I pose a question - to those who believe in "liberating" Ira

[synthesis]

I just read a post proclaiming that Saddam Hussein must be dethroned and that the United States will be doing a service to the people of Iraq.

I've seen dozens of others like this on this board.

I would like to pose a serious question to those who believe in such a thing. All of you pro-war people know, I'm presuming, that the U.S. installed the Ba'ath party, funded Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and gave him biological weapons to use against Iran?

Well, let's look at America's record with regimes it has destroyed. It toppled the Soviet government in Afghanistan which was dedicated to women's rights and other social reform, and funded the Taliban in its place, which killed one million civilians and disabled three million more. It toppled Patrice Lumumba's democratic socialist government in the Congo and replaced it with Mobutu Sese Soko, who killed over fifteen thousand innocent people. It assassinated the democratically-elected leftist president of Guatemala, put in a fascist government which conformed to the States' every whim, and trains their death squads to this day; this regime has killed over 200,000 innocent people. It provided arms to Indonesia's troops bringing genocide upon East Timor, killing over 200,000 more innocent people; coincidentally, America installed the dictator who caused these acts and also killed over a million civilians in his own country.

I have DOZENS more examples to throw out; America's atrocities are a dime a dozen. That's not the point.

Here is my question, which I would like to be answered DIRECTLY, HONESTLY, and SINCERELY.

Given America's atrocious track record with regards to governments it has supported or installed around the world, what makes you think that the human rights crimes committed in Iraq will differ at all, considering that the U.S. created that situation in the first place?

This question isn't for sadists like CI, who believe that the deaths of over a million infants due to U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq are all worth it to "secure American petroleum interests." This question is for the "pro-war humanitarians", who believe that America is doing the world a service by removing Hussein from power.

Again, please do not reply with evasion; answer it directly.

[Tkinter1]

Apparently we're not installing a government this time. We're letting the Iraqi's choose. At least thats what I hope happens.

[Liberty Lover]

You have to keep past U.S. "atrocities" in their context. America were, if indirectly, at war with the USSR and were doing whatever they felt necessary to limit the global influence of the enemy and win this war...which thankfully they did. Dictatorships were sometimes necessary in preventing soviet puppets from coming to power. Whether you agree with the installation of these dictatorships is dependent on whether you wanted the USA or the USSR to win the cold war.

A dictatorship in Iraq would serve no real purpose to the U.S. and therefore there is no reason to believe they will install one.

[IHP]

"A dictatorship in Iraq would serve no real purpose to the U.S. and therefore there is no reason to believe they will install one."

It would serve the US interests if the dictator is a puppet, entrenched deeply within US control, thereby controlling the worlds second largest oil deposit. It would serve them nicely I think.

--IHP

[boadicea88]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:47 pm on Mar. 14, 2003
Apparently we're not installing a government this time. We're letting the Iraqi's choose. At least thats what I hope happens.


sorry bud, you hoped wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Feb20.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37949-2003Feb20.html)

[Zombie]

thx boadicea88 for the article.


We're letting the Iraqi's choose
like u did for the Afghani people?

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from i hate pinochet on 5:32 am on Mar. 15, 2003
"A dictatorship in Iraq would serve no real purpose to the U.S. and therefore there is no reason to believe they will install one."

It would serve the US interests if the dictator is a puppet, entrenched deeply within US control, thereby controlling the worlds second largest oil deposit. It would serve them nicely I think.

--IHP


Time will prove you wrong.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from boadicea88 on 5:50 am on Mar. 15, 2003

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:47 pm on Mar. 14, 2003
Apparently we're not installing a government this time. We're letting the Iraqi's choose. At least thats what I hope happens.


sorry bud, you hoped wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Feb20.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37949-2003Feb20.html)


The article stated "The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration." INTERIM...meaning *temporary*. Dickhead.

[MiNdGaMe]

Yes lets keep the past US's atrocities in context, but lets practice hypocrisy use them against other nations (even though the majority of them would have a history of US involvement, backing, funding etc...). If dictators were necessay, then why promote "Freedom" and "Liberty" in the process?

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from MiNdGaMe on 6:38 am on Mar. 15, 2003
Yes lets keep the past US's atrocities in context, but lets practice hypocrisy use them against other nations (even though the majority of them would have a history of US involvement, backing, funding etc...). If dictators were necessay, then why promote "Freedom" and "Liberty" in the process?

Your post is hard to read because it's so smeared in shit

[Commie Bitch Slapper]

funded Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and gave him biological weapons to use against Iran

That's false.

[peaccenicked]

Thats not true. lying twisted sewer crawler.

[Commie Bitch Slapper]

Hey thanks for backing me up on this one peacedick. That's what I just told him.

[peaccenicked]

I was talking to you moron.

[Commie Bitch Slapper]

Really? Phew! I was wondering whether or not my mind was beginning to rot since I found myself in agreement with you. What a relief.

[peaccenicked]

I refer you to my post in denying freedom

[MiNdGaMe]

Liberty lover, explain the irrational post, that mine was "smeared in shit"?

[Commie Bitch Slapper]

By the way, my name is in no way meant to demean women. It is meant to humiliate communists by labeling them as a bunch of whining sniffling little cowards, and noting that I often put the smack down on them.

[peaccenicked]

Your thinking seems very distorted perhaps you should be on some medication.

[Pete]

Norman you are the one that is spreading bullshit.

"According to reports of a US Senate Committee in 1994:

From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the US Department of Commerce."

Source (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/US-Bioweapons.html)

[Commie Bitch Slapper]

Moron! I have dealt with this issue probably 12 times. If you want to know where you are wrong, look up one of many many responses to this bullshit charge. By the way, nice souce (snicker).

[peaccenicked]

Still here humiliating yourself. How sad.

[Tkinter1]

"The article stated "The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration." INTERIM...meaning *temporary*. Dickhead."

Thankyou

[Pete]

How long will a *temporary* government last? I read on the CBC site that Bush means somewhere around 10 years.

[Tkinter1]

"How long will a *temporary* government last? I read on the CBC site that Bush means somewhere around 10 years."

Ok, and?

[Pete]

For everyone who thinks America uses 'smart bombs' like they said they did in the Gulf War

"Due to American military control of information, people outside Iraq saw only pinpoint, surgical strikes from "smart" bombs and missiles. However, the reality was quite different; the vast majority of air strikes were carried out using old-fashioned unguided bombs. In total, the equivalent of seven Hiroshima bombs hit Iraq, killing some 100,000 people, mostly members of the military. "

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/iraq/)

For all of you who feel that the inspections are to disarm an already disarmed nation:

"The inspectors met resistance from Iraqi authorities. On one hand, the inspection teams acted rather like spies, scouring the country and making surprise visits to factories, warehouses and laboratories. On the other hand, there seemed no end to the investigations, and after a time it began to appear as if it were an elaborate act, the real goal being to keep the sanctions in place. "

(Same source)

For those who think that Saddam has WOMD

"He added Saddam's biological weapons capability appears to be limited and wouldn't "pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces." "

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/09/09/iraq_chipman020909)

For those who think the embargo is serving a humanitarian purpose:

"Lack of money, and the fact that the water-purifying chemical chlorine is on the embargoed list, mean many communities lack clean drinking water. "

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/02/24/humanitarian030224)

Or that the war will be humanitarian (speaking of the people who will flee American troops and bombs):

"The UNHCR's representative in Jordan, Sten Bronee, calls the situation very serious. "No one should have the illusion we are ready. We are not ready to receive people if they come in larger numbers," he said. "

(same source as above)

And a curious statement to look at:

"The Red Cross is flying in staff from as far away as Malaysia. It also has 400 staff positioned inside Iraq and has given its workers training how to survive a biological or chemical weapons attack. "

(same source as above)

If the people inside of Iraq need this training, does that say something of America's plan?

""How long will a *temporary* government last? I read on the CBC site that Bush means somewhere around 10 years."

Ok, and?"

Do you not think that in 10 years America could insure that the 'elected' leader will serve thier purposes? And you will have a decade of unilateral American control over the second largest oil exporter in the world. Do you see anything wrong wtih that? If you don't read your history on what American puppets do to civilians.

[HankMorgan]

"Given America's atrocious track record with regards to
governments it has supported or installed around the world,
what makes you think that the human rights crimes committed
in Iraq will differ at all, considering that the U.S. created
that situation in the first place? "

The ball is hit to Hank and it's got tremendous spin on
it. Can he field it? Yes, he can.

Stripped of it's spin, I believe your question is: "Will
the post-Hussein government of Iraq treat it's citizens
better than the present Hussein regime?".

Yes I believe the odds are good that the new Iraqi government
will treat it citizens better. It would be difficult to do
worse.

There are the examples of post World War 2 Germany and Japan
to go by. Both countries have become democratic ecomomic
powerhouses that no longer threaten the world. The United
States has been very successful in the past at turning around
nations.

The US, Britain and any others who join the winning side should
keep a moderate military presence in post war Iraq. In fact
troops from Japan and Germany could (I believe should) be moved
to Iraq. The purpose of the military presence is only to insure
that no group within Iraq manages to secure enough power to
threaten the new Iraqi government.

The new Iraqi goverment should be popularly elected and have a
stable court system based on the rule of law. The overriding
goal should be building infrastructure and eduction. The idea
is to make every citizen believe they have a say in the government,
will be treated fairly by the courts and will receive benefit
from the government. Granted, easier said than done BUT it is
possible.

Iraq has tremendous oil wealth which can be used to build roads,
utilities and schools. The country can afford to build itself
as long its oil wealth is not squandered on weapons and palaces.
All that the US and Britain have to do is see that new government
of Iraq puts the Iraqi people foremost. The wealth is there. We
just need to get Hussein out of the way.

As to how long the US would keep a presence in Iraq. As long as
it takes. The troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea have been
there 50+ years.

I believe I answered your question directly, DyerMaker. Please see my next post.

[HankMorgan]

Let's get something straight about Hussein.

The tanks that smashed into Kuwait were Soviet made.

The helicopters used to gun down Kurds were made in
the Soviet Union and in France.

Hussein's fighter planes are Soviet Migs and French
Mirages.

The missile technology was purchased from China, France,
the Soviet Union as well as others.

The factory used to build the missiles was purchased
from West Germany.

Saddam Hussein is what happens when an evil man has
access to the wealth of the world's second largest oil
reserve. Without the oil, Hussein is just another Idi
Amin or Papa Doc. If the United States walks away from
Iraq leaving Hussein in power, he will still be evil and
he will still have access to all that oil wealth.

DyerMaker, when you say "the U.S. created that situation
in the first place", you are being very, very loose with
the truth.

One more angle. Who has the higher moral ground? The
country A that sold weapons to Hussein but now wants to
remove him from power or country B that also sold weapons
to Hussein but now is doing everything it can to prevent
Hussein from being removed? Is the United States wrong or
is France wrong? Pretty black and white wouldn't you agree?

[canikickit]

I think they're both wrong, Hank, and I'm not alone on that. Most people here who I know and are opposed to the war are fully aware of the vested interest France has in keeping Saddam in power. I'm not the greatest fan of any of the governments around at the moment.

I think your above post also is lose with the truth. The US played a part in Saddam's power as well.

AS to the other post, I won't argue with that. I disagree with it, but it's just speculation - I don't think there's much point. I will say that the comparisons to Japan and Germany are off the mark though. Iraq's situation, and indeed the entire midle eastern situation is very different. There is obviously a very strong and explosive culture clash between the two worlds of the west and the middle east/arabic/muslim/whatever the correct term is.

I think it is also important to take note of the bitterness this intervention is going to cause. The reason for Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda's existence is foreign interference. This war is going to set back the cause of the "war on terrorism" back. The crys of "Allah U Akbar" will grow louder, I guaruntee that.

[Liberty Lover]

And then, once we're done with Saddam, we just go to the next little sorry assed dictator's door, kick that mother fucker in, and start the whole fucking process over again. We could do this world wide if we tried. We could target and destroy the enemies of freedom all over the world, if only we had the balls to put our money where our mouth is. If you're not willing to fight every dictator and evil nemesis of freedom around the globe, then NEVER embrace hypocrisy so detestably as to utter a syllable about freedom ever again. Shut up or put up, goddamnit.

[Yankee]

The fact of the matter is that saddam is slaughtering his own people and will keep doing so unless someone steps up to the plate and takes him out of power. He is a threat to the peace of not just America but most of the middle-east and europe. Granted america has pushed the limits of its power in foriegn diplomacy and has made some atrocious mistakes but in this matter i think that saddam needs to be removed from power and so far america looks like the only country with enough balls to lead the way.

[canikickit]

Liberty Lover, all you do is spout rhetoric. Your statements are empty.

[peaccenicked]

What right has any country got to topple Saddam.
It is the right of the Iraqi people and only theirs. To say anything else is to be a warmongering liar.
There is no threat. Thats just a war mongering lie. Saddam only acted when he thought he had support from the US, both in Iraq and Kuwait. He was shocked when the US stabbed him in the back in Kuwait, and he did not use chemical weapons against US forces.
He has no proven links with Al Qaidi, that is another war mongering lie.
Most of the world's population know that Bush is pulling a fast one. He only seems to have influence on the democrats and the US media. More and more Americans are turning to Europe for the truth.

[HankMorgan]

I think your above post also is lose with the truth. The US played a part in Saddam's power as well.


The quote above was from canikickit. My skill with quoting leaves some to be desired.

The role of the United States in arming Hussein was covered by DyerMaker and I didn't think I needed to add to it. If you think I was loose with the truth by not listing the weapons sold by the US, I apologize.

The point I was making and I'll make it again is that Hussein is not the product of the United States. He's an evil man who spends vast oil riches on weapons from many countries including the very countries actively working to keep him in power like France, Germany, Russia and China.

Again, who has the higher moral ground, France or the United States? Both took Hussein's oil money and gave him arms. The US seeks to remove Hussein. France works to protect Hussein. The US or France, what do you say canikickit? Will you punt again?

(Edited by HankMorgan at 11:05 pm on Mar. 15, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from canikickit on 2:57 am on Mar. 16, 2003
Liberty Lover, all you do is spout rhetoric. Your statements are empty.


I was just stating what I would like to see happen.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:02 am on Mar. 16, 2003
What right has any country got to topple Saddam. It is the right of the Iraqi people and only theirs.


I didn't know you were so staunchly opposed to the concept of helping others.

[peaccenicked]

There is no high moral ground from the US its intentions are revealed here http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/03/15/44472.html
Perhaps if France and Germany were getting some of the cake they might be tempted but the US wants all the oil and all the construction work.
That makes Blair a idiot, but he knows that the US can punish Britain economically, more than France and Germany.

[Liberty Lover]

You said NO country has the right to intervene...not just the USA.

I'm not going to even bother checking out that link.

[canikickit]

Hank, what I mean is that, just as Dyermaker did not state all the facts, neither did you. You say it is because it was already covered, which is fair enough. I just thought you were trying to avoid the issue of the US aid also. Not to worry, that's clear enough for me.

There is no high ground, Mr. Morgan. They're all scum. The US because they are lying to their citizens about their motivation (and obviously due to their true motivation) and France because they are protecting their interests.

If you were to ask who had the higher moral high ground (or the less low, perhaps), I would say France.

France have a moral reason for opposing the proposed breach of international law (regardless of their motivation).

The US have no moral reason for their imperialistic conquest. None. What is their claimed motivation, again?

I don't belive that other cultures should be interfered with. It causes more tribulation and anger.

Is punting when you kick after the other team has scored? I think you meant me to kick a field goal. :wink:

[peaccenicked]

No country has the right to topple Saddam. Help is a different matter. The US could lift sanctions and stop betraying the Iraqi opposition at every turn.

[M1 Abrams]

Righties unite! I, "THE KEEPER OF THE JUSTICE KNUCKLE" have come to lead you. Can you except at least, that although you think the U.S gov has unjust intentions, we are in fact liberating the Iraqi people? Isn't that enough?

[peaccenicked]

The liberation theory is a myth.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/03/15/44472.html

[Liberty Lover]

Still waiting for the day peaccenicked provides his own arguments.

[Zombie]

Quote: from M1 Abrams on 10:29 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
Righties unite! I, "THE KEEPER OF THE JUSTICE KNUCKLE" have come to lead you. Can you except at least, that although you think the U.S gov has unjust intentions, we are in fact liberating the Iraqi people? Isn't that enough?


stop dreaming and get real. it's as platonic as the creation of a real Palestinian state.

[canikickit]

The "liberation" will result in civil unrest and more (justified) bitterness from anti-US muslim fundamentalists.

[Pete]

Liberty Lover, what peaccenicked is doing is forgien to you. He has provided arguements, as well as proof. So if we look at it ( I did and ran from it because Bush looks like my dad in the picture ) we can see that he is showing his article has substince to it.

[peaccenicked]

If you cant cope with reality perhaps you should bow out of the argument altogether. Libertylowbrow.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from canikickit on 3:40 am on Mar. 16, 2003
bitterness from anti-US muslim fundamentalists.


If these fuckers want a fight then for the sake of freedom I say we give em' a fight.

[Zombie]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 10:55 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
If these fuckers want a fight then for the sake of freedom I say we give em' a fight.

for the sake of freedom eh? u ure self are no better ; u make me puke with all that crap bout god blessin america and the god u trust in... i might go a bit further and call ur 'war for liberation' an hypocrite christian crusade ... fuckface

[canikickit]

If these fuckers want a fight then for the sake of freedom I say we give em' a fight

You're so fucking macho, you know that?

It is this type of ridiculous attitude which has the planet in the mess it is in. You, and people like you are causing them to fight. Imperialism is what they fight against.

[peaccenicked]

The saddest part of the wilful blindness of the pro genocide party is that they cannot see that they are creating terrorists and driving young muslims into the hands of the extremists. The US imperialist class wants to rule the world without any regard to the lives of their own citizens.
Then when 9/11 the second, the third, the fourth comes along, they will plead innocence and liberty loving.

[M1 Abrams]

Zombie, why are you always so prone to vomiting? Your arguments lose what little credence they have when you act like an ass....FUCKFACE

[Zombie]

Quote: from M1 Abrams on 11:06 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
Zombie, why are you always so prone to vomiting? Your arguments lose what little credence they have when you act like an ass....FUCKFACE


awwww did i hurt ur little 'freedom loving' sensible soul?

[HankMorgan]

Let me see if I can answer both of you, peaccenicked and canikickit.

You say the US (Pres. Bush) is scum because it is lying about its motives for attacking Iraq. That's because you, canikickit and peaccenicked, have in your own minds decided the President's motive is empire and oil. When the President says he wishes to remove a dictator, you hear a lie because it doesn't fit with what you believe. To you it becomes not only do the Americans want empire and oil, they'll lie to get it.

I believe the President really does want to remove a dictator. If his message wobbles I think it is out of frustration at getting the world to see what is so obvious. All that is happening with Iraq is the follow up that should have happened after the Gulf war.

As for the moral high grounds, how perfect a past does a country have to have to fight for what is right? Are you making the case that doing the right thing can be allowed to be done only by a nation with a perfect past? Under those rules, when would anyone fight for goodness? Where is your champion? Who is this perfect person or nation that is the only one allowed to fight for what is right?

A test post has revealed that this thread has gotten ugly. I'll make this last post and go get something to eat. Peaccenicked and canikickit, I enjoyed it as always.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from Zombie on 3:59 am on Mar. 16, 2003

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 10:55 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
If these fuckers want a fight then for the sake of freedom I say we give em' a fight.

for the sake of freedom eh? u ure self are no better ; u make me puke with all that crap bout god blessin america and the god u trust in... i might go a bit further and call ur 'war for liberation' an hypocrite christian crusade ... fuckface


I am an agnostic...'fuckface'

[canikickit]

Are you making the case that doing the right thing can be allowed to be done only by a nation with a perfect past?

The right thing can be done by all who have it in their hearts/minds/souls to do it. I don't think the invasion of Iraq is the right thing. That's the point I, and all my comrades, constantly make. None of us care about France or Germany, it's nice that they provide a bit of balance (motivations aside, that balance is important), but I'd still have the same feelings if Schroeder, Chirac and Bush were all beating the same drum. They're all punks.


When the President says he wishes to remove a dictator, you hear a lie because it doesn't fit with what you believe.

Well, of course. I believe in the truth. If I don't believe in something it's because it is a lie. It's perfectly logical. :wink:

In all seriousness, the fact that Powell, Rice and Bush all had ties to a oil pipeline in Afghanistan is quite a big motivation. Also the examination of past interferences perpetrated by the US causes cynicism. There is also the motivation they have to attempt to stabalise the region by establishing their huge military presence there.

I believe the President really does want to remove a dictator.

Yes. He probably does, but that is far from his only motivation.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from canikickit on 4:03 am on Mar. 16, 2003

If these fuckers want a fight then for the sake of freedom I say we give em' a fight

You're so fucking macho, you know that?

It is this type of ridiculous attitude which has the planet in the mess it is in. You, and people like you are causing them to fight. Imperialism is what they fight against.


I apologize for having an idealistic opinion or two, but I kinda take that whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing to heart. And I beleive if people of the past hadn't had that same attitude democracry wouldn't exist.

[Zombie]

Quote: from HankMorgan on 11:14 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
Let me see if I can answer both of you, peaccenicked and canikickit.

You say the US (Pres. Bush) is scum because it is lying about its motives for attacking Iraq. That's because you, canikickit and peaccenicked, have in your own minds decided the President's motive is empire and oil. When the President says he wishes to remove a dictator, you hear a lie because it doesn't fit with what you believe. To you it becomes not only do the Americans want empire and oil, they'll lie to get it.

I believe the President really does want to remove a dictator. If his message wobbles I think it is out of frustration at getting the world to see what is so obvious. All that is happening with Iraq is the follow up that should have happened after the Gulf war.

As for the moral high grounds, how perfect a past does a country have to have to fight for what is right? Are you making the case that doing the right thing can be allowed to be done only by a nation with a perfect past? Under those rules, when would anyone fight for goodness? Where is your champion? Who is this perfect person or nation that is the only one allowed to fight for what is right?

A test post has revealed that this thread has gotten ugly. I'll make this last post and go get something to eat. Peaccenicked and canikickit, I enjoyed it as always.



dude, with all do respect, who are you or me to judge of what is good to the Iraqi or any other people for that matter? Who am i to say that this or that is in dire need of "liberation" at all cost? why not go on a massive crusade in order to convert every living and breathing muslim on this planet because from your perspective (note: this is just hypothetical,take it as an example), the K'uran is savage and brutal and that muslims deserve 'liberation'?





(Edited by Zombie at 11:31 pm on Mar. 15, 2003)

[Pete]

Your president has admitted to wanting to install an American controlled 'interim' government. AKA a puppet. That is of course after they bomb the water processing plants. The only logical thing that America can be fighting for is oil. They have proved that their aim is not liberty or the removal of mass weapons. Others have the links, I could search but I will not promise to.

The only moral highground in the current affair is that of whoever proposes to drop the sanctions against Iraq, or atleast the ones that block humanitarian materials from coming into the country, and the ones who support all of the dissent groups and are willing to give each selfdetermination.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:29 am on Mar. 16, 2003
Your president has admitted to wanting to install an American controlled 'interim' government. AKA a puppet.


The interim government will be made up of American military and civilian personel and led by Gen. Tommy Franks. Similar to the MaCarthur led post-WWII Japan...which now has the second largest economy in the world.

[Zombie]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 11:24 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
I am an agnostic...'fuckface'


and i'm an atheist, so what.
i was targeting your government's stance on religion, earlier on. i don't care if u're agnostic or atheist, fact is don't generalise urself too much. ur gov isn't agnostic at all dude.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from Zombie on 4:36 am on Mar. 16, 2003

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 11:24 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
I am an agnostic...'fuckface'


and i'm an atheist, so what.
i was targeting your government's stance on religion, earlier on. i don't care if u're agnostic or atheist, fact is don't generalise urself too much. ur gov isn't agnostic at all dude.

My government...I am Australian

[Zombie]

ok my bad, i was targeting the US gov

[peaccenicked]

Does the President want to remove a dictator?This question is neither here nor there. I have now way of reading Bush jnrs mind.
This is a quote from the Right wing London Times
"THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

“You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.''"
So daddy thinks he bears a grudge. Is that the same as wanting to remove a dictator?
Why does not Daddy say go ahead ,son, remove this dictator? Perhaps it is to do with the fact that this war is more to do with Bush jnr as a bully. Saddam happens to be there and daddy was too nice to him. He is sitting under a potential of 25% of the world's oil. Russia and France aint getting any, so oil man Bush thinks Saddam is an evil dictator the whole world knows it. Heaven knows we let him away with murder and torture for decades up to the last day before Kuwait.
And Ambassador Glaspie told him that the US had no problems with his dispute with Kuwait.

Recently the CIA closed down Radio "Free Iraq'' the voice of the CIA backed Iraqi National congress because they did not trust their leader Chabati who they said had made the war against Iraq sound too easy. He said it would be all over in 3 weeks.
The plan is to a give General Franks control and leave the Baath structure largely in tact.
The trouble is that Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan. The impending civil war is going to be like hell compared to
the War lord and Taliban civil war still going on in Afghanistan. The Sunni majority tribe is armed and affiliated to Iran. The Kurds have up to 20,000 troops and if toppling Saddam occurs it is not going to abolish the ruling minority Shiite tribe. They are going to regroup and rearm.
So basically there is no plan to cope with these forces,other than to oppress them.
That was Saddams job. Now the US has to do it for themselves.
Does Bush want to remove a dictator, No replace a dictator.





(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:19 am on Mar. 16, 2003)