, go do it on some other board.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedAnarchist]

What i hate is all these soldier's families, acting all proud of their son/daughter, fully in support of them and the Army, then when their precious kiddy gets killed (what did they think the soldiers were going to do, have tea and scones with Saddam and Zarqawi?) they act all anti-war and blub in public to the media.

[flybynightoperator]

Who are you kidding ?

You start a thread on dead british soldiers who served their imperial masters
on a leftist website that too in the oppsoing ideologies forum ?

It is you who needs to show him some respect and not give us the chance to abuse him

[RedCeltic]

Totalitarian Militant

I restricted you what a day or two ago and already we see your true colors come out... lol....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:05 PM
What i hate is all these soldier's families, acting all proud of their son/daughter, fully in support of them and the Army, then when their precious kiddy gets killed (what did they think the soldiers were going to do, have tea and scones with Saddam and Zarqawi?) they act all anti-war and blub in public to the media.
That's a bit harsh...even by my standards, though I can understand the feeling.

How is it that people have to have their kid killed before they realize what imperialism actually means?

When their "fine young lad" first announced that he was joining the military, why did they gush and fawn over such a choice? Why didn't they sit him down and say something like, "You fucking moron!!! You're going to put your ass on the line for the rich motherfuckers that own this country???!!! You're going halfway around the world to kill a bunch of people who never did anything to you...so that people who've done plenty of bad things to us can do it some more???"

But now they're sorry...and, to be fair, they are trying to warn the families of other young men what "serving your country" really means.

So I give them credit for that much...at least they've learned their lesson though at a terrible cost.

I just hope the families of other young men don't have to pay the same price to learn that lesson...all they have to do is listen.

That's not asking too much, is it???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Frederick_Engles]

I wonder if someone gave their lives to save the lives of thousands of decent people, they would be applauded by the media. Wait, people have done and no, they weren't. Still, we can applaud the thousands who died for the few.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Interesting that "ideals" as you want us to believe, are no part in someone's decision to join the armed forces. There is only one reason to join the military: $$$!! and also often adventurism. If money and adventurism are more important to you then someone's life, then I have no reason to grieve. More then that, I have reason to rejoice; another sick fuck shot.

Totalitarian scum; where is your respect and tribute to the innoncents who were killed, maimed, imprisoned, himuliated, beaten, threatend, got an even shittier life then under Saddam. Where is your respect to them? I guess you haven't any.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:02 PM
Totalitarian Militant

I restricted you what a day or two ago and already we see your true colors come out... lol....
Youre an idiot.

My true colors?

I guess feeling sorry for dead people is right wing!

Fuckin. excuse. me!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Where is the respect then for the victims that he made, for the potential victims that he could have made. For the 100.000 Iraqi's. Ever felt sorry for the death of a serial killer?

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 3 2005, 09:57 PM
Where is the respect then for the victims that he made, for the potential victims that he could have made. For the 100.000 Iraqi's. Ever felt sorry for the death of a serial killer?
Shut up.

He may have never killed anyone.

And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.

Get that through your heads.

[RedStarOverChina]

And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.

actually, most of the terrorist in Iraq are students and normal people just like u and me, even tho western propaganda protray them as evil monsters who want everybody dead. They just want the oppressors out.

[LSD]

He may have never killed anyone.

the people he killed want you all dead as well

He's a great guy! He never killed anyone... OK, he killed some people, but they were really, really eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil....

The US troops in Iraq are a part of an occupying army, that makes them criminals and oppressors. The Iraqi resistance is a legitimate attempt to stop being oppressed!

That doesn't mean I like the ideals of much of the resistance, but I sure as hell am not going to "respect" a member of an occupying army! :angry:


I guess feeling sorry for dead people is right wing!

No. Felling sorry for dead oppressors is.


My true colors?

Yeah, you know... that you're a ranting lunatic:

You idiots are too savage and backward to even type three god damn letters.

Shut up.

Youre an idiot.

Get that through your heads.

Fuckin. excuse. me!

[t_wolves_fan]

The US troops in Iraq are a part of an occupying army, that makes them criminals and oppressors.

No, actually they are not. The democratically-elected government has asked them to stay, so they are no longer occupiers.



The Iraqi resistance is a legitimate attempt to stop being oppressed!

I want to ask you a serious question and hope you will attempt a serious answer:

Pretend you are a typical Iraqi citizen.

Do you believe you will be more "oppressed" if:

A>The Americans stay and the new government rules

or

B>The insurgents win and set up a government of their choice.


Seriously.

[Jersey Devil]

I agree with the sentiment of the board. Death kicks ass!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 4 2005, 01:16 PM
I agree with the sentiment of the board. Death kicks ass!
Why don't you put your words into action then?

[Jersey Devil]

I'm obviously being sarcastic.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
I want to ask you a serious question and hope you will attempt a serious answer:

Pretend you are a typical Iraqi citizen.

Do you believe you will be more "oppressed" if:

A>The Americans stay and the new government rules

or

B>The insurgents win and set up a government of their choice.

The answer is B of course.

The fact is, I think people inside and outside of Iraq are beginning to realize that, as bad as Saddam Hussein was, what they have now under U.S. imperialism is far worse.

No surprise, really...to anyone with a knowledge of the history of imperialism.


No, actually they are not. The democratically-elected government has asked them to stay, so they are no longer occupiers.--emphasis added.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you considered a career as a stand-up comedian?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 4 2005, 02:33 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 4 2005, 02:33 PM)
t_wolves_fan
I want to ask you a serious question and hope you will attempt a serious answer:

Pretend you are a typical Iraqi citizen.

Do you believe you will be more "oppressed" if:

A>The Americans stay and the new government rules

or

B>The insurgents win and set up a government of their choice.

The answer is B of course.

The fact is, I think people inside and outside of Iraq are beginning to realize that, as bad as Saddam Hussein was, what they have now under U.S. imperialism is far worse.

No surprise, really...to anyone with a knowledge of the history of imperialism.


No, actually they are not. The democratically-elected government has asked them to stay, so they are no longer occupiers.--emphasis added.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you considered a career as a stand-up comedian?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Hmmmm.

You claim that the people of Iraq would be more oppressed if the insurgents won. Then, you claim the people of Iraq are now far more oppressed than what they had under Saddam, despite the fact that the insurgents are fighting to install the same kind of government that Saddam had, only it'd probably be even worse (fundamentalist instead of secular).

:huh:

As far as the Democratically-elected government being a joke, do you have credible evidence that it was not?

[1936]

What i hate is all these soldier's families

It was in the metro today (yes i read the metro) that a family of a dead soldier were going to take blair to court for the death of there son

thats what you call retarded

[Frederick_Engles]

They were happy enough to send him....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
You claim that the people of Iraq would be more oppressed if the insurgents won.

No, I picked option B...it would help if you would remember your own questions.


...you claim the people of Iraq are now far more oppressed than what they had under Saddam, despite the fact that the insurgents are fighting to install the same kind of government that Saddam had, only it'd probably be even worse (fundamentalist instead of secular).

Actually, it is the Shiite quislings who appear to be the worst fundamentalists in Iraq. The heart of the resistance seems to be Sunni and secular (by Iraqi standards) in orientation.


As far as the Democratically-elected government being a joke, do you have credible evidence that it was not?

Is it your contention that the U.S. imperialists would permit any opponents of the occupation to run for office under their very noses? Or, even if permitted to run, be allowed to win?

You know as well as I that the existing "democratically elected" government would not last 20 minutes in the absence of occupation troops.

In fact, were it not for the massive presence of U.S. troops in the middle east today, the list of viable governments in that part of the world -- democratic or otherwise -- would be very short.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Totalitarian Militant+May 4 2005, 04:07 AM--> (Totalitarian Militant @ May 4 2005, 04:07 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 3 2005, 09:57 PM
Where is the respect then for the victims that he made, for the potential victims that he could have made. For the 100.000 Iraqi's. Ever felt sorry for the death of a serial killer?
Shut up.

He may have never killed anyone.

And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.

Get that through your heads.[/b]
Interesting at first you don't even know sure that he killed anyone, but then you speak with absolute certainty that they must have been guilty. :lol: You should become an Army spokesman.

What's more interesting. Approxmily 100.000 Iraqi's died, but according to the US gov't all the Iraqi's want the US there and there is a small band of some 5.000 "foreign terrorists". Thus the army admit slaughtering atleast 95.000 innoncents? And don't forget the half million Iraqi children who died between 1991 and 2003.

Another thing. You assume that the resistance is built of muslim extremists, but the Nationalists are the majority of the resistance. Several Nationalist groups thanked on several occassions the westerners who oppose the war. So no, they don't want me dead. They want the occupants of their country dead. Just like the American rebels killed the British occupants. But guess anyone who opposses a superpower is a terrorist.

Anyway I am glad that you watch Fox, CNN or whatever other unbiased newssource. You are so well informed.

BTW. why did the US wage war on the Iraqi people? I am confused, all sorts of flashy terms; WMD's, terrorists, dictators, liberation -pass on, but they never stick to the same story.

Read a book!

And I never mourn for the death of mercenaries. May the occupation force flee home broken, for all the Iraqi's that they killed, tortured, maimed, himuliated, oppressed, imprisoned.

[13Commnists]

No, actually they are not. The democratically-elected government has asked them to stay, so they are no longer occupiers.
:lol:
Where they truly freely elected? Especially when there were and still are Occupying army Tanks and Soldiers roaming ther streets.


And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.
The insurgents are fighting a foriegn imperialist power(s) in thier country.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:06 AM

And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.

actually, most of the terrorist in Iraq are students and normal people just like u and me, even tho western propaganda protray them as evil monsters who want everybody dead. They just want the oppressors out.
They believe blowing themselves up to kill American civilians will get them to allah.......

No way is any of us nearly close to that.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
You claim that the people of Iraq would be more oppressed if the insurgents won.

No, I picked option B...it would help if you would remember your own questions.

Umm...yes, and option B was that the Iraqi people would be more oppressed if the insurgents won.

Please drop the tabs after you respond, mmmkay?



...you claim the people of Iraq are now far more oppressed than what they had under Saddam, despite the fact that the insurgents are fighting to install the same kind of government that Saddam had, only it'd probably be even worse (fundamentalist instead of secular).

Actually, it is the Shiite quislings who appear to be the worst fundamentalists in Iraq. The heart of the resistance seems to be Sunni and secular (by Iraqi standards) in orientation.

I see. So when the leader of the insurgency called democracy an "affront to God", he was expressing a secular opinion?



As far as the Democratically-elected government being a joke, do you have credible evidence that it was not?

Is it your contention that the U.S. imperialists would permit any opponents of the occupation to run for office under their very noses? Or, even if permitted to run, be allowed to win?

You're right - Germany and Japan are still fascist dictatorships, aren't they?

:lol:


You know as well as I that the existing "democratically elected" government would not last 20 minutes in the absence of occupation troops.

Which is why we need to stay.


In fact, were it not for the massive presence of U.S. troops in the middle east today, the list of viable governments in that part of the world -- democratic or otherwise -- would be very short.

Sadly you are right on this point, which is what we are trying to rectify.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 4 2005, 07:17 PM

What's more interesting. Approxmily 100.000 Iraqi's died
From where do you get this obviously incorrect statistic?

At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.

Please try to use at least moderately correct statistics when making an argument, champ.

[13Commnists]

They believe blowing themselves up to kill American civilians will get them to allah.......

No way is any of us nearly close to that.
I'm positive the secular Ba'ath party believes that


* Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein;
* Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims who fight for Iraqi independence;
* Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement;
* Foreign Islamist fighters, largely driven by the similar Sunni Wahabi doctrine, as well as the remnants of Ansar al-Islam; although it includes a broad range of religious/ethnic and political currents united by their opposition to the occupation;
* Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; and
* nonviolent resistance groups
from wikipedia
Notice olny three are religous.
Edit
"There is no use for demonstrations, as your enemy loves to terrify and suppress opinions, and despises peoples." - Muqtada al-Sadr
"[T]he departure of Saddam was supposed to be followed by freedom and democracy. It is not desirable that a small devil will go to be followed by a larger devil. The mistake is not the departure of Saddam but what came after him in terms of despotism and terrorism." - Muqtada al-Sadr

[DoomedOne]

Okay as much as totalitarian militant is an idiot, you have to show respect to soldiers who have died, not because of patriotism or because they're protecting their freedom, because they're not, but because they are a victim of this manslaughter. They were suckered in by cheap recruiting, brainwashed by the media, and their superiors, went to fight in a war thinking they were doing a service to their country, and died for one horrible, greedy lie. That's why they need respect. It pissed me off to know that when Vietnam veterans came back they were screamed at and harrassed. They just went through Hell without even knowing what the Hell they were doing, thinking they were helping people. They came back and learned, guess what, everything they did was for a right-wing agenda and now they're all assholes. Don't think like that.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 4 2005, 07:40 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 07:40 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 4 2005, 07:17 PM

What's more interesting. Approxmily 100.000 Iraqi's died
From where do you get this obviously incorrect statistic?

At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.

Please try to use at least moderately correct statistics when making an argument, champ.[/b]
A much more reliable and respected count is definately 100,000 (http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Re: Doomed One


Respect? No, I recognise yr point, but I don't think we should respect them, or even sympathise with them, but sympathy for a zombie is silly - s/he still wants to eat yr brains, regardless of whether or not becomming a zombie was his/her "fault".

At best, we can work at attacking the underlying reasons - poverty, capitalist hegemony, etc. - but in the mean time . . . AIM FOR THE HEAD!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:33 AM

No, actually they are not. The democratically-elected government has asked them to stay, so they are no longer occupiers.
:lol:
Where they truly freely elected? Especially when there were and still are Occupying army Tanks and Soldiers roaming ther streets.


And anyway, the people he killed want you all dead as well. They dont care if you sympathize with them or not.
The insurgents are fighting a foriegn imperialist power(s) in thier country.
You tell me.

If the insurgents were running the election, do you think it'd be any more or less free?

Can't wait to hear this'n.

:lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Commie Girl+May 5 2005, 03:27 PM--> (Commie Girl @ May 5 2005, 03:27 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:40 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 4 2005, 07:17 PM

What's more interesting. Approxmily 100.000 Iraqi's died
From where do you get this obviously incorrect statistic?

At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.

Please try to use at least moderately correct statistics when making an argument, champ.
A much more reliable and respected count is definately 100,000 (http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html) [/b]
Hardly.

The survey was based on looking at how many people lived in a few cities before and after the invasion. Most of the numbers come from Fallujah. The author of the study simply assumed that the people who could not be accounted for in Fallujah were dead, even though most probably fled before fighting started in that city and haven't returned.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.p...article_id=6271 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271)

He doesn't even know or probably care how many are dead, since he was opposed to the war from the start:

"As far as I’m concerned the exact number of dead is not so important. It is many tens of thousands. Whether it’s 80,000 or 140,000 dead, it’s just not acceptable."

ZZZZZZZ.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:31 AM
They were suckered in by cheap recruiting, brainwashed by the media, and their superiors, went to fight in a war thinking they were doing a service to their country, and died for one horrible, greedy lie.
Tell me God, how are you so certain that these are the reasons they joined the service?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:40 AM
At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died.
While Iraq Body Count is an excellent source, it only records reported civilian deaths. The huge number of unreported deaths, and deaths of those not considered civilians means the actual number of dead is likely considerably higher (especially given the efforts made to ensure that a very limited ammount of what happens in Iraq is reported :angry:).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+May 5 2005, 04:20 PM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ May 5 2005, 04:20 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 01:40 AM
At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.
While Iraq Body Count is an excellent source, it only records reported civilian deaths. The huge number of unreported deaths, and deaths of those not considered civilians means the actual number of dead is likely considerably higher (especially given the efforts made to ensure that a very limited ammount of what happens in Iraq is reported :angry:). [/b]
True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I also wonder how many of those 100,000 civilians have been blown up by the insurgents you support.

I'm sure all those deaths are still the fault of the U.S. though.

:rolleyes:

[OleMarxco]

The insurgents are sure as hell not ex-Saddam lackeys, but ordinary people who are fed up with this shit. They don't think US is better and/or worse as Saddam, but an Equal Evil. The "democratically elected" government, however, are a bunch of yes-men to the occupation forces, and, withouth doubt, won because everyone who "has a policy" which is seriously against the occupation is already dead, shot, or have joined the insurgents. They would've not had let the anti-US won the election, and the ones now in government wouldn't DARE stand up against U.S. The ones "insurging" (or that's actually a wrong word, more like "resistance" - It's their land, renember.) are mostly free folk and not attached to Saddam at all, but used to be fighting against Saddam but now is fighting US. What's the difference: It went from a Saddam-rule to an American (talking technically, here) rule. As I see it know, whatever they might say, U.S. got IraQ by the balls. The power the government has? If they- REALLY- had asked them to leave? They would've surely been branded as "insurgents". The IraQi election is probably corruptized too...not unlike the Florida election. Who says the "insurgents" have evil plans, hm? I don't like their suicidal methods, but it is quite for a reason. It should be a neutral rule: WITHOUTH Saddam in lead, and definately WITHOUTH U.S. Presence. One could say it APPEARS to be free country, but, what is a "free" government surrounded by fully automatic guns of an foreigner army? "The insurgents could've won the election if they were so popular against the U.S. among the citizens"....No, the citizens are after security and believe U.S. is needed...hah...ignorant...and they were certainly kept out of elections. A true insurgent would be shot if tried to vote. Anyways, let me conclude with that it was good they got rid of Saddam but I think they should leave now. The fate of the country should be now their own.

And why the hell do USA feel a urgent need to stand up for other country's "citizens", anyways? Nevermind the country's rich natural resources! YEAH! It's all just numbers And I 'spose it's kinda hard for the neo-cons to argue that they just gave him chemical weapons to "fight wars for them" down there? ;)

[Enragé]

"True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear."

I will;
one for the iraqi freedom fighter who died
the other for the yanqui tyrant still being alive

[MKS]

The main point is self determination:
the US governement along with its allies has acted in an attempt to secure power in a region rich with oil. You cannot condtend the US was acting for the Iraqi people, when it was the US governement that supplpied Saddam Hussein with the very chemical weapons they were fighting against, Saddam was at one time considered a great ally by Dick Cheney, during the Iran/Iraq conflict. It wasnt until Saddam started exerting soverignty that the US acted. You can compare the action to the actions of Ronald Regan in Central America. The argument for altruistic purpose as cause for action in Iraq does not hold water. If it were the case, why dosent the US act in the Sudan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia?

It all boils down to the right of the Iraqi people to determine thier own path, America or any other nation should not interfere.

The American, British, Polish etc soldiers that volunteer to fight in this war, are just tools in a great machine that seeks dominance at any cost (to the enemy and civilian populations).

If the Americans bever invaded and conquered Iraq there would be no insurgency, if the Iraqi people really wanted Saddam out of power they would have acted. ( I use Iran as an example of strong action of the people in mid-east nations). To say that minorites like Kurds and the majority Shiites were being targeted also does not hold water. Turkey, one of our greatest allies in the war against Iraqi freedom, also exterminated and expelled thousands of Kurds from their nation, and the americans dont even blink.

The danger of American hegemony is that truly oppressed people never see liberation unless the americans have something to gain.

[LSD]

True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

Yes, God forbid a soldier defend his country from a hostile invasion force!


I also wonder how many of those 100,000 civilians have been blown up by the insurgents you support.

Some, but not nearly as many as you'd think.

While insrugent attacks are getting a good deal of "play" in the US media, the total resulting body count is still far less than that resulting from US actions.


I'm sure all those deaths are still the fault of the U.S. though.

Yes.

Just like how the civilian deaths caused by the French resistance were ultimately the fauly of the Nazis.

An insurgency is only nescessary because Iraq is being occupied. If the US left, today at noon, the insurgency would end at 12:01.

Now, I don't know what would happen next, but I do know that it should be up to the Iraqi people and not the 7th armored division of the United States Army.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 5 2005, 10:08 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 5 2005, 10:08 AM)
Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 5 2005, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:40 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 4 2005, 07:17 PM

What's more interesting. Approxmily 100.000 Iraqi's died
From where do you get this obviously incorrect statistic?

At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.

Please try to use at least moderately correct statistics when making an argument, champ.
A much more reliable and respected count is definately 100,000 (http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html)
Hardly.

The survey was based on looking at how many people lived in a few cities before and after the invasion. Most of the numbers come from Fallujah. The author of the study simply assumed that the people who could not be accounted for in Fallujah were dead, even though most probably fled before fighting started in that city and haven't returned.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.p...article_id=6271 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271)

He doesn't even know or probably care how many are dead, since he was opposed to the war from the start:

"As far as I’m concerned the exact number of dead is not so important. It is many tens of thousands. Whether it’s 80,000 or 140,000 dead, it’s just not acceptable."

ZZZZZZZ. [/b]
Really? :huh:

"The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. "Source (http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html)

"There have been other surveys with similar findings. But when the media talk about our figure they almost always compare it to the lowest estimate. That estimate — the Iraq Body Count — was calculated by academics based on press reports."Source (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 08:09 PM


Now, I don't know what would happen next, but I do know that it should be up to the Iraqi people and not the 7th armored division of the United States Army.
What would happen next is that Zarqawi would set up a religious theocracy, and you'd be in the streets protesting its existence.

The beauty of it is, you'd see no contradiction.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 5 2005, 08:29 PM

"The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. "Source (http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html)

"There have been other surveys with similar findings. But when the media talk about our figure they almost always compare it to the lowest estimate. That estimate — the Iraq Body Count — was calculated by academics based on press reports."Source (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

100,000 Dead—or 8,000
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.

The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times), "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue. Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be 100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000 higher than that number."

Not a meaty headline, but truer to the findings of his own study.

Here's how the Johns Hopkins team—which, for the record, was led by Dr. Les Roberts of the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health—went about its work. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods across Iraq—equal-sized population "clusters"—and, this past September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14 months before the U.S. invasion—and how many died, of what, in the 17 months since the war began. They then took the results of their random sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq.

This is a time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies, but those conducting them have to take great care that the way they select the neighborhoods is truly random (which, as most poll-watchers of any sort know, is difficult under the easiest of circumstances). There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas.

The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?

There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect.

Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point diplomatically after reading the Lancet article this morning and discussing it with me in a phone conversation: "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here."

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war.

But there are two problems with this calculation. First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

The second problem with the calculation goes back to the problem cited at the top of this article—the margin of error. Here is the relevant passage from the study: "The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 – 2.3) higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the invasion—in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as 130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful.

There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).

The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.

So, let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking.


Thanks for playing.

[LSD]

What would happen next is that Zarqawi would set up a religious theocracy, and you'd be in the streets protesting its existence.

Yes I would, but, more importantly, so would many Iraqis.

As long as secular is tagged as "American" in the middle east there will never be a stable democracy. The US needs to get out so that local democratic movements can thrive without being labeled as "collaborators".

You see the reason that the theocrats are doing so well in the Muslim world is that they're seen as the only real alternative to "Western Imperialism". This perception cannot change so long as the West is...well...acting imperially.

An Iraqi government set up by the US army and backed up by US tanks will never have respect or credibility and will always be a hair away from collapse. Unfortunately, you're probably right in that a theocracy would quickly replace it. But the reason for that is that democracy and capitalism and secularism have become psychologically merged with "the west". The only way to change that is to allow the people of those countries to develop on their own and develop their own democratic and secular and capitalist movements free from any taint of "Americanism".

As long as Bush is spouting his rhetoric about "spreading democracy", the middle east will keep assuming that democracy means American warplanes.

The only way for a democratic middle east to develop is for your country to leave them the fuck alone!


The beauty of it is, you'd see no contradiction.

I believe that the true contradiction is expecting that a democracy can be enforced at the barrel of a gun. Most of the times it's been attempted in history, it's failed. And the few times in which it succeeded were thanks to unique historical circumstances.

In Germany and Japan, for example, both already had experience with democratic politics, and, more importantly, both were fiercely nationalistic with strong senses of national identity and both were well developed capitalist countries.

Iraq is neither of those things!

But the biggest reason that the US was successful in Germany and Japan ...was the Soviet Union. The "communist" "other" that posed a grave threat and acted as a unifying force in the "free world".

Today, however, in the case of Iraq and the entire Muslim world, they are that "other". They are the "threat" that the US is fighting. Rather than being unified by a common enemy, the the US iteslef is seen as the enemy. Indeed, all that the US' actions in Iraq have done is further solidify the contention in the Middle East that the US is the enemy of all Muslims. For unlike in the '40s and '50s, there is nothing to unite the US and her occupied subjects. There is no "other", no "threat". Rather, this time it is the US herself that is viewed as imperialist and oppressive and dangerous.

So while in some times and some places, circumstances so align themselves as to make an artificial implantation of democracy possible ....Iraq is definitely not one of them!

[Intifada]

No matter what you say, t wolves fan, the murder of civilians in Iraq, by the US and Britain, is much much worse than that little event which took place on the 11th of September, 2001.

All I can say is that I hope you Yankees, and other Westerners, do not ask "why do they hate us so much" after the next 9/11 happens.

I'm afraid that the US will reap what it has sown. It's just a shame that the victims are always innocents.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 5 2005, 04:29 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 5 2005, 04:29 PM)
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 5 2005, 04:20 PM

[email protected] 5 2005, 01:40 AM
At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.
While Iraq Body Count is an excellent source, it only records reported civilian deaths. The huge number of unreported deaths, and deaths of those not considered civilians means the actual number of dead is likely considerably higher (especially given the efforts made to ensure that a very limited ammount of what happens in Iraq is reported :angry:).
True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I also wonder how many of those 100,000 civilians have been blown up by the insurgents you support.

I'm sure all those deaths are still the fault of the U.S. though.

:rolleyes: [/b]
Yipppppie. The reality is that depending on the battle, US kill ratio for insurgets is 40:1 or 400:1, depending on which battle you do the counting.

This is having an unexpected consequence. Everyone who wants to kill Americans is comming to Iraq and getting killed. Pretty soon they will all be dead. Yipppie.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 7 2005, 08:54 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 7 2005, 08:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 5 2005, 04:20 PM

[email protected] 5 2005, 01:40 AM
At most (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) approximately 24,000 Iraqis have died. Saddam finished off that many without breaking a sweat on a Friday afternoon.
While Iraq Body Count is an excellent source, it only records reported civilian deaths. The huge number of unreported deaths, and deaths of those not considered civilians means the actual number of dead is likely considerably higher (especially given the efforts made to ensure that a very limited ammount of what happens in Iraq is reported :angry:).
True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I also wonder how many of those 100,000 civilians have been blown up by the insurgents you support.

I'm sure all those deaths are still the fault of the U.S. though.

:rolleyes:
Yipppppie. The reality is that depending on the battle, US kill ratio for insurgets is 40:1 or 400:1, depending on which battle you do the counting.

This is having an unexpected consequence. Everyone who wants to kill Americans is comming to Iraq and getting killed. Pretty soon they will all be dead. Yipppie. [/b]
Because, very obviously, anti-American sentiment in the region is limited to a narrow group of eeeeevil terrorists who can be systematicly killed, and not a popular movement arising from certain conditions that have been created and maintained. I mean, it's not like more terrorists will arise to replace those who die . . .

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I already knew that Patriotic Christians know no sympathy, but tell me "chap" since you are pro-war, what was the reason to wage war? It's obviously not liberation or WMD's. Did the sick fucks need target practice?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 7 2005, 02:56 PM

True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I already knew that Patriotic Christians know no sympathy, but tell me "chap" since you are pro-war, what was the reason to wage war? It's obviously not liberation or WMD's. Did the sick fucks need target practice?
Do you enjoy petro products? Or how about energy?

I do. I think you do to. I will kill for medicine, gas, plastics, fertilizer, shelter, transport, heat, energy, and all the modern things that are possible from petro and petro products. I think you will kill to.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 7 2005, 04:04 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 7 2005, 04:04 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 7 2005, 02:56 PM

True, but if an Iraqi gets his head blown off after pointing a gun at a U.S. soldier, I won't shed a tear.

I already knew that Patriotic Christians know no sympathy, but tell me "chap" since you are pro-war, what was the reason to wage war? It's obviously not liberation or WMD's. Did the sick fucks need target practice?
Do you enjoy petro products? Or how about energy?

I do. I think you do to. I will kill for medicine, gas, plastics, fertilizer, shelter, transport, heat, energy, and all the modern things that are possible from petro and petro products. I think you will kill to. [/b]
Why would I kill when I can produce? or trade? I would only kill if my aim was unjust, and the opposition objected to my taking of their resources. In other words...theft.

[LSD]

I do. I think you do to. I will kill for medicine, gas, plastics, fertilizer, shelter, transport, heat, energy, and all the modern things that are possible from petro and petro products. I think you will kill to.

Wow, for someone who purports to support "property rights", you don't seem to have much respect for property rights :lol:

I guess, private property only applies when the property holder is American.

Or maybe it's even simpler... maybe private property only applies when the property holder is you!

[1936]

Its not a question of wether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified.

Its should we care and acknowldge every dead soldier of impearilsm.

And the answer is.....no

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 06:10 PM

I do. I think you do to. I will kill for medicine, gas, plastics, fertilizer, shelter, transport, heat, energy, and all the modern things that are possible from petro and petro products. I think you will kill to.

Wow, for someone who purports to support "property rights", you don't seem to have much respect for property rights :lol:

I guess, private property only applies when the property holder is American.

Or maybe it's even simpler... maybe private property only applies when the property holder is you!
I know I'm not anyone special and I know what I will do for oil and oil based products. Are you any different? If really really pressed, I don't think you are.

Check the inside of your pants. Are they made with rayon, nylon, or poly ester blends? (oil). Do you eat fruits and vetables? (Made plentiful and cheap with oil based fertilizers) Do you use electric lights? (oil) Do you use any plastics? (oil) I can keep going.

[LSD]

I know I'm not anyone special and I know what I will do for oil and oil based products.

Um, and that would be ....kill 100,000 people?

Still though... I know you don't care about innocent civlian deaths, but isn't your supporting an invasion / occupation that you admit to be an immense act of theft hypocritical?

Aren't you violating your precious capitalism?

Doesn't taking oil from the people who "own" it, constitute a violation of their "property rights"?

If you really want that oil why don't you buy it on the free market?!?

hmmm....I guess you're not so much a "capitalist" as a narcisist! :lol:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 09:45 PM

I know I'm not anyone special and I know what I will do for oil and oil based products.

Um, and that would be ....kill 100,000 people?

Still though... I know you don't care about innocent civlian deaths, but isn't your supporting an invasion / occupation that you admit to be an immense act of theft hypocritical?

Aren't you violating your precious capitalism?

Doesn't taking oil from the people who "own" it, constitute a violation of their "property rights"?

If you really want that oil why don't you buy it on the free market?!?

hmmm....I guess you're not so much a "capitalist" as a narcisist! :lol:
Would you kill for oil? I think you would too. I think you know it too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why not simply buy the oil off the Iraqis? Give them a killer deal on medical equipment and necessary supplies in return for a few thousand barrels of oil? Buy, buy it's the American way! Or is the American way to conduct an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and to plunder it's natural resources for your own use?

Cover your nose... I smell hypocracy!

[LSD]

Would you kill for oil? I think you would too. I think you know it too.

Come on now, don't avoid... answer the question!


Originally posted by [email protected] two posts ago, which you somehow "forgot" to address :lol:
Still though... I know you don't care about innocent civlian deaths, but isn't your supporting an invasion / occupation that you admit to be an immense act of theft hypocritical?

Aren't you violating your precious capitalism?

Doesn't taking oil from the people who "own" it, constitute a violation of their "property rights"?

If you really want that oil why don't you buy it on the free market?!?

Well??

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+May 7 2005, 10:40 PM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ May 7 2005, 10:40 PM)
Would you kill for oil? I think you would too. I think you know it too.

Come on now, don't avoid... answer the question!


[email protected] two posts ago, which you somehow "forgot" to address :lol:
Still though... I know you don't care about innocent civlian deaths, but isn't your supporting an invasion / occupation that you admit to be an immense act of theft hypocritical?

Aren't you violating your precious capitalism?

Doesn't taking oil from the people who "own" it, constitute a violation of their "property rights"?

If you really want that oil why don't you buy it on the free market?!?

Well?? [/b]
Oh I thougt your question was pretty much answered by the simple tenet of "I will kill for oil".

Do you accept that you will kill for oil too?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:26 PM
Why not simply buy the oil off the Iraqis? Give them a killer deal on medical equipment and necessary supplies in return for a few thousand barrels of oil? Buy, buy it's the American way! Or is the American way to conduct an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and to plunder it's natural resources for your own use?

Cover your nose... I smell hypocracy!
I could careless about Iraqi oil. The US existed just fine for years without it, don't forget, there was an embargo on Iraqi oil. The oil I will kill for is Kwuati and Saudi oil. Saddams biography pretty much laid out his plan just like Hitler in Mien Kampf. He fully intened to TAKE the whole region as his empire. He believed it was his destiny to rule the whole region. Now as someone who like oils, do you let him have his way? As long as the Saudis and Kwuait keep selling oil, I got no problem with that. I will be happy to keep buying it. Do you think that Saddam would let locals continue to sell thier oil?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So you don't respect private property?

And nylon pants are worth the lives of 100.000 Iraqi's and the repression of millions?

[LSD]

Do you think that Saddam would let locals continue to sell thier oil?

Yes.

Let me break it down for you:

He likes guns.
Guns cost money.
Oil makes money.
He sells oil.

What the fuck did you think he would do with oil?


Saddams biography pretty much laid out his plan just like Hitler in Mien Kampf. He fully intened to TAKE the whole region as his empire. He believed it was his destiny to rule the whole region.

:lol: :D :lol:

Oh yeah, Iraq's third rate army which couldn't hold Kuwait at its peak was going to try to conquer the "whole region"..

:lol:

Right....that makes a lot of sense, that's why saddam was building all those WMDs right?

...oh wait... :( ...no that was bullshit too, wasn't it?


Oh I thougt your question was pretty much answered by the simple tenet of "I will kill for oil".

No it wasn't, since you still haven't given a reason why anyone needed to "kill for oil".

Iraq was more than willing to sell it. So why'd y'all have to go over there and kill 100,000 people for?

Oh, wait, right, because Iraq was poised to defeat the US army in Saudi Arabia and "rule the whole region"... :rolleyes:

That's one fucked up imagination you have there, man. You should right sc-fi.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 12:24 AM

Do you think that Saddam would let locals continue to sell thier oil?

Yes.

Let me break it down for you:

He likes guns.
Guns cost money.
Oil makes money.
He sells oil.

What the fuck did you think he would do with oil?


Saddams biography pretty much laid out his plan just like Hitler in Mien Kampf. He fully intened to TAKE the whole region as his empire. He believed it was his destiny to rule the whole region.

:lol: :D :lol:

Oh yeah, Iraq's third rate army which couldn't hold Kuwait at its peak was going to try to conquer the "whole region"..

:lol:

Right....that makes a lot of sense, that's why saddam was building all those WMDs right?

...oh wait... :( ...no that was bullshit too, wasn't it?


Oh I thougt your question was pretty much answered by the simple tenet of "I will kill for oil".

No it wasn't, since you still haven't given a reason why anyone needed to "kill for oil".

Iraq was more than willing to sell it. So why'd y'all have to go over there and kill 100,000 people for?

Oh, wait, right, because Iraq was poised to defeat the US army in Saudi Arabia and "rule the whole region"... :rolleyes:

That's one fucked up imagination you have there, man. You should right sc-fi.
Need? I thought I pretty much explained that too with poly ester, fertilizer, plastic, pharmacuticals, energy, and transport.

Sorry for the confusion. Do you really think Saddam was 'contained'? I don't think he was. Do you? It sounds like you think he was? I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist. Do you think his neighbors classified Saddam as 'contained'? Do you think the Iranians, the Kwuaiti, Saudi, and the Syrians think of him as 'contained'? I don't think they did. Why do you?

Common, let me hear you say it, humor me on this one. You would kill for oil too, wouldn't you?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:10 AM
I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist.
No, they can testify the WMDs existed at one point (with the help of the country with the world's largest stocks) but, it is rather obvious that, at the time of the American invasion, any WMD were long-gone.

Woops.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+May 8 2005, 07:24 AM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ May 8 2005, 07:24 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 01:10 AM
I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist.
No, they can testify the WMDs existed at one point (with the help of the country with the world's largest stocks) but, it is rather obvious that, at the time of the American invasion, any WMD were long-gone.

Woops. [/b]
Do you think the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, and the Kwauiti think Saddam was 'contained' from taking thier countries? Do you think they had a good reason to think he was not contained if they did? You seem to imply he was contained.

[Intifada]

You seem to imply he was contained.

So did the Bush Administration.

In February of 2001, during a trip to Egypt, Colin Powell stated that Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Moreover, in the same year, Condi Rice said that the US had been able to "keep arms from him." She told CNN that Saddam's "military forces have not been rebuilt."

It's funny how quickly things change when you need an excuse to go to war.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:03 AM

You seem to imply he was contained.

So did the Bush Administration.

In February of 2001, during a trip to Egypt, Colin Powell stated that Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Moreover, in the same year, Condi Rice said that the US had been able to "keep arms from him." She told CNN that Saddam's "military forces have not been rebuilt."

It's funny how quickly things change when you need an excuse to go to war.
Can you please provide links to the text you cut and paste so I can see the rest of the context of those words?

BTW can you do me a favor? Can you check the tags of your clothes your presently wearing? Is there any petrol products mentioned in those tages? Such as nylon, rayon, poly ester?

[Intifada]

Can you please provide links to the text you cut and paste so I can see the rest of the context of those words?

I didn't cut and paste anything.

Here (http://100777.com/node/589), see the video clips for yourself.


BTW can you do me a favor? Can you check the tags of your clothes your presently wearing?

All 100% cotton shorts and t-shirt (one with che on it, in fact).

Either way, I don't think the invasion of Iraq, and the killing of one hundred thousand Iraqis or so, is worth oil.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:21 PM

Can you please provide links to the text you cut and paste so I can see the rest of the context of those words?

I didn't cut and paste anything.

Here (http://100777.com/node/589), see the video clips for yourself.


BTW can you do me a favor? Can you check the tags of your clothes your presently wearing?

All 100% cotton shorts and t-shirt (one with che on it, in fact).

Either way, I don't think the invasion of Iraq, and the killing of one hundred thousand Iraqis or so, is worth oil.
My underware is cotton too, but the saftey gear I'm wearing right now is 100% nomex. I know myself. I know what I'm willing to do. I know that I'm willing to kill for oil. Not just oil, but everthing oil will give me. It gives me cheap and plentiful food. It gives me pharmaciticals. It gives me shelter. It gives me energy. I now I'm not willing to live without these.

Even you 100% cotton garmets where maufactured with energy. The lights in the factory, the energy in the looms and sewing machines. The trasnport system to get it to you. All the people who rely on oil to deliver your cotton garmets.

Oil is something we eat, wear, take shelter, heal, and transport with.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's good to know that yr defense of property doesn't extend to brown people.

Racist sack of shit.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:28 PM
They were happy enough to send him....
Were they? How do you know? Have you met all these peoples parents? No? Then quit making moronic assumptions.

-----

Who gives a shit if WMD's existed. Nobody with their head screwed on properly thinks that is any reason for justification/condemnation for this war.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 8 2005, 07:04 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 8 2005, 07:04 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 04:21 PM

Can you please provide links to the text you cut and paste so I can see the rest of the context of those words?

I didn't cut and paste anything.

Here (http://100777.com/node/589), see the video clips for yourself.


BTW can you do me a favor? Can you check the tags of your clothes your presently wearing?

All 100% cotton shorts and t-shirt (one with che on it, in fact).

Either way, I don't think the invasion of Iraq, and the killing of one hundred thousand Iraqis or so, is worth oil.
My underware is cotton too, but the saftey gear I'm wearing right now is 100% nomex. I know myself. I know what I'm willing to do. I know that I'm willing to kill for oil. Not just oil, but everthing oil will give me. It gives me cheap and plentiful food. It gives me pharmaciticals. It gives me shelter. It gives me energy. I now I'm not willing to live without these.

Even you 100% cotton garmets where maufactured with energy. The lights in the factory, the energy in the looms and sewing machines. The trasnport system to get it to you. All the people who rely on oil to deliver your cotton garmets.

Oil is something we eat, wear, take shelter, heal, and transport with. [/b]
What will foolish imperialists like you do once oil has run dry?

[Intifada]

My underware is cotton too, but the saftey gear I'm wearing right now is 100% nomex. I know myself. I know what I'm willing to do. I know that I'm willing to kill for oil. Not just oil, but everthing oil will give me. It gives me cheap and plentiful food. It gives me pharmaciticals. It gives me shelter. It gives me energy. I now I'm not willing to live without these.

Even you 100% cotton garmets where maufactured with energy. The lights in the factory, the energy in the looms and sewing machines. The trasnport system to get it to you. All the people who rely on oil to deliver your cotton garmets.

Oil is something we eat, wear, take shelter, heal, and transport with.

You are a typical cappie fuckhead, aren't you?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by aah_money_is_comfort

Need? I thought I pretty much explained that too with poly ester, fertilizer, plastic, pharmacuticals, energy, and transport.

Sorry for the confusion. Do you really think Saddam was 'contained'? I don't think he was. Do you? It sounds like you think he was? I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist. Do you think his neighbors classified Saddam as 'contained'? Do you think the Iranians, the Kwuaiti, Saudi, and the Syrians think of him as 'contained'? I don't think they did. Why do you?

Common, let me hear you say it, humor me on this one. You would kill for oil too, wouldn't you?


You still haven't explained why the US simply couldn't simply buy the oil off Saddam.

When the US invaded, the Iraqi army was a joke militarily and had practically no morale; that's why the US steamrollered them.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 9 2005, 07:53 AM--> (NoXion @ May 9 2005, 07:53 AM)
aah_money_is_comfort

Need? I thought I pretty much explained that too with poly ester, fertilizer, plastic, pharmacuticals, energy, and transport.

Sorry for the confusion. Do you really think Saddam was 'contained'? I don't think he was. Do you? It sounds like you think he was? I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist. Do you think his neighbors classified Saddam as 'contained'? Do you think the Iranians, the Kwuaiti, Saudi, and the Syrians think of him as 'contained'? I don't think they did. Why do you?

Common, let me hear you say it, humor me on this one. You would kill for oil too, wouldn't you?


You still haven't explained why the US simply couldn't simply buy the oil off Saddam.

When the US invaded, the Iraqi army was a joke militarily and had practically no morale; that's why the US steamrollered them. [/b]
It is obvious. The US was not interested in buying Iraqi oil. We were interested in keeping Saudi and Kwuati oil flowing. That is why Saddam was a threat. He most definately wanted both sources of oil.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:58 AM

My underware is cotton too, but the saftey gear I'm wearing right now is 100% nomex. I know myself. I know what I'm willing to do. I know that I'm willing to kill for oil. Not just oil, but everthing oil will give me. It gives me cheap and plentiful food. It gives me pharmaciticals. It gives me shelter. It gives me energy. I now I'm not willing to live without these.

Even you 100% cotton garmets where maufactured with energy. The lights in the factory, the energy in the looms and sewing machines. The trasnport system to get it to you. All the people who rely on oil to deliver your cotton garmets.

Oil is something we eat, wear, take shelter, heal, and transport with.

You are a typical cappie fuckhead, aren't you?
But am I right on this?

Is oil somethine we eat and wear, heal, make products, and use for engery in all our modern efforts to survive?

[LSD]

It is obvious. The US was not interested in buying Iraqi oil. We were interested in keeping Saudi and Kwuati oil flowing. That is why Saddam was a threat. He most definately wanted both sources of oil.

:lol:!

..OK, sure, Iraq with its devastated pathetic fourth rate army was just about to conquer Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, something it couldn't have done at its peak.


Is oil somethine we eat and wear, heal, make products, and use for engery in all our modern efforts to survive?

Yes.


But am I right on this?

NO!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 9 2005, 07:53 AM--> (NoXion @ May 9 2005, 07:53 AM)
aah_money_is_comfort

Need? I thought I pretty much explained that too with poly ester, fertilizer, plastic, pharmacuticals, energy, and transport.

Sorry for the confusion. Do you really think Saddam was 'contained'? I don't think he was. Do you? It sounds like you think he was? I think the Kurds can testify that WMDs exist. Do you think his neighbors classified Saddam as 'contained'? Do you think the Iranians, the Kwuaiti, Saudi, and the Syrians think of him as 'contained'? I don't think they did. Why do you?

Common, let me hear you say it, humor me on this one. You would kill for oil too, wouldn't you?


You still haven't explained why the US simply couldn't simply buy the oil off Saddam.

When the US invaded, the Iraqi army was a joke militarily and had practically no morale; that's why the US steamrollered them. [/b]
A better question is, if we are just in it for Iraq's oil and always have been, why didn't we just march to Baghdad in '92 and take over the country then?

Don't worry, no leftist has ever attempted to answer this question.

[LSD]

A better question is, if we are just in it for Iraq's oil and always have been, why didn't we just march to Baghdad in '92 and take over the country then?

Firstly, I didn't claim that the war was about oil, your pal ahhh_money_is_comfort did. So why don't you ask him that question.

Secondly, ask yourself what the first gulf war was about anyways?

As I recall it was about supporting a brutal dictatorship fend off another brutal dictatorship that was invading it. Now... why was it that we got involved, again?

Right! Oil.

Thirdly, it was feared that if the US pressed into Iraq in '92, it would lead to a popular insurrection against US occupation and the US would be unable to hold it. It was seen as preferable to keep Sadaam in power, but weakened, so that he would be more easily defeated later.

That's what the sanctions were about, and its why the US supported Saddaam in his crushing of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings immediately following the fare.

Ten years later, his army, people, and resources were so depleted and disheartened that the utlimate invasion was much easier than it would have been in 1992. But even so, as we're seening, there is still a rather strong resistance movement nonetheless.

Furthermore, by this point US policy had changed in terms of "vision", and BushII was much more willing to oppenly admit and, indeed, advertise his willingness to invade and occupy both in violation of international law and without any justifiable reason.

His father and his Reaganite comrades had not had this liberty. When they waged their wars of occupation (Latin America, South America, Central Asia...) they almost always had to do it secretly.

Not so anymore!

[t_wolves_fan]

Firstly, I didn't claim that the war was about oil, your pal ahhh_money_is_comfort did. So why don't you ask him that question.

Your friends on the left consistently claim it's all about oil.

"No blood for oil", and such.


Secondly, ask yourself what the first gulf war was about anyways?

As I recall it was about supporting a brutal dictatorship fend off another brutal dictatorship that was invading it. Now... why was it that we got involved, again?

Hmmm...aren't you on the left advocating for Iraq's right to self determination, regardless of what kind of government they'd end up with?

That being the case, Iraq violated Kuwait's right to self-determination, right? They asked us to intervene, which would be their right, wouldn't it?

So why the qualification on what kind of regime they decide to have? I mean you gladly support the baathists and the Islamic fundamentalists' fight for self-determination in Iraq, why do you critcize a similar regime in Kuwait?

Makes no sense.


Right! Oil.

I thought you never claimed it was about oil.


Thirdly, it was feared that if the US pressed into Iraq in '92, it would lead to a popular insurrection against US occupation and the US would be unable to hold it. It was seen as preferable to keep Sadaam in power, but weakened, so that he would be more easily defeated later.

That's what the sanctions were about, and its why the US supported Saddaam in his crushing of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings immediately following the fare.

:lol:

Your understanding of history is laughable.

First, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991. If you don't even know the correct years involved, then your credibility on this issue is dubious.

Second, we did not support Saddam against those who tried to rise up against him. If you can find evidence, other than your opinion, then I would love to see it. No, what we did is exactly what you on the left claim we should do now: We met our goal of removing him from Kuwait (so that they may determine their own destiny, as you now claim Iraq should be able to do) and had no ambitions to rule Iraq. We hoped the people of Iraq would rise up against him (determine their own fate, as you now claim Iraq should be able to do), but they failed.

After all, had we supported one side of the civil war over another, that would be meddling in their affairs, wouldn't it? You all claim they should choose their own fate, who are we to intervene, right?


Ten years later, his army, people, and resources were so depleted and disheartened that the utlimate invasion was much easier than it would have been in 1992. But even so, as we're seening, there is still a rather strong resistance movement nonetheless.

You idiot. We had a massive army on the road to Baghdad, and Iraqi soldiers were surrendering en masse to CNN news crews. How much easier could the invasion possibly have been at that moment?

You're claiming it was easier to pull back, give Saddam 12 years to recruit new soldiers and continue using oil-for-food money to buy illegal weapons from France and Russia?

Good lord.

:o


Furthermore, by this point US policy had changed in terms of "vision", and BushII was much more willing to oppenly admit and, indeed, advertise his willingness to invade and occupy both in violation of international law and without any justifiable reason.

But if it was all about oil this makes no sense - we had it right within our grasp 12 years ago.


His father and his Reaganite comrades had not had this liberty. When they waged their wars of occupation (Latin America, South America, Central Asia...) they almost always had to do it secretly.

Not so anymore!

This is moronic. First, we could have used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a justifiable reason to take advantage of international sentiment to conquer Iraq.

Think, if you're capable, of the differences between the two situations:

1>World supports and UN agrees that U.S. should invade Iraq to kick it out of Kuwait.

2>World does not support and UN does not agree that U.S. should preemptively invade Iraq due to accusations of possession of WMD.


Why was the second choice easier again?

I'm sure you're a very nice boy, but your opinions and understanding of history on this matter are, uhhh, just plain idiotic.

[LSD]

Your friends on the left consistently claim it's all about oil.

And, to a degree, it's true. I'm just pointing out that it's just as common on the right.

After all, rational people, whatever their politics quickly see that the WMD excuse, and the even more laugable "spreading democracy" excuse, are clearly ludicrous. So they try to explain the invasion in logical terms.

I think that's what ahhhhhh_money_is_comfort was doing.


So why the qualification on what kind of regime they decide to have? I mean you gladly support the baathists and the Islamic fundamentalists' fight for self-determination in Iraq, why do you critcize a similar regime in Kuwait?

I believe that the people of Kuwait have the right to self-determination, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the US claiming to be on a messianic mission to "spread democracy" while the consistantly support and bolster precisely the opposite.

Furthermore I'm poinintg out that, despite your protestations, the first Gulf war was indeed about oil.


Second, we did not support Saddam against those who tried to rise up against him. If you can find evidence, other than your opinion, then I would love to see it.

The US encouraged the Shias to revolt against Hussein and then permitted them to be massacred. The responsibility would not normally be their's, but once you have promissed support (not an unreasonable promise, since their army was right there) you have an obligation to fulfill it.

The US refused to even allow the rebelling forces access to captured Iraqi army weapons!

The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein. In the words of the New York Times, "the best of both worlds: and iron-fisted Iraqi Junta without Saddam Hussein"


You're claiming it was easier to pull back, give Saddam 12 years to recruit new soldiers and continue using oil-for-food money to buy illegal weapons from France and Russia?

I'm claiming that it wasn't that thought out.

At the time they were afraid that an invasion at that point would lead to a popular uprising which they definitely didn't want to see. They figured that by starving and weakening the general public, through the sanctions programme, they would not only lessen the chance of an insurrection, but they would also severely weaken the armed forces.

Which of course they did!

This claim that Iraq was buing all these "illegal weapons" is meaningless when you realize that regardless the Iraqi military was still a fourth-rate power at best.


But if it was all about oil this makes no sense - we had it right within our grasp 12 years ago.

No, you didn't.

Again, an invasion at that point would not have been strategically viable.

It was easier to keep Sadaam in power and hope for a military coup, which was what Washington would have preferred. But after more than a decade of waiting, the US finally decided that it would just have to do it themselves and so they proceeded with the invasion.

But don't think for a momment that they weren't helped in this invasion by the fact that they'd had 11 years of brutal sanctions decimating the population!


This is moronic. First, we could have used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a justifiable reason to take advantage of international sentiment to conquer Iraq.

Since when does the US care about "international sentiment"?

The world overwhelmingly didn't support the US actions in Iraq this time! ...nor their actions in Haiti ...or Indonesia ...or Nicaragua.

The US' foreign policy has always been made irrespective of world opinion.


Why was the second choice easier again?

Again, it wasn't presented as a choice!

13 years ago, the US figured that it was better to keep Saddam in powe than risk a popular revolution. They thought that Saddam would most likely be overthrown and another, more US friendly, dictator could take his place.

The sanctions kept the people of Iraq not only weakened but dependent on a strong central government to support them. The hope was that the person behind this government would be internally overthrown, probably by the military.

Now, we know this didn't happen and the Bush administration was simply not willing to wait any longer. Finally, they decided that the only way to get back control of Iraq was to take it themselves.

So again, the US government isn't a monolithic omnipresent entity, it can't predict the future. In 1991, it made one choice, in 2003, it made another. If it had known in 1991 what it kned in 2003, it probably would have taken Baghdad!

Today, they can impose a friendly government without having to worry about popular sentiment either at home or in Iraq. But, of course, resistance continues...

Let's hope it will lead to the kind of popular revolution that would have happened a decade ago if not for the imposed murderous sanctions!

[t_wolves_fan]

And, to a degree, it's true. I'm just pointing out that it's just as common on the right.

After all, rational people, whatever their politics quickly see that the WMD excuse, and the even more laugable "spreading democracy" excuse, are clearly ludicrous. So they try to explain the invasion in logical terms.

I haven't seen many people on the right claim that we're in Iraq strictly for the oil. They admit it's one of the reasons, per U.S. law, but still the main reason they say for us to be there is to spread democracy.

A reason I hardly find laughable. I'm sure you do, because you just know it's all a farce, but I generally support it.





I believe that the people of Kuwait have the right to self-determination, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the US claiming to be on a messianic mission to "spread democracy" while the consistantly support and bolster precisely the opposite.

Fair enough, but then isn't it also hypocritical to both support self determination and then criticize the U.S. for dealing with a country that has decided to have an authoritarian regime?


Furthermore I'm poinintg out that, despite your protestations, the first Gulf war was indeed about oil.

Not really. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no war.

Can you refute that?



The US encouraged the Shias to revolt against Hussein and then permitted them to be massacred. The responsibility would not normally be their's, but once you have promissed support (not an unreasonable promise, since their army was right there) you have an obligation to fulfill it.

The US refused to even allow the rebelling forces access to captured Iraqi army weapons!

Wait a minute, you're changing your story.

First you said " the US supported Saddaam in his crushing of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings immediately following the fare."

Now you're saying we encouraged the revolt? We were supporting Saddam and encouraging a revolt at the same time? Supporting Sadaam is a positive action - something we would have purposely had to do.

Which is it?

And yes, now that you have changed your story to be much more reasonable, you are correct that the Bush 41 administration failed to support the uprising and deserves to be chastised for it.


The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein.

You're changing your story again.

Why did you claim fist that we supported Saddam against the uprising and that "it was seen as preferable to keep Sadaam in power," and now you claim that the U.S didn't want the dictator to be Saddam?

Which is it?


In the words of the New York Times, "the best of both worlds: and iron-fisted Iraqi Junta without Saddam Hussein"

Yes, I believe I saw on TV that opinion writers at the New York Times take part in crafting the administration's foreign policy, and so were reporting this as fact.

:lol:



You're claiming it was easier to pull back, give Saddam 12 years to recruit new soldiers and continue using oil-for-food money to buy illegal weapons from France and Russia?

I'm claiming that it wasn't that thought out.

If it wasn't thought out, then why did we support Saddam against the uprising and how could it have been "preferable to leave him in power until a future date" as you claim?


At the time they were afraid that an invasion at that point would lead to a popular uprising which they definitely didn't want to see. They figured that by starving and weakening the general public, through the sanctions programme, they would not only lessen the chance of an insurrection, but they would also severely weaken the armed forces.

You're all over the map here because that sounds like an awfully well though-out plan to me.

Which is it?

You claim we encouraged an uprising against Saddam yet we did not want to conquer Iraq because there would be a pro-Saddam, anti-U.S. uprising against us. If we figured the population would rise up to protect Saddam, what uprising were we supporting?


This claim that Iraq was buing all these "illegal weapons" is meaningless when you realize that regardless the Iraqi military was still a fourth-rate power at best.

But it was no power after it had been crushed in early 1991.



But if it was all about oil this makes no sense - we had it right within our grasp 12 years ago.

No, you didn't.

Again, an invasion at that point would not have been strategically viable.

:lol:

The opinions you actually manage to stick to are generally the funniest.

So let me get this straight, an invasion at that point would not have been viable because all we had was approximately half-a-million soldiers on the ground (about 2 1/2 times as many as we have today), an opposing army that was surrendering to newscrews, full support of the global community, and (depending on which post of yours I read) a population that was ready to rise up and overthrow the dictator who we are trying to depose.

Yes, those certainly are not good conditions for invasion. Definitely better to wait and see if things improve.

Your comrades had better hope you're not in charge of any forces when the glorious revolution comes. :lol:


But don't think for a momment that they weren't helped in this invasion by the fact that they'd had 11 years of brutal sanctions decimating the population!

The population would have been unable to stop us, as our force in the area was 2 1/2 times stronger at the time than it is today.



This is moronic. First, we could have used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a justifiable reason to take advantage of international sentiment to conquer Iraq.

Since when does the US care about "international sentiment"?

The world overwhelmingly didn't support the US actions in Iraq this time! ...nor their actions in Haiti ...or Indonesia ...or Nicaragua.

The past is irrelevant, and you're really grasping at straws to save yourself.

Did it matter what the world thought we did in the past if we had just been granted on a 12-2 Security Council vote the right to assemble a coalition of more than 100 nations to invade a soverign country?

You think anyone cared at the time what we'd done in Nicaragua in the 1980s?


The US' foreign policy has always been made irrespective of world opinion.

That is absurd. If you were correct, we would not have been the ones who created the United Nations in the first place.



13 years ago, the US figured that it was better to keep Saddam in powe than risk a popular revolution.

But you just said above that "The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein."

Tell you what, why don't I give you a day or two to get your story straight?

:lol:


The sanctions kept the people of Iraq not only weakened but dependent on a strong central government to support them.

Was the United States solely responsible for the enactment of the sanctions?


Let's hope it will lead to the kind of popular revolution that would have happened a decade ago if not for the imposed murderous sanctions!

That is wishful thinking.

You do realize (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700152.html) that the insurgency is made up of baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein and Isamic fundamentalists under Zarqawi (the one who said democracy is an affront to God) who are simply working together because it's convenient. If we lose then they do battle to see which one wins in a civil war that will kill more people than sanctions or misguided U.S. cruise missles ever could.

Or are you stupid enough to think the insurgency is all about setting up a peaceful, secular, socialist, democratic utopia ala Cuba?

Again, take a few days and get your story straight. It should be more entertaining then.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:41 AM

I haven't seen many people on the right claim that we're in Iraq strictly for the oil. They admit it's one of the reasons, per U.S. law, but still the main reason they say for us to be there is to spread democracy.

A reason I hardly find laughable. I'm sure you do, because you just know it's all a farce, but I generally support it.


Fair enough, but then isn't it also hypocritical to both support self determination and then criticize the U.S. for dealing with a country that has decided to have an authoritarian regime?

Not really. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no war.

Can you refute that?


If it wasn't thought out, then why did we support Saddam against the uprising and how could it have been "preferable to leave him in power until a future date" as you claim?


Hmm spreading democracy. like they did in Chile or any of 50 other countries whose democracy they subverted in favour of a dictatorship. I thought the reason for invading was because Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the United States, and that he was involved with Al quaida, oh right those were just lies.

The United States lied to the U.N. to start the first Gulf war they showed sattelite photos of hundreds of Tanks posed to invade Saudi arabia. But Russian sattelite photos from the exact same time show nothing but empty desert.

If the invasion wasn't poorly thought out why did the men in charge tell the world the fighting would be over in a month or two, and why did bush declare an end to the conflict before 90% of the violence, and years before the violence will actually end. And why is your country facing trillions of dollars in national debt, rising at about 600 billion every year fo Bush's governance.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 02:00 PM

Your friends on the left consistently claim it's all about oil.

And, to a degree, it's true. I'm just pointing out that it's just as common on the right.

This quote from you Posted on May 9 2005, 02:00 PM

and this

"Firstly, I didn't claim that the war was about oil, your pal ahhh_money_is_comfort did. So why don't you ask him that question." - Posted on May 9 2005, 12:00 PM


Both these ideas for me are kind of hard to understand from one person. Yes you are correct you never said that this war is about oil. But you seem to also admit that is is about oil. So what do you really believe is it or is not about oil?

For me it is about oil. I would be willing to kill for the continuous supply of Saudi and Kwuati oil.

[Intifada]

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

But am I right on this?

Is oil somethine we eat and wear, heal, make products, and use for engery in all our modern efforts to survive?

That simply isn't the point.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

It is obvious. The US was not interested in buying Iraqi oil. We were interested in keeping Saudi and Kwuati oil flowing. That is why Saddam was a threat. He most definately wanted both sources of oil.

(Emphasis added)

You ignored the arguments I made against the lie that Saddam Hussein was "a threat" and yet continue to argue that he was "a threat."

:rolleyes:

[t_wolves_fan]

A better question is, if we are just in it for Iraq's oil and always have been, why didn't we just march to Baghdad in '92 and take over the country then?


To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.


The words of George Bush Sr.

His idiot son could have taken a hint.

[LSD]

A reason I hardly find laughable. I'm sure you do, because you just know it's all a farce, but I generally support it.

You think that the US is in Iraq to spread democracy... but in Saudi Arabi to spread.... what again?


Fair enough, but then isn't it also hypocritical to both support self determination and then criticize the U.S. for dealing with a country that has decided to have an authoritarian regime?

No.

The people of Kuwiat haven't "decided" to have an authoritarian regime, it's been forced upon them. And if the US is going to claim to be the world champions of democracy, than I am fully justified in calling out the fact that they are supporting anti-democratic governments.


Not really. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no war.

Correct.

The US needed to maintain Kuwait as an ally. Because of their oil.


Now you're saying we encouraged the revolt? We were supporting Saddam and encouraging a revolt at the same time?

Yes!

Isn't foreign policy wonderful!

The US did encourage the rebellion, because they hoped it would make their job easier and reduce US casualties. But they did not want the rebellion to succeed.

Indeed, it turned out basically as they had hoped. The insurgency was crushed, but it succeeded in temporarily destabilizing Hussein's power. Unfortuntely for the US planners the ultimate result they were hoping for, that of a military coup, never materialized.

But it's not me who's being contradictory, it's US policy!


Why did you claim fist that we supported Saddam against the uprising and that "it was seen as preferable to keep Sadaam in power," and now you claim that the U.S didn't want the dictator to be Saddam?

But you just said above that "The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein."

This is a very simple concept that you seem to have trouble grasping.

In 1991, the US did not want Saddam Hussein in power, but they preferred that he remain in power over a poplist revolution. They were hoping that he would be replaced by a more US-friendly dictator.

Since that didn't happen, it was decided to get it over with and invade themselves.

Simple.


If it wasn't thought out, then why did we support Saddam against the uprising and how could it have been "preferable to leave him in power until a future date" as you claim?

It wasn't thought out in terms of a complex predictive long term plan that ever materialized. That is, the events of 2003 wew not imagined in 1991.

But of course the US had reasons for what it was doing! It certainly was thinking in terms of its immediate actions: the US thought it better to leave Hussein in power rather than risk a popular uprising. They hoped that he would be overthrown by military or political forced and a new dictator would take over.


You claim we encouraged an uprising against Saddam yet we did not want to conquer Iraq because there would be a pro-Saddam, anti-U.S. uprising against us. If we figured the population would rise up to protect Saddam, what uprising were we supporting?

No one imagined that an uprising would rise up to "protect Saddam"!

They feared any popular uprising as it would have meant Iraqi nationalists who would have sought a very different agenda from US interests.


So let me get this straight, an invasion at that point would not have been viable because all we had was approximately half-a-million soldiers on the ground (about 2 1/2 times as many as we have today), an opposing army that was surrendering to newscrews, full support of the global community, and (depending on which post of yours I read) a population that was ready to rise up and overthrow the dictator who we are trying to depose.

In 1991, the US thought there was an easier way.

Yes, they could have invaded and defeated Saddam's broken armies, but it would have meant an occupation and dealing with a popular resistance that would have demanded sovereingty.

At the time they thought it would be easier, cheaper, and less costly to simply weaken Iraq, keep power centralized, but try and get Hussein replaced by a more friendly despot.

It wasn't a military decision, it was a political one. The US didn't want more American casualties, and they feared the political damange of a long-term occupation going into the 1992 elections.


You think anyone cared at the time what we'd done in Nicaragua in the 1980s?

Well I think Nicaragua cared.

I think the UN cared considering it tried to pass a security council resolution condeming the US' actions and that the World Court formally ordered the US to pay restiution for its illegal actions.


That is absurd. If you were correct, we would not have been the ones who created the United Nations in the first place.

The US may have founded the UN, but that doesn't mean it's ever actually followed its own rules. From the beginning, the US has treated the UN as there only to be used when in agreement, to be ignored when contrary.


Was the United States solely responsible for the enactment of the sanctions?

Of course not, but it was primarily responsible for crafting, supporting, and enforcing them.

But you're right, Western Europe has many similar economic / political interests to the US so often their foreign policies intersect. Not always, of course, but often.

[t_wolves_fan]

Here we go.....



You think that the US is in Iraq to spread democracy... but in Saudi Arabi to spread.... what again?

Why have we pressured them to hold elections?

Are you saying if we don't do something all of the time, we can't do it any of the time?

That's a logical fallacy.

For the record, I do not support our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia and would probably agree with you that we need to pressure them even more to open up their political process.



Fair enough, but then isn't it also hypocritical to both support self determination and then criticize the U.S. for dealing with a country that has decided to have an authoritarian regime?

No.

Why not?


The people of Kuwiat haven't "decided" to have an authoritarian regime, it's been forced upon them.

Let me guess, by the United States, right?

Actually, from its ruling family (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/middle_east/kuwait/history.htm) was chosen by the people of Kuwait at its inception.


And if the US is going to claim to be the world champions of democracy, than I am fully justified in calling out the fact that they are supporting anti-democratic governments.

So then if they took down that anti-democratic government with the stated mission of installing a democratic government, intellectual honesty would cause you to be supportive, right?



Not really. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no war.

Correct.

The US needed to maintain Kuwait as an ally. Because of their oil.

Irrelevant. You said yourself no invasion, no war.

Therefore, the war was caused by the invasion.



Now you're saying we encouraged the revolt? We were supporting Saddam and encouraging a revolt at the same time?

Yes!

Isn't foreign policy wonderful!

I shall await then your evidence that we purposefully supported Saddam's repression of the uprising.


The US did encourage the rebellion, because they hoped it would make their job easier and reduce US casualties. But they did not want the rebellion to succeed.

But you just said in your previous post that, "The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein."

Also, the uprising for the most part took place after fighting had ended. So the rebellion didn't save any American lives, unless you mean that we hoped it would save lives by being successful in toppling Saddam, which contradicts your argument tthat we didn't want it to succeed.

So, they wanted a dictatorship, not Hussein, but they also did not want the rebellion to succeed.

Beg pardon, but this position seems quite contradictory.


Indeed, it turned out basically as they had hoped. The insurgency was crushed, but it succeeded in temporarily destabilizing Hussein's power. Unfortuntely for the US planners the ultimate result they were hoping for, that of a military coup, never materialized.

This does not jive with your previous statement:


The sanctions kept the people of Iraq not only weakened but dependent on a strong central government to support them. The hope was that the person behind this government would be internally overthrown, probably by the military.

Now, we know this didn't happen and the Bush administration was simply not willing to wait any longer. Finally, they decided that the only way to get back control of Iraq was to take it themselves.

So again, the US government isn't a monolithic omnipresent entity, it can't predict the future. In 1991, it made one choice, in 2003, it made another. If it had known in 1991 what it kned in 2003, it probably would have taken Baghdad!

You're changing your story yet again. You said previously that the U.S. hoped that society would weaken to the point that a revolution would replace Saddam's dictatorship, but that it didn't happen "because it wasn't well thought out". Now you're telling me everything happened exactly as planned.

Which is it?


But it's not me who's being contradictory, it's US policy!

If anything you were saying had any basis in fact, it might be the case. The problem is everything you post is your opinion based on what you view to be true. You think it's true we supported Saddam against the uprising, yet have no evidence. You say our goal was to weaken Iraq through sanctions so that a dictatorship that supports us could take over - while it's true we hoped sanctions would bring down Saddam, you have no evidence that we hoped he'd be replaced by a friendly dictatorship. You also claim at the same time that we actually wanted Saddam to stay in power, a claim for which you have no evidence and which is in direct contradiction with your
claim that we wanted him replaced through revolution.



Why did you claim fist that we supported Saddam against the uprising and that "it was seen as preferable to keep Sadaam in power," and now you claim that the U.S didn't want the dictator to be Saddam?

But you just said above that "The US wanted a dictatorship in Iraq ...they just didn't want that dictator to be Hussein."

This is a very simple concept that you seem to have trouble grasping.

In 1991, the US did not want Saddam Hussein in power, but they preferred that he remain in power over a poplist revolution. They were hoping that he would be replaced by a more US-friendly dictator.

And your evidence for this is, where?


Since that didn't happen, it was decided to get it over with and invade themselves.

But if everything happened according to our plan as you claim, then it should have happened and we shouldn't have had to invade ourselves, correct?


Simple.

Yet bizarre.



If it wasn't thought out, then why did we support Saddam against the uprising and how could it have been "preferable to leave him in power until a future date" as you claim?

It wasn't thought out in terms of a complex predictive long term plan that ever materialized. That is, the events of 2003 wew not imagined in 1991.

Wait a minute, you just said it went basically as they hoped. Wouldn't a predictive long term plan be required for things to happen basically as one hopes?


But of course the US had reasons for what it was doing! It certainly was thinking in terms of its immediate actions: the US thought it better to leave Hussein in power rather than risk a popular uprising. They hoped that he would be overthrown by military or political forced and a new dictator would take over.

Please provide your evidence for this. The policy is only contradictory if your assertion is true, so please prove it.



You claim we encouraged an uprising against Saddam yet we did not want to conquer Iraq because there would be a pro-Saddam, anti-U.S. uprising against us. If we figured the population would rise up to protect Saddam, what uprising were we supporting?

No one imagined that an uprising would rise up to "protect Saddam"!

So, the uprising that we encouraged but failed to support, which led to Saddam slaughtering millions, was meant to protect him?


They feared any popular uprising as it would have meant Iraqi nationalists who would have sought a very different agenda from US interests.

Saddam's presense was already against our interests, so again why not just take over the place when we were 100 miles from Baghdad with overwhelming force?



So let me get this straight, an invasion at that point would not have been viable because all we had was approximately half-a-million soldiers on the ground (about 2 1/2 times as many as we have today), an opposing army that was surrendering to newscrews, full support of the global community, and (depending on which post of yours I read) a population that was ready to rise up and overthrow the dictator who we are trying to depose.

In 1991, the US thought there was an easier way.

Which you assert with no evidence to back up your claim.


Yes, they could have invaded and defeated Saddam's broken armies, but it would have meant an occupation and dealing with a popular resistance that would have demanded sovereingty.

At the time they thought it would be easier, cheaper, and less costly to simply weaken Iraq, keep power centralized, but try and get Hussein replaced by a more friendly despot.

But they could easily have marched into Baghdad, kept the government more or less intact, and installed someone themselves.

But again, please offer evidence for your assertion.


I think the UN cared considering it tried to pass a security council resolution condeming the US' actions and that the World Court formally ordered the US to pay restiution for its illegal actions.

And yet in 1990 they voted overwhelmingly to approve our invasion of a sovereign country. They're apprently very fickle.



That is absurd. If you were correct, we would not have been the ones who created the United Nations in the first place.

The US may have founded the UN, but that doesn't mean it's ever actually followed its own rules. From the beginning, the US has treated the UN as there only to be used when in agreement, to be ignored when contrary.

But if we didn't care about foreign opinion and never did, and we were by far the most powerful nation on earth after WWII, why bother with the UN?



Was the United States solely responsible for the enactment of the sanctions?

Of course not, but it was primarily responsible for crafting, supporting, and enforcing them.

But weren't they approved by other nations through the UN?

Frankly there's no reason to go forward until you offer up objective, unbiased evidence that the U.S. was hoping for a friendly dictator to rise up and replace Saddam, so let's see it.




Oh and you failed to repond to my question about the current insurgency in Iraq. Care to address it?

[LSD]

Are you saying if we don't do something all of the time, we can't do it any of the time?

The point is that if you claim that something is your policy then it must be demonstrably your policy.

Claiming that the US is favouring democracy here but no where else is ludicrous and clearly nothing more than an excuse. If the US had a history of "spreading democracy", then it would be believable that it were doing so here, but since it has exactly the opposite history, one must search for alternative explanations.



No.

Why not?

um....right below that "no", I provided the reasons. I don't know why you cut them out here...


Actually, from its ruling family was chosen by the people of Kuwait at its inception.

Wait, are you actually suggesting that the Kuwaiti government is somehow democratic?

:lol:

Come on, be logical on this issue at least and admit that Kuwait is an oppressive dictatorship!


Therefore, the war was caused by the invasion.

Wow....that's so superficial, it's sad.

Any serious student of international affairs will tell you that the reasons for state action must be considered! The question of why the US cared about the invasion is as important as the invasion itself!

But, let me ask you, do you deny that the only reason the US aided Kuwait was because of its natural resources?


You're changing your story yet again. You said previously that the U.S. hoped that society would weaken to the point that a revolution would replace Saddam's dictatorship

I never said that!


So, they wanted a dictatorship, not Hussein, but they also did not want the rebellion to succeed.

Because that rebellion would not have resulted in a pro-US dictatorship.


But if everything happened according to our plan as you claim, then it should have happened and we shouldn't have had to invade ourselves, correct?

Again, the plan did not succeed. Which, incidently, I did say: "Unfortuntely for the US planners the ultimate result they were hoping for, that of a military coup, never materialized."


Wait a minute, you just said it went basically as they hoped. Wouldn't a predictive long term plan be required for things to happen basically as one hopes?]

see above.


So, the uprising that we encouraged but failed to support, which led to Saddam slaughtering millions, was meant to protect him?

No. Nor did I ever claim it was.

I think you misunderstood...something....though I can't imagin what.

The rebellion was, of course, entirely anti-Hussein. The reason the US did not support it was that it would have also resulted in a divided, fractured, populist Iraq which would have pursued interests contrary to those of the United States and her allies, notably Turkey and Israel.


But they could easily have marched into Baghdad, kept the government more or less intact, and installed someone themselves.

Saddam's presense was already against our interests, so again why not just take over the place when we were 100 miles from Baghdad with overwhelming force?

They could have, but at the time they thought it would be easier and more politically viable to stick to their original mandate, get the troops home in time for the election and keep Iraq as a weakened state.

Again, it was a plan which did not work. They underestimated Sadaams survival abilities and so were ultimately forced to abandon the plan and invade themselves.


You also claim at the same time that we actually wanted Saddam to stay in power, a claim for which you have no evidence and which is in direct contradiction with your claim that we wanted him replaced through revolution.

The US never wanted him replaced through revolution, in fact they loathed the idea of a revolution. They wanted him replaced by a coup, so that there would still be a centralized power, it just would be someone more friendly.


I shall await then your evidence that we purposefully supported Saddam's repression of the uprising.

You think it's true we supported Saddam against the uprising, yet have no evidence.

"[Washington was] waiting for Saddam to butcher the insurgents in the hope that he can be overthrown later by a suitable officer," then US Ally Ahmed Chalabi.

“whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Alan Cowell NYT, 1991.

The US had complete control of the air space, but permitted Iraqi hellicopters to attack opposition forces. The US furthermore would not allow opposition forces access to capture Iraq weapons. Nor would they even talk with the leaders of the rebellion.

Certainly while the US did not actively fund Saddam's crushing of the rebellion, they offered tacit support for it, and, actually, promissed Turkey that they would not in any way support a Kurdish uprising.

Now again, noramlly this would not be the US' responsiblity, but once they invaded the country and encouraged revoly, it became their duty to, at the very least, offer some support. What they did instead was refuse any assistance whatsoever, even something as basic as ordering Iraq's gunships to leave the area.


You say our goal was to weaken Iraq through sanctions so that a dictatorship that supports us could take over - while it's true we hoped sanctions would bring down Saddam, you have no evidence that we hoped he'd be replaced by a friendly dictatorship.

And your evidence for this is, where?

But again, please offer evidence for your assertion.

Frankly there's no reason to go forward until you offer up objective, unbiased evidence that the U.S. was hoping for a friendly dictator to rise up and replace Saddam, so let's see it.

"I frankly wish [the uprisings] hadn't happened. I envisioned a post-war government being a military government." Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser (Cited in Dilip Hiro, Neighbours not Friends, p. 36.)

"Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime." Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, (Cited in Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37)

"Washington’s calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum." (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)

"Sooner or later, Mr. Bush argued, sanctions would force Mr. Hussein's generals to bring him down, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." (Thomas Friedman, NYT, July 1991)

Of course none of this is surprising given that the US has always preferred strong dictatorial governments to elected or populist ones. Look at their actions towards Haiti or Iran.

Furthermore, it has been shown for years that one thing which the sanctions did was strengthn power in the government. Clearly when you starve a people they are less able to rise up! Clearly a rebellion was attempted following the first gulf war, it is more than likely that had the people of Iraq not been so devastated by the sanctions, that they would have tried again. They probably would have suceeded evenutally, but the US (and, yes, her allies) prevented this from happening.


Here we go.....

OK, look, I think you're getting confused and maybe I haven't explained as well as you'd like.

So let's try again:

In 1991, the US' ally Saddam Hussein dreamt of creating an Arabic empire and invaded Kuwait. This threatened US oil interests so the US, along with many of her allies, landed in Kuwait and fought the Iraqis back.

The US also enocuraged local Iraqi resistance movments to assist them, but these movments were not able to mobilize any real action until after the war was effecitvely done.

Throughout the '80s, Iraq had been a very useful ally in the middle east, especially now with Iran no longer a friend. Therefore, the US hoped to establish such a relationship once again, but Hussein was no longer trustworthy. The US, therefore, hoped that he could be replaced by a new "strong man", maybe from the army.

The US, accordingly, did not support the populist uprisings against Hussein, realizing that this would lead to "instability" and a fracturing of the centralized Iraqi state authority. So the US sat back and let Hussein massacre the very people that the US had encouraged to rise up.

Bush decided that an occupation of Iraq would be difficult lengthy and almost certainly result in a long term commitment of US troops as well as continous US casualties. He did not want to deal with this, especially going into an election year. His administation, accordingly, though it would be much more efficient and cost effective to allow internal politics to replace Saddam Hussein such that the US would not have to expend one more dollar or soldier.

Following the war, the US imposed dire sanctions on Iraq, ostensibly to drive out Hussein, but who's real effect has been to decimate the Iraqi population while Hussein merely leeched what he needed from his people. The US hoped that this would keep the people weak, but anger poweful people in the military or high political spheres suffiently to launch a coup and establish a new dictatorship.

By 2003, however, this had not happened. Hussein was simply better at maintaning control than the US had thought. There was also a new administration in power and due to the recent terrorist attacks, the US population was prepared to support a foreign war.

Because of this confluence of events, in 2003, the US finally invaded Iraq to manually replace Saddam with a new government. But this is not what had been planned for in 1991! An invasion was specifically what had been intended to be avoided by the first Bush administation. By 2003, it was simply decided that the earlier plan had failed and an invasion was inevitable.

All of this may seem incredible complex, but it really isn't.

Your initial question was why didn't the US "just march to Baghdad in '92. The answer is that planners at the time thought that there was a better way to secure their aims in Iraq. As it turns out, they were wrong and their plan failed. But at the time, they couldn't have known that.

[t_wolves_fan]

"[Washington was] waiting for Saddam to butcher the insurgents in the hope that he can be overthrown later by a suitable officer," then US Ally Ahmed Chalabi.

“whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Alan Cowell NYT, 1991.


"I frankly wish [the uprisings] hadn't happened. I envisioned a post-war government being a military government." Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser (Cited in Dilip Hiro, Neighbours not Friends, p. 36.)

"Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime." Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, (Cited in Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37)

"Washington’s calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum." (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)

"Sooner or later, Mr. Bush argued, sanctions would force Mr. Hussein's generals to bring him down, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." (Thomas Friedman, NYT, July 1991)

Of course none of this is surprising given that the US has always preferred strong dictatorial governments to elected or populist ones. Look at their actions towards Haiti or Iran.

I'll be damned, those are good sources.

Perhaps you were right about the uprising, and so I apologize.




OK, look, I think you're getting confused and maybe I haven't explained as well as you'd like.

So let's try again:

In 1991, the US' ally Saddam Hussein dreamt of creating an Arabic empire and invaded Kuwait. This threatened US oil interests so the US, along with many of her allies, landed in Kuwait and fought the Iraqis back.

The US also enocuraged local Iraqi resistance movments to assist them, but these movments were not able to mobilize any real action until after the war was effecitvely done.

Throughout the '80s, Iraq had been a very useful ally in the middle east, especially now with Iran no longer a friend. Therefore, the US hoped to establish such a relationship once again, but Hussein was no longer trustworthy. The US, therefore, hoped that he could be replaced by a new "strong man", maybe from the army.

The US, accordingly, did not support the populist uprisings against Hussein, realizing that this would lead to "instability" and a fracturing of the centralized Iraqi state authority. So the US sat back and let Hussein massacre the very people that the US had encouraged to rise up.

Bush decided that an occupation of Iraq would be difficult lengthy and almost certainly result in a long term commitment of US troops as well as continous US casualties. He did not want to deal with this, especially going into an election year. His administation, accordingly, though it would be much more efficient and cost effective to allow internal politics to replace Saddam Hussein such that the US would not have to expend one more dollar or soldier.

Following the war, the US imposed dire sanctions on Iraq, ostensibly to drive out Hussein, but who's real effect has been to decimate the Iraqi population while Hussein merely leeched what he needed from his people. The US hoped that this would keep the people weak, but anger poweful people in the military or high political spheres suffiently to launch a coup and establish a new dictatorship.

By 2003, however, this had not happened. Hussein was simply better at maintaning control than the US had thought. There was also a new administration in power and due to the recent terrorist attacks, the US population was prepared to support a foreign war.

Because of this confluence of events, in 2003, the US finally invaded Iraq to manually replace Saddam with a new government. But this is not what had been planned for in 1991! An invasion was specifically what had been intended to be avoided by the first Bush administation. By 2003, it was simply decided that the earlier plan had failed and an invasion was inevitable.

All of this may seem incredible complex, but it really isn't.

Now that you explain it that way, it does make more sense. I am not entirely sure the federal government's policy was as you speak, though you do provide evidence suggesting that was the case. I apologize for being so antagonistic.


Your initial question was why didn't the US "just march to Baghdad in '92. The answer is that planners at the time thought that there was a better way to secure their aims in Iraq. As it turns out, they were wrong and their plan failed. But at the time, they couldn't have known that.

Yes, I see your point. Hell in the end I might even agree with it.

When I'm wrong, I say so.

On the other hand, you have yet to address my point about the insurgency that is presently active in Iraq - do you support it and its aims?

[LSD]

When I'm wrong, I say so.

Good! :)


On the other hand, you have yet to address my point about the insurgency that is presently active in Iraq - do you support it and its aims?

I support the insurgency although I do not support its aims.

That is, a good deal of the current insurgency is fundamentalist islamic, and the remainder is nationalistic proto-fascist. There are very few pro-democrats within the current insurgency and even fewer socialists.

So while I oppose their long term goal, that of establishing a probably islamic, or at the least despotic, regime; I agree with the short term goal of liberating their country from American occuaption.

I think that the only way that Iraq can make real progress is to be allowed to develop on their own. The US occupation ensures that any government will have zero credibility (justifiably) and ensures that Iraq will be open to American neoliberal trade practices. Meaning that Iraqi resources (and Iraq really only has one resource) will be owned / controlled by foreign (mostly American, some Biritsh / European) companies rather than the Iraqi people themselves.

Remember that Mossadeq was ovethrown by the US because he nationalized the oil industry.

The fact is that most Iraqis simultaneously do not want a fundamentalist government and do not want continued American presence.

And I agree with them.

[Enragé]

even fewer socialists

thats cuz the communist party supports the occupation (or at least did for quite a long time)

[t_wolves_fan]

Something isn't sitting right that makes me think that I am not totally wrong nor are you totally right.

The quote you offered from Scowcroft was what got me because he was part of the Bush 41 policy team, along with the comment by Haass. There is of course the possibility they are taken out of context, but let's allow that they weren't.

Leading up to the war in Iraq in 2003, Scowcroft was among the most important critics of going to war, because in his opinion Sadam was contained. Now, this says to me that when faced with the alternative between "getting what they really wanted" in the form of a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq (ostensibly for the purposes of acquiring Iraq's oil) or leaving Saddam in power (the last thing Bush's team would want, according to you), Scowcroft chose the latter.

And he wasn't alone - if I am mistaken, most of the old hands from the Bush 41 administration were generally opposed to war with Iraq, including Colin Powell. But obviously not Cheney or Rumsfeld.

This tells me that Bush 41's administration was not primarily or at least uniformly interested in having a pro-U.S. regime and all of Iraq's oil, as you and most on the left contend. Instead, they were more interested in maintaining the status quo in the region by not upsetting Saudi Arabia or more importantly Turkey.

Therefore, in my estimation, while you may be right on the reasons for which the U.S. did not help the 1991 uprising, you are probably wrong if you suggest Bush 41's regime was hell-bent on installing a pro-U.S. regime and gaining control of Iraq's oil fields. This is because once given the opportunity, even with Saddam's military completely decimated as you claim was part of the goal, many of its policy team still opposed invasion, which meant leaving Saddam in charge.

Anyway you have given me much to think about, but your conclusion just does not seem to fit for those reasons.

I am sorry you feel it necessary to support the insurgency. If you're an American, I cannot fathom the idea of rooting against your own country and rooting for an enemy that isn't even moderately interested in the same things you are. I think your cynicism regarding our intentions in Iraq is unfortunate. But oh well.

[LSD]

I am sorry you feel it necessary to support the insurgency. If you're an American, I cannot fathom the idea of rooting against your own country and rooting for an enemy that isn't even moderately interested in the same things you are.

1) I'm not American.
2) The insurgency in Iraq is interested in at least one thing that I am interested in, namely getting the US out of Iraq.


Something isn't sitting right that makes me think that I am not totally wrong nor are you totally right.

The quote you offered from Scowcroft was what got me because he was part of the Bush 41 policy team, along with the comment by Haass. There is of course the possibility they are taken out of context, but let's allow that they weren't.

Leading up to the war in Iraq in 2003, Scowcroft was among the most important critics of going to war, because in his opinion Sadam was contained. Now, this says to me that when faced with the alternative between "getting what they really wanted" in the form of a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq (ostensibly for the purposes of acquiring Iraq's oil) or leaving Saddam in power (the last thing Bush's team would want, according to you), Scowcroft chose the latter.

And he wasn't alone - if I am mistaken, most of the old hands from the Bush 41 administration were generally opposed to war with Iraq, including Colin Powell. But obviously not Cheney or Rumsfeld.

This tells me that Bush 41's administration was not primarily or at least uniformly interested in having a pro-U.S. regime and all of Iraq's oil, as you and most on the left contend.

Well, it's complicated.

Remember that these are the same people who devised the plan back in 1991. They believed that the sanctions were a legitimate way to remove Sadaam from power without "destabilizing" the region.

Even though the last ten years have shown this not to be the case, many in the old Bush administration were unwilling to admit that their plan had failed and so did not support an invasion which was entirely contrary to the 1991 plan.

I think what's important to remember here is that while both administrations (Bush I, Bush II) wanted the same thing, namely a friendly regime in Baghdad, they came up with radically different ways to do it. Both were shaped by domestic politics of the time:

George H.W. Bush did not invade because he was comming up on a presidential election, support wasn't there, the troops were promissed they'd be home, there was a democratic congress that wouldn't have stood for a long occupation, and there was a mounting fight over budget deficits so he pobably wouldn't have been able to get the funding.

His son, however, as we all know, was in the position to exploit public sentiment following the terrorist attacks in Nww York and Washington, had a loyal congress, and an albeit tenuous but nonetheless arguable claim of UN justification.

Many of the Bush I administration, however, still felt that their original plan was superior and that the problems they associated with the initial invasion remained.

They still very much wanted a pro-US dictator in Iraq, but they were willing to continue to wait for one.


Therefore, in my estimation, while you may be right on the reasons for which the U.S. did not help the 1991 uprising, you are probably wrong if you suggest Bush 41's regime was hell-bent on installing a pro-U.S. regime and gaining control of Iraq's oil fields. This is because once given the opportunity, even with Saddam's military completely decimated as you claim was part of the goal, many of its policy team still opposed invasion, which meant leaving Saddam in charge.

Again, they felt that invasion would be too costly, both financially and in terms of US troops.

They didn't support invasion in 2003 for the same reason they didn't in 1991, they thought it would be too destabilizing and lead to a Kurish insurrection and a Shi'a uprising.

[t_wolves_fan]

Yeah, I get the reasons Bush 41 didn't do it, but I find it hard to explain the reason Scowcroft and the others were opposed to invasion 2003 was because they couldn't admit they were wrong.

This is especially so if we listen to many on the whacko left that say Bush 41, Cheney, Bush 41, Scowcroft and all the rest are in on some plot to dominate the world.

It just doesn't add up.

[LSD]

This is especially so if we listen to many on the whacko left that say Bush 41, Cheney, Bush 41, Scowcroft and all the rest are in on some plot to dominate the world.

Well, that's crap ...of course.

That kind of Kabalistic thinking is naive and moronic. Bush et al., are out to help themselves and their friends. Believing that their aiming to do anything else gives them too much credit, in my opinion.


Yeah, I get the reasons Bush 41 didn't do it, but I find it hard to explain the reason Scowcroft and the others were opposed to invasion 2003 was because they couldn't admit they were wrong.

It wasn't that they couldn't admit that they were wrong, it's that they honestly didn't think that they were wrong. They truly believed that invading Iraq would not lead to a friendly regime but would in fact simply destablize the country.

[Intifada]

If you're an American, I cannot fathom the idea of rooting against your own country and rooting for an enemy that isn't even moderately interested in the same things you are.

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.

Malcolm X