8 european countries support iraq war [Archive]

deimos

31st January 2003, 14:29

Dude you missed a part. The Kurdish are DEAD MEAT if the invasion of Iraq succeeds.

The Turkish government, one of the most important figures in an assault of Iraq, will participate in the invasion and slaughter all Kurdish (participants)!

Haven't you ever heard of the Secret Missions of the Turkish pilots above Kurdish villages in Iraq?

I know about this secret missions i kurdistan. there are even some thousand soldiers on Iraqi soil now.
The turks wont do any(or almost none) harm to the Kurdish people. They want to join the EU, if they don't behave they'll have no chance. This time well keep our autonomy zone, I'm quite sure. We'll also get Kirkuk back. These turkish idiots begged the USA to create a turkmenian autonomy zone instead of a Kurdish...this idea doesn't have a chance.They'll have to tolerate the kurdish state.

mentalbunny: Britain never gassed kurds. Sure they may have killed a few in the imperial days but never gassed them. More facts, less emotion comrade.
I think we are all talking about halabja. They used french gas, american bombs and soviet airplanes.

by publishing this letter these countrys are making the eu a joke.
thats the problem.

Deimos, you know it was the Brits who originally gassed the Kurds, do not place all your blame at Saddam's door. He'd survive war, we need to somehow give Iraq democracy, but it will be a slow process, good foundations are necessary for it to succeed.
Iam not sure what will happen to them after the war, I hope for them that they get something like democracy. But up in the north, in Kurdistan, we already have democracy. The system has to be improved, but we already have the foundation.

(Edited by deimos at 3:31 pm on Jan. 31, 2003)

El Brujo

31st January 2003, 16:00

This is proof of the lack of democracy in this world. Like 80% of all Europeans are against the war but almost all their governments are supporting it. Jesus fucking christ.

hawarameen

1st February 2003, 00:22

Quote: from Red Revolution on 9:21 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
Europe needs to come to some agreement.

mentalbunny: Britain never gassed kurds. Sure they may have killed a few in the imperial days but never gassed them. More facts, less emotion comrade.

actually churchill was the first person to gas kurds this little known fact is hardly advertised in fear of tarnishing britains heroic leader

hawarameen

1st February 2003, 00:35

Quote: from Malte on 5:43 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
How can you support such an imperialist war?? I guess you are Kurdish and hate Saddam for what he did to your people, but please don't let your emotions influence your sense for reason.

this war is imperialistic i agree but please do not belittle our cause by suggesting that our emotions are getting the better of us.

i hate everybody for what they have done to my people, i neither want saddam or bush to tell me what to do, where i can and cant go, what language i can speak. kurdistan is potentially the richest country in the middle east and it is not there to be raped by sadamm or bush. if a couple of thousand iraqis have to die for me to get my freedom then so be it, this is my reasoning and im sorry but i live by my emotions malte.
simply because you take things for granted do not assume that i have to live by your sense of reasoning.

you are free i am not

oki

1st February 2003, 12:27

well you and your people actually have legitimate reasons for it.and you allready know from past experience that the US cant be trusted.I sincearly hope you guys just TAKE your country if you get the chance.don't trust on the US or UN to give it to you.

mentalbunny

1st February 2003, 14:35

hawarameen, sorry, you're right. I got confused about it all, I knew britain has killed kurds but I wasn't sure how.

deimos

1st February 2003, 19:26

@hawarameen: Very well said!!!

mentalbunny

1st February 2003, 19:40

deimos, hawarameen, do you really think the Kurds will be freed by this war? I suggest you think again...

kylie

1st February 2003, 19:57

the Kurds will have more freedom if things stay as they are.
the US has shown no interest at all in including them in any post-war government. it will remove the current border, basically putting things back to how they were before the gulf war.
this compares with what they have at the moment: territory in northern iraq that is not entered by any Iraqi military, and is left too nearly completely govern itself.

(Edited by feoric at 8:01 pm on Feb. 1, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

1st February 2003, 20:52

I can't believe it. You'all think that Kurds will have freedom through this war.

One side, is Turkey wich will stay hostile to Kurdistan and the other side a very angry Iraq population who will be bombed to create a Kurdish state.

We know what happens when you're surrounded by hostile nations. Par example Cuba, located in the backyard of the US.

Turkey has already made the PKK to an "terrorist organisation", the Party is already forbidden in the EU country's due to Turkish pressure.

So the Turks are not completly scared of the EU, when it comes to the Kurdish cause. This will disadvantage a future Kurdistan.

First we must win the people for our cause, then the governments.

hawarameen

2nd February 2003, 00:23

to those who ask if i think kurdistan will be free if america attacks.

if i knew what was going to happen i would a very special gift indeed and i do not think that any of you have this gift either.

but what i will say is that the lesser of two evils is george bush. those who say we would be better off under saddam really dont know what they are talking about.
people back home live their lives day by day not knowing if, when or how saddam is going to attack. the current economic situation in kurdistan is far better than that of iraq and saddam can easily march his troops back up north.
there is talk that the americans will support a federal republic of kurdistan within the iraqi border but for me this is still not enough.
turkey is growing weaker by the day and if it wants any kind of economy it must allow a federal kurdistan supported by the UN.
what it all boils down to is that america and primarily britain want somewhere in that area where they can exercise some influence and stabilise a hostile area.
i hope that we can take out future and shape it with our OWN hands so that we dont become another american state but more than anything i want an end to oppression and uncertainty.
if no-one does anything about saddam then we will always be oppressed and to be frank no-one will give a shit.
what did the world do when he gassed and killed 6000 people in a village?
what did the world do in his anfal campaign when hundreds of thousands were either killed moved or dissapeared?
what did the world do when he drove tens of thousand to the mountains?
5000 westeners die resulting from an act of terrorism and "the world changes"
i am prepared to take things step by step, if a federal government is set up, let turkey or iraq try and take it from me, i will die defending my country.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

2nd February 2003, 00:36

Nothing wrong coming up for your and other people's rights, as long as you don't get nationalistic.

hawarameen

2nd February 2003, 00:54

Quote: from CCCP on 12:36 am on Feb. 2, 2003
Nothing wrong coming up for your and other people's rights, as long as you don't get nationalistic.

if you have no pride in your place of birth, no loyalty to your people and no patriotism then i feel sorry for you.
do not assume that we are all like you. you seem to thing that being a nationalist and loving ones country is wrong, why?

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 00:59

I heard a great quote, forgot who said it though but it might have been Mandela, accusing Mr. Blair of being "Bush's Foreign Minister". That sums it up perfectly. Blair has successfully sold America's right to go to war to Europe's leaders. I don't see how any of us can be pro-War untill we see REAL evidence. How can they expect public acceptance if we aren't shown evidence that war is justified. I don't think there's point debating this war though. It's going to happen whatever.

hawarameen

2nd February 2003, 01:08

you must understand that i do not want the needless killing of people i am not heartless but the situation has made me selfish, i want my people to live in at least relative peace and if some iraqis have to die then so be it, it doesnt even begin to compare with the amount of innocent kurds that have died.
if i did not have a personal motive then i would be totaly against the war but until you understand my reasons you will always think that a thousand innocent lives saved now is better than 2000 innocent lives lost later.
the people of iraq even want war, what does this tell you!!

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 01:11

Do you know any good sites about the situation in Kurdistan? I want to know more. The biased media over here cover nothing useful

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 02:01

Quote: from mentalbunny on 3:12 pm on Jan. 30, 2003

Do you people really agree with a war where innocent people will be killed, just so bush can have his oil and can pretend to try to get rid of Saddam but will obviously fail? Maybe I'm biased but I'm sure there are other, more diplomatic options. Besides the US is hardly qualified to establish democracy in other countries when theyn do not truly have it in their own (otherwise Bush and his cronies would not be in power, Gore would).

do you really think there is anything stopping a world superpower from obtaining oil. Who is going to stop us from invading Kuwait or the entire middle east? This war is not for oil. That is a crock of shit. bush is already funding the creation of hydrogen powered cars. So please don't give me that stupid oil shit. For one thing, America could take all the oil they needed if they want to. Second, oil is soon to be a thing of the past.

yes, innocents will die in the world. Death is a horrible thing. But how many countless other Iraqi civilians will be killed if we let this madman stay in power. what if they are developing nuclear weapons with the capability of reaching us. How many American people will have to die then?

and as far as it concerns me, I think that America is one of the most qualified countries to establish democracy. I do not like how they tie democracy with capitalism however I do believe in their concept of democracy. We are a democracy. bush is not an authoritarian dictator. If you think that bush is a dictator, then you are spoiled as you have not had to endure the torture of suffering under a REAL dictator. Believe me, had you really lived under Pinochet or Stalin, you would not be complaining about America being a dictatorship. I am certainly not a flag waving patriot who chants "land of the free, land of the free" but I do think that America is a land of Democracy. Bush won the election fairly as much as it may bother us all to have an idiot running the country.

As far as I see it, only good things will come from the war. Innocents will die yes, as is the price of every war. However this war is quite necessary. It is a war to remove a madman from office. I would be the last to oppose Sadam's exile however it will only be a matter of time before he returns to power if he even agrees to it in the first place which he won't. It would all be wonderful if sadam would just up that would be wonderful however things are much more complicated than that. And the sooner these European countries give up this stupid fucking idea that america is in this world for oil, the better we will all be. I hate the fact that america is a massive imperialist enterprise as well and I can understand europe's die hard hatred towards america. And I can see why europe hates america as much as the next person. they are entitled to their hatred as well. but I must say that those European countries which are now supporting america's war in Iraq are the ones I truly admire. They are putting aside their hatred for the benefit of the Iraqy people who have deserved democracy for only too long.

conclusively, diplomatic solutions have been attempted for 12 dam years. there are no diplomatic solutions when you are dealing with a madman with the mindset of Hitler. War is our only logical solution as much as it may hurt us to think of war.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 2:07 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 02:10

You're right. Although I think oil is on the back of their minds, fact is that Hussein is a madman. A tyrant. The Islamic people despise him. He gives Islam a bad name. War is a last resort. Although it isn't Bush's last resort, I think it is somewhat justified. The fact is, people have to die in war.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 02:12

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 2:10 am on Feb. 2, 2003
You're right. Although I think oil is on the back of their minds, fact is that Hussein is a madman. A tyrant. The Islamic people despise him. He gives Islam a bad name. War is a last resort. Although it isn't Bush's last resort, I think it is somewhat justified. The fact is, people have to die in war.

thank god. I am glad there is at least one logical person on this site who knows the true terror that sadam is capable. Honestly....who doesn't despise Sadam? who doesn't hate him with an undefineable passion?

If I captured him, I would have him portered

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 02:20

Quote: from hawarameen on 12:54 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from CCCP on 12:36 am on Feb. 2, 2003
Nothing wrong coming up for your and other people's rights, as long as you don't get nationalistic.

if you have no pride in your place of birth, no loyalty to your people and no patriotism then i feel sorry for you.
do not assume that we are all like you. you seem to thing that being a nationalist and loving ones country is wrong, why?

I suppose because countries and borders are ruling class design. They don't exist by nature, they are used to create wars, split the human race and control the people within them. Nationalism is just a little better than high school pride. There is no logic in having pride for the dirt you were born in or to think the people in your country are better than other human residing in other dirt defined by imaginary map borders. National pride is almost always the first match that gets striked up in the general populace to incite the powers of a war. A war to kill other people who just want to live their lives and since we know that wars have only one function the conquest and aquisition of wealth.

Countries and Nationalism make me sick.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 02:44

Quote: from exploitedclass on 2:20 am on Feb. 2, 2003

I suppose because countries and borders are ruling class design. They don't exist by nature, they are used to create wars, split the human race and control the people within them. Nationalism is just a little better than high school pride. There is no logic in having pride for the dirt you were born in or to think the people in your country are better than other human residing in other dirt defined by imaginary map borders. National pride is almost always the first match that gets striked up in the general populace to incite the powers of a war. A war to kill other people who just want to live their lives and since we know that wars have only one function the conquest and aquisition of wealth.

Countries and Nationalism make me sick.

what is wrong with having pride in your country? certainly chavinism is nothing to be proud of. I would have no respect for anyone who thinks that their country is better than anyone else's either however I don't have any problem with those who are proud of their country. I know Mexicans who are proud to be from Mexico, Norwegians who are proud to from Norway, etc etc. I think you are confusing nationalism with chauvinism which is the belief that your country is more superior than any other. It is fascism in a sense. Nationalism is merely having national pride.

i also disagree with you that wars are based on the accumulation and of wealth. I don't remember the bolsheviks fighting for money or che and his cuban guerilla warriors fighting for large sums of money either. And they were no less wars than the world wars or vietnam. this reminds me, was vietnam a war for wealth either? no it was a war to stop communism. this can be associated with the accumulation of wealth but it is also a little more complex than that. The point I am trying to make is that you are incorrect in your statement about all wars being induced for the function of obtaining wealth.

I do agree with you though that nationalism is often times the first match that gets striked in any major conflict between two countries. A prime example of this would be world war one and even world war two. So yes, nationalism is often reputable for leading to senseless wars and intolerance and therefore is not always condoned by people who don't truly understand its simple definition-national pride.

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 02:54

do you really think there is anything stopping a world superpower from obtaining oil. Who is going to stop us from invading Kuwait or the entire middle east? This war is not for oil. That is a crock of shit. bush is already funding the creation of hydrogen powered cars. So please don't give me that stupid oil shit. For one thing, America could take all the oil they needed if they want to. Second, oil is soon to be a thing of the past.

Are you communist or a socialist? Do you even understand what the Beaguoise will do in order to obtain and hold onto wealth and power? Bush isn't trying to develop hydrogen power, do you think just because he makes a BOLD statement like he has to be telling the truth?

A. He is giving tax dollars from the working class to the ruling class with no instructions on how the auto industry spends it. He isn't making any requirements for them to show any evidence of advancements in this technology field.

B. It is a statement to deflect any heat from him that this war is about oil. He is counting on people to think he is telling the truth so somebody can say what you just said.

The ruling class wants money and power ALWAYS. If you think that a man who's family made money by selling goods to NAZI germany, who's father headed the CIA and whose family's money comes 90% from oil is waging a war on a country drenched in oil for any other reason is crazy. For fuck's sake in mainstream news Bush and his heads of the cabinet are looking into International Law on what they can do with the oil fields once they take over Iraq. They are being blatant about it.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/852694.asp?0sl=-12&cp1=1
The United States plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades and is looking into the possibility of ramping up oil production beyond the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay for post-war reconstruction, Bush administration officials said on Sunday.

Perhaps if you understood that the only time there has ever been a "Peace Time" inflation in the united states was when there was an embargo of oil on the united states from OPEC. Or how about the time that IRAN wanted to stop their oil from being privatized and nationalized their oil program. What happened in IRAN after they did that? What did the united states do to that country's leader right after they chose to do that? They removed him from power, then stuck somebody else in power so they could get their precious oil.

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 03:00

I don't remember the bolsheviks fighting for money or che and his cuban guerilla warriors fighting for large sums of money either.

Evidently you don't know the difference between social revolutions and wars.

Wealth = power and power = wealth. Vietnam was not an all out war of direct aquasition of wealth, but would remove the American power in that region. Cambodia and other countries in that area preparing for a social revolution would also abandon america, making it harder for America to keep or have any power (wealth) in that region. Communism was the pumped up fear poured on Americans to incite them to go to war. It was "American" to hate communism.

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 03:05

[i]certainly chavinism is nothing to be proud of. I would have no respect for anyone who thinks that their country is better than anyone else's either however I don't have any problem with those who are proud of their country.[/]

You are confusing heritage with country.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:08

Quote: from exploitedclass on 3:00 am on Feb. 2, 2003
I don't remember the bolsheviks fighting for money or che and his cuban guerilla warriors fighting for large sums of money either.

Evidently you don't know the difference between social revolutions and wars.

Wealth = power and power = wealth. Vietnam was not an all out war of direct aquasition of wealth, but would remove the American power in that region. Cambodia and other countries in that area preparing for a social revolution would also abandon america, making it harder for America to keep or have any power (wealth) in that region. Communism was the pumped up fear poured on Americans to incite them to go to war. It was "American" to hate communism.

if there is large scale fighting involved, it is a war. The civil war was a revolution, it remains a war nonetheless.

and I already stated that Vietnam could have had some ties to the accumulation of wealth as you stated. I stand corrected on that stance but I remain convinced that your opinion regarding all wars being fought for the accumulation of wealth is incorrect.

why is a revolution not a war?

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:09

Quote: from exploitedclass on 3:05 am on Feb. 2, 2003
[i]certainly chavinism is nothing to be proud of. I would have no respect for anyone who thinks that their country is better than anyone else's either however I don't have any problem with those who are proud of their country.[/]

You are confusing heritage with country.

I am NOT confusing heritage with country. I have no problem with anyone who is proud of their country or heritage.

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 03:15

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:08 am on Feb. 2, 2003

why is a revolution not a war?

Wars are waged by nations against other countries. Revolutions are internal and not created by the ruling class, in fact it is to change the ruling class. Revolutions are internal, wars are conscription forces and waged outside the borders.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:15

Quote: from exploitedclass on 2:54 am on Feb. 2, 2003
do you really think there is anything stopping a world superpower from obtaining oil. Who is going to stop us from invading Kuwait or the entire middle east? This war is not for oil. That is a crock of shit. bush is already funding the creation of hydrogen powered cars. So please don't give me that stupid oil shit. For one thing, America could take all the oil they needed if they want to. Second, oil is soon to be a thing of the past.

Are you communist or a socialist? Do you even understand what the Beaguoise will do in order to obtain and hold onto wealth and power? Bush isn't trying to develop hydrogen power, do you think just because he makes a BOLD statement like he has to be telling the truth?

A. He is giving tax dollars from the working class to the ruling class with no instructions on how the auto industry spends it. He isn't making any requirements for them to show any evidence of advancements in this technology field.

B. It is a statement to deflect any heat from him that this war is about oil. He is counting on people to think he is telling the truth so somebody can say what you just said.

The ruling class wants money and power ALWAYS. If you think that a man who's family made money by selling goods to NAZI germany, who's father headed the CIA and whose family's money comes 90% from oil is waging a war on a country drenched in oil for any other reason is crazy. For fuck's sake in mainstream news Bush and his heads of the cabinet are looking into International Law on what they can do with the oil fields once they take over Iraq. They are being blatant about it.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/852694.asp?0sl=-12&cp1=1
The United States plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades and is looking into the possibility of ramping up oil production beyond the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay for post-war reconstruction, Bush administration officials said on Sunday.

Perhaps if you understood that the only time there has ever been a "Peace Time" inflation in the united states was when there was an embargo of oil on the united states from OPEC. Or how about the time that IRAN wanted to stop their oil from being privatized and nationalized their oil program. What happened in IRAN after they did that? What did the united states do to that country's leader right after they chose to do that? They removed him from power, then stuck somebody else in power so they could get their precious oil.

you are not answering my question. what is stopping america from taking all the oil in the world? we are the largest imperial power in the world. Why don't we simply invade Kuwait and take their oil? nobody can stop us. America is undefeatable. If bourgeoisie will do anything for wealth then why don't they do ANYTHING?

and the world must also find a new form of energy other than oil. your grandchildren if not your children will see the extinction of oil in their lifetime. We must find a new source of energy other than oil. I am not convinced therefore, that bush is making bold faced lies about funding research for hydrogen powered cars. It makes less sense to that he is lieing to get the heat off his back than it does tht he is truly dedicated to helping future generations finding a new source of energy.

and your article on america taking iraqs oil does not prove anything. It states that america will take the war after the war. and this is after the war at that. It is to help prevent the recession that results from disarmament. If they take the oil, boo hoo. it's the repayment they deserve from liberating the Iraqi people from a madman.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:19

Quote: from exploitedclass on 3:15 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:08 am on Feb. 2, 2003

why is a revolution not a war?

Wars are waged by nations against other countries. Revolutions are internal and not created by the ruling class, in fact it is to change the ruling class. Revolutions are internal, wars are conscription forces and waged outside the borders.

and why must a war be defined by nations fighting other nations? was not the civil war a revolution?

I suppose you can look at the civil war as being a war between two nations (union, confederacy) in which case you would be correct. But does a war really involve two seperate nations? I would disagree. I would define it as the use of a massive scale of violence as a means solve a conflict.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:20 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 03:19

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:09 am on Feb. 2, 2003
I am NOT confusing heritage with country. I have no problem with anyone who is proud of their country or heritage.

Okay, then what is it of a country to be proud of?

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 03:23

You're being too reactionary. Be realistic. Be rational. Saddam is murdering his own people. HIS OWN people. When you do that, you deserve to be ousted at least. You must look at the orthodox side of it. There are many arguments against war, but the underlying fact is that the Islamic world hates Saddam. He is tarnishing Islam. And he is killing his own people.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:28

ok then, what is it of a country to be proud of?

how about democracy, economic superstructure, domestic policy, foreign policy, elected officials, government in general...etc etc.....take your pick

(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:29 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:31 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:34

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:23 am on Feb. 2, 2003
You're being too reactionary. Be realistic. Be rational. Saddam is murdering his own people. HIS OWN people. When you do that, you deserve to be ousted at least. You must look at the orthodox side of it. There are many arguments against war, but the underlying fact is that the Islamic world hates Saddam. He is tarnishing Islam. And he is killing his own people.

I agree, even if you think that america is the big bad imperial army trying to rob the poor little iraqis of their oil, how can you not support the war? are you telling me that you would not for one second, support the elimination of sadam? as socialsm says, be realistic. how many people have to die under sadam before we realize the Hitler he truly is?

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 03:44

Bit inslulting towards Hitler there!

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:46

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:44 am on Feb. 2, 2003
Bit inslulting towards Hitler there!

lol

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 03:48

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:19 am on Feb. 2, 2003

and why must a war be defined by nations fighting other nations? was not the civil war a revolution?

I suppose you can look at the civil war as being a war between two nations (union, confederacy) in which case you would be correct. But does a war really involve two seperate nations? I would disagree. I would define it as the use of a massive scale of violence as a means solve a conflict.
(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:20 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

Civil war for several reasons isn't a revolution.
1. The people didn't overthrow the government or people in charge, the states of the southern nation the people already in power succeeded from a larger nation.

It is a war because the North left its borders and attacked the south.

[i]I would define it as the use of a massive scale of violence as a means solve a conflict.[/]
Sure some revolutions do involve violence on large or small scales. But they have distinct differences between wars.
Like this, there are a lot of trees in the world (massive scale of violence) but there are different trees, you can't say an oak tree is identical to a fir tree or a palm tree. Bushes share much in common with a tree but are not a tree. They all have different definitions.
What seperates wars from revolutions is, wars are directed by people in power - one nation against another nation. Revolutions are internal, inside a nation, by the people to take away power from people within their nation. They can be funded from outside their nation, but are still by the people of that nation or area. Like India wasn't a country till after the British Empire left, it was a bunch of little countries, feudal systems but then united because of Ghandi. That was a revolution of half violence, no violence used by the revolutionaries but recieved by those in power (both british and indian/hindi pushta...)

Revolutions are not wars, if they were then we would call them wars. But we don't because they have different directions, different reasons for existing. I think you pointing one of those out, Wars are for aquisition of wealth, were as Bolshivik and Cuban revolutions were not for wealth. You made that assesment on your own and you were already clearly seeing the differences between the two.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 03:52

Quote: from exploitedclass on 3:48 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:19 am on Feb. 2, 2003

and why must a war be defined by nations fighting other nations? was not the civil war a revolution?

I suppose you can look at the civil war as being a war between two nations (union, confederacy) in which case you would be correct. But does a war really involve two seperate nations? I would disagree. I would define it as the use of a massive scale of violence as a means solve a conflict.
(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:20 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

Civil war for several reasons isn't a revolution.
1. The people didn't overthrow the government or people in charge, the states of the southern nation the people already in power succeeded from a larger nation.

It is a war because the North left its borders and attacked the south.

[i]I would define it as the use of a massive scale of violence as a means solve a conflict.[/]
Sure some revolutions do involve violence on large or small scales. But they have distinct differences between wars.
Like this, there are a lot of trees in the world (massive scale of violence) but there are different trees, you can't say an oak tree is identical to a fir tree or a palm tree. Bushes share much in common with a tree but are not a tree. They all have different definitions.
What seperates wars from revolutions is, wars are directed by people in power - one nation against another nation. Revolutions are internal, inside a nation, by the people to take away power from people within their nation. They can be funded from outside their nation, but are still by the people of that nation or area. Like India wasn't a country till after the British Empire left, it was a bunch of little countries, feudal systems but then united because of Ghandi. That was a revolution of half violence, no violence used by the revolutionaries but recieved by those in power (both british and indian/hindi pushta...)

Revolutions are not wars, if they were then we would call them wars. But we don't because they have different directions, different reasons for existing. I think you pointing one of those out, Wars are for aquisition of wealth, were as Bolshivik and Cuban revolutions were not for wealth. You made that assesment on your own and you were already clearly seeing the differences between the two.

very well. I stand corrected. I was wrong. I have nothing to refute your statement. Furthermore, from what I can tell, you are probably correct in your statement that all wars if not most of them are focused on the accumulation of wealth.

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 03:57

Im not claiming to know anything about the civil war, because I don't. But how can you say revolution isnt war? It's a revolutionary war. I really do not understand your statement. How can a revolutionary war, not be a war?

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 04:19

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:34 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:23 am on Feb. 2, 2003
You're being too reactionary. Be realistic. Be rational. Saddam is murdering his own people. HIS OWN people. When you do that, you deserve to be ousted at least. You must look at the orthodox side of it. There are many arguments against war, but the underlying fact is that the Islamic world hates Saddam. He is tarnishing Islam. And he is killing his own people.

I agree, even if you think that america is the big bad imperial army trying to rob the poor little iraqis of their oil, how can you not support the war? are you telling me that you would not for one second, support the elimination of sadam? as socialsm says, be realistic. how many people have to die under sadam before we realize the Hitler he truly is?

Okay he is nothing like Hitler and trying to build him up like that is a strawman and a tactic used by Bush or others to try and drum up support for the war. He isn't a good guy, and I doubt that me not supporting a war with Iraq automaticly says I support Saddam. People for war with Iraq would like that to be the only two choices because it makes it much easier to dislike those who do not want a war.
"What you don't want to go to war with Iraq? Then you must like Saddam, and Saddam is Hitler so you like Hitler...." which is total bullshit. I don't have to hate the idea of us going into a country killing innocent people, deystroying people's lives to remove somebody from power that hasn't done a damn thing in over 13 years.
And comparing him with Hitler, is just to vilanize him. Make it easier to hate him.
Hitler did the following - took over most of Europe, puts over 6 million people on trains made them work then killed them and put them through horrible medical tests. Hitler made treaties with countries and then broke the treaties and attacked the countries. Hitler aquired almost a whole continent and parts of another continent. Hitler also formed alliances with Italy and Japan to do so.

If you want to go to war with Saddam for gasing kurds, then you have to preach a war with Turkey who has done things to kurds that make Saddam look like a nice humanitarian. Saddam going to war with Kuwait? Well he was just trying to aquire land that Britain broke up, which once was Iraq when they left their control of the middle east. The exact same reasons why India is in a fight with Pakistan, when Britian leaves a place they make new borders, borders that people of the nations disagree with. Britian basically created a country where there wasn't one before.
His war with Iran, which he was funded by the country that now wants to take him out of power doesn't count, because if America is a good country then that must of been a good reason to go to war. Why else would we sell weapons to them.

even if you think that america is the big bad imperial army trying to rob the poor little iraqis of their oil, how can you not support the war?
How sick does an individual have to be to support the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Maybe 10's of thousands? What ever number has came up for the number of people Saddam has killed you can bet America is going to kill even more. How can anybody be for that? What sick kind of person wants children and men and women killed by missles? Who can want those innocent people to sit in their homes all night and all day huddeled together hearing bombs drop all around them for days, shaking and pissing their pants so scared that one of these weapons will explode next to or on their home, killing maybe all of them maybe just the parents who are covered over the top of their children? Who wants to see thousands of people living life after the war with missing arms, missing eyes, bomb blast burns for the rest of their lives? What sick individual would be for a 9 year old child to lose his legs and forever have to be in a wheel chair? How many of those do you have to see to know that war is not the answer to anything?

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 04:28

It's not a case of wanting people to die. War is war, It is no meant to be nice. People will die. Probably lots of people. It's the way it works. In your objection to comparing Hussein with Hitler. You're right. Hussein is more of a Stalin. Doing it to his OWN people. His OWN countrymen. Testing his weapons on Iraqi civilians. And dont come back with your, "That's what Bush says" bullshit. I am from the Middle East and read the weekly Urdu newspaper. Opinion in the Middle East is against Saddam. We do not hear half the stories about what he does to his people. The American propaganda machine has been generous this time around. Ok, there's no evidence of weapons yet. But why the need to search for weapons? He is killing his own people. For no reason. Repression would be the most incredible understatement.

You are right about the post-Britain borders. Britain's Empire fucked up a lot of Africa and, of course, India.

But the fact is, Saddam Hussein is brutally killing innocent Iraqi's. More than you see on the news here in the West. He must be stopped. Fuck the al-Qaeda "links" fuck the "weapons of mass destruction". The man is killing his own fuckin innocent people. One incident never reported here, Hussein blew up a Mosque, during prayer. All those devout Muslims, dead. Why? No reason. It's sickening.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 04:28

Quote: from exploitedclass on 4:19 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:34 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 3:23 am on Feb. 2, 2003
You're being too reactionary. Be realistic. Be rational. Saddam is murdering his own people. HIS OWN people. When you do that, you deserve to be ousted at least. You must look at the orthodox side of it. There are many arguments against war, but the underlying fact is that the Islamic world hates Saddam. He is tarnishing Islam. And he is killing his own people.

I agree, even if you think that america is the big bad imperial army trying to rob the poor little iraqis of their oil, how can you not support the war? are you telling me that you would not for one second, support the elimination of sadam? as socialsm says, be realistic. how many people have to die under sadam before we realize the Hitler he truly is?

Okay he is nothing like Hitler and trying to build him up like that is a strawman and a tactic used by Bush or others to try and drum up support for the war. He isn't a good guy, and I doubt that me not supporting a war with Iraq automaticly says I support Saddam. People for war with Iraq would like that to be the only two choices because it makes it much easier to dislike those who do not want a war.
"What you don't want to go to war with Iraq? Then you must like Saddam, and Saddam is Hitler so you like Hitler...." which is total bullshit. I don't have to hate the idea of us going into a country killing innocent people, deystroying people's lives to remove somebody from power that hasn't done a damn thing in over 13 years.
And comparing him with Hitler, is just to vilanize him. Make it easier to hate him.
Hitler did the following - took over most of Europe, puts over 6 million people on trains made them work then killed them and put them through horrible medical tests. Hitler made treaties with countries and then broke the treaties and attacked the countries. Hitler aquired almost a whole continent and parts of another continent. Hitler also formed alliances with Italy and Japan to do so.

If you want to go to war with Saddam for gasing kurds, then you have to preach a war with Turkey who has done things to kurds that make Saddam look like a nice humanitarian. Saddam going to war with Kuwait? Well he was just trying to aquire land that Britain broke up, which once was Iraq when they left their control of the middle east. The exact same reasons why India is in a fight with Pakistan, when Britian leaves a place they make new borders, borders that people of the nations disagree with. Britian basically created a country where there wasn't one before.
His war with Iran, which he was funded by the country that now wants to take him out of power doesn't count, because if America is a good country then that must of been a good reason to go to war. Why else would we sell weapons to them.

even if you think that america is the big bad imperial army trying to rob the poor little iraqis of their oil, how can you not support the war?
How sick does an individual have to be to support the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Maybe 10's of thousands? What ever number has came up for the number of people Saddam has killed you can bet America is going to kill even more. How can anybody be for that? What sick kind of person wants children and men and women killed by missles? Who can want those innocent people to sit in their homes all night and all day huddeled together hearing bombs drop all around them for days, shaking and pissing their pants so scared that one of these weapons will explode next to or on their home, killing maybe all of them maybe just the parents who are covered over the top of their children? Who wants to see thousands of people living life after the war with missing arms, missing eyes, bomb blast burns for the rest of their lives? What sick individual would be for a 9 year old child to lose his legs and forever have to be in a wheel chair? How many of those do you have to see to know that war is not the answer to anything?

I highly doubt that america is going to kill more civilians than sadam has. American troops would have to go on a killing spree to do that. as I said before and will say again. How many children with missing legs and eyeballs and penisis..etc etc. will there have to be before you remove Sadam. Sadam IS in fact on the same page as Hitler. I never said he was the man but his evil is catching up. He is as capable of as much damage both physically and psychologically as Hitler. This is why I compare the two. You are making things too simple. I never said that people who don't support the war are evil. Certainly not. On the contrary. I see their point. They are concerned for the lives of people whcih requires a lgreat amount of compassion however I see that those who support the war are not truly aware of the damage that sadam is capable of. Not just to his own people but to the world. If we allow this crisis to go on any further, the consequences will be priceless. to think that America is going to kill more people than sadam is just silly. If you believe this than you are obviously not aware of the new technological enhancements the military has created resulting in a minimum amount of casualties. unless America were to create their own death camps where iraqis were systematically executed, the amount of iraqi casualties will be far less than the amount under 20 or so years of rule under a ruthless dictator.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 4:31 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

Exploited Class

2nd February 2003, 04:31

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:52 am on Feb. 2, 2003

very well. I stand corrected. I was wrong. I have nothing to refute your statement. Furthermore, from what I can tell, you are probably correct in your statement that all wars if not most of them are focused on the accumulation of wealth.

You sir, Rock! If you would have said something about the Korea War, I doubt I coul have used that to my advantage. Mainly because I only some trivial information on that war, like major players, dates, strategies.ect..ect.

Everything I learned about wars, history comes a lot from Howard Zinn. A radical Historian who is maybe one if not the most important informational writers of our time. He uses some excellent resources and I learn just so much from him. Like I didn't know about segergation at public libraries. He was in the thick of the Civil Rights movement in America. If you read anything of importance that would be it. A lot of people on this board agree. The People's History of the United States, great book.

man in the red suit

2nd February 2003, 04:34

Quote: from exploitedclass on 4:31 am on Feb. 2, 2003[br
Everything I learned about wars, history comes a lot from Howard Zinn. A radical Historian who is maybe one if not the most important informational writers of our time. He uses some excellent resources and I learn just so much from him. Like I didn't know about segergation at public libraries. He was in the thick of the Civil Rights movement in America. If you read anything of importance that would be it. A lot of people on this board agree. The People's History of the United States, great book.

alright then I will be sure to read the book then. thank you for recomending it to me.

deimos

2nd February 2003, 14:49

And I thought I am the only one on this board who is for this war. Sure, Iraq will be a US sattelite after the war, but this is even better than Saddam. I know, from very, very reliable sources that the US want to create the federalistic republic of Iraq. iraq will be divided in 3 parts.
1) Northern Iraq(Kurdistan) Like it is now, but the state will contain kirkuk aswell.
2)Central Iraq. The state for the sunnites(or shiites, not sure now) containing Bagdad
3)Southern Iraq For the shiites/sunites, major city Basra

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

2nd February 2003, 15:05

Quote: from hawarameen on 12:54 am on Feb. 2, 2003

Quote: from CCCP on 12:36 am on Feb. 2, 2003
Nothing wrong coming up for your and other people's rights, as long as you don't get nationalistic.

if you have no pride in your place of birth, no loyalty to your people and no patriotism then i feel sorry for you.
do not assume that we are all like you. you seem to thing that being a nationalist and loving ones country is wrong, why?

Loving your place of birth is something different than killing others for it.

I love moscow, but I wouldn't ever kill people for a "greater moscow".

You didn't choose your place of birth, so why would you be proud.

How can you be proud of your nation, you didn't built it. You can only be proud of your own achievements.

We are all human and no border is going to change that.

Letting us leading by our differences isn't the way to socialism.

I feel sorry if your filled with hatred, because of "your" people.

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 15:15

""if you have no pride in your place of birth, no loyalty to your people and no patriotism then i feel sorry for you.
do not assume that we are all like you. you seem to thing that being a nationalist and loving ones country is wrong, why?""

Nationalism created Mussolini's Fascism, Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Hitler's Nazism.

THAT is the problem with Nationalism

Tasha

2nd February 2003, 23:39

Iraq has 2nd largest oil reserve in world (next to Saudi Arabia). Well if you want to get rid of nuclear threat and so called "evil" in this world why not attack pakistan, Israel etc...... The truth is evil and good do not exist in this world. They are merely different perspectives. They can only be used as expressions.

One important thing that many Americans do not think about is that everything happens for a reason. Saddam is not born evil and hates USA from birth. He is like every other human being whatever he experiences through his life builds up to who he is (Hitler another example of this). When you see lots of Anti-Americans there is a very sounding reason for that, the US turns around and screws everyone in the ass for their own interests. One good example the iran-iraq war, during this time Iran had a puppet regime loyal to the United states practically giving them oil. At this time the US was opposed to Iraq.

The people making a smart move revolted in Iran and threw over a puppet government to create a new one (not the best government however much better than the puppet regime). Saddam realized this could happen in Iraq as well. Saddam then attacked Iran, Iran not being well equipped at the time defended themselves and began to win the war with the majority of Iranians equipped with pitchforks and knives. The United states then came into the war giving Iraq sattelite intelligence, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and many other benefits.

In the end of the war the entire tide had changed due to the US efforts. 1 million people died due to this war (many of them civilians, including civilians victimized by chemical and biological warfare). 700,000 being iranian. Today the US points at Iran as being an evil country because of the amount of anti-americanism and they can't get their precious oil anymore. Quite ironic that the truth is the opposite if you know the facts. Later on after the war the U.S turns on Iraq as well. The U.S clearly has no intention of making peace in the world.

As far as hydrogen powered cars go. It takes ALOT of time for anything to be in mass production and I mean ALOT. Not only this but before this time comes you must create an efficient product. Then you have everything else using oil including airplanes. Hydrogen power is besides the issue at this point in time.

The Us clearly does not want countries that it has bad diplomatic relations with to have nuclear weapons. Why you ask the reason is simple. The Us will claim they are a threat and will launch a nuke on the US. If anyone launches a nuke it will either be influenced by the US, the cause of the US, or the US itself. Countries want to develop nuclear weapons so that they have a say so in the world, so that they dont have to be bullied around by nations like the US.

How do we judge people? We judge them by their actions in the past. The united states is scared of a nuclear strike. If they started treating other countries right they woudn't have to be scared because there would be no where near the opposition there is today because of their actions. Another important fact I would like to address is that the United States is the only country to use nuclear attacks. Bush also threatened that if Iraq used chemical or biological agents on their troops that he would not rule out using nukes on Iraq. If this is not evil or sick I don't know what is. Let's see what would happen if we nuked Iraq. Saddam Hussein would clearly see it coming and escape. Possibly millions of innocent people would be affected. The fact that the U.S believes their soldiers are many more times as valuable as any other countries civilians sickens me.

Saying I want 1 man out of power because his views are to my disliking, sure many thousand innocent people can die. This kind of concluding is outright arrogant when you have no information on the subject at hand. True intentions are as clear as daylight, an educated non-biased person can easily identify them.

Another thing that I hear alot that is really irritating is when people say "War isn't pretty and many innocent people will die but it has to be done". Again another example of arrogance, clearly it does not have to be done. Oh sure if you want your precious oil it has to be done, but we are talking about innocent lives here. Lets create a scenario: Iraq is a super power, USA is a small country with lots of precious resources to the world. Iraq is going to attack the United States because they dont like his leader, many US civilians will die but it has to be done to get the leader out of power. Iraq is clearly targeting the USA out of other countries in the world with the same circumstances because of the resources. Iraq then states that if the U.S uses possibly their only effective defence chemical or biological on Iraqi troops they will nuke the biggest civilian populant city. You being an american how would you feel you and your family being put in danger for this stupid cause. People need to open their eyes and not just go with the flow of what is happening, doing so is outright arrogant. You can be on Bush's side and be patriotic, the truth is though you would be very unpatriotic. Be on one side, be on side with humanity in general.

hawarameen

2nd February 2003, 23:54

my nation is a part of me, it lives within me, everyday i wake up with immense gratitude that despite all our woes i am kurdish.

i do not claim that i am better than you for being kurdish but you will never know grateful you should be for something until you dont have it.

it sadens me when people lack patriotism in their country simply because you were born with an identity and i am not. i (according to the world) am only part of a group of people simply refered to as iraqi.
we have our own language, our own culture, beliefs and heritage so why am i still classed as an iraqi?

in any situation extremism will create disturbed individuals, i am not a fascist i simply love my country. if this was the case in the rest of the world then we are a planet full of fascists.

CCCP what would happen if someone invaded moscow killed tens of thousands of its cavillians (some of whom may be your own family) and live the rest of your life in uncertainty and fear? would you still welcome those perpetraitors with loving arms??

like i have said, saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of kurds but this doesnt seem to matter to anyone, it is a matter for the iraqi people.
sure it may get a few hours on the news and the odd celebrity may release a song on the back of it but what then? OLD NEWS, NO-ONE IMPORTANT DIED. 5000 people sadly died in america and only then does something need to be done about evil dictators.

for more info the kurdish parties in iraq have web pages two are www.kdp.org and www.puk.org. there is also a newspaper called the kurdish observer online

incidently revolution is the masses declaring war on an oppresive regime which they feel needs changing

[tried the kdp link but having problems will sought out soon, puk link ok]

(Edited by hawarameen at 12:02 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

Socialsmo o Muerte

2nd February 2003, 23:55

Of course war is neccessary in some circumstances and innocent people will die. You live in a fantasy world.

Socialsmo o Muerte

3rd February 2003, 00:01

Hats off to harawameen. I think that is clearly the best thread on this topic. Without trying to sound like an ass licker!

And thanks for the links. Any other sites you can reccommend where I can learn more about the situation for Kurds please email me.... [email protected]

hawarameen

3rd February 2003, 00:05

lol, thanks

its easy to express yourself when you feel so pasionately about what you are talking about

Socialsmo o Muerte

3rd February 2003, 00:13

harawameen. It's not very clear. Are you for or against a war on Iraq?

hawarameen

3rd February 2003, 00:47

i am for a war on iraq simply because it is the only way the kurds are going to get anything. it will take a dramatic change in iraq for us to get anything and this will not be done by a slap on the wrists of saddam

Tasha

3rd February 2003, 00:54

Socialsmo apparently you live in a fantasy world, Give me one scenario in which war is necessary and tell me why iraqs war is necessary. I'd also like to see some facts backing these up as I did in my previous post.

(Edited by Tasha at 12:55 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

Beccie

3rd February 2003, 01:21

hawarameen :

I really do feel sorry for you. If I were in your situation maybe I would fell the same way, I don’t know. But no good could come out of the war on iraq.

No offence but do you honestly think your freedom is worth the lives of so many Iraqi civilians. That is why I hate nationalism so much it breeds hatred, you cannot justify the killing of a person. We are part of the human race and we should all be equal. No one deserves to die for the selfish reasons of another person.

George Bush does not give a fuck about your freedom or weapons of mass destruction. Before 1990 Saddam was backed by the US, they chose to ignore his use of weapons chemical weapons on Kurds and Irani people. How is the US going to disarm Saddam? Does Bush plan to drop weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi civilians? How Ironic.

Maybe the world did nothing whilst your people suffered but trust me when I say people do feel for you and what you have gone through because of Saddam. Like I said before, the killing of a person cannot be justified. Saddam must be overthrown but at what expense? There must be a better way then war.

I am really sorry if I have offended you. I hope that one day you and everyone else in this crazy world can truly be free……

(Edited by Commie01 at 1:22 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

(Edited by Commie01 at 1:29 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

hawarameen

3rd February 2003, 14:15

for me not only is the freedom of current and future generations worth the death of some iraqi cavilians ut is is also worth the death of some kurdish soldiers if it came down to civil war.
i am not advocating hate or racism towards and nation, i dont want iraqis to die simply because they are iraqi, on the whole they are a good people and have also suffered but in order to rid oneself of oppression and tyrany a nation must accept the loss of lives now in order for the many generations to live in peace.
the environment you live in now isnt based soley on you, you must think of the kind of world you are leaving your children. if i had kids and living in iraq i would not want them to grow up in such an oppresive country, i would do anything for my kids and if it meant giving my life so that they would be free i and many others would do it.
i do not consider my above reason a selfish one, it is not selfish to want your children to grow up happy and in peace.
Bush may not give a fuck about my freedom but if he wants to set up a free epublic for his own ends then for me this is one step away from tyrany and one towards freedom. i know that people were shocked at what happened at halabja but this didnt seem to justify any action, why? the same amount of people died in new york and the whole world gets together.
kuwait with a population of 1 million justified the world in driving saddam back yet when millions of people were driven into the mountains following the gulf war this was not deemed important.
the only language sadam knows is war, i get the impression that people think saddam opperates like another human being, when one does not listen there is no point talking.
you havnt offended me do not wory, you have your views and from my perspective i disagree with them this is not to say that you are wrong.

oki

3rd February 2003, 14:44

turkye is allready mobilising to the border with Irak to make sure kurds don't flee there or take land.
by the way it could very well be that there will be a deal between US and kurds and turkye about a kurdish state in irak.the US needs the kurds for the war,but they will demand sutch a guarantee for sure other wise they will not help the US,who betrayed them the last time.this would allso be good for turkye since then the kurds in turkye would probebly go and live there.

still,hawarameen,I cant support this war because of this.there is a big chance even your people will be fucked once again,loose lots of people in battle and end up with nothing. the reagon has a lot of oil and the US will not give up control of that.allso,turkye could see a kurdish independent state as a threath ,certainly when it gets militairy capability.they might fight even more for their land in turkye.so don't get your hopes all up,is my advice.

hawarameen

3rd February 2003, 14:53

my hopes are always up.
you seem to think that i dont know whats going on oki, i am well aware of turkey and its objections but this doesnt meen that i haveto lie back and accept things the way they are. do you think that we should just hope that he wont kill toomany more kurds in the future??
with all due respect this does not affect you so it doesnt matter to you if saddam stays or goes this is personal for me, why cant anyone understand?

Socialsmo o Muerte

3rd February 2003, 16:13

Quote: from Tasha on 12:54 am on Feb. 3, 2003
Socialsmo apparently you live in a fantasy world, Give me one scenario in which war is necessary and tell me why iraqs war is necessary. I'd also like to see some facts backing these up as I did in my previous post.

(Edited by Tasha at 12:55 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

After reading informationon Kurdistan given by harawameen, this just add's to the reasons why war is neccessary.

Ok, there is no proof that Saddam has these sacred "weapons of mass destruction". This, for some reason, has been made the basis for war by the West. But they couldve used a much easier way of justifying war. The reasons that a war on Hussein and Iraq is neccesary are:-
a) The treatment he has dished out to his own people. Hitler-esque treatment. Punishing his own for having opinions, and to test weapons

B) After his past, Saddam shouldn't be here anyway. His acts of aggression towards Kuwait and Iran were plain evil.

c) If you knew about the treatment of the Kurds like harawameen pointed out, you could not possibly be against ousting Hussein. I don't even know the full story, just the overview presented on websites. It is sickening. The Kurds of Iraq deserve their liberation. They cannot rebel against Hussein alone.

Although there are no "weapons of mass destruction" as yet, there is a basic human rights issue here. And if you are against war, you are against the freedon and liberation of millions of people in Iraq and, who knows, Hussein's potential future targets.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2003, 17:40

Quote: from hawarameen on 11:54 pm on Feb. 2, 2003
my nation is a part of me, it lives within me, everyday i wake up with immense gratitude that despite all our woes i am kurdish.

i do not claim that i am better than you for being kurdish but you will never know grateful you should be for something until you dont have it.

it sadens me when people lack patriotism in their country simply because you were born with an identity and i am not. i (according to the world) am only part of a group of people simply refered to as iraqi.
we have our own language, our own culture, beliefs and heritage so why am i still classed as an iraqi?

in any situation extremism will create disturbed individuals, i am not a fascist i simply love my country. if this was the case in the rest of the world then we are a planet full of fascists.

CCCP what would happen if someone invaded moscow killed tens of thousands of its cavillians (some of whom may be your own family) and live the rest of your life in uncertainty and fear? would you still welcome those perpetraitors with loving arms??

like i have said, saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of kurds but this doesnt seem to matter to anyone, it is a matter for the iraqi people.
sure it may get a few hours on the news and the odd celebrity may release a song on the back of it but what then? OLD NEWS, NO-ONE IMPORTANT DIED. 5000 people sadly died in america and only then does something need to be done about evil dictators.

for more info the kurdish parties in iraq have web pages two are www.kdp.org and www.puk.org. there is also a newspaper called the kurdish observer online

incidently revolution is the masses declaring war on an oppresive regime which they feel needs changing

[tried the kdp link but having problems will sought out soon, puk link ok]

(Edited by hawarameen at 12:02 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

I am Afgan of origin. Before my very own eyes the country got burned, raped, shot, beaten and betraied, still I don't hate Pakistans, Americans, Brittish, Arabians, Iranians, Soviets etc. But I do hate people who support(ed) the actions and still benefit of it, without feeling any responsibility.

I don't care where someone is born and how blind he is threw his "love" for his nation. I could easily get best friends with a Pakistani and get worst enemy's with an Afgan. I wouldn't kill or allow people to kill others for my "own" piece of land under another regime(, closed in by enemy states!)

deimos

3rd February 2003, 20:30

@Hawarameen:Again, WELL SAID!!!
@CCCP:I agree 100%. I know Kurds who are doodakis, sack babas(lets say: idiots) and I know Turks who are really nice people, not racistic etc.. I am pro war because Iraq has to get rid from this tyrann( also the Iraqis want war. Does anyone believe that this "election" saddam organized where he got 99% is true?). I don't care who takes out the trash. I don't think that Kurds are superior or something like that. Of course, I hope that no Iraqi civilian will die, but that is impossible. I am also sure that kurdish civilians will die, on the border, for instance cham chamal. Everything has its price...

hawarameen

3rd February 2003, 23:33

this isnt about land for me, its about the freedom to live in peace.
i commend socialismo o muerte for researching the topic i suggest many of you follow his lead.
CCCP, do you not feel anything for your fellow countrymen? forget about land or borders would it not bother you if afghanis were killed by the thousands?
for me there are two options, a war on iraq MAY allow us to live in relative freedom and security. no war on iraq means the status quo and this WILL mean continued oppression and fear under saddam hussain.
if there is a slim chance i am willing to take it.

Socialsmo o Muerte

4th February 2003, 00:06

People in the West who are anti-war are simply selfish. I am from UK. We cannot sit here in our warm, comfortable homes with our happy lives and decalre war is wrong for our reasons. What is really important is the people it will affect. REALLY affect. In terms of their actual lives being lost. Not our petty reasons. Some people are anti-war because they dont like Bush or Blair or because they are just pro-government. Ok, no weapons are found as yet, but protesting against war is pure selfishness.

Read about the Kurds. Their land taken, their people brutalised. Read about the Iraqi's. Killed and oppressed by this evil tyrant. The Muslim's in the middle-east, facing further western opinion against them because this tyrant gives the middle east a bad name. and he gives Islam a bad name. I'm not trying to bring religion into it, but it is an issue.

Saddam MUST be killed. His government MUST be ousted. I was anti-war last week, but recent research into the topic, especially in terms of the Kurd's, has turned me. And it's notthat I have fallen to propaganda.

Stop with your politics! This is a basic morality issue, of human rights and freedom!

Socialsmo o Muerte

4th February 2003, 00:09

You will have npoticed a mistake in my last post... In the 6th line I mean "anti-government"not "pro-government"

Tasha

4th February 2003, 02:51

Socialsmo I agree withyou you made a good point, Hussein is without a doubt a man that needs to be removed from power for his actions. However I still do not believe war is the solution and most people outside of the U.S. feel this as well there are many solutions that can be compromised to avoid war. If there weren't any solutions none of which I can make up at this time I still would be opposed to war because the cost is more than the benefit I think at this time.

Hawar like you said a war with iraq may give freedom while no war with iraq will almost surely deny it. Is a war really worth that kind of gamble?

(Edited by Tasha at 2:54 am on Feb. 4, 2003)

Beccie

4th February 2003, 08:13

Quote: from hawarameen on 2:15 pm on Feb. 3, 2003
for me not only is the freedom of current and future generations worth the death of some iraqi cavilians ut is is also worth the death of some kurdish soldiers if it came down to civil war.
i am not advocating hate or racism towards and nation, i dont want iraqis to die simply because they are iraqi, on the whole they are a good people and have also suffered but in order to rid oneself of oppression and tyrany a nation must accept the loss of lives now in order for the many generations to live in peace.
the environment you live in now isnt based soley on you, you must think of the kind of world you are leaving your children. if i had kids and living in iraq i would not want them to grow up in such an oppresive country, i would do anything for my kids and if it meant giving my life so that they would be free i and many others would do it.
i do not consider my above reason a selfish one, it is not selfish to want your children to grow up happy and in peace.
Bush may not give a fuck about my freedom but if he wants to set up a free epublic for his own ends then for me this is one step away from tyrany and one towards freedom. i know that people were shocked at what happened at halabja but this didnt seem to justify any action, why? the same amount of people died in new york and the whole world gets together.
kuwait with a population of 1 million justified the world in driving saddam back yet when millions of people were driven into the mountains following the gulf war this was not deemed important.
the only language sadam knows is war, i get the impression that people think saddam opperates like another human being, when one does not listen there is no point talking.
you havnt offended me do not wory, you have your views and from my perspective i disagree with them this is not to say that you are wrong.

I think it is completely selfless that you would die so that future generations could live in peace. However you can not expect anyone (no matter what race) to die for you and your freedom, unless they want to. Like I said before I have no idea what it would be like to be in your situation, if I were in your situation maybe I would feel different. My deepest sympathies go out to you and your people. When you say that it is okay if a couple if a couple of Iraqis get killed you make it sound like not many are going to die. Millions are going to be killed by this war, many of them innocent and many of them children. I doubt your situation will become any better once the war is over.

I also feel even more sorry for you if George Bush has sucked you in. Do you actually think he has come to fight for freedom? Do you think he will get rid of Saddam? America and Britain have killed more Iraqis and Kurds then Saddam. If you think the US cares about your freedom now I think you have been fooled. The only people Capitalist America care about are rich Americans. I completely agree with you that Saddam needs to be overthrown but there must be another alternative. War is not going to achieve anything but mass murder. I would not be surprised if Saddam is still in power once the war is over.

Socialsmo o Muerte: Could you please explain to me how living in the west and being anti-war is selfish. I am very anti-war but I don’t feel that I am being selfish. I feel every need to get rid of Saddam (like I explained above) but there must be a better way to get rid of him than war. I feel extremely guilty that I am able to live in Australia whilst others are not so lucky to have the freedom I have here. Ask yourself what exactly is war going to achieve, think long and hard about it. Then you might realise that living in the west and being anti-war is not as selfish as you think it is.

hawarameen

4th February 2003, 12:55

first of all commie1 i find your comment that it is selfish to die for future generations laughable.
dieing so that your children can live in peace has to be the most selfless act anyone can do, re-read what you have said and tell me you dont think your wrong.

i seem to be repeating myself an awful lot but like i said the two options are war and possible preefom as opposed to the status quo which will mean continued oppression for possible long after saddam has died a natural death.
i suggest that you all take what youve heard about saddam in the news and the press, multiply the tyrany factor by at least 10 and you get to somewhere near the true mental state of saddam. people are not only nieve but also missunderstood if they think that saddam will leave iraq with his one way ticket saying 'ive had enough let someone else do it'

the safety of my people and country is worth more than all the oil in the world, all the money in the world. if bush wants it he can come and take it, much as i believe that this should benefit kurdistan there are more important things than money and oil, if it means we can live in peace then personally i dont want a drop of oil.

commie: where did you hear that america and britain have killed more kurds than saddam? i would be very interested in reading this article.

tasha the answer to your question is yes

oki

4th February 2003, 15:02

Quote: from hawarameen on 2:53 pm on Feb. 3, 2003
my hopes are always up.
you seem to think that i dont know whats going on oki, i am well aware of turkey and its objections but this doesnt meen that i haveto lie back and accept things the way they are. do you think that we should just hope that he wont kill toomany more kurds in the future??
with all due respect this does not affect you so it doesnt matter to you if saddam stays or goes this is personal for me, why cant anyone understand?

I can understand and if you 'd like me to not talk to you about this that's fine by me.I just brought up some points that will cause difficulty for debate not because I think you are unaware.I have kurdish friends in istanbul and buy my bread and groceries every day at a kurdish store.

Socialsmo o Muerte

4th February 2003, 16:18

commie, you say that you don't think it is selfish to be western and anti-war? You say you want to get rid of Saddam but in a 'better way'? Look rationally. How long can we try using a 'better way' to get rid of him? I suppose you're thinking of diplomatic means? How can that be possible? Firstly, it's not going to come via a fair election. I don't need to explain why. Second, sanctions have been tried, warnings have been tried. He has made promises to calm down. To stop making weapons. You may think these sanctions are wrong, but he cannot be trusted. There is no more diplomatic means left. There is no 'better way'. War is the last resort. Even Gandhi said that, and he is the most non-violentperson to ever set foot on earth. It is time for the last resort to be used.

And, I'll tell you why it is selfish that you think he should be ousted in a 'better way'. Because, as I mentioned, we've been waiting for a 'better way' for nigh on 25 years now. Think about the people in Iraq. Think about the Kurds'. Think about the people the real Muslims of the region, and those people in the middle east who love their countries. Their reputation is being tarnished by Hussein. They have waited 24 years. And YOU sit there and say, "Make them wait". You want to make them wait for a "better way". How long? Maybe another quarter of a century of sanctions? Another quarter century of warnings?

Do not tell ME to sit back and think about it. YOU think about it. How long can the innocent Iraqi's and Kurd's wait? I recommend you read about harawameen's people's plight. Maybe that will change your mind. Maybe your apparent selfishness is because you do not know enough about what is happening. So I will not criticise you for not knowing. After all, yesterday, you didn not know some of the things you know today. I willgive you time to read about the Kurd's inparticular. Then try and come back and say you don't want war. If you do, then I will deem you selfish.

Innocent people will die. It's sad. But somebody said the cost of this war will outweigh the benefits? I don't know if it was you or someone else. Think about that. Maybe for you it will. But for the people it really effects, the benefit will be freedom. People die for freedom, it has happened for centuries. And people will be willing to die for freedom.

There MUST be war. And Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party MUST be ousted.

deimos

4th February 2003, 20:41

Millions are going to be killed by this war
Where have u got this from? I know that these "smart bombs" aren't as smart as the americans say, but i highly doubt that more than 3500 people die in this war.

Nor the US neither the UK killed more kurds than saddam. Maybe they killed them indirectly, but not like saddam hussein on purpose.

Socialsmo o Muerte

4th February 2003, 23:12

Did anyone see the interview with Saddam Hussein? A former Parliament member from this country called Tony Benn got an exclusive interview with Saddam.

What did you think? To be honest, I think he was being sincere. He has no weapons, no links with al-Qa'eda.

Tasha

4th February 2003, 23:21

I strongly believe that this war is about oil and imperialism, I drew this conclusion from looking at what has been done in the past. However setting this aside, and thinking this war is about freedom I still believe the cost will outweigh the benefit. Someone said 3,500 will be the casualties of civilians, that is a largely unrealistic figure. In afghanistan 45,000 were killed as of war that is disregarding future deaths from starvation etc.... I strongly believe that 45,000 is a lower figure than what really happened. The Us will not goto war just to free the people of iraq or remove sadam from power. They arent going to spend billions of dollars just to free iraq or anyone else. As someone else also said its a strong possibility that saddam may remain in power if they attack.

Socialsmo o Muerte

4th February 2003, 23:26

I completely agree with you. Except I think war i neccesary because its the only way left to get rid of Saddam. However, I agree with you that the oil will be a bigger incentive for the actual leaders i.e. Blair and Bush. It will not be kept by Iraq. As soon as the war ends, the oil becomes America's.

hawarameen

4th February 2003, 23:39

tasha how can you say that the cost will outweigh the benefit? is the safety of 5 million kurds and 40 million iraqis not worth it, do you say this because it doesnt affect you personally?
how many british or american lives would it take for everyone to agree that saddam needs to be removed at all costs? 5000, 1000, 10?? why is there such a diferentiation between the lives of people far away and those who live next to you?
it took 5000 lost lives for the whole world to get together and oust the taliban. 5000 lives were probably lost in the first month of saddams reign, why is there a difference? because it didnt happen in your country? people say we are all human and we should live together but if saddam killed 50 people in america or britain they would attack him tomorow and no-one would give it a second thought. 5000 men women and children were killed in one day when he gassed halabja, and for me this is when MY world changed not sept 11

Ian

5th February 2003, 09:56

HawaraAmeen, I do not believe that an American backed government in Iraq will afford any freedom to Kurdistan, much like the American backed government in Turkey has done. I empathise with you and I read Voice of Kurdistan often, it's just, its not that simple, America won't just come in and chop of a huge chunk of its newly conquered territory and give it indepence.

Beccie

5th February 2003, 11:27

Hawarameen and Socialsmo o Muerte:

Both of you have COMPLETELY miss-understood what I have said.

I think it is completely selfless that you would die so that future generations could live in peace. However you can not expect anyone (no matter what race) to die for you and your freedom, unless they want to.

Maybe you need me to explain this point a little further. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY SELFLESS TO DIE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS (is it just me or did I not state this in my previous post?). It is selfish, however, to expect OTHER people to die for you and YOUR freedom. for example I find this comment (of yours) selfish:

“if a couple of thousand iraqis have to DIE for ME to get my freedom then so be it, this is my reasoning and im sorry but i live by my emotions malte.” – have you considered the possibility that those Iraqi lives you are talking about may not want to die for you.

I have not once denied that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. I have said this twice before and I will say it again, he needs to be removed. But George Bush is no better.

Please don’t let fall victem to George Bush’s propaganda. He has no interest in democracy or the freedom of your people. The US use to be allies with Saddam before the Gulf war. They supplied him with chemical weapons used to kill Iraqis and Kurds. I will post some more info about Americans killing Iraqis and Kurds tomorrow.

The reason I oppose the war is because I know that civilians are going to die for no reason other then Mobil going millions of dollars. Nothing good is going to come out of this war, you will not gain the freedom that you think you will. That is not what this war is about. I do not want people to die for America’s imperialistic causes. If that is selfish then so be it! I do not want to make the Iraqis wait but I do not want them die either. Oh the Iraqis have waited long enough so I think we will go drop some bombs on them so they do not have to wait any longer!! (just incase you did not notice I was being sarcastic)

Yes there are more important things then oil. People are more important then oil they should not have to die for oil.

(Edited by Commie01 at 11:32 am on Feb. 5, 2003)

oki

5th February 2003, 13:19

the only people that are legit to remove saddam are the ones that live in Irak.they should be supported in doing so.teh US cant start to invade countrys because they think it's just.we all know that the US will NOT invade other country's that are even worse,simply because this is an impossible mission.
this war will only breing more hate and war to the middle east,simply because the US is gonna fight it.and there is NO guarantee things will be better after that.

deimos

5th February 2003, 16:09

I know that the US don't give a damn on the people!!!But for instance Afghanistan: What is better? Taliban or Karsai? I don't like the afghan gvernment, but they are better than the Taliban. I'd rather see the US ruling iraq than saddam.

do not want to make the Iraqis wait but I do not want them die either.
As someone wrote before: Its better 5000 Iraqis die now, than 100000 die later!!
@oki: Who in iraq has the power to remove saddam? The iraqi people? No, they haven't. The Kurdish peshmergas? No, they're too small!!!!!
Only foreign powers can remove him!!And I am quite sure, if the iraqi people try to remove saddam, it will cost far more lives than an US-led military intervention.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

5th February 2003, 16:16

Quote: from hawarameen on 11:33 pm on Feb. 3, 2003
this isnt about land for me, its about the freedom to live in peace.
i commend socialismo o muerte for researching the topic i suggest many of you follow his lead.
CCCP, do you not feel anything for your fellow countrymen? forget about land or borders would it not bother you if afghanis were killed by the thousands?
for me there are two options, a war on iraq MAY allow us to live in relative freedom and security. no war on iraq means the status quo and this WILL mean continued oppression and fear under saddam hussain.
if there is a slim chance i am willing to take it.

I care as much for Afgan socialists/communists as for Mongolian... or Kurdish.. or whatever.

How do you all know so certain that Saddam won't be replaced by a even more radical guy. A large part of the Iraqi's support him and will unleash a civil war, between Saddam supportives, followers of the US and other groups.

hawarameen

6th February 2003, 00:20

first of all i do not worship the ground that bush walks on, i think he is an idiot but whoever said bush is no better than saddam is really proclaiming their ignorance on the subject i am sorry to say.

secondly i DONT know if saddam will be replaced by a more evil dictator but like i said about 5 times already the status quo HAS to change, it cannot go on like this and deimos made excellent points when he says that a bush led kurdish republic (I POINT OUT NOT AN INDEPENDANT KURDISTAN) if indeed is is bush led is far better than the reign of saddam hussain.

forces inside iraq tried to topple him after the gulf and unless anyone missed it was a catastrophy many thousands of kurds and arabs were killed. kurds in the north were driven into the mountains and the marshes in the south were poisoned.

i do not expect anyone to die for MY cause, i do however accept that in order for the whole of iraq to be free of saddam some lives will be lost, remember this isnt just about my freedom its about the iraqi peoples freedom also.

i do not expect saddam to have a change of heart and oppologise for his wrongdoings so if he satys it WILL be more of the same. if however bush comes in and in the worst scenario tells the world "im taking all the oil but we will support a kurdish republic" then i will help him load the fucking barrels.

commie1, i respect your view that you do not want people to die for americas imperialistic cause would you rather them die as guinie pigs for torture techniques or to see the effect of a particular gass?

also i am well aware that kurdistan will not be given independance whatever happens, i do not have my head that far up in the clouds. deimos has pointed out in a previous post a plan which i have also heard from numerous people of a system of 3 federal governments one in the north, one in the south and one in the middle.

Beccie

6th February 2003, 08:16

Thanks for reminding me, hawarameen, how completely fucked up this world is. Either way the Iraqi civilians and the Kurdish people will not gain freedom. I can see where you are coming from and I respect that.

I don't think that claiming that George Bush is on the same level as Saddam is an ignorant comment. I have a feeling that your wish for the Kurdish people has made you blind to the cruelness of George Bush. Just because his violence is organised does not make it any more justified.

deimos

6th February 2003, 14:35

commie, u don't get it.
We all know that GWB is stupid, sometimes racistic, and we know that he doesn't give a damn on the people(if the aren't american citizens). I know that g. Bush will not help the kurds establishing an independent state(I doubt that Georgy has a clue about kurds or kurdistan).
BUT- the us will not do the same mistake twice(at least I hope so), they will establish some kind of democracy in Iraq.

kylie

6th February 2003, 14:48

Quote: from deimos on 4:09 pm on Feb. 5, 2003
I know that the US don't give a damn on the people!!!But for instance Afghanistan: What is better? Taliban or Karsai? I don't like the afghan gvernment, but they are better than the Taliban. I'd rather see the US ruling iraq than saddam.

do not want to make the Iraqis wait but I do not want them die either.
As someone wrote before: Its better 5000 Iraqis die now, than 100000 die later!!
@oki: Who in iraq has the power to remove saddam? The iraqi people? No, they haven't. The Kurdish peshmergas? No, they're too small!!!!!
Only foreign powers can remove him!!And I am quite sure, if the iraqi people try to remove saddam, it will cost far more lives than an US-led military intervention.

i would rather see saddam in charge of iraq than the US government. he's the lesser of two evils. plus it will further increase the US's power, and decrease the rest of the worlds.
having one super-power is unhealthy for the world. now, we already have that at the moment, but that doesnt mean we should just give up.

those saying there should be a war on iraq, because of its oppresion of the Kurds, should you not be insteadbe supporting war on isreal, which is far more oppresing and brutal?

oki

6th February 2003, 15:41

Quote: from deimos on 4:09 pm on Feb. 5, 2003
I know that the US don't give a damn on the people!!!But for instance Afghanistan: What is better? Taliban or Karsai? I don't like the afghan gvernment, but they are better than the Taliban. I'd rather see the US ruling iraq than saddam.

do not want to make the Iraqis wait but I do not want them die either.
As someone wrote before: Its better 5000 Iraqis die now, than 100000 die later!!
@oki: Who in iraq has the power to remove saddam? The iraqi people? No, they haven't. The Kurdish peshmergas? No, they're too small!!!!!
Only foreign powers can remove him!!And I am quite sure, if the iraqi people try to remove saddam, it will cost far more lives than an US-led military intervention.

if you don't want to create a new order in where countrys are gonna invade eachother,this is important.next russia will have legitimecy for chechenia,and might invade georgia too.israel will have a base for the palestinian occupation and england for northern ireland.

if you're gonna do sutch a thing it needs to be done by that shitty UN.it needs the approvel of the intire world,and be done by the intire world.but the US only wants intrenational cooperation if they can lead it,and set the terms,so I don't blame others like france to never agree with that.

so what's left then is the (secret) support of iraki opposition.

I'm sorry but I'm strongluy against the US politics of bush.he's not helping freedom at all,and is throwing the intire world into a war.fuck that.and ofcourse saddam has to go he's a facist .

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th February 2003, 15:55

Quote: from feoric on 2:48 pm on Feb. 6, 2003

i would rather see saddam in charge of iraq than the US government. he's the lesser of two evils. plus it will further increase the US's power, and decrease the rest of the worlds.
having one super-power is unhealthy for the world. now, we already have that at the moment, but that doesnt mean we should just give up.

those saying there should be a war on iraq, because of its oppresion of the Kurds, should you not be insteadbe supporting war on isreal, which is far more oppresing and brutal?

"The lesser of two evils"...famous words.

Famous words of the Catholic and Protestant Churches of Italy in 1921.....Both declaring that the "lesser of two evils" was Mussolini's Fascism over the Italian Socialist Party. We all know how Mussolini's Fascism paved the way for Hitler's Nazism.

"The lesser of two evils".....famous words.

kylie

6th February 2003, 16:01

are you saying im a 1920's italian church organisation?

deimos

6th February 2003, 16:02

@oki:You don't know what you are talking about. Saddam is far more "evil" than GWB. Both are an abomination-but saddam's the bigger one.
Currently there is only one superpower. But I think that in some years china will at least be as strong as the US.
I am also for a "regime change" in israel.

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th February 2003, 16:03

Quote: from feoric on 4:01 pm on Feb. 6, 2003
are you saying im a 1920's italian church organisation?

That was a really crap comeback

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

6th February 2003, 18:04

Haraween and Deimos why are you so eagered to have the name Kurdish on a region?

It's not worth it. Because it's all you will get, just the name Kurdish. Nothing more will be changed.

The Iraqi's will only hate you more, Turkey won't give your "people" the freedom to rule that piece of your so wanted land. You can't expect that Kurds would get high gov jobs.

How do you know so certain that the new Kurdish leaders won't be CIA puppets, wich would evolve in the same situations as in South America. Dictators letting hundert thousands people "disapear".

I am really shocked with your policy"My enemy enemy's are my friends"

How can you call yourself leftist if you are willing to get "your" people out of Saddam's hands straight into US/Turkish hands.

Believe me, I am Afgan of origin and nothing good comes from that.

Exploited Class

6th February 2003, 18:59

I agree CCCP, the stance of "My enemy enemy's are my friends" is not a very good stance to take. I see it as a lot of day dreaming and hoping that is tied with depression and despair of a group of people that have been treated horriably. They are desprate for anything than what has happened in the past. But making a deal with the Devil is not the way to go about improving one's situation.

What I think everybody fails to see if
A. Bush has made no comment that he is going to AID the Kurdish people more than already in place with the no fly zones.

B. I think that if Kurdish people think that America somehow treats indigant people well, that they need to speak to the America Indians and find out how well that all played out.

C. Bush would be the last person to turn to for assitance or hope in these matters. One might remember that Reagan, Bush's Daddy and the entire presidential staff (which oddly is almost identical back then as it is now) did nothing to help the Kurdish people when they were gassed by Saddam. Did not protest formally, and even sold Saddam the means to do it.

Turkey who has been equally tough on the Kurds, and who remains a strong Ally of America, has not been repramanded by America for its actions against the Kurds.

In fact the only time America seems to care about the Kurdish people is when they need to drum up support for a war against Saddam, then they speak about his hanious crimes.

At this point with the hands of America in Iraq so mcuh in since the 80's. I wouldn't be suprised if most the actions of Saddam hasn't been given to him by America. I could honestly see America setting up Saddam and Iraq for a future legitamized hostile take over and regime change.

Points being.
A. America sold many of the chemical and chemical producing agents to Saddam.
B. America didn't espouse any type of negativity towards Iraq or Saddam for the gasing of the Kurds.
C. Set up Iraq to take over Kuwait, when Saddam asked for permission or ask what America's stance would be on his invasion of Kuwait, Bush said America has no reason to involve itself with those actions.

We know how well all that has played out.

hawarameen

7th February 2003, 00:09

feoric:- shut the fuck up you prick you really do not know what your talking about, you havnt got a clue

hawarameen

7th February 2003, 00:20

do you all think im america's number one fan or something??

if any have you had read the links i provided in the seperate thread you would know of the plans that have been talked about by many people.
iraqi opposition parties and indeed the turkish government have talked about a federal republic of kurdistan.
there is relative democracy in north iraq to which the likes of very few arab nations have seen. turkey has agreed in principal as iraqi opposition and us delegates have assured turkey that this poses no threat and indeed may benefit turkey's entry into europe.
it has been said that the democratic regime in kurdistan will be a model for the whole of the middle east.

[also i have noticed no-one answered my previous question. it took 5000 people to die on 9/11 for the whole world to unite against al-qaida and the taliban. hundreds of thousands of kurds have died under saddam, how many british/american civillian lives will it take for the world to unite again? 10000, 1000, 10?]

(Edited by hawarameen at 12:26 am on Feb. 7, 2003)

kylie

7th February 2003, 08:22

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:03 pm on Feb. 6, 2003

Quote: from feoric on 4:01 pm on Feb. 6, 2003
are you saying im a 1920's italian church organisation?

That was a really crap comeback

there was no real point to respond to.

kylie

7th February 2003, 08:47

in response to haraweens claims that things would be better with dubya than the current situation.

With allied warplanes patrolling overhead, the Kurds have set up two nominally democratic governments in a haven the size of Switzerland

Turkish leaders worry that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could encourage Kurdish hopes for an independent state.

About 15,000 Turkish troops are already in northern Iraq in preparation for a conflict there, although neither the United States nor Turkey has any desire for Turkey to fight Iraq. The Turks' concern is exclusively the aspirations of the Kurds to form their own state, something the roughly 25 million Kurds in the region have never had.

from what i have read the biggest threat to Kurds is not from iraq, who does not have the ability any longer to oppress them, but Turkey, who remains continuously hostile to those in favour of a indapendant Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
Now Turkey has agreed to back the US, dont you think they will want something back?
i have to go to a lesson, ill continue after that.

Beccie

7th February 2003, 09:21

Quote: from deimos on 2:35 pm on Feb. 6, 2003
commie, u don't get it.
We all know that GWB is stupid, sometimes racistic, and we know that he doesn't give a damn on the people(if the aren't american citizens). I know that g. Bush will not help the kurds establishing an independent state(I doubt that Georgy has a clue about kurds or kurdistan).
BUT- the us will not do the same mistake twice(at least I hope so), they will establish some kind of democracy in Iraq.

I am not fucking ignorant. Everyone here is treating me as if I am stupid! Maybe you should consider the possibility that the things I have said on this issue have gone completely over your head hence you have perceived me as being stupid.

I will post some things about American terrorism latter. I have no time at the moment.

kylie

7th February 2003, 12:07

secondly i DONT know if saddam will be replaced by a more evil dictator
so you're willing to risk getting a worse dictator, which would want to reclaim the current land the Kurds live in?

would it not be better to put effort into getting support from the surrounding regions for an independant Kurdish state? with proper enforced borders defended by the UN or any other state that would help, a state could be created, without attacking Iraq. how is it exactly that overthrowning Saddam Hussain is going to gain the support needed in the region for any progress on the issue of northern Iraq?
after an attack, there will be people in Iraq pissed off. they wil have lost friends or family in the assault by the UK and US. now, while some of these will get revenge directly on us through terrorism, not all will be able get there. instead they wil have to settle on symbols of the war nearer to them. like the region currently inhabited by the Kurds.
Thats why an attack on Iraq is not in the true interest of the Kurds.

kylie

7th February 2003, 12:19

socialsmo el muerte, i still dont see what your point is. the lesser of two evils is a commen phrase, not exclusively used by me and the italian church council of the 1920's. if you're going to dsagree with what i put, i suggest actually showing what, and explaining it. this opposed to comparing me to an organisation in the past which has used the phrase, i guess attempting to incinuate that like them, i am wrong.

oki

7th February 2003, 13:12

Quote: from deimos on 4:02 pm on Feb. 6, 2003
@oki:You don't know what you are talking about. Saddam is far more "evil" than GWB. Both are an abomination-but saddam's the bigger one.
Currently there is only one superpower. But I think that in some years china will at least be as strong as the US.
I am also for a "regime change" in israel.

you don't read.I said saddam is an evil facist.If I'm so far off according to you why don't you explane it instead of labelling me so you don't have to respond.
what points I make are wrong?

and international justice is not about superpowers invading their enemys.it's about the UN or a future better org. where the worldTOGETHER decides on what to do about country's or persons that are a danger to peace.the dominant and arrogant behaviour of the US gouv. will NOT make things better.it will blow up some day,maybe soon and then we'll have a real world war.

oki

7th February 2003, 13:21

Quote: from hawarameen on 12:20 am on Feb. 7, 2003
do you all think im america's number one fan

[also i have noticed no-one answered my previous question. it took 5000 people to die on 9/11 for the whole world to unite against al-qaida and the taliban. hundreds of thousands of kurds have died under saddam, how many british/american civillian lives will it take for the world to unite again? 10000, 1000, 10?]

(Edited by hawarameen at 12:26 am on Feb. 7, 2003)

the unity that existsed briefly after 9-11 was singlehandedly destroyed by the US.they started threatening countrys to eighter join their revenge trip or become an enemy themselves,just like they now put germany in the same list as libia and syria for beeing pacifistic after their facist history.just after the attack the intire world agreed that we had to do things to make the world safer.political games have frustrated this effort.the US isn't interested in word wide justice.they refuse to join the int. justice court,and have been threatening to blow up the UN if they don't do what they want.

and the reason some countrys don't want this war is because it might very well escalate and spread over the whole middle east.so you first NEED support of the surrounding countrys for a war.the US doesn't care about that.it's simply dangerous to support them.

deimos

7th February 2003, 19:54

How do you know so certain that the new Kurdish leaders won't be CIA puppets, wich would evolve in the same situations as in South America.
I know Jalal Talabani, leader of the socialist PUK(the second biggest Kurdish party in N-Iraq). He's a close friend of my father. I met him several times, I am 100% sure that he is no "CIA puppet".

and international justice is not about superpowers invading their enemys.it's about the UN or a future better org. where the worldTOGETHER decides on what to do about country's or persons that are a danger to peace.the dominant and arrogant behaviour of the US gouv. will NOT make things better.it will blow up some day,maybe soon and then we'll have a real world war.
The current UN is dominated by the US. We don't have an orgaization where all the states can decide. But we have an evil dictator, who has been killing people for 20 years now. We can wait until this modified UN is founded, we can let Saddam continue killig innocent for another 20 years(allthough I believe that this "super UN" will not be founded within this century). Or we can let the United States, the biggest and worst rogue state that has ever existed on our earth, kill saddam and liberate Iraq.

The Iraqi's will only hate you more, Turkey won't give your "people" the freedom to rule that piece of your so wanted land. You can't expect that Kurds would get high gov jobs.

Why should the Iraqis hate us? Does anyone here really believe that the average iraqi likes sadam? They will welcome the americans with open arms(shit....)!!

secondly i DONT know if saddam will be replaced by a more evil dictator
so you're willing to risk getting a worse dictator, which would want to reclaim the current land the Kurds live in?
I know, the americas are stupid people, but, as I said, I hope that they are smart enogh not to make the same mistake twice.

I am not fucking ignorant. Everyone here is treating me as if I am stupid! Maybe you should consider the possibility that the things I have said on this issue have gone completely over your head hence you have perceived me as being stupid.
Sorry.

Socialsmo o Muerte

7th February 2003, 22:48

I'm just pointing out that "the lesser of two evils" cannot be settled for. It is a risk that could become disastrous, even more so than the current situation.

hawarameen

11th February 2003, 16:41

Quote: from feoric on 12:07 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
secondly i DONT know if saddam will be replaced by a more evil dictator
so you're willing to risk getting a worse dictator, which would want to reclaim the current land the Kurds live in?

would it not be better to put effort into getting support from the surrounding regions for an independant Kurdish state? with proper enforced borders defended by the UN or any other state that would help, a state could be created, without attacking Iraq. how is it exactly that overthrowning Saddam Hussain is going to gain the support needed in the region for any progress on the issue of northern Iraq?
after an attack, there will be people in Iraq pissed off. they wil have lost friends or family in the assault by the UK and US. now, while some of these will get revenge directly on us through terrorism, not all will be able get there. instead they wil have to settle on symbols of the war nearer to them. like the region currently inhabited by the Kurds.
Thats why an attack on Iraq is not in the true interest of the Kurds.

yes i would be willing to get a worse dictator and if you knew anything you would know not to ask such a silly question.
you post in a politics forum yet you do not seem to know much about it, do you belive that saddam will peacfully give up land so that the people he has persecuted for decades may live in peace?

the reason why i did not respond to your post is because i didnt believe it warranted one

kylie

13th February 2003, 09:51

yes i would be willing to get a worse dictator
so much for not letting your emotions cloud your judgement(something read you say on either this topic or a related one)

you post in a politics forum yet you do not seem to know much about it
im not the one avioding peoples(you've ignored other peoples points too) arguements.

you post in a politics forum yet you do not seem to know much about it, do you belive that saddam will peacfully give up land so that the people he has persecuted for decades may live in peace?
if given the correct incentives, yes. you should be just as worried about Iran and Turkey, though. they are just as opposed to an independant state as Iraq are.

deimos

13th February 2003, 17:47

We know that we can't get an independent state. Therefor we only want a region within a federalistic belgian-style republic.

hawarameen

13th February 2003, 19:51

Quote: from feoric on 9:51 am on Feb. 13, 2003
yes i would be willing to get a worse dictator
so much for not letting your emotions cloud your judgement(something read you say on either this topic or a related one)

you post in a politics forum yet you do not seem to know much about it
im not the one avioding peoples(you've ignored other peoples points too) arguements.

you post in a politics forum yet you do not seem to know much about it, do you belive that saddam will peacfully give up land so that the people he has persecuted for decades may live in peace?
if given the correct incentives, yes. you should be just as worried about Iran and Turkey, though. they are just as opposed to an independant state as Iraq are.

1. could you please tell me where i said i dont let my emotions cloud my judgment because i dont remember this

2. tell me which points i have missed and i will answer them

3. he doesnt work under incentives, i have lived under his regime, i know, he is not that rational. like deimos said the plans are fore a federal republic and not an independant state