Disarming Saddam [Archive]

ChiTown Lady

18th February 2003, 07:15

What Tasha said – exactly!!!

The United States it the only country to have used weapons of mass destruction to any real degree, in the history of mankind. The nuclear bombing of the city of Hiroshima Japan, and the spraying of the chemical known as Agent Orange all over the North Vietnamese people are two fine examples of this -–specifically.

Plus the fact that the US has set up and continued to maintain fully operational military bases in the Philippines, Panama, Cuba, Japan, and Germany – without any intention of dismantling any of them – ever. This is a form of military control that has been beset upon those people and also those regions.

Not to mention the fact thet the US governement has historically and still today advocated the oppression of third world peoples at the hands of our multibillion-dollar corporations, since it’s inception. It’s all about “the bottom line” – the Corporate profit-margins, and at the expense of everyone and anyone who they can use to this end or who may happen to get in their way towards this end.

And evidently, the goal here is to set up shop in the Middle East in the same way – by strong-arming our way in there and setting up fully operational military bases to control that region from this hub, as well.

Disarming the United States!!!! How???? - This is the real question, now isn’t it?

Alexander Pop

18th February 2003, 23:12

yes! I stand by your statements.... just look at how they ended the WWII.... they ended it in a most sick and covardly way..... by killing thousands of men, women, little children.... and I'd say that those that died that day were lucky.... those who survived had to live on with consequences that are far more terrible than death itself!
How to disarm them!? You can't..... peacefully......
Only by attacking them... but for that all countries that dislike them must unite... and set forth to battle of no return!

hawarameen

19th February 2003, 00:00

CRAP!!

what do you all think 12 years of sanctions ans UN resolutions were in aid of?

the peacfull option has been tried and it has failed miserably. saddam has had 18 chances, 18 UN resolutions and what?, NOTHING!

how many chances do you give someone?
how many more time can you tell somone 'ok this time we really, really mean it'

saddam does his talking with a gun, is it that you dont belive me, i have lived there i know what he has done to the people.

i feel that this argument is useless i really do because no-one seems to know or want to know how bad saddam actually is, i get the feeling that most people believe so long as he is not a threat to them things should be left as they are.

Q. how many of you belive the international community should not have gone after osama and his terror network?

Alexander Pop

19th February 2003, 00:07

OSAMA is controled by US.
It is not him that made the attacks on New York!
Those attacks were plotted in USA by the USA!
They sacrificed thousands of people so they could go to war and make profit. USA didn't have almost any damage from the attacks. European firms however were badly damaged by the attack because bout 90% insurance on the buildings and firms inside were done by firms in Europe! That resulted in stagnation of EURO and rise of US DOLLAR! + USA got a chance to occupy Afganistan (guess why!)
I say that both saddam and usa should be punished! They both work force!

19th February 2003, 01:19

hawa, so you want americans to occupy iraq and install a puppet regime and take control of the iraqi oil fields to be dispensed at their will?

Rebelde para Siempre

19th February 2003, 07:14

Well I'm sorry but it looks like the majority of people missed the whole point of your question hawarameen.

I'm not really sure if there is a way of removing/disarming Saddam peacefully, but if he does have any weapons they would only be pale in comparison to those of the United States and indeed the majority of the western world.

I think the U.N needs to be more authoritarian, and less influenced by the United States. The U.N should serve as more of a ruling body over international relations, and occupy Iraq with military peacekeepers - Not bomb it into the ground. The weapons inspectors are not doing any good, we need the U.N with military presence actually in Iraq checking sites and the conditions people live in. The people should also be notified that the peacekeepers are NOT there to start a war, just to keep things in check with Saddam for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure about the above solution, but another one is to channel funds into a revolutionary group in Iraq who can hopefully overthrow Saddam without hurting the population. The US did it in many countries in South America, so the UN covertly could do it in Iraq.

My thoughts and ideas, but it's a tough question...

And yes we are all aware that the United States is worse than Iraq in terms of it's foreign policy and international relations, but Saddam needs to be removed simply to liberate the people of Iraq (rather than the "weapons of mass destruction" he supposedly possesses).

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

19th February 2003, 14:52

I partly agree on your post Rebelde para Siempre,but

The UN is an organisation dominated and ruled by the US, I don't think that acting more authoritian has any use.

Why it hasn't any use?

Well look at the current situation, the UN had it's doubts on going to war, especially France, Germany and Belgium were not into war.

Instantly the US government reacts with statements like "the UN isn't relative", correct me if I misinprent this, but wants the fighter of freedom and democracy not respect the opinion of another one? Does arguing with the US now mean that your the "badguy"? How can you read liberty, freedom and democracy in this?

How can a nation wich has a dictator and a very authoritian government tell others how to be social?

Bush has it right!

Yes, Bush has it right! The UN isn't relative. Look what this corrupt organisation did during the last period of inspections. The UN inspections team was ordered into directions where the US and UK secret services had already been and seen facilities wich were able to make weapons of massdestruction.

With other words the team found what the US wanted to be found. The UN is an US puppetorganisation.

No wonder Saddam kicked the team out!

Wouldn't you kick out an organisation heavily influenced by your worst enemy's?

And if the US is such "We are a peacefull nation" - G. W. Bush, it has to start looking at itself.

If I make a comparison of Iraq and the US:[list]
Both have non elected leaders
Both are put there by Pappa Bush
Bush has it's CIA and other agency's and Saddam his secret police
Both have weapons of mass destruction and are lead by greedy, destructive men[list]

If Saddam and Bush were not both fighting for oil, they could have been good friends :biggrin:

Really who is a bigger danger?

Let's see...

Iraq has maybe some plutonium and there it stays....
US has the largest nucleair stock in the world and in top condition, ready to fire any moment.

The US is not even 4% of the world population, but is responsible for 30% use of it's resources. So then raises the question where does it find it's necessary resources? -- Iraq?

How does he wants to get those resources? -- asking Saddam to give oil for low prices? -- Or war, wich also makes money in the weapon industry (Industry with the most profit, lot of them owned by US company's)

Who should Liberate the Iraqis?

I am anti-war, but I do agree that Saddam has to go.

Question wich raises: How can we make Saddam leave.

I think that the decision lies in the hands of people who are surrenderd to Saddam's authoritian power. I can get mad about Saddam, but who am I to decide that he has to go?

The decision must be made by people under Saddam reign!

It sounds nice and it's the way it should be, but....

aren't people to afraid to act against Saddam?
aren't they misinformed about Saddam?
have the people even enough strengt to change government?

I think that we should to answer the above questions.

We must spread our word in Iraq, if they forbid it, we continue illegaly.

And when we notice that the people want Saddam out of Bagdad, we should support the people in the military way.

Who should we support?

Considering that there will be more groups wich would like to rule after Saddam, we can't just give out guns and say something like "Here, you go! Drop Saddam!

Because when Saddam is gone, there will be a multiply of groups wich would like to rule and bet that they use the weapons distrubuted by us to kill each other.

Now you have a civil war and civil wars are the worst type of war, because everyone gets involved in it and there will be no safe place, because everyone is in war. Especially in Bagdad the situation will be very bad.

So to avoid civil war and disturbances in the region for decades more, we should only give military support whenever the majority of atleast 80% would support a new (socialist) state.

Where would a new war lead to?

Exactly to what I said Civilwar!, or the US does take succesfully lead in Iraq, in that case it would mean that Iraq would be under US supported dictatoral reign for many decades, untill a miracleus coup like in Cuba would happen.

What good does UN inspections bring?

Noppes, nadda, nothing.

While the lil suckers will be searching in Iraq to find even a gram of plutonium, while whole plutonium factory's are standing in the house of the nation of liberty, freedom and democracy

While the US is feeling dangered by imaginable nukes who can't even reach to an US shore, the US nukes and planes can hit everywhere in the world in a matter of hours and nukes can even be fired of in minutes.

So why should we allow UN inspectors to enter a nation while the biggest crook lives on the other side?

redstar2000

19th February 2003, 23:25

An odd thread!

"Disarming Saddam"? Where is it written that Saddam must "disarm" and no one else?

How did Iraq (of all places) get picked to be the "leader" of world unilateral disarmament?

Isn't the truth of the matter that Iraq has the misfortune to sit atop the world's 2nd largest proved oil reserves...and even if that sorrowful country were not only governed by but inhabited entirely by "angels", some excuse would be invented for the United States to get their greedy paws on that "black gold."

All the rhetoric about Hussein as the reincarnation of Hitler as well as all the rhetoric about "weapons of mass destruction" (in parts of Africa, machetes are weapons of mass destruction) is CRAP!

We ought to know better than to take any of it seriously!

:cool:

Alexander Pop

19th February 2003, 23:36

The UN have lost their need to exist! What once was, is never more to be!
And I think that UN do not diserve to be mentioned here so I wont spend any more words on something that realy doesn't exist. They exist only on paper.

I agree with you redstar! Totaly!
It is the US that must be disarmed. Iraq is a difensless country... they hardly have enough money to buy weapons used 10 centuries ago, not to mention weapons from WWI.... those are hi-tech for their standard... and all thanks to US and their asssuckin' allies!
And look at us! Instead of trying to organize ourselves in trying to do something we just write things that will help noone and will practicaly just stand by and watch until there is some new stuff to talk about.... it is stupid to the core!

CruelVerdad

19th February 2003, 23:55

That´s a good question!
Cómo mierda desarmamos a Iraq?!
I don´t know how, maybe if the UN puts more preassure [political - economical] on Iraq...

hawarameen

20th February 2003, 00:06

absurd as it may sound to you yes i wouldnt care if they did take all the oil because i dont give a rats bollocks about oil, i care for the people of iraq, and kurdistan (my people) and if that is the price to pay for safeguarding their future they will pay it.

unlike many people i do not put american wealth ahead of peoples freedom, cost is not an issue for me.

Alexander Pop

21st February 2003, 15:37

AMEN TO THAT HAWARAMEEN!

Doshka

21st February 2003, 18:10

i agree with all of you...i think...basically i find no need to disarm saddam while the U$ and other such terrorist nations are allowed weapons of much-more-mass destruction, i belive that the UN is a fucking joke...and should be shut down. the last thing the world needs is another puppet for america...it has enough of them. vive la republique et le communisme

Dr. Rosenpenis

22nd February 2003, 00:20

I believe that it has been made clear that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the middle East. It has also been made clear that even the nations oposing the war are in favor of dissarming saddam. Someone clearly needs to disarm saddam. i believ that the Iraqis are the people to do so, or the world-community with the support of the iraqi people.

guerrillaradio

22nd February 2003, 17:13

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:20 am on Feb. 22, 2003
I believe that it has been made clear that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the middle East.

How, when and where??

It's like a friend of mine said to me in London on the 15th: "if you have a bad teacher, you don't punish his class".

mentalbunny

22nd February 2003, 22:21

Um, well fist I have to apologise for doing my usual thing of not reading everyone's posts, so sorry if I repeat something that has been said.

It seems pretty clear that Saddam has been co-operating a lot better with the threat of war looming, therefore we need to keep up with the threats, but it only has to be threats (I just hope Iraqi spies don't see this!!). My mum and I are hoping that Bush's plans for war are just an act but we doubt it with Bush's track record.

I am against war because of Bush's motives and because lives will be lost, but the loss of life is inevitable, I'm afraid. We just have to threaten saddam repeatedly, with war not sanctions and then we might get somewhere.

redstar2000

22nd February 2003, 23:48

Guerillaradio has it right. Who is threatened by a country that can barely hold itself together?

Even with considerable military and intelligence assistance from the United States, Iraq could not conquer Iran. And that was when Iraq was "strong".

Could Iraq "conquer" the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, and Syria? Possibly, and so what? All of those places are historically one "country" if not one "nation"...it would be no different from the 19th century drive to unify Germany or Italy. A number of "royal" families would go into exile...who cares? The only reason the Arab Middle East is cut up into a bunch of different "nations" is that Britain and France with the support of the United States drew lines on a map on the floor of a Parisian ballroom some eighty years ago. The contempt that Europeans and Americans showed for the Arab people then has only increased in the years that followed.

Of course, a united Arab republic would be a threat to the economic interests of the imperial countries, foremost of which is the United States. Such a new nation would be large enough and wealthy enough to stand up to and resist any economic pressures that the International Monetary Fund/World Bank/World Trade Organization might attempt to apply. We can't have that, can we?

A united Arab republic might also be strong enough to stand up to Israel...forcing it to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians or face the risk of serious war and possible conquest. And we can't have that, can we?

A united Arab republic might even initiate a "secular revolution" to break the power of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, finally bringing the Arab people into the modern age. And we definitely don't want that to happen, do we?

No, the imperial powers prefer to keep their subjects backward and subservient...and perhaps even beyond the prospects of looting and plundering Iraq's oil, the essentially racist motivation of this war is clear..."we have to teach the rag-heads to know their place."

And lynching is, after all, an old American tradition.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:53 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)

Tasha

23rd February 2003, 01:34

Yes unification would be great in that region however I seriously doubt it could ever be achieved at this point to any large degree.

Dr. Rosenpenis

23rd February 2003, 06:43

I agree that the unification of the Middle East would be great. For that I believe that Saddam must be dissarmed, I believe that he is a threat to the Kurds. I also believe that he will not give up his power so easily. He must be taken down, by whom, I do not know. Hopefuly not the US. I hope the US stays out of this, though I am sure they will not. Unification, excellent, but under capitalism, why do you thing it be so prosperous? Will oil single-handedly make thir economy?

Perhaps if they unify under the red flag.

Lefty

23rd February 2003, 08:04

Let the U.N. decide.

ChiTown Lady

23rd February 2003, 08:13

The plan here, in case you didn’t know it, is to totally bombard the city of Baghdad, which I might point out to you all is a heavily populated civilian city, and would bring on the deaths of many innocent people – Primarily women and children. Iraq. Baghdad Current population of the City, 4,834,773. AND if the US and UK were to annihilate millions by bombing the city of Baghdad in their quest to oust Mr. Hussein, would that TOO lie under the guise of collateral damage, as it has been syayed receontly when civilian deathgs occur under this realm???

This is my concern with this quest “specifically”.

And let’s talk about RAPE – “specifically” if we may, only because in a sepatate forum the topic of rape against the women of Iraq by the police came up. This is why I feel in pertenent to mention it specifically here and now. During the Vietnam war, the United States as well as France left behind many Amarasian and Eurasian children, either by fly by night affairs had with the woman of Vietnam and/or by cases of outright RAPE. YES – there were cases of RAPE against the women of Vietnam. But the difference is this – and it is a documented FACT – the French government took responsibility for the Eurasian children produced as a result of their irresponsible and immoral soldiers who ran a muck over there – the United States did NOT!!!! These facts have been documented – don’t even get me started on that point, and more specifically – don’t try to act like United States men are above this crime – for God’s sake this country probably has the highest innocence of this crime even here within our borders than any other nation on this Gods’ earth. And specifically in times of “war’ the US government has historically viewed this as “collateral damage” as you would put it, and NOTHING is done to protect those children.

I understand being against war for some reasons –but more importantly and more specifically – I understand being against an outright massacre being staged for any reason as well. And this is what is being proposed here with this situation. An outright massacre of a people, and it is NOT about human rights issues there in Iraq, and also not about weapons of mass destruction either – it is about the Corporate Bottom Line of the oil industries who plan to set up shop there. This is the issue.

AND further more – the country with the MOST weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION is in fact the United States. This situation has gone on unquestioned and uncurbed for some time now. WHY is it that the UN is not over here inspecting this country for this crime???? Particularly since the Untied States is the only country to have ever actually used these types of weapons for the purpose of mass destroying civilian populations in the past. In my opinion – the United States should be the country put under the highest level of scrutiny in this realm “specifically”.

Lefty

23rd February 2003, 08:22

Hmm...you make it sound like they would just carpet bomb the city. I don't think we would do that, would we? I dunno...just when you think the U.S. can't get any worse or cruel, it does, lately.

guerrillaradio

23rd February 2003, 12:12

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:48 pm on Feb. 22, 2003
Guerillaradio has it right.

*High fives RS2000*

We're a team!!!

I defy anyone to give me any evidence that Iraq is a danger.

Dr. Rosenpenis

23rd February 2003, 17:44

Ask any Kuurd living under the reign of Saddam and I suspect they will tel you. Saddam is an opressive leader. I'm not saying he's linked to the Al-Queda, I do not believe that he is. Though, I do believe that Saddam is a threat to his own people. He should be taken out from his power.

mentalbunny

24th February 2003, 14:29

I thnk there are a lot of gaps in what people are saying, but then again we can't reallt expect anything else as we don't know all the facts (bloody goverment).

MiNdGaMe

24th February 2003, 20:13

A possible solution to war and saddam, would to globally pressure him to hold democratic elections in Iraq. Although this could possibly end up ugly. Worst comes to worst the elections would turn to an uprising. Now let's see if the USA stands for what it constitution outlines, Liberty, Freedom, Justice and it won't intervene, or place its CIA henchmen on an assisanation plot.

redstar2000

25th February 2003, 02:47

The problem with "free elections" in the modern world, MiNdGaMe, is that such elections are actually not "free" at all...they are for sale to the highest bidder.

What to take a guess who that will be? :cheesy:

:cool:

redstar2000

25th February 2003, 19:29

There is a very long but well documented discussion of imperialism and the Middle East going on now in the Infidel Forums:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&...25&pagenumber=1 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45430&perpage=25&pagenumber=1)

The posts of fanny666, oneofshibumi, and Ruy Lopez are particularly impressive.

If you really want to immerse yourself in the subject, this is a good place to "dive in."

:cool:

MiNdGaMe

25th February 2003, 20:34

Great, thanks for the info

hawarameen

25th February 2003, 23:49

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 12:12 pm on Feb. 23, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:48 pm on Feb. 22, 2003
Guerillaradio has it right.

*High fives RS2000*

We're a team!!!

I defy anyone to give me any evidence that Iraq is a danger.

this comment of yours really angers me GR. most of the time you say some good things but this one deserves to be flushed down with the rest of the shit.

i can give you over 110,000 pieces of evidence that saddam is a threat. because that many people and more have dissapeared while saddam has been in power, and this is JUST kurds.

is it ok to keep saddam in power so long as he is not a threat to you? so long as he doesnt hurt you then the hell with everyone else? is this your oppinion? because i can see no other way of interprating your comment.

i asked this question in another thread, no-one answered, i reminded people of the question ans still nobody answered so i will ask again.

how many american, british etc civilian lives will it take for the whole world to unite and get rid of saddam, 1000, 100, 10?? or is 1 enough?

Larissa

26th February 2003, 23:14

"An editorial in NYT by Jose Ramos-Horta.

Jose Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25HORT.html

An excerpt:

But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of
the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary.

So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force.

Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush
administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it indeed is at all."

So, now what?

redstar2000

27th February 2003, 00:59

Ok, hawarameen, your argument is that the war against Iraq is "justified" in order to save the Kurds.

I won't dispute your number of Kurds "disappeared" by Saddam Hussein...everyone knows that such "numbers" just come out of someone's ass these days.

What I will dispute is your assessment of the nature of U.S. imperialism...that any American governmental official or corporate executive gives a rat's ass about the Kurds. They don't.

In fact, there are rumors that the U.S. plans to give northern Iraq to Turkey...and we all know the "deep affection" shown for the Kurds by the Turks over the last few decades.

As it happens, I'm in favor of an independent Kurdish Republic that would include all the areas that are predominantly Kurdish, as I am also in favor of a united Arab republic in the Middle East. I would no more expect any assistance from the United States in that regard than I would expect assistance from the planet Mars.

Hawarameen, you may think you are being very "clever" by echoing Bush's imperial rhetoric...you may even be under the delusion that Bush will be "grateful" and "reward" the Kurds in northern Iraq in some fashion.

You are a fool. U.S. imperialism will use you and flush you away like toilet paper. That is what it has always done.

Of course, you're not the only fool. Look at the East Timor Foreign Minister...what kind of "help" is he looking for? Whatever it is...he won't get it unless the U.S. has some imperial advantage to gain.

As to Saddam Hussein being any kind of a "threat", I'll believe it when the Iraqi Marine Corps is storming the beaches at...Atlantic City. Not one second sooner!

:cool:

Dr. Rosenpenis

27th February 2003, 23:32

I agree with Redstar, the Kuerds will not be liberated by the American troops. If anything, they will be put under an opressive Capitalist puppet-govenrment. Though we do not need to go to war with Saddam, his power must be taken from him. I do not know how amny Kurds have been killed, but I do believe that Saddam is an opressor. Will war so be so grand, Hawarameen? I think not. War is hell, people will die, people will suffer, people will become starving refugees, people willbe left homeless. War is not the answer to Saddams' opression.

hawarameen

27th February 2003, 23:47

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:59 am on Feb. 27, 2003
Ok, hawarameen, your argument is that the war against Iraq is "justified" in order to save the Kurds.

I won't dispute your number of Kurds "disappeared" by Saddam Hussein...everyone knows that such "numbers" just come out of someone's ass these days.

What I will dispute is your assessment of the nature of U.S. imperialism...that any American governmental official or corporate executive gives a rat's ass about the Kurds. They don't.

In fact, there are rumors that the U.S. plans to give northern Iraq to Turkey...and we all know the "deep affection" shown for the Kurds by the Turks over the last few decades.

As it happens, I'm in favor of an independent Kurdish Republic that would include all the areas that are predominantly Kurdish, as I am also in favor of a united Arab republic in the Middle East. I would no more expect any assistance from the United States in that regard than I would expect assistance from the planet Mars.

Hawarameen, you may think you are being very "clever" by echoing Bush's imperial rhetoric...you may even be under the delusion that Bush will be "grateful" and "reward" the Kurds in northern Iraq in some fashion.

You are a fool. U.S. imperialism will use you and flush you away like toilet paper. That is what it has always done.

Of course, you're not the only fool. Look at the East Timor Foreign Minister...what kind of "help" is he looking for? Whatever it is...he won't get it unless the U.S. has some imperial advantage to gain.

As to Saddam Hussein being any kind of a "threat", I'll believe it when the Iraqi Marine Corps is storming the beaches at...Atlantic City. Not one second sooner!

:cool:

thank you very much redstar for confirming you racist beliefs.

you echo exactly what i said. as long as he is not a threat to you then the hell with everyone else, he can nuke away as long as its not atlantic city.

i have never come across someone as stupid as yourself, are you sugesting that the people that have died under saddam hussain are a figment of my imagination?

please stop you have made yourself look foolish enough, i feel sorry for you

do you read any other threads? because i have lost count of the times i have made it clear that i am TOTALLY against US imperialism, it could be china threatening iraq with force i dont care. what matters to me is the future of the people of all iraq and not a few barrels of oil.

i do not want anything from anybody, you were born with freedom to do and say what you want. the people of iraq do not have this.

how much does a single life cost RS? give me a price. are you against this because america stand to make too much money? would you be for it if they made a bit less?

in the city where i lived in (sulaimani, S.Kurdistan) teenagers who had commited "crimes" against the state were shot in the middle of town, their parents would be forced to stand and watch, once they had been shot, their parents were forced to applaud or risk execution, then they were sent an invoice for the bullets.

how long would you last?

talk to me when you have something intelligent to say and do not comment on things you know nothing of.

RC i do not like resorting to petty namecalling but you are a scumbag, thank you for doing my job for me in showing your stupidity.

hawarameen

27th February 2003, 23:59

Quote: from Victorcommie on 11:32 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
I agree with Redstar, the Kuerds will not be liberated by the American troops. If anything, they will be put under an opressive Capitalist puppet-govenrment. Though we do not need to go to war with Saddam, his power must be taken from him. I do not know how amny Kurds have been killed, but I do believe that Saddam is an opressor. Will war so be so grand, Hawarameen? I think not. War is hell, people will die, people will suffer, people will become starving refugees, people willbe left homeless. War is not the answer to Saddams' opression.

there has been hell in iraq for nearly 40 years already. people have already died, suffered, starved, become refugees and people are still homeless now.

i am not going to sit back and watch the fireworks if a war happens, do you all mistake me for some sort of sadist?
how many of you have been through air raids? how many of you have had to run to the shelter for your life? HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD YOUR SCHOOL BOMBED WHILE YOU WERE STILL IN IT??

DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE TERRORS OF WAR.

it may have escaped peoples memory but they have been trying to take his weapons away from him for 12 years, this is actually his 18th last chance.

each time he lies about what he has then suddenly finds a bomb he didnt know he had and destroys it and then we all wait for a couple of years untill the problem comes up again.

thank you for your more educated post VC

(Edited by hawarameen at 12:01 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

Beccie

28th February 2003, 00:24

Firstly I would like to say I oppose this war. But Hawar makes a strong point.

Quote: from hawarameen on 11:49 pm on Feb. 25, 2003 how many american, british etc civilian lives will it take for the whole world to unite and get rid of saddam, 1000, 100, 10?? or is 1 enough?

Don’t you realise what he is saying? The weapon of mass destruction talk is to justify a war that is going to be fought for corporations. Saddam is not a threat to anyone in the west; he is a threat to his own people. If Saddam attacked Britain, America or any other western nation America would probably go to war even if there were no oil in Iraq. If there were no oil in Iraq would America go to war for the Kurdish/Iraqi people?

I don’t think this war is going to free Kurdistan that is one of the reasons I do not support it. I think that people, especially leftist people, need to think more about the people of Iraq and Kurdistan. There is a definite need to overthrow Saddam. How? I do not know.

hawarameen

28th February 2003, 00:35

i also am not saying that a war with iraq will definately result in a republic of kurdistan. but either way, whatever happens there is a chance that ALL the people of iraq whatever their race will have the freedom that you and i have and take for granted.

my life is very different from most of your's and i am not proclaiming myself to be better, more knowledgable etc, not by any means but ANYONE, that has gone through such oppresion and barbaric acts WIll cling to the slightest thread of hope because that is all they have.

it is all i have!

Blibblob

28th February 2003, 00:44

1 is all it takes, ive said that before. But supposidly they outlawed assasination, the CIA is not allowed to do it any more.

Beccie

28th February 2003, 02:44

Quote: from hawarameen on 12:35 am on Feb. 28, 2003 it is all i have!

It is truly sad to see a comrade support a war because it is his only real hope. It is a strong reminder that the world is completely fucked. What I was trying to say before is that more people need to think of the Iraqi and Kurdistan civilians and their need to be liberated from Saddam. Unfortunately the media focus, in the west, is on weapons of mass destruction that Saddam could use against western nations. You are right, American lives are valued more highly than the life of a Kurd. It shouldn’t be like this, human lives should be equal and in my opinion they are. No one should have to live under oppression. If the war does liberate the Iraqi people and bring freedom to Kurdistan than maybe it is justified. BUT we have to thing of the people that are going to be killed and I stand by my opinion that the killing of an innocent person cannot be justified.

Beccie

28th February 2003, 02:49

I just realized that I contradicted myself by saying that if Kurdistan is freed as an outcome of the war than the war maybe justified and the killing of an innocent person cannot be justified. lol

Fuck, I don’t know what I think anymore! I hate this fucking world we live in….

redstar2000

28th February 2003, 13:44

They are not my "racist beliefs", hawarameen, but rather the historical track record of U.S. imperialism.

Saddam Hussein cannot "nuke away" anyone as he has no nukes to do it with.

"I was born with the freedom to do and say what I want"? Really? Do you also believe that "in America, the streets are paved with gold"? Some people in other countries have absolutely unbelievable illusions about life in America! Do you really think life here is like what you see on American television programs?

Shall we trade atrocity stories? "My life is worse than yours!" "No, my life is much worse than yours!" What is the point of that kind of crap? How does that prove anything?

I know, you think that once the United States has killed Saddam Hussein and removed the Baath Party from power that everything's going to be just "wonderful."

Don't tell me...tell it to the Afghanis! Go attend a wedding there...if you have the courage!

I am a "racist stupid scumbag" because I oppose the so-called "right" of the United States to intervene anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

I can live with that!

:cool:

hawarameen

28th February 2003, 23:44

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:59 am on Feb. 27, 2003

As to Saddam Hussein being any kind of a "threat", I'll believe it when the Iraqi Marine Corps is storming the beaches at...Atlantic City. Not one second sooner!

:cool:

are you sure they are not your racist beliefs???

also can you please let the weapons inspectors know of your groundbreaking news that he has no weapons because you seam very sure of yourself.

you just keep getting better and better dont you?
i live in uk, if i wanted to i could go outside and run around saying tony blair is a wanker. do you think i could do that in iraq if you think yes, i will personnaly pay for your ticket to go to baghdad for you to see what happens, it will prove a point. also i wouldnt live in america if the streets werre ACTUALLY paved with gold ok!

people are making a point that war is bad, terrible and it is, i more than you know that, so if i am willing to support a war knowing the effects does that not tell you something? the people of iraq are already dead inside. brothers and fathers are forced to watch their mothers, daughters sisters raped repeatedly by iraqi soldiers, what kind of a life is this? who would rather not be dead than to go through this? so could you please get back into your little world where your biggest concearn is how much weight you may be putting on or if you're going to get your homework in on time.

please please read my posts RS, it does you no good replying to things in this way. i have said that i live in hope, i do not know what will happen but i do know what has happened and i along with millions living in iraq do not want it anymore.

so just to clarify things you are against the war because america may stand to make money out of it, its funny how commie1 is against the war because innocent lives are at risk (which i respect) while you are against it simply because of imperialism, i cant find a mention of innocent lives in your posts RS. i do not care who intervenes it could be anybody,

one final question, why the use of that particular emoticon? do you think your comments are "cool" you seem to use it so flipantly.

redstar2000

1st March 2003, 13:58

"Are you sure they are not your racist beliefs?"

Here's how "racist" I am, hawarameen: I don't even give a shit if the Iraqi Marine Corps does storm the beaches of Atlantic City! Do you understand me? The defeat of U.S. imperialism is my number one priority!

The U.N. "weapons inspectors" haven't found crap! The whole thing is a charade. The United States intends to loot and plunder the resources of Iraq. Why do you insist on taking imperialist rhetoric seriously?

I agree, as it happens, that Tony Blair is a wanker...and, for that matter, a war criminal. But if you "look Middle Eastern" or "Islamic", I would seriously advise considerable discretion on your part. They have an "anti-terrorist" law in the U.K. now...and it's not targeting folks who are blonde and have blue-eyes!

At least you have the good sense not to want to live here! I'll grant you that.

Iraqi soldiers are bastards. Ok, I can see that. Now, tell me what capitalist country has soldiers who are not bastards? Is it better to be raped by an American occupation soldier than by an Iraqi soldier? How about a Turkish soldier? Rape is rape...the victim doesn't care who the rapist is!

Or perhaps you are under the impression that American soldiers are kind-hearted boy scouts who would never dream of forcing sex on a defenseless girl...perhaps a written history or two of the American presence in Vietnam would enlighten you.

"The people in Iraq are already dead inside"...and you wish to make sure that they are dead outside as well? Did you ask them first?

You remind me, hawarameen, of some of the folks in the Ukraine in 1941. They hated Stalin and communism, so when the Nazis arrived, they hailed the Nazis as "liberators". They found out things could be worse.

History teaches...but it teaches only those who are willing to learn.

:cool:

(Yes, I like the "smoking.gif" very much...it's my little personal message to anti-smoking neo-puritans and I use it on any message board that makes it available.)

Alexander Pop

1st March 2003, 22:19

THAT PUSSY FUCK SADDAM CHICKENED OUT!
HE ACTUALLY AGREED TO DESTROY AL-SAMUD 2! WHAT A LOOSER!

hawarameen

1st March 2003, 23:33

no antiwar banner, no newspaper, magazine, tv programme could ever tell you what the iraqi people are going through. my point is such a life is not worth living, i would rather support ANY army to come and drop bombs risking my own life than to watch members of my own family being raped.
like i said, it matters not who's army it is but the liberation of the people, while i put people lives and freedom ahead of money, you RS think money is more important, or rather stoping a country get more of it.

i cannot bring myself to say that it doesnt matter how many lives saddam has, is and will kill as long as another country doesnt make any money.

as any parent and they will tell you what their priority is, their childrens future or money. i dont know if you have kids RS but would you knowingly put money ahead of your childrens future??

so now i am confused.
your original comment was "I'LL believe it when the iraqi marine corps invades atlantic city"

for me this only has one meaning. it means so long as he is not a threat to you it doesnt matter. you will only believe he is a threat IF and ONLY when he invades america, not one second sooner!! (your words)

the iraqi government made it a policy of theirs to rape women, to breed us out of existence, i am not aware of such a policy in the U$.

the status quo will remain the status quo unless you change it

he has been finding and destroying bombs at the last minute for the past 12 years, i am nt alarmed by this, i am sure in due corse he will find some more he didnt know he had and symbolicly destroy them.

incidently, the head of the scud weapons programe in iraq was found poisoned in baghdad recently, there were fears that he may have been willing to talk to the us about iraqs weapons programe. interesting!

redstar2000

2nd March 2003, 02:30

You seem to be fixated on the subject of rape, hawarameen, to the point of believing an obvious absurdity: Saddam Hussein intends to "breed" the Kurds "out of existence."

Do you have any idea how "silly" that idea even sounds in the 21st century? Do you think being "Kurdish" is a biological trait?

The Kurds, like all nationalities, share a culture which any human baby can learn. Even an adult raised in a different culture could learn to "be Kurdish"...though it would be harder and they'd never be "as good at it" as someone raised from childhood in it.

You would rather watch the bombs fall on Iraq than go on living like people in Iraq live now...can you not admit the possibility that other Iraqis may feel differently? This question is especially important since you live in the U.K., not Iraq...your life, in fact, is not at risk.

Doesn't it bother you, just a little, to call for the bombs to fall on other people? "For their own good", of course. :o

I apologize for confusing you and for using unclear rhetoric...when I used the expression "storm the beaches at Atlantic City" what I really meant to convey is my view that Saddam Hussein is no threat to anyone expect possibly some "royal families" in the Arabian Peninsula...and I don't care what happens to those fuckers.

Finally, you keep going back to the implication that "I am a heartless monster who cares only about money" while you "care about children being raped".

How can I get the idea across to you that it is U.S. imperialism that "only cares about money"? Don't you understand that if the major corporations and its U.S. Government decided that all the Arabs "had" to be exterminated, then they'd do it!

You think Hussein is a bastard...and I wouldn't dispute that. Compared to the track record of U.S. imperialism, Hussein isn't even a blip of the radar screen of atrocities and war crimes. I don't expect you to believe that; you've obviously decided to turn a blind eye to history and "hope for the best". In a way, I can even "understand" that, at least a little.

Can you understand the burden of guilt that you are voluntarily taking up? When you act as an apologist for U.S. imperialism, even out of what you think are "good motives", the whole world takes notice.

Quisling is an ugly word...and a worse fate.

:cool:

hawarameen

2nd March 2003, 21:00

do you know why i live in uk?
i along with my family had to flee iraq because our lives were at risk thats why im here, my life may not be at risk here but the rest of my family live there, i know what they are going through and what they have been through.

"NO THREAT TO ANYONE EXCEPT SOMR ROYAL FAMILIES" do you realise how absurd and ignorant this sounds. he has killed over 100,000 kurds alone, not to mention any other iraqis.
and what about kuwait? did that whole series of events go over your head? his secret police are still in the country!

look up ethnic cleansing somewhere i cant be bothered to teach you, the fact that you are dismissing it, while you know nothing about what goes on in iraq shows your ignorance. i will remind you that the world is far more harrowing than you think and ethnic cleansing has been part of iraqi policy for decades.

yes i can admit that some iraqis may want to watch their children grow up with the devil as a leader, can any of the anti war protestors tell me if the iraqi people actually want a war? have they been asked or are you just presuming, i have regular contact with people in iraq and despite what people are forced to protest on the streets, they are awaiting ANY country and i repeat ANY country to come and liberate them.

you redstar are looking from the outside in and can never fully understand. it is the iraqi people looking out from inside the prison cell.

you have shown yourself to be quite ignorant where saddam is concearned what you read in newspapers is nothing, how can you comment on someone who you know nothing about.

redstar2000

3rd March 2003, 00:27

Hawarameen, please stop making up numbers. I am not impressed.

I have no doubt at all that the Hussein regime has killed a good number of people, both Kurds and other Iraqis.

The United States killed three million in Vietnam.

The "Shock and Awe" plan to destroy Baghdad contemplates a death toll in the hundreds of thousands if not more than a million. (See Larissa's post on "Shock and Awe" in this forum.)

What the fuck are you talking about?

As to "ethnic cleansing", it would seem to me that your major complaints should be directed against Turkey...who may turn out to be your new masters in northern Iraq. Is that the "liberation" that you are looking forward to?

"What about Kuwait?" Well, what about it? Don't tell me you're going to revive the old atrocity stories about Iraqi occupation forces killing babies in hospitals...those stories have already been exposed as fakes. Are there Iraqi "agents" in Kuwait? Probably, so what?

Maybe, because "I'm outside", I see things more clearly than you do...I don't have any family in the Middle East so I have no emotional ties to blind me to the political and economic realities.

As I said in an earlier post, Iraq, Kuwait, "Saudi" Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. are "nations" carved out of a single country by British, French, and U.S. imperialists. The drive to unify the Arab world has been going on for nearly 50 years...opposed by U.S. imperialism every step of the way. The reasons for that opposition are obvious and do not need repetition.

"The world is far more harrowing" than I think? I don't know about that one, hawarameen...how does one measure such things?

I do know where I've heard that excuse before...it comes from people who are knowingly doing a bad thing for what they believe to be "good" reasons.

Neither the deed nor the excuse can stand the criticism of history.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:42 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)