Asshole of the Week

[landmine]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/felicia1/Energis-Ken-Livingstone.jpg

The mayor of London--he's a real fucking asshole!

My Asshole of the Week Award is going to Ken Livingstone. As most of you know, he is currently the mayor of London. I would venture to say that most of you also know that he is a real fucking asshole!

Why? He's another weak liberal apologist who makes it easier for the terrorists to blow up innocent people. What did he say after the fatal attacks on the bus and subway systems? Did he express outrage? Did he vow vengeance?

No. Of course not. He's one of those motherfuckers who wants to understand the enemy and empathize with their poor plight. Instead he chose to blame the deaths of these innocent victoms on the policies of Prime Minister Blair and George Bush, which in effect labels terrorists as freedom fighters who haven't gotten a fair shake in life.

Fuck Ken Livingstone and fuck the horse he rode in on. Terrorists need to be rooted out and stepped on like motherfucking cockroaches. They don't need to be understood. Hell, we already understand them. They are radical muslims who believe that all infidels should be put to the sword.

So what should happen to Ken Livingstone? Well, my friends, in a just world he would be cornholed and shot without any further delay. But the world is far from just, and I do believe we have laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Not a fucking thing, I'm afraid. However, we can call Mayor Livingstone out for what he really is--a real fucking asshole.

[Sirion]

Seems like you should dig up your old elementary school history book and read about historical western interference in the middle east. While I certainly don't support any terrorism, fighting terrorism without even attempting to understand it (as you prove, by saying that western policies have not affected the middle east) will actually make the problem worse.

[landmine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:38 PM
Seems like you should dig up your old elementary school history book and read about historical western interference in the middle east. While I certainly don't support any terrorism, fighting terrorism without even attempting to understand it (as you prove, by saying that western policies have not affected the middle east) will actually make the problem worse.
But I do understand them.

They hate me because I'm white, Christian, and I don't have to go to my backyard in order to shit in a hole while my camel watches.

They need to be sorted out--with extreme predjudice.

[Sirion]

Wrong. Todays mouslim fundamentalism largely is a result of western interference in the region. Most importantly is the period after the first world war, when the palestinian area was both promised to the local population as an independent nation (at the time, they were a part of the Osman Empire), and at the same time, the land was promised to jwish bankers in america to extend the loans that Great Britain was taking up at the time. After the first world war, these promises were not held. The region became protectorates (read: colonies) under Great Britain and France. After WWII, these nations gradually gained their independence, and most of Palestinia was became Israel.

As independence came, the question appeared: "why did this happen?". During the era, islamist religious leaders came to the conclusion that this was because they had not been strong enough in their faith to god. This may come as a shock to many right-wing hard-liners, but the Middle East was once pretty liberal, also when it came to religion, and it was also prosperous. The decline of their civilization was "explained" by their lack of faith. As silly as this may seem, it is important to understand why they came to this conclusion. And saying that they are a bunch of sand niggers that hate everyone else simply isn't good enough.

I'm not going to go through post-WWII events, as that is quite a lot, and you should see my point by now. Fundamentalism in the Middle East is largely a result of western imperialism. And by attacking these nations today, a foundation for an even more fanatical generation of terrorists are being laid.

[Zapata's Ghost]

Read into a little middle-eastern history, and you'll see that where there is an effect, there is a cause. We have been interfering with their lifestyle for thousands of years, because of the CHRISTIAN religion. It all started around the time of the first crusade, when the church just wanted more land and blamed the war on the "heathens invading our land and raping our merchants". For what the Western World has been doing for thousands of years to them, I don't blame them at all for taking action now. It's like the kid thats bullied at school and finally goes ballistic and starts a hellstorm, and we're stuck in that hellstorm which unfortunately took the form of terrorism.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by landmine+Jul 31 2005, 06:49 PM--> (landmine @ Jul 31 2005, 06:49 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 06:38 PM
Seems like you should dig up your old elementary school history book and read about historical western interference in the middle east. While I certainly don't support any terrorism, fighting terrorism without even attempting to understand it (as you prove, by saying that western policies have not affected the middle east) will actually make the problem worse.
But I do understand them.

They hate me because I'm white, Christian, and I don't have to go to my backyard in order to shit in a hole while my camel watches.

They need to be sorted out--with extreme predjudice.[/b]
:blink: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh my, that's the funniest thing I have ever heard, second only to "they attack us because they hate our freedom". Seriously, you should go into comedy. Ha, oh. You weren't joking. You, my good sir, have got to be the biggest idiot on the planet. They don't hate you for any of the things you've listed, no. They hate you because your country's government is fucking up in areas it had no business in. Just curious, are you a member of the BNP? Granted, I condone none of the attacks on innocent people, a vast majority of which probably opposed the war. But if we don't understand WHY the terrorists are doing these things, we're basically throwing away more civilian lives. I don't want that. Do you?

P.s Also, by your logic, every Christian in the UK should be deported for what they did in the Crusades.

[landmine]

Boy, you guys are typical apologists. Everyone is at fault except the terrorists themselves. No wonder Communism is dead. It's been replaced by sensitive liberal humanists who make Prime Minister Chamberlain look like Clint Eastwood.

[Socialistpenguin]

How rare! Instead of combatting our arguements with his own, he's decided to insult us. You, sir, are an idiot of the highest calibre, and I hope one day, when the revolution does come (no matter how much you don't want it to), you will be the first up against a wall.
http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/thumbs/stfu_sm.gif

Also, Mods, why is this guy not banned yet? I saw his "Hero of the Week" section in the trash and saw his little racist remark.

In short, landmine
http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/Art/follow.gif

away with you, and never darken my towels again!

[MoscowFarewell]

The reason there are terrorist is because of fucks like you. If America isolated itself and never fucked around, who would really bother them? They just plainly don't want anyone in the middle east. Russia had to deal with them and because we took Russia's place, now its our turn. We may have not gone in violently, but we tried to change their way of life through influence in the modern world.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:42 PM
Boy, you guys are typical apologists. Everyone is at fault except the terrorists themselves. No wonder Communism is dead. It's been replaced by sensitive liberal humanists who make Prime Minister Chamberlain look like Clint Eastwood.
absolutly agree they are taking events that happened 1000 years ago during the crusades, and try to sympathize with terrorists. you are right though your mayor in london is a complete asshole. if it wasnt the war in iraq it would be another excuse on why we are being killed. the muslim clerics who are preaching in the streets death to the western world are the problem not the war. im not sure about this but didnt he honor a muslim fanatic some time ago.

[Loknar]

I think it is too simplistic to say Islamic terrorism developed because of America and Israel. There is more to it than that.

Al-Queda's mission is to develop the new Caliphate and they see America and her allies a hindrance to that goal. In other words, there is no real logic with a people who see death as a friend.

They will use the old "well it's because America did..." but that does not mean they them selves believe that. These aren’t moral crusaders.

American interference in the middle east with regard to Israel was actually minimal until 1967. And aside from that America has always had close ties with Jordan.

Even though the Soviets supported the Arabs, their own people were among those kid-napped in Lebanon during the 70s and 80s.

And about Palestine, the Palestinian cause has been used by corrupt Arab regimes for the past 60 years. Nobody wants to talk about historic Palestine which includes all of modern day Jordan….Nobody wants to talk about Jordan and Egypt occupying Palestinian lands….In other words, that problem is not as religious as everybody likes to thinks it is.

So…because these terrorists want something should we just back down?

[landmine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:55 PM
How rare! Instead of combatting our arguements with his own, he's decided to insult us. You, sir, are an idiot of the highest calibre, and I hope one day, when the revolution does come (no matter how much you don't want it to), you will be the first up against a wall.
http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/thumbs/stfu_sm.gif

Also, Mods, why is this guy not banned yet? I saw his "Hero of the Week" section in the trash and saw his little racist remark.

In short, landmine
http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/Art/follow.gif

away with you, and never darken my towels again!
You sound like a big English pooftah.

I wouldn't have to worry about being lined up against the wall if fags like you were in charge. No one would have the guts to pull the trigger.

You, sir, should be cornholed and shot without further delay. Don't worry. We'll cornhole you first. Might as well leaving you smiling.

[JazzRemington]

You actually used the word, "pooftah"?

[LSD]

Landmine, that kind of homophobic language is not tolerated.

Along with your not-so-subtle racist remark and your incessent spamming, you are comming dangerously close to crossing the line. One more such outburst and you will find yourself banned.

[Free Palestine]

People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than you do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No. You are not hated because you practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. You are hated because your government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by your multinational corporations.

Retaliation hasn't rid anyone of similar problems in the past and it won't now. If retaliation worked, Israel would be the world's most secure people. Yet Israel is still the primary target of terrorists and suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. Retaliation has never ended a terrorist campaign or brought anyone security, rather, it fuels it. The only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people. If it is security you want, then Londoners must begin to answer the tough questions. What are the grievances of the Iraqis, Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is your real culpability for those grievances? Where you find legitimate culpability, you must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible. You can have security or you can have revenge, the two are mutually exclusive.

[landmine]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 31 2005, 10:21 PM
People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than you do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No. You are not hated because you practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. You are hated because your government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by your multinational corporations.

Retaliation hasn't rid anyone of similar problems in the past and it won't now. If retaliation worked, Israel would be the world's most secure people. Yet Israel is still the primary target of terrorists and suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. Retaliation has never ended a terrorist campaign or brought anyone security, rather, it fuels it. The only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people. If it is security you want, then Londoners must begin to answer the tough questions. What are the grievances of the Iraqis, Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is your real culpability for those grievances? Where you find legitimate culpability, you must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible. You can have security or you can have revenge, the two are mutually exclusive.
You're a fucking idiot. Who do you think is next? What? You think they are gonna leave you alone?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:32 PM

You're a fucking idiot. Who do you think is next? What? You think they are gonna leave you alone?
What a great arguement! :o

Please be more realistic. These people are not mentally handicapped or anything. They attack because for a REASON. Arguing about the attacks springing out of a hatred of democracy is simplistic. There are other democracies in the world you know.
The good 'ol brit way of life and values? you must extremely simplistic to beleive that anybody would blow themselves up for that reason.
Can you give that reason? or are you content assuming that they are crazy to avoid dealing with the causes and solving the problem, thus removing the motivation for such attacks.
Or is dismissal of any rational arguement part of your values?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Poor landmine, he lives in a world where fags, commies, and ragheads are actually part of an international conspiracy under the centralized leadership of satan, with the only goal of killing and enslaving all white people.

If I lived in that world, I'd probably be a reactionary asshole too. Alas, I made the mistake of studying history.

While it's certainly simplistic to say "America did x therefore . . ." there are larger and more complex series of relationships that inevitably lead to similar conclusions. Imperial and colonial history lie at the root of existing conflicts, and they can only be realisticly resolved by the defeat of imperialism. Ironicly, if the terrorists succeed in their practical goals - the violent defeat of the "west" in the mideast, they will begin to alienate their base of support, and vice-versa. Both sides relly on each other to play "boogie-man" and link the interests of the common people to their larger goals. However, as these interests diverge with objective victories, well . . . lemme put it this way, when there's no Americans bombing me, my willingness to die for Allah begins to fade.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 31 2005, 10:21 PM
People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than you do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No. You are not hated because you practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. You are hated because your government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by your multinational corporations.

Retaliation hasn't rid anyone of similar problems in the past and it won't now. If retaliation worked, Israel would be the world's most secure people. Yet Israel is still the primary target of terrorists and suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. Retaliation has never ended a terrorist campaign or brought anyone security, rather, it fuels it. The only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people. If it is security you want, then Londoners must begin to answer the tough questions. What are the grievances of the Iraqis, Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is your real culpability for those grievances? Where you find legitimate culpability, you must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible. You can have security or you can have revenge, the two are mutually exclusive.
. The reason is because your government are a bit less noticeable when they so scummy things. Canada’s I know has allot of business in the Sudan.

please also keep in mind America and Russia were in competition and that is what drove both sides. All government are the same, ALL. Canada, Sweden, Israel America ect.. all act in self interest. The bigger guys are just a bit more noticeable.

America is a very free place. I do not see my personal freedoms restricted. Aside from that America has a written constitution which many western countries do not have. Nobody is perfect though.

As to retaliation...I do not advocate retaliation, but I do advocate liquidation. This is a war we should have been fighting years ago.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by landmine
They hate me because I'm white, Christian, and I don't have to go to my backyard in order to shit in a hole while my camel watches.

Sounds reasonable. :D

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

[martingale]

It's interesting to note that the three major terrorist attacks against western targets since 9/11 were (1) Bali (targeting Australian tourists) , (2) Asnar's Spain, and (3) London. All three countries are big supporters of the US aggression against Iraq. All three wanted to play the role of stooges to US imperialism.

Although I disagree with Pat Buchanan on almost everything else, he got it right when he said "they (the terrorists) are over here because the US military is over there. Terrorism on American soil is the price of American empire."

[Socialistpenguin]

My God, Pat Buchanan actually said something that made sense!!!?? Tis the Rapture!! Ahem. Sorry about that.

Also, landmine, I feel sorry for you. You know your arguement is utter crap, so you resort to name calling. A little picture for you that you might find amusing:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/06/293550.gif
It reads, " Those who speak out against gays and lesbians are just disguising their own homosexuality behind homophobic rethoric.".
Though I myself am not gay, your remarks are nothing short of bigotry, and I feel that the Mods are being exceptionally lenient in your case.

All this leads me to ask: do you believe in incest? I had the feeling you were a big supporter of it. But let me warn you, it holds dire concequences, as seen nyah:
http://www.fangoria.com/store/assets/prodimg/MP-BTN-031.jpg

and nyah:
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/GOP%20Inbreeding.jpg

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:34 AM
It's interesting to note that the three major terrorist attacks against western targets since 9/11 were (1) Bali (targeting Australian tourists) , (2) Asnar's Spain, and (3) London. All three countries are big supporters of the US aggression against Iraq. All three wanted to play the role of stooges to US imperialism.

c'mon if it wasnt the war in Iraq it would have been something else, the terrorists hate the west no matter what, and Bali happened before the invasion.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Aug 1 2005, 01:24 PM--> (truthaddict11 @ Aug 1 2005, 01:24 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 02:34 AM
It's interesting to note that the three major terrorist attacks against western targets since 9/11 were (1) Bali (targeting Australian tourists) , (2) Asnar's Spain, and (3) London. All three countries are big supporters of the US aggression against Iraq. All three wanted to play the role of stooges to US imperialism.

c'mon if it wasnt the war in Iraq it would have been something else, the terrorists hate the west no matter what, and Bali happened before the invasion. [/b]
Not before the invasion of Afghanistan.

[Free Palestine]

The second someone suggests that it is important to consider something other than violent retaliation, you are immediately accused of sympathizing with the "terrorists." It is a cheap way for childish idiots to end a discussion without examining intelligent alternatives to present policy.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

truthaddict11 is the best example of the Stockhold-syndroom that I know. Applause to you. I mean it's not like your analyses have deepend since you became a moneysucker. I bet that even people like Publius slap their foreheads at the stupidity of your posts. But I am sorry;

c'mon if it wasnt the rape it would have been something else, the raped hate the raper no matter what. it's a world full of madness!!!

[coda]

Drum roll please......

bom--bom--bom--bom-bom-bbbbbbbbommmmmm.


the asshole of the week is:

Enigma


for this brilliant communist comment:

"if you feal that there is an overwhelming risk of your being raped, then I suggest you invest in locks, a delivery service and find a job where you can work from home. That way you will never have to leave your home again. "

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+Aug 1 2005, 02:29 PM--> (Mujer Libre @ Aug 1 2005, 02:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:24 PM

[email protected] 1 2005, 02:34 AM
It's interesting to note that the three major terrorist attacks against western targets since 9/11 were (1) Bali (targeting Australian tourists) , (2) Asnar's Spain, and (3) London. All three countries are big supporters of the US aggression against Iraq. All three wanted to play the role of stooges to US imperialism.

c'mon if it wasnt the war in Iraq it would have been something else, the terrorists hate the west no matter what, and Bali happened before the invasion.
Not before the invasion of Afghanistan. [/b]
So they didnt hate us before we invaded Afghanistan'?

[Sirion]

We have already adressed why that is, historical western imperialst interference in the region.

[Loknar]

To my knowledge.....the invasion of afghanistan happened after 9-11.....you know....when they hit us.......

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:38 AM
To my knowledge.....the invasion of afghanistan happened after 9-11.....you know....when they hit us.......
What Sirion said still applies, and you'd know that if you'd applied a moment's thought before posting.

[Loknar]

I dont understand, you said that it wasnt until we invaded afghanistan that they had a problem with us,

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:49 AM
I dont understand, you said that it wasnt until we invaded afghanistan that they had a problem with us,
Um... no. The invasion of Afghanistan served to add insult to the injury that Sirion mentioned, ths provoking further action.

[Loknar]

What the fuck are you talking about?

First you said that they didnt have a problem with us until we invaded afghanistan. This being after they attacked us.

Fact of thematter is they already had a problem with is....if they didnt they wouldnt have attacked us .

[Intifada]

Were the Iraqi sanctions not in place before 9/11?

The same sanctions that killed at least half a million innocent children. Altogether, some estimates suggest that a million people died as a result of the US/UK backed sanctions.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Aug 1 2005, 04:48 PM
truthaddict11 is the best example of the Stockhold-syndroom that I know. Applause to you. I mean it's not like your analyses have deepend since you became a moneysucker. I bet that even people like Publius slap their foreheads at the stupidity of your posts. But I am sorry;

c'mon if it wasnt the rape it would have been something else, the raped hate the raper no matter what. it's a world full of madness!!!
maybe I better explain what I meant, it doesnt matter if we are at war with one of these countries or not, the islamic facists and terrorist will hate us (the west)no matter what. Blaming it on Iraq or Afghanistan is stupid.

and going out and making money and earning a living is much more satisfying than *****ing around and doing nothing. so if I am a "moneysucker" so be it.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Aug 2 2005, 03:33 PM--> (truthaddict11 @ Aug 2 2005, 03:33 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Aug 1 2005, 04:48 PM
truthaddict11 is the best example of the Stockhold-syndroom that I know. Applause to you. I mean it's not like your analyses have deepend since you became a moneysucker. I bet that even people like Publius slap their foreheads at the stupidity of your posts. But I am sorry;

c'mon if it wasnt the rape it would have been something else, the raped hate the raper no matter what. it's a world full of madness!!!
maybe I better explain what I meant, it doesnt matter if we are at war with one of these countries or not, the islamic facists and terrorist will hate us (the west)no matter what. Blaming it on Iraq or Afghanistan is stupid.

and going out and making money and earning a living is much more satisfying than *****ing around and doing nothing. so if I am a "moneysucker" so be it.[/b]
It's a lot better than "They attack us because they hate our freedom". I think it's a very plausible, logical reason.
Also, concerning the rest of your post, are you suggesting, instead of taking notice of the reasons behind terrorism, we should become sheep, leave important matters to our "Glorious Leaders", and churn out the same rhetoric as they do, whilst accumulating as much wealth as possible, solely because "it feels better"?

I feel a little visual aide might be in order:

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-29-05.jpg

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:29 PM


The mayor of London--he's a real fucking asshole!

My Asshole of the Week Award is going to Ken Livingstone. As most of you know, he is currently the mayor of London. I would venture to say that most of you also know that he is a real fucking asshole!

Why? He's another weak liberal apologist who makes it easier for the terrorists to blow up innocent people. What did he say after the fatal attacks on the bus and subway systems? Did he express outrage? Did he vow vengeance?

No. Of course not. He's one of those motherfuckers who wants to understand the enemy and empathize with their poor plight. Instead he chose to blame the deaths of these innocent victoms on the policies of Prime Minister Blair and George Bush, which in effect labels terrorists as freedom fighters who haven't gotten a fair shake in life.

Fuck Ken Livingstone and fuck the horse he rode in on. Terrorists need to be rooted out and stepped on like motherfucking cockroaches. They don't need to be understood. Hell, we already understand them. They are radical muslims who believe that all infidels should be put to the sword.

So what should happen to Ken Livingstone? Well, my friends, in a just world he would be cornholed and shot without any further delay. But the world is far from just, and I do believe we have laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Not a fucking thing, I'm afraid. However, we can call Mayor Livingstone out for what he really is--a real fucking asshole.
ok, i dont like to get personal. i think its a very bad way of debating. in this case, i can make an exception.

you are a fucking arsehole.

you think the middle easterners are jealous because you have a better khazi?

what would you know about how london, a city in england, uk, should deal with an attack than happened within its perimiters?

i think how livingstone dealt with it was very good.

i was on the right wing forums (know the enemy, etc), and they were all hoping that

"england will join us and be more ruthless in the war on terror"

2 things.

i) england is NOT the uk
ii) i like to think that we dont throw our toys out of the pram, and use our military muscle to shit on everyone who disagrees with us.

but then, i suppose we ARE talking about bliar here.

[Invader Zim]

I aim to please.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:35 AM
Were the Iraqi sanctions not in place before 9/11?

The same sanctions that killed at least half a million innocent children. Altogether, some estimates suggest that a million people died as a result of the US/UK backed sanctions.
Those sanctions didn’t kill soul...What killed those people was Saddam. He had the food from the oil for food program (which turned out to be a money maker for both sides) and merely sold the food he collected to build more palaces. Those sanctions were UNSC mandated. So blame the UN.


Do you think the Iraqi sanctions factor into 9-11?

It could.... There just isn’t any 1 event that we did that caused it. it is a mixture of zealots, perceived oppression (and real oppression) from the west, support for Israel. ect... But it doesn’t mean the terrorists are right.

You are a communist, don’t you see the danger in religious fanaticism?

[Dark Exodus]

These groups would not have nearly as much support if people had no reason to support them, logical no?

[Intifada]

Loknar

Those sanctions didn’t kill soul...What killed those people was Saddam. He had the food from the oil for food program (which turned out to be a money maker for both sides) and merely sold the food he collected to build more palaces.

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.

As Denis Halliday (who resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq, after working for the UN for 34 years) explained, the oil-for-food programme was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions. The creation of the programme demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.


Those sanctions were UNSC mandated. So blame the UN.

Hans Van Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who took over after Halliday resigned, addressed the claim that the "UN, not the US is to blame for the sanctions":

The UN doesn't impose sanctions. It's the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions... I don’t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that's the outcome, but I don't see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

The US Government knew, before sanctions were implemented, that the effects of sanctions would worsen the situation for normal Iraqi people, as shown by several US DIA documents.


Do you think the Iraqi sanctions factor into 9-11?

I believe that the actions of the US and the UK in Iraq, for more than a decade, have and will continue to radicalise many disaffected Muslims.

Such actions certainly do not help the US, and its position amongst Arabs and Muslims.


it doesn’t mean the terrorists are right.


Of course not.

But to put an end to this phenomenon, we must begin to understand the causes behind the radicalisation of some Muslims.


You are a communist, don’t you see the danger in religious fanaticism?

Of course.

That is one of the reasons behind my opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the general conduct of Bush's "War on Terror."

[Loknar]

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.


Yes and was it the right thing to do?

They did attack Iran then attacked Kuwait.


The US Government knew, before sanctions were implemented, that the effects of sanctions would worsen the situation for normal Iraqi people, as shown by several US DIA documents.


IF they did or did not I wont comment on. All I can say is that they should have removed Saddam, it would have saved a HELL of allot of lives over the past 20 years.

Also keep in mind Iraq was not some innocent country.


I believe that the actions of the US and the UK in Iraq, for more than a decade, have and will continue to radicalise many disaffected Muslims.

Such actions certainly do not help the US, and its position amongst Arabs and Muslims.


Possibly....but at the same time if the people in Iraq have a reason to resist terrorism then terrorism will fail. There have been cases where people who were actual terrorists were lynched. I can remember when some Shia's lynched a man who exited his car, which then blew up some time later.

Also, the people who actual want America there are the kurds, Kurdistan has become prosperous in Iraq. They also play on their own TV stations footage obtained by the American army concerning terrorists…..Footage includes rapes, beheadings ect….

The Shia seem more neutral but more willing to set up a new government. A Sunni leader said that the Sunnis will play a more active role in the future. Despite what you may think of the war, would you agree that we cant simply leave?


Of course not.

But to put an end to this phenomenon, we must begin to understand the causes behind the radicalisation of some Muslims.

There is also the cause in their own minds....Yes we may antagonize people, but it takes a radical person to embrace death and blow them selves up. There are many different factors to it all. But I believe you cant just point the finger at America.


of course.

That is one of the reasons behind my opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the general conduct of Bush's "War on Terror."


I can see why you would oppose Iraq, but why Afghanistan?

The Taliban (btw, it was Pakistan's ISI who brought them to power not America) was harboring Al-Queda. Bush demanded they hand Osama over....they refused.

And aside from that we worked with the local rebellion to destabilize that government. I wouldn’t call it a huge invasion..

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 2 2005, 08:33 PM
These groups would not have nearly as much support if people had no reason to support them, logical no?
Indifference to these groups is enough to keep them around

[KC]

Yes and was it the right thing to do?

They did attack Iran then attacked Kuwait.

Before invading Kuwait, Saddam consulted the United States to see what they thought, and they didn't seem to care much, so he went along with it, then they did an about face.



I can see why you would oppose Iraq, but why Afghanistan?


Because the invasion of Afghanistan put in a government that would serve the US. Also, because it was a waste of time and money. Yes, the taliban was ousted, but recently they have been gaining popularity again because anti-american sentiment is so high.



The Taliban (btw, it was Pakistan's ISI who brought them to power not America) was harboring Al-Queda

So why not attack Saudi Arabia? Why not attack Iran, who wants nuclear capabilities? Why not attack North Korea, who has openly threatened the US with nukes? Why not attack Cuba, whose anti-american sentiment does no good for the US? The list goes on and on....

The point is, that attacking Afghanistan does NOTHING. The reason these mindsets exist is because of american foreign policy. If you want to solve the problem, change foreign policy.

[Loknar]

Overall, it denies a base to Al-queda.

At first the war on terror was effetive. Is it effective now? Probably not as much.

But I still think Afghanistan was a corect move.


As to the Saddam invading Kuwait thing...THere is theory after theory on it. 1 Ambassador said this, while the president meant that...

However it does not excuse Saddam's actions. Aside from that he was given a reasonable ammount of time to withdsraw.

[KC]

Overall, it denies a base to Al-queda.

But does it? Do you think that the new Afghan authority patrols the whole country? It is simple for Al-queda to create a base in uninhabited parts of Afghanistan, or even move to other countries. So invading Afghanistan didn't do much.



However it does not excuse Saddam's actions. Aside from that he was given a reasonable ammount of time to withdsraw.

Sources on this please?

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)All I can say is that they [the sanctions] should have removed Saddam, it would have saved a HELL of allot of lives over the past 20 years. [/b]

Actually the sanctions facilitated Saddam's control over the population, partly because of food rationing and partly because the Iraqi government was able to use sanctions as an excuse for its own shortcomings. They also enabled Saddam to appear as the elemental battler for Iraq against the rest of the world. The way to inflict maximum damage on Saddam's regime would have been to lift the sanctions immediately. Your little myth that depriving average Iraqis of food and medicine would force an end to Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime has been debunked over and over and over and over.


Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)Those sanctions didn’t kill soul...What killed those people was Saddam. He had the food from the oil for food program (which turned out to be a money maker for both sides) and merely sold the food he collected to build more palaces. Those sanctions were UNSC mandated. So blame the UN. [/b]

In addition to what Intifada has already said, I'd like to ask you if you've never heard of the UN Security Council 661 Committee. The committee met in New York supervised sanctions on Iraq. Saddam was not free to buy Iraq's non-military needs on the world market. The country's requirements had to be submitted to 661 and, often after bureaucratic delay, a judgement was handed down on what Iraq could and could not buy. Andy Kershaw once obtained a copy of the 661 rulings and the decisions were completely daft. "Dual use" was the most common reason to refuse a purchase, meaning the item requested could be put to military use. So how did 661 expect Saddam to wage war with "beef extract powder and broth," which they denied. Did 661 expect Saddam to turn on the Kurds again by spraying them with "malt extract"? Or to send his presidential guard back into Kuwait armed to the teeth with "pencils"? Pencils, you see, according to 661, contain graphite and therefore could be put to military use. Medication, life-saving machinery deep X-ray equipment, blood component separators, even needles for biopsies. You name it, 661 said it could have military use. Moreover, the Oil for Food program amounted to less than $0.60 per Iraqi per day, there simply wasn't enough to go around.


Originally posted by Loknar
Yes and was it the right thing to do?

Everybody listen to this monster. He is sugggesting that having 500,000+ Iraqi children die in misery from starvation due to sanctions was "the right thing to do." Loknar, you are a miscreant and deviant misanthrope with warped values.


[email protected]
Those sanctions were UNSC mandated.

at America’s urging...


Loknar
Bush demanded they hand Osama over....they refused.

As usual, you're wrong. They offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral nation.

[Intifada]

Loknar

Yes and was it the right thing to do?

They did attack Iran then attacked Kuwait.

Killing half a million children and hundreds of thousands of innocent adults is never "the right thing to do."

Nice to see your true colours.

Tell me, why is it so bad when three thousand or so people are killed in the West, yet it is "the right thing" when hundreds of thousands of innocent people die in Iraq?

The sanctions did nothing to harm Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, it was the US that supported him in the war against Iran, and April Glaspie gave Saddam the green-light in his plans to invade Kuwait.

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)


IF they did or did not I wont comment on.

In other words, you do not care.


All I can say is that they should have removed Saddam, it would have saved a HELL of allot of lives over the past 20 years.


Yes, but Saddam Hussein was a friend of US forign policy.


Also keep in mind Iraq was not some innocent country.

Saddam Hussein's regime was guilty of many things, especially when the West loved him, but the sanctions succeeded only in harming innocen Iraqis.


Despite what you may think of the war, would you agree that we cant simply leave?


No.

All occupying forces have got to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. That the US-led occupation of Iraq is the root of the tension and violence in Iraq is undeniable. Even Jack Straw has conceded that the occupation is causing more harm than good.

The problem with occupying forces is that they are there for one reason: this reason being to maintain control of the country and allow the US to have a long-term influence in Iraq. What the occupation does is guarantee power of Iraq to Washington, who will make sure that the Iraqi government will serve it's interests, rather than the Iraqi people's interests.

I would rather, just like you hopefully, that the Iraqi people be given the power to decide what they want for their country. It is a fact that the majority of the Iraqi people do not want US troops in their country, patrolling their streets. This is a natural opinion to have.

If the US cared about Iraq and democracy, they would do what the people want, and withdraw.

I want the Iraqi people to decide how to run their country, not American business interests.


There is also the cause in their own minds....Yes we may antagonize people, but it takes a radical person to embrace death and blow them selves up.

People must be radicalised before they "Blow themselves up." Once people are radicalised, they become easy prey for extremist elements.

The murder of innocent Muslims, at the hands of the Americans, will not strengthen the position of the US in the Muslim and Arab world.


I can see why you would oppose Iraq, but why Afghanistan?


Read what Lazar wrote.

I agree with him/her.

Moreover, I believe that the Afghan war has been counter-productive in the "War on Terror." This is proven by the events that have followed it.

Is the world safer now?


The Taliban (btw, it was Pakistan's ISI who brought them to power not America) was harboring Al-Queda.

Saudi Arabia, anyone?

Surely they, based on that logic, should be attacked to?

The human rights situation would also provide a nice boost to a potential case for war.


Bush demanded they hand Osama over....they refused.


No they did not.

They, as Free Palestine state, offered to hand him over to another nation (I believe Saudi Arabia was a potential country).

[KC]

I agree with him/her.

I'm a guy. :lol:


Bush demanded they hand Osama over....they refused.

Yes, this has been covered by other members, so see their responses. But later in the Afghan Campaign, coalition forces basically had him surrounded and had his location, but THEY NEVER CAPTURED HIM. Do you know why? Because by not capturing them, the US government can use his name as a means to justify their war (even though they don't anymore; they still could if they wanted to!).

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:39 AM



However it does not excuse Saddam's actions. Aside from that he was given a reasonable ammount of time to withdsraw.

Sources on this please?


But does it? Do you think that the new Afghan authority patrols the whole country? It is simple for Al-queda to create a base in uninhabited parts of Afghanistan, or even move to other countries. So invading Afghanistan didn't do much.

The whole country is in the hands of warlords, it is a very decentralized country. But Al-queda can not develop any significant base there with out worry. Pakistan and America are on them. Though the attention has focused away from Osama.



Sources on this please?

This article chronicles the events quite well.
http://onwar.com/aced/nation/uni/usa/fpersiangulf1990.htm

[Loknar]

Actually the sanctions facilitated Saddam's control over the population, partly because of food rationing and partly because the Iraqi government was able to use sanctions as an excuse for its own shortcomings. They also enabled Saddam to appear as the elemental battler for Iraq against the rest of the world. The way to inflict maximum damage on Saddam's regime would have been to lift the sanctions immediately. Your little myth that depriving average Iraqis of food and medicine would force an end to Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime has been debunked over and over and over and over.


This is why I think we should have taken him out back during the 1st gulf war. But the whole world was too damn pussy to do it.


This isn’t my little myth. it was the hypothesis of the Pussies who didn’t have the balls to remove him. It was their little idea to help them selves sleep at night because they wouldn’t destabilize Iraq’s government.


I wasn’t aware of such a court. In any event, the UN is to blame for what happened. The UNSC approved the measure. Do you think America is always followed in the UN? Bush wouldn’t even propose a resolution this time around because France and Russia would probably have vetoed the resolution. You cant only blame America.



Everybody listen to this monster. He is sugggesting that having 500,000+ Iraqi children die in misery from starvation due to sanctions was "the right thing to do." Loknar, you are a miscreant and deviant misanthrope with warped values.


I've thought about this statement, and I admit I am wrong. What we should have done is either have the balls to remove him or leave him be. Though please do not take my comment to infer that I want to see Iraqi children sir is mal nutrition.

Btw, Iraq is in the fertile crescent, why could they not feed them selves?

North Korea can feed everybody if the food was distributed properly. They get tons of food aid every year but Kim Jong Ils fat ass needs more than everybody else does.




As usual, you're wrong. They offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral nation.


Again, they refused....

[kingbee]

North Korea can feed everybody if the food was distributed properly. They get tons of food aid every year but Kim Jong Ils fat ass needs more than everybody else does.


er. i seriously doubt that north korea gets enough food to feed its whole population.

[martingale]

I found this commentary by William Mandel of KPFA radio written shortly after the 9/11 attack:

Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Mandel
Oakland, California
9/11/01 5:36 PM
The attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center are the most important event in world history since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The disappearance of the USSR ended a half century in which two powers dominated the world. The casualties in New York, Washington, and in the skies made an end to the belief that the United States could continue waging wars costing us no blood, whether in no-fly zones over Iraq, in Kosovo, or anywhere else on any continent.

For fifty-six years Washington has successfully conducted mass murders of noncombatant civilians from the air with no fear of retaliation. In 1945, when Japan could no longer strike back, there was Hiroshima, 75,000 killed. Then Nagasaki, 40,000 killed. The Korean War cost that country, with no possible means of harming the United States, 4,000,000 dead [Encyclopedia Brittanica] versus 34,000 Americans, or more than 100 Koreans per American. Most of the Korean deaths were caused by American carpet bombing (white phosphorus, napalm, explosives)to break the will to resist, and therefore were predominantly civilian.

The numbers in the Vietnam War were of the same orders of magnitude."Desert Storm" has slaughtered Iraqi children in immense numbers since the end of the fighting, due to the embargo against necessities.

Until now the vast majority of Americans have clucked their tongues over these things and gone about their business. No more. The deaths in the collapsed New York towers may approach the number in Nagasaki, as the people normally employed and visiting has been given as 50,000. The super-expensive, space and information age espionage technology of the National Security Agency, as well as the more conventional activities of the CIA and FBI are now the laughing stock of the world. As to the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Pentagon, I wonder if it was accidental that the plane striking that building hit exactly the section where that agency was housed.

There is simply nothing Washington can do to restore the situation existing before this morning. Even if it decides to blame Saddam Hussein, and nukes Baghdad off the fact of the earth, it will accomplish nothing in a world of suicide bombers and underground organizations capable of working in complete secrecy and with perfect coordination.

The astonishing secrecy and coordination of the attacks make the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, and American military intelligence the laughing stock of the world. Undoubtedly U.S."intelligence"(?!)operations will be multiplied. That guarantees absolutely nothing.

The Korean War was accompanied by the rise of McCarthyism. It is possible that today's events may bring similar hysteria and suppression of civil liberties. Not only would that further diminish the civil liberties that are one of this country's proudest achievements, but by so doing it would reduce the ability of the citizenry to ask the necessary questions about the policies responsible for the hatred of the United States expressed in this catastrophe.

The time has come to realize that the motivation that brought about our Revolutionary War in 1776 is the strongest single force active in the world today. Peoples will be independent, no matter what Washington, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley want to do with and in their countries. The United States must either adapt to that or suffer the fate of ancient Rome.

William Mandel, Oakland, California
(37 years [1958-1995] on Pacifica Radio stations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:58 PM
Loknar

Those sanctions didn’t kill soul...What killed those people was Saddam. He had the food from the oil for food program (which turned out to be a money maker for both sides) and merely sold the food he collected to build more palaces.

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.
Quite right. Also:

When it's said the sactions killed X number of Iraqis (hundreds of thousands), that's excess mortality. The increase in deaths from hunger and preventable disease compared to the period before the sanctions were imposed.

Saddam was also in power during the comparison period. So obviously his regime can't be blamed for the increase. That increase is the effect of imposing, effectively, a total blockade on Iraq...on that concrete country, with that economic structure and yes, political regime.

After a few years, the oil-for-food program was started up as a band-aid over that gaping wound...as two of its coordinators explained, while resigning in protest over the way that band-aid was used to justify the indefinite continuation of the mass-murdering blockade.

[Loknar]

For fifty-six years Washington has successfully conducted mass murders of noncombatant civilians from the air with no fear of retaliation. In 1945, when Japan could no longer strike back, there was Hiroshima, 75,000 killed. Then Nagasaki, 40,000 killed. The Korean War cost that country, with no possible means of harming the United States, 4,000,000 dead [Encyclopedia Brittanica] versus 34,000 Americans, or more than 100 Koreans per American. Most of the Korean deaths were caused by American carpet bombing (white phosphorus, napalm, explosives)to break the will to resist, and therefore were predominantly civilian.


I tell what the Korea war did, it helped saved million from the hell the north currently lives in.

Adside from that we were defending in the war and guess what? It was a UN mandated objective to remove the north korean army.

Is this guy serious?

[Intifada]

Loknar

This is why I think we should have taken him out back during the 1st gulf war. But the whole world was too damn pussy to do it.


An interesting point was made by George Bush Sr, in "A World Transformed" (1998):

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.


In any event, the UN is to blame for what happened.

Once again, Hans Van Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who took over after Halliday resigned, addressed the claim that the "UN, not the US is to blame for the sanctions":

The UN doesn't impose sanctions. It's the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions... I don't see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that's the outcome, but I don't see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

It was the American and British members of the sanctions committee of the UN that blocked Iraqi attempts to import necessities such as IV fluids, X-ray equipment and even insulin and vitamins.

Funnily enough, even bull's semen was on the "forbidden list" of the US and UK.

However, what wasn't funny was the occasion when the Americans blocked an application by Bulgaria, to ship baby food to Iraq, on the grounds that it could be "eaten by adults." At the time of this barbaric decision, Iraqi children were dying at a rate of one every six minutes of every day and night, as a result of the embargo.

This suffering of the Iraqi people was reiterated by UNICEF, Harvard medical school academics and by the Lancet (a magazine that was banned in Iraq, along with all trade, educational and scientific journals, under the embargo).

The politicians of the UK and US kept arguing that they had "no quarrel with the Iraqi people", while making their lives a misery and killing them in genocidal numbers. Even after death, the US would not stop the torment. An application to export shroud materials - so that a Muslim can be buried decently - was vetoed by the Americans. The would-be exporter appealed to the British Trade and Industry Department, but to no avail.

The British Civil Servant, Peter Mayne, said:

I refer to your application to export shroud cloth to Iraq. The application has been considered... I have to inform you that a license has not been granted under the current climate. The US representative on the UN Sanctions Committee are [sic] currently blocking the export of cloth to Iraq.

The Iraqis couldn't even dress their dead.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:05 PM

I tell what the Korea war did, it helped saved million from the hell the north currently lives in.

Adside from that we were defending in the war and guess what? It was a UN mandated objective to remove the north korean army.

Is this guy serious?
i dont agree with this.

if anything, the war created the way north korea is at the moment. and before you ridicule this without thinking- think of it this way-

the complete and utter devastation of korea by the american led-un force breeded hate, which is there today. without the destruction of korean infrastructure, the deaths of millions of koreans, and the partition of korea, im sure north korea would be slightly better today. its the historical circumstances (as well, of course, with the juche ideology) that have created the day to day runnings of the north korean state.

sorry, not trying to hijack this thread.

[Loknar]

i dont agree with this.

if anything, the war created the way north Korea is at the moment. and before you ridicule this without thinking- think of it this way-


Yes but who actually started the war?

America and Russia certainly are culpable…Russia more so than America (I say this because the North Koreans had an entire brigade of T-34s while the South Koreans had small arms)



the complete and utter devastation of korea by the american led-un force breeded hate, which is there today. without the destruction of korean infrastructure, the deaths of millions of koreans, and the partition of korea, im sure north korea would be slightly better today. its the historical circumstances (as well, of course, with the juche ideology) that have created the day to day runnings of the north korean state.

sorry, not trying to hijack this thread.

North Korea would be fine today if it hadn’t decided on mass militarization. North Korea was in better shape than the south for years.

Also today farmers do not grow food, they grow poppy seeds and traffic heroine. Donated food is sold on the black market and food is so expensive that government wages can not pay.

North Korea gets allot fo food shipments, but it does not reach the right people.

[Loknar]

An interesting point was made by George Bush Sr, in "A World Transformed" (1998):

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.



Looking back on this though, we now see that it was the wrong decision.

The Shia and Kurds rose up against Saddam. The people would have been on our sides, especially a multi national army of Pakistanis, Arabs, French and American.

People dont know this but Saddam was actually out of power for about 2 weeks I believe....If the coalition had destroyed his Republican Guard Divisions he probably wouldnt have regained his authority.



Once again, Hans Van Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who took over after Halliday resigned, addressed the claim that the "UN, not the US is to blame for the sanctions":


I will agree that what was cut off from Iraq was insane, I thank you for enlightening me.

THe UN could have vetoed the resolutions, why didn’t they?

I think we should have removed him back in the 90s when we had over 600,000 troops in the region.

Can you tell me what the point of the sanctions was?


However, what wasn't funny was the occasion when the Americans blocked an application by Bulgaria, to ship baby food to Iraq, on the grounds that it could be "eaten by adults." At the time of this barbaric decision, Iraqi children were dying at a rate of one every six minutes of every day and night, as a result of the embargo.

Tell me, why couldn’t Iraq sustain it self?



The British Civil Servant, Peter Mayne, said:

I refer to your application to export shroud cloth to Iraq. The application has been considered... I have to inform you that a license has not been granted under the current climate. The US representative on the UN Sanctions Committee are [sic] currently blocking the export of cloth to Iraq.

The Iraqis couldn't even dress their dead.


Are you telling me they would all be naked with out cloth?

in any event i wont justify it.....

We should have removed him to prevent this suffering. The Israelis were going to kill him back in the early 90s in retaliation for the SCUD attack on Israel....too bad hey didn’t go ahead with it.

[kingbee]

Yes but who actually started the war?

America and Russia certainly are culpable…Russia more so than America (I say this because the North Koreans had an entire brigade of T-34s while the South Koreans had small arms)

its uncertain who started it. both sides blame eachother. im not going to believe one over the other.






North Korea would be fine today if it hadn’t decided on mass militarization. North Korea was in better shape than the south for years.

better shape than the south? when? the north has hardly any arable land. most of the arable land is in south korea. thats why the north used to be the industrial hub, the south, the agricultural.




Also today farmers do not grow food, they grow poppy seeds and traffic heroine. Donated food is sold on the black market and food is so expensive that government wages can not pay.

North Korea gets allot fo food shipments, but it does not reach the right people.

poppy seeds? heroin?!

i severly doubt this claim. is this linking the war on drugs, to the war on terror, to the communist terror?

korea does get a lot of food aid. a lot of it does go on the army. im not doubting that. what im saying is that i doubt very much that korea gets enough food to feed its population in aid.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:25 PM





better shape than the south? when? the north has hardly any arable land. most of the arable land is in south korea. thats why the north used to be the industrial hub, the south, the agricultural.



Pyongyang is an ancient city, about 3,000 years old. I think all but 1 building was destroyed in the Korean war, what you see today was rebuild from scratch.

When Koreans returning from Japan in the late 50's saw Pyongyang they were amazed at the sky scrappers (Czech engineering) and the buildings they saw.

Construction in Pyongyang was very common, it was a growing city even into the 60s.

North Korea economically was more powerful than the south for a long time. It wasn’t until the 80s i believe that the south really started to boom.

Today north Koreas infrastructure is ageing but it is intact. The factories have stopped operating, the miners have stopped mining.....

Kimg Jong Il has a chance to revive the north Korean economy.




poppy seeds? heroin?!

i severly doubt this claim. is this linking the war on drugs, to the war on terror, to the communist terror?

IN all fairness the UN is not convinced that North Korea officially is involved. But what is fact is that North Korea is used as a growing base. We should consider that North Koreas economy is highly centralized, it is unlikely that the government doesn’t know about it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=North+Korea+drug+trade



The recent seizure of the ship Pong Su off Australian waters and its cargo of more than US$144 million of heroin has put North Korea's drug trafficking in the international spotlight. The attention is long overdue.

North Korea has a GNP of about 20billion

144 million is allot of money to them.


korea does get a lot of food aid. a lot of it does go on the army. im not doubting that. what im saying is that i doubt very much that korea gets enough food to feed its population in aid.

No, but North Korea could in theory farm....They managed to feed their people until the 90s.

My guess is the fall of Russia did them in.

But they should still be trading manufactured goods for food.

[kingbee]

Pyongyang is an ancient city, about 3,000 years old. I think all but 1 building was destroyed in the Korean war, what you see today was rebuild from scratch.

When Koreans returning from Japan in the late 50's saw Pyongyang they were amazed at the sky scrappers (Czech engineering) and the buildings they saw.

Construction in Pyongyang was very common, it was a growing city even into the 60s.

true. its quite an incredible concrete nightmare. with a LOT of greenery.



North Korea has a GNP of about 20billion

144 million is allot of money to them.

quick research- our friends at the cia claim ints 40 bn. 144 million doesnt seem that big, y'know. but i suppose it is there.


No, but North Korea could in theory farm....They managed to feed their people until the 90s.

My guess is the fall of Russia did them in.

But they should still be trading manufactured goods for food.

i think it was the soviet union too. despite juche, food still was imported.

[Sirion]

To my knowledge.....the invasion of afghanistan happened after 9-11.....you know....when they hit us.......


Sorry about my late reply. have been gone for a few days, but I have picked out
a few interesting statements that I will post my thoughts on.

First this one. I believe that I explained this in the very beginning of this
thread. Religious fundamentalism is a result of british imperialism in the
Middle East in the 19th and 20th century, with the colonialization of the arab
states and the creation of Israel being the high points. Some small groups
explained this by saying that it was a result of the people not being strong
enough in their faith, so Allah had punished them. Through luck, and the right
alliance building, these forces were able to become a power in the region. Early
in the 20th centruy, Islam was much more liberal. I believe there is a
connection with the fact that the countries were much more well off economically.
Under the colonialization (and later warfare, misrulings etc. etc.), these
countries have gone backward when it comes to economy, and just as important,
education, and therefore religion has gotten a stronger foot hold. Which also
means that it is reversible.

And, Al-Quaida have tried to attack USA before. They have even tried to raze the
WTC onbce before, with a car bomb.



I can see why you would oppose Iraq, but why Afghanistan?

The Taliban (btw, it was Pakistan's ISI who brought them to power not America) was harboring Al-Queda. Bush demanded they hand Osama over....they refused.

And aside from that we worked with the local rebellion to destabilize that government. I wouldn’t call it a huge invasion..


So, you are saying it had nothing to do with plans about the oil rush in the
region to do? Allow me to enlighten you. While Afghanistan isn't oil rich, they
have neightbour regions who are. The old russian pipe system were not in good
enough condition (or whatever other reason the US govt. could have had not to
use it), so a plan was made to put oil pipes under Afghanistan, and then to USAs
allies in the Persian Gulf, where it would be transported further with tank
ships. These plans were present already under the Clinton period, 9/11 was the
opportunity to trigger it all.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:20 PM
Yes but who actually started the war?
That can be endlessly debated. And has been.



America and Russia certainly are culpable…Russia more so than America (I say this because the North Koreans had an entire brigade of T-34s while the South Koreans had small arms)


What kind of massive hypocrisy and selective vision is this? The Soviet army withdrew from Korea a few years after the end of WWII. The US army is still there. Obviously the US had a much bigger role than the USSR in the Korean war.

The US and USSR agreed on the division of Korea, and set up their own clients, so they share responsibility. But it should be pointed out that it was the US army that disbanded the government which Korean nationalists had set up in Seoul, replacing it with the Syngman Rhee dictatorship.

Before and during the Korean war, that dictatorship, with U.S. help, suppressed numerous guerilla uprisings in south Korea.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. has the greatest responsibility for the continued division of Korea and all the consequences of it...which I assure you I don't say in order to let Stalin off the hook for his own complicity in it.


North Korea would be fine today if it hadn’t decided on mass militarization. North Korea was in better shape than the south for years.

When? Not after the Korean War. As someone else pointed out, almost every building in Pyongyang was leveled by bombing.


North Korea gets allot fo food shipments, but it does not reach the right people.

Nonsense. There's a lot less inequality, a lot less gap between the well-fed and the hungry, in north Korea than in most capitalist states. Maybe any. The problem is food production.