A strike on Iraq - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-13-2002, 10:17 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:34 PM
No, I have not talked to a half a million vets, I don't think any individual has. But of the 100 or so that I have either talked to or interacted with, none of them had the same view points as this person who claims to be an anonymous "Gulf War Veteran". I come from a military family and have other friends and family that are in the military as well. My best friend of 18 years will be involved if there is an invasion of Iraq, and another friend is currently serving in Afghanistan. None of the people they have met or known, who are Gulf War veterans, have any views remotely similiar to this person who claims to be a Gulf War Veteran.

Please tell me what my bias is? Also, what exactly have I said that is clearly unobjective. What exactly is the "progressive community" and are they really concerned about being unbiased and objective? That website clearly is not unbiased or objective under any stretch of the definition of those words.

If you could find articles from more objective, unbiased sources, it would strengthen your view points and clearly be more educational for the rest of us. But perhaps this latest one was more the exception and not the rule.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:38 PM   #107
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:34 PM
I just wanted to pop in for a moment and reiterate my earlier sentiments about the quality of this thread. I remain most impressed by the research and rhetoric presented by *both* sides of this debate, and the discussion has stayed supremely respectful and aboveboard. I, and the other FYM mods, truly appreciate it.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 12:55 AM   #108
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 10:34 PM
In response to STING2's response to me (what??? ) - sorry if somewhat late but I haven't enough time to keep up with this thread as I would like to.

No, I don't consder US intervention on a constant basis over 60 years as just one intervention. Basically because the scenarios in every case were different. However, there is a pattern which repeats itself over and is what constitutes in my view the normal rule of intervention.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Do to the small scale of these interventions, it is questionable about their impacts on the civilian population and political situation.
Small scale by what standards? You seem to insist on evaluating interventionist policy by the actual amount of money invested by the US to perform it, and that is not related in any way to the point discussed. In any case a lot of damage can be done with a fairly low-budget operation. Chile was a CIA run operation, there was no actual deployment of US troops, but the systematic violation of human rights Pinochet's dictatorship incurred in during its almost 20 year rule is abhorrent and has deeply affected Chilean society. While it may be argued that Salvador Allende could have been pro-Communist since he was a socialist, Argentina was a victim of a similar operation but the government toppled was certainly not pro-Soviet at all - in fact it was rather a populist right wing "democracy" with a corporative fascistoid slant.

Even if it's clear that the coup was not particularly directed to the government in charge but rather aimed, amongst other goals, to terminate with left-wingers and their ideologists - the social and economic consequences of this dictatorship are still suffered nowadays. In this particular case, left-wing ideology was embraced by a minority with no real power as it can be seen from checking poll results during the rather short democratic lapses in the last 55 years. If that shouldn't suffice, a sociological analysis of Argentinian society shows that at every level there's always been a strong conservative sentiment and that the left has always rather been looked down upon.

There was absolutely no real threat of a communist takeover at the time in Argentina, nonetheless the CIA ran an operation during the last segment of the democratic rule backing an ultra right-wing official organisation called AAA (triple A) whose objective was to round up and hunt down left-wing activists. To finish up the job and wipe out whatever there was left (pardon the pun) remotely left-oriented a military dictatorship was put in charge. Alongside the actual left-sympathisers and activists a majority of innocent people were abducted, tortured and murdered, their possessions confiscated and their children given in adoption to military families (notice the monstrosity of this: kids being adopted by the very people who supported those who murdered their real parents) if not directly sold.

If this weren't to be considered enough, the main reason to help this dictatorship to power along with others at the time was not to do away with the left but rather to clear the way to mount a huge financial manoeuver from which the developed world would derive in the next 20/25 years great benefit: impose on these countries ultra-orthodox capitalist policies to rule their economies (much more radically orthodox than any of what was and is applied in the US or any other western nation) which would pave the way for dumping surplus western produce, allow multinational corporations buy run-down state-owned service companies in the 90s for almost nothing and charge fees unheard of in the rest of the world, sell at incredibly high prices tons of outdated military equipment (lots of Vietnam cast-offs went to Latin America) and place generous amounts of money in the guise of loans at outrageous interest rates. If it isn't clear by now: all this meant serving foreign interests in detriment of local populations which are now worse-off than what they were then. This manoeuver was responsible for the origin of the greater portion of the present debt these countries owe the first world. Their present status of bankruptcy allows now creditor countries to do with them whatever they wish. Furthermore, it has to be noted that none of the creditors had a qualm in lending money to regimes which

a) violated systematically human rights
b) was more than obvious that would never use such money to make the conditions better for domestic population but rather to line their own pockets
c) were NOT voted by the people and thus the people (i. e. those who would have to pay those loans back) had no say whatsoever in deciding whether they wanted that money or not.

Quote:
In some cases, it is likely that the events would have taken place with or without US and Soviet intervention.
That's trying to play clairvoyancy.

Quote:
The money was spent in area's where the threat was greatest to the USA and its allies.
Threat?? What "threat" do Colombian guerrillas pose to the US? What threat were Grenada, Guatemala and Panama posing to the US or its allies??

Quote:
They do have a point in that hundreds of billions of dollars has often been sent to many these countries over a few decades with nothing to show for it because of corruption in the country itself.
That slogan has been repeated over and over to justify the reluctance to send real aid money or to grant loans at decent interest rates to poorer countries. It's cynical to the core, since such corruption originated in governments helped to power or supported throughout their rule by the US and their first world allies when it was known what sort of administration they provided and this goes for both dictatorial and democratic regimes.

Quote:
The fact is, disregarding politics for a second and just looking at the USA, it is in the interest and a benefit to the USA to aid thirdworld countries and see a reduction in their level of poverty. Reducing poverty cuts down on immigration, terrorism, and anti-democratic or anti-capitalist groups.
This is 100% logical, but you can't disregard politics. There seem to be stronger interests which override the application of this logical approach.

Quote:
It is not right paint who the US supported as the devil while painting the otherside as white angels.
Who is guilty of this? I never said that the Soviets were "white angels", on the very contrary.

Quote:
As far as evidence and proof about a threat, there are two sides to that debate and history is replete with examples of threats that were not taken seriously because that couldn't be "proven" with terrible results for the human race. To not be involved at all in many of these area's would be to let the Soviets have a free hand. Perhaps at that very moment not a serious threat, but what about 10 or 20 years down the road in a situation in which the world is on the verge of World War, suddenly these area's of less importance become important and your situation as far as how many allies one has in the region is effected and based on the actions one may have taken there 10 to 20 years earlier. The fact is, will never know for absolute sure if a Soviet take over was likely or not in some of these countries.
This is conjecturing again. However, as it is possible to cite examples in which the lack of pre-emptive action proved to be detrimental, it is obviously not possible to compare with cases in which actual pre-emptive action itself brought about terrible consequences.

Quote:
In cases where the threat is uncertain, it is far better to be safe than sorry for the long term effects could be very bad in a future Global confrontation for the world.
Better safe than sorry? Try to give that argument to local populations adversely affected by foreign interventionist policies.

Quote:
The fact is preventing or defeating Communist and Soviet influence in these countries was in their best long term interest.
In the first place, I believe that to decide what's in their best interest is every independent country's prerogative and not an alien power's, no matter how strong the said power is. In the second place, I could agree with you to a certaint extent, since the sort of capitalism some countries are subject to, is for many people no better than another sort of regime. It may be better for me or you, in fact I wouldn't fancy living under a communist rule at all, but I realise that the radically poor in certain capitalist societies (the extra-first world ones especially) are certainly not deriving any benefit from such a system, or at least in the conditions it is presently.

Quote:
In most places where the US intervened in a major way, the local situation for people did improve. In area's of less interest and less US involvement, situation for people may have become worse, but this is for a variety of factors, and its not clear that such a small US intervention could effect the average standard of living of so many people.
The first is certainly true of Europe since a more than generous aid package went with it. What about Vietnam?
What is a small intervention? A low-budget one? I've already stated why this is beside the point. Regarding the interventions you call "small" because they did not require such a bombastic display and didn't toll on US budget so heavily, if you have the time and interest to find out conscientiously you'll see that the consequences of foreign intervention can be much greater than what you care to acknowledge.

Quote:
Their are problems and events in these third world countries that would happen and exist with or without Soviet/US intervention.
Certainly, but there are other events and problems that happen/ed because of foreign intervention.

Quote:
It is incorrect to say that political persecution or economic problems would not of happened in country if the US did not intervene and other political forces, most likely pro=Soviet were allowed to secure power.
I never said such a thing since that would be conjecturing. The "other" political forces didn't have to be necessarily pro-Soviet, in fact there are political forces which apply less than orthodox capitalism i.e. more socially-oriented, in particular in some European countries like the Scandinavian ones which are not radically pro-American and nor certainly pro-communist. Besides this, during the 60s/70s there was an emerging third position which defied alignment with either of the powers and was readily crushed in various fronts by both of them.

Quote:
US used its limited resources in the region to support the pro US side without any real confidence that the amount of support that was being given would actually have any effect on the situation at all.
Excuse me but that is rather naive. The US as the former USSR didn't support anybody without the absolute certainty that such support would be useful towards attaining the goal defined.

Quote:
With limited resources, the US did the best it could with what was going to be a bad a situation no matter which side came to power.
More conjecturing.

Quote:
In the case of Afghanistan and Islamic fundamentalism, the only group or groups available that were resisting Soviet Occupation in Afghanistan were groups that would be considered Islamic Fundamentalist. There was not a secular or non-fundamentalist group to support.
What is your point? If a nazi group would have been the only group available to fight against the Soviet occupation would it be excusable that the US had funded them to that end?? For this very reason it is perfectly licit to cite such support as an example of the US using fundamentalism to fend off Soviet penetration.

Quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan for politcal and economic reasons, not because they had been defeated on the battlefield.
True.

Quote:
But the Shah and his regime of Iran were not Islamic fundamentalist, so this is not the USA using Islam fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet Expansion. In the 80s, the USA supplied Iran with a limited number of outdated Tow missiles in exchange for hostages. This one time weapons transfer had no effect on the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war and was not done to support Islamic fundamentalism.
I did NOT say that the Shah and his regime were fundamentalist - I would have to be fool for making such an assertion. I did NOT say either that US armament supply to Iran during the first part of the Iran-Iraq conflict, which BTW was somewhat more important than a "limited number of outdated Tow missiles", was to support fundamentalism. In fact I NEVER said that the US supported fundamentalism but rather that they USED it as an asset to fight communist spread in the Middle East. What I said regarding Iran is instead that such support which was designed to fend off a Soviet penetration went to a fundamentalist rule. This is another example of the way the US used fundamentalism to control pro-Soviet sympathies.

Quote:
The Soviets wouldn't mind Iraq recieving some aid from the west, because its an opportunity for them to see and look at western designed weapons.


Quote:
BUT the USA did not supply Iraq with combat weapon systems at any time during the 8 year Iran/Iraq war. Money for food was sent at one time as well as a single shipment of a few military trucks and transport helicopters.
There's evidence of US armament supply to Iraq during the second part of the conflict around 1986/87.

Quote:
The Iraqi military is in extremely poor condition when it comes to its major weapon systems, because of the loss of support from the old Soviet Union because sanctions have been in place since August of 1990, and not because the Soviet Union collapsed. Iraq needs the weapons and had its own money to pay for it sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserves. Since the Gulf war which wiped out 2/3s of Iraqi military equipment holdings, Iraq has not been able to rebuild their military because of the loss of their supplier. What Iraq does to cope is to cannabolize parts from other vehicles in order to keep certain tanks and other equipment operational. The loss of Soviet support has had an unbelievable detrimental effect on Iraqi military training, readiness and capability. It effects Iraq's ability to defend itself from foreign attack, but would not effect Saddams ability to put down civilian revolt that would never have chance to topple him without the support of the army.
Sorry but I fail to see your logic. My own point was that if Hussein had had such close ties with the Soviet Union as you claim, especially related to armament supply, since his army as you later state is what allows him to retain power, he would have collapsed soon after the Soviet Union did. BTW If his armament potential is in such a state what threat does he pose presently to the West?

Quote:
I understand your reasoning of why Islamic fundamentalism would be a good tool against Soviet expansion, but Islamic fundamentalism was and is not as widespread to be that powerful a force to prevent Soviet expansion. Most important though you fail to really site a case where this indeed happened. In Afghanistan we supported any resistence that was available. All that was available was Islamic fundamentalist, but we would have supported a non-fundamentalist or secular group as well, if one existed there. In the case of Iran, the Shah was not a fundamentalist, and the USA stopped supporting Iran after the Shah was thrown out. A one time sending, of a few Tow missiles that did not even remotely confer Iran an advantage on the battlefield in exchange for hostages, cannot be construed in any way as support for Islamic fundamentalism as a check against Soviet expansion.
It isn't powerless either and it has actual control over certain areas in the Middle East. In fact you yourself said that Afghan anti Soviet forces were 100% fundamentalist because the area is controlled by them. There's also a strong fundamentalist foothold in Pakistan, in fact the Taleban were trained there, not to mention Iran which is under fundamentalist rule. I did cite examples but they weren't good enough for you. As for the last section I already answered above.

Quote:
The US does not support any government in the middle east with the exception of Afghanistan through the deployment of US troops. US troops are deployed in some of these countries for operations and monitoring of Iraq. I can put out numbers if you need to see them. In Israel the USA supports Isreal to prevent it from being overrun by Arab countries that have attacked it 4 times in the past 50 years. We also support Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian oppression that is fond of blowing up Israely teens in Disco's perhaps listening to U2! The Palestinians talk much of the Israely occupation by soldiers on the West Bank but do nothing to attack them. Instead they sneak into Tel Aviv and kill only civilian and non-military people going about their lives.
This rant replies to what? I did NOT say that the US supports any state in the Middle East, except Israel. What Palestinian "oppression" ??? In what way are the Palestinians oppressing Israel? Maybe you mean Palestinian "terror" . That's another story. As horrid and condemnable Palestinian (or any other) terrorist acts are, Israel's methods to defend itself have proved to be as terrorising as suicide bombing is. I mean that bulldozing civilian homes with people in them because terrorists were supposed to be inside as well and "were using civilians as shields" is as despicable and condemned under international law. It's disgusting to see that the US government supports such tactics. Re your suggestion that the Palestinians attack Israeli forces on the West Bank, in the first place they shouldn't have the need to since those territories were to be handed over by Israel under the Oslo agreement. In the second place, the Palestinian army is nonexistent in terms of fighting a real war against Israeli forces. It should also be noted that there can't be such an army since Palestine is not a state. With this I'm certainly not saying that I approve of their terrorist tactics.

Quote:
If what you say is true about Saudi Arabia doing what the USA tells them to do, and there for the USA is resposible for aiding the Taliban in 1996, then I guess the USA is responsible for the suicide bombings in Israel that Saudi funds support and also takes part in giving funds to the families of suicide bombers which the Saudi's do as well. Sorry, I'm not buying that, not in a million years. Pakistan in addition to Saudi Arabia, have their own interest that they look after independently of the USA. Pakistan felt it was in interest to support the taliban to nuetralize what they felt was a threat from the Northern Alliance. Pakistan does not want to worry about having to put to many troops on its border with Afghanistan when war could break out with India's much larger army on its eastern border at any time. Pakistan in many ways is very independent of the USA and acts in its own interest. It was not the desire of the USA to see Pakistan develop a nuclear weapon, but they did despite protest from the USA. If Saudi Arabia was are servant, we wouldn't have any trouble going after Iraq and using Saudi Arabia as a base for are troops. Saudi Arabia is opposed to the strike on Iraq and is not allowing the USA to use its soil for a strike on Iraq. So Saudi Arabia nd Pakistan are very independent, Pakistan even more so, from the USA in their policy actions, and have interest that is sometimes of no concern to the USA are actually in conflict with the USA. Again, the USA pulled out of Afghanistan completely economically, politically, and militarily in 1989. Pakistan supported the Taliban not really out of love for their brand of Islam, but to destroy or subdue their enemy in the Northern Alliance, in order to focus more the military threat posed by India.
Re Saudi Arabia complying to US demands and requests, it's not "what I say", it's publicised and easily verifiable fact. World politics don't stick necessarily to transitive rules especially when facts occur at different times, that's why your conclusion about the US supporting suicide bombers isn't necessarily the logical derivation of the other fact. In the first place there's no proof of official Saudi funding of suicide bombers' families. Secondly it must be noted in any case that the once monolithic Saudi royal family and entourage has suffered some internal cracks as of recent. Some members are presently in disagreement with an 100% pro-US policy, mainly because of religious itches. Remember that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arab who belongs to a powerful family and is virulently opposed to the West for religious reasons (at least it's what he claims). Such aid to the bombers' families may very well come from dissenting branches of the Saudi high-class rather than from the official pro-US rule. Such internal unrest together with the fact that Saudi Arabia is actually an Islamic country and has an important role within the Islamic world explains the fact that it has not openly supported the US initiative to attack Iraq. However this does not mean that once the attack is launched they will prevent US troops from operating (officially or not) from their soil. In fact presently US troops are deployed in Saudi Arabia in territories considered holy by the Muslims, something which is seen as an affront to the Islamic faith. On another account we're not discussing what motives moved Pakistan to support the Taleban, simply the fact that it did and that the US did not oppose such initiative in any way.

Quote:
I have not ignored your statements about US interventions eslewhere, but simply doubted their impact and influence on the country of which there is little if any proven evidence that US intervention directly led to these events, and that these events would not of happened without US intervention is not proven either. Only biased liberal claims on this one.
There really IS evidence and certainly not only biased liberal claims. There's lots of material to research on, not to menton direct contact with locals if visiting the said countries. That certain events wouldn't have happened without US intervention, there certainly can't be any evidence on that - that's conjecturing again. But there is evidence of what certain rulers supported by the US did to the people. Maybe other rulers would have been worse or maybe not. We can only state our opinion on what actually happened and not on what would have happened if the course of action had been different.

Quote:
In response to your assertion of the weakness of the South Korean economy, I present the folowing GDP, Export and Import statistics. In addition to this I will also show the UNs latest estimate on the standard of living for the average person in all countries in the world, ranking them, and where Korea is in that rank, and where it was 10 years ago.
I did NOT make any assertion on the weakness of South Korean economy! I simply said that GDP and economy growth rates do not always reflect accurately the real well-being of a nation. I said when giving examples that reflect the lack of reliabilty of such figures that such could be the case of South Korea, but not necessarily that it was. What made me wonder is the emigration factor - not only to Latin America - I said ALSO to Latin America, a part of the world where the economies are certainly not in good shape. Such phenomenon did take place (I've seen some of it personally) mainly in the late 70s/early 80s and again in the early 90s. Something else which also may confirm a not so bright scenario are the figures you provided, in fact in the first half of the 90s their imports outweighed their exports and such a fact is as we know, certainly not awfully beneficial to a country's economy and the well-being of its people in the not so long run. South Korean economy has indeed picked up after the SE Asian crisis and it's more than possible that the US lent a helping hand since it's like you say, aiding an ally against the Chinese threat.

Quote:
When it comes to monopolies, I realize there are monopolies outside the USA, but I was talking about inside the USA. I don't see where there is going to be this sudden concentration of oil reserves in US hands and even if that was so why that would lead to a monopoly? Private US companies control the oil and compete with each other. The Government has emergency supplies but thats it. You might conclude that Opec has a monopoly, but in actuallity they don't and Opec nations often compete with each other.
I'm talking about oil on an international scale. If the world's oil gets to be controlled totally by the US, even if there are different companies there will be a monopoly at state level. No, OPEC countries don't hold a monopoly since the US' own oil produce makes them almost self-sufficient. OPEC countries supply Europe mainly.

Quote:
Again where is the high priced consumer goods that would be the natural result of a monopoly?
Again, I did not say that there is a monopoly NOW. I said that IF all of the world's oil is US (or whoever else) controlled there WILL BE a monopoly.

Quote:
Globalism paves the way for competition
In theory.

Quote:
capitalism, which is as the USA proves, the best economic system.
Yes, actually it is, provided you are not a marginal within the system.

Quote:
Actually, Monopoly has more to do with Communism than Capitalism in theory. Capitalism is about competition and private ownership, monopoly is about the complete dominance of one group or organization over the market.
In theory yes I agree.

Quote:
Government regulation of Capitalism prevents, occurances where monolpoly sometimes develop, and restores competition to the market by breaking up growing monopolies.
Well I adhere to this but it contradicts recalcitrant capitalist theories. Milton Friedman would have a fit.

Re the cease-fire issue and your reference to it in this and other posts I'll reply on my next entry.

Quote:
Individuals who hold economic and financial power. Hmmmm....I may have some family members and friends of the family on that list, although I havn't seen them getting into black helicopters yet.
It wasn't "individuals" but groups, maybe the Davos Forum crowd should provide a clue. Black helicopters??? What for? There's no need to enact any sci-fi gimmick since it's pure white glove manipulation.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 01:06 AM   #109
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 10:34 PM
In response to STING2 re the cease-fire issue:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
1. No one ever said that the USA had been given the position of world police. It is are right and duty to intefere with the affairs of others when their affairs effect the safety and security of US citizens!!!!!!!!!
It is. Pity that the US also interferes when the safety and security of American citizens is not even remotely threatened in any likely or proven way.

Quote:
2. The US does decide which countries behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction does threaten Its security and because of that are candidates for possible regime change. It is are right because their behavior PLUS certain weapons threatens are security and endangers are freedom and prosperity. Again we have the right to interfere with any country that interfere's with are affairs in a threatening way first, anywhere in the world.
The US can pose their case to the UN and it's the UN Security Council who has the prerogative to decide whether the threat is real and what course of action is to be taken - NOT the US or any other individual country. UN regulations can't be invoked at will only when a pretext is necessary to justify an attack on another country. You either agree to UN regulations and stand by them in every case or you don't.
Agree with Not George Lucas on this one.
On another account the US (or any other nation) don't have any right to determine if a country is "a candidate for a regime change". I wonder what would be the reaction of American citizens if a hypotetical alien power determined that the US was a candidate for a regime change. In any case the US can declare a war, win it and as a consequence bring about a change in government. However, the present international regulations regarding the legitimacy of a war declaration, etc need to be respected if the aggressor country claims to be a UN member.

Quote:
3. Any attack on Iraq is NOT unprovoked! In 1991 Iraq signed a UN ceacefire agreement with the USA that called for among other things the complete unrestricted inspection and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has failed to comply with this UN resolution among others that led to the ceacefire agreement which put on pause US offensive operations against Iraq. Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceasefire agreement allows the USA to resume offensive military operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in 1991 on the condition that Iraq complied with conditions in the ceacefire agreement. Rather than being in violation of international law like Iraq, the USA seems to be the only country willing to comply with the international law. The USA is the only country willing to enforce the UN ceacefire agreement that put on hold indefinitely the 1991 Gulf war. To sum up, a US invasion of Iraq is not only sanctioned by international law, but it is mandated, under the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991!
It is unprovoked indeed. You can't claim the non-compliance of UN agreements as an excuse to resume a war at the same time of riding roughshod over basic UN regulations! On the other hand Iraq has stated that it is open to re-allow UN inspectors in. It is even fact that UN inspectors in the past, such as Scott Ritter, have stated that there was no immediate threat since Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme was eliminated when the UN inspectors left in 1997. There simply hasn't been enough time to re-establish such a programme. If Scott Ritter isn't credible enough what are other UN inspectors who had "access to sensitive information" Ritter hadn't, waiting for to discredit his claims? If "most other UN inspectors including all those that outranked him have an opposite opinion than he does" why isn't the UN convinced that Iraq poses a real threat with WMD and gives immediate green light to the American initiative of attacking? Why doesn't the rest of the west except Mr Blair's government support this operation?

Quote:
4. The reason for a possible US invasion and regime change in Iraq have nothing to do with the actual events of 911. Again its Iraq's non-compliance with the condititions of the UN ceacefire agreement which allows the USA to resume offensive operations against Baghdad. This is about Iraq's behavior and weapons program, both in violation of the UN ceacefire agreement. It is about how Iraq's non-compliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceacefire agreement threaten the world. Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate over the past few years on such a serious matter makes their government a candidate for regime change.
Excuse me but it is not about this either. The non-compliance of the cease-fire terms is the pretext used to launch this attack which as you mentioned on another post is pre-emptive. The motives lie with the control of oil reserves and to the fact that Hussein's behaviour regarding US interest in the area is no longer controllable.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 10:16 AM   #110
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Yeah! What Ultraviolet said!
__________________
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 08:27 AM   #111
The Fly
 
bono_luvva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 82
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Not George Lucas
Yeah! What Ultraviolet said!
__________________
bono_luvva is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 10:41 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:34 PM
And now this from Europe:

Quote:
The regional Schwaebisches Tagblatt newspaper quoted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, as saying "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used."
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 09-21-2002, 03:30 PM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:34 PM
The Whole Story

Schroeder Apologizes to US for 'Hitler Comparison'
Fri Sep 20, 4:05 PM ET
By Kevin Liffey

BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder apologized to President Bush ( news - web sites) on Friday for the offence caused by a report that his justice minister had compared Bush's methods to Hitler's.


Reuters Photo


Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Germany Apologizes for Bush-Hitler Comparison

German Official Denies Bush-Hitler Comparison
(AP Video)




Our Tech Section is growing!


Check headlines for:
Internet, Enterprise, Software and more...

Technology News




The election-eve report in a regional daily angered a U.S. administration already upset about the center-left chancellor's voluble -- and highly popular -- opposition to a prospective U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin tried to calm the transatlantic row on Friday by denying the report.

But reporters pressed her for over an hour on what appeared to be not only a breach of a German political taboo but a sharp affront to democratic Germany's long-time ally and guarantor.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) called the remarks "outrageous and inexplicable" and Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) rang German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer to complain.

The report said Daeubler-Gmelin had told a pre-election gathering that, by threatening to attack Iraq, "Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic political problems. That's a favorite method. Hitler did that too."

Schroeder wrote to Bush, saying: "I want to let you know how much I regret the fact that alleged comments by the German justice minister have given an impression that has offended you."

SHADOW ON RELATIONS

He said he had accepted Daeubler-Gmelin's denial and added, according to a German text provided by his office:

"Let me assure you that there is no place at my cabinet table for anyone who makes a connection between the American president and such a criminal."

Daeubler-Gmelin told reporters: "It is absurd and slanderous to connect me to a comparison between a democratically elected politician and Nazi leaders...I deeply regret that this has thrown shadows on German-American relations."

She said she had "great respect" for Bush and called U.S. ambassador Daniel Coats to say she had been misrepresented.

But it is not the first time in recent months that Coats has had to address fears of a deterioration in relations between two countries whose alliance rests on decades of Cold War cooperation against Soviet communism.

Schroeder angered Washington -- and earned opposition accusations of cheap electioneering -- by saying he would not lead Germany into a military "adventure" against Iraq and questioning whether the United States had a plan for Iraq after it had toppled President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).

For his part Schroeder -- who put his government on the line last year to win parliament's approval for German troops to join the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan ( news - web sites) -- has told Washington he is fed up of learning about its "changes of strategy" in the press.

U.S. officials say privately that Bush and his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites) are angry and offended.

Klaus Naumann, former chairman of the military committee of the transatlantic NATO ( news - web sites) alliance, told the Tagesspiegel daily:

"I've just come from Washington, and I can tell you that relations are very badly damaged."

PRE-ELECTION MOOD

Opposition leaders demanded Schroeder sack his minister, but it remains to be seen whether the row will in any way hurt his re-election chances in Sunday's cliffhanger election.

His opposition to a military strike has touched a nerve in a nation scarred by two world wars. Many Germans are also critical of what they see as Bush's isolationism, for instance by rejecting international treaties on justice or the environment.

The daily Schwaebisches Tagblatt, which is based in Daeubler-Gmelin's constituency, admitted to being sympathetic to the minister and to some criticism of Bush.

But it said on its Web site that it had confirmed her comments with several trade unionists who attended the debate.

Editor-in-chief Christoph Mueller said the reporter had even given her the opportunity to dictate her own version of the comment, which she had approved when it was read back to her.

But he told Reuters she had later gone to see the paper to try to withdraw her comments entirely.

Daeubler-Gmelin denied having authorized any quote.

She told reporters that, in a discussion with union members, she had mentioned public debate in the United States about how foreign policy could divert attention from domestic problems: "I then said that we have known this debate since 'Adolf Nazi'."

She said she had seen that people in the group appeared to have misunderstood this, and then insisted that no comparison or connection could or should be made between Hitler and Bush
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 08:30 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:34 PM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

In regards to what was the "normal rule of intervention" by the USA during the Cold War, US intervention in Europe was the normal rule of intervention during the Cold War, because most US intervention during the Cold War occured in Europe. The number of times we intervened in Europe in different ways, far outnumber the quantity and level of intervention anywhere else in the world. So the average or normal rule of intervention during the Cold War is typified by US intervention in Europe.

I don't deny that people suffered in Chile as a result of our actions. I question the degree to which we were directly responsible for that suffering and whether or not these things would of happened with or without US involvment. Speculation and conjecture of course, but still a valid point.

The Lenin and his followers in Russia were a minority at one point, but because they were aggressive, well organized, and able to manipulate the masses, they were eventually able to sieze the entire country. The point being that the small size does not mean that it can't grow into a threat. You say there was no real threat of a Communist take over or a government that was at least pro-Soviet to take over, but others working with the info at the time felt differently. Well never know for sure, but in the context of the Cold War back then, some action needed to be taken to secure US interest in the region and to prevent Soviet supported groups from gaining any foothold.

I don't buy the theory that the CIA operations in Latin America were done for the financial gain of the USA in the way you describe. I realize the problems with loaning money to these regimes that simply lined their own pockets, was unwise policy, but the intent was to help the situation there, not make it worse. Its simply not in the long term interest of the USA to impoverish a continent of people and there by make them more susceptible to communist revolution.

If you think the standard of living in Chile and Argentina is worse now than it was in 1970, please prove it. Is life expectancy less in these countries today than it was 30 years ago? Is literacy less in these countries than it was 30 years ago? How about the average number years in school? What is per-capita GDP compared to 30 years ago?

According to the UN Human Development Report for 2001, the standard of living in Argentina is #34 in the world, while Chile is #39. I don't have the UN Human Development Report for 1970, but I doubt Chile and Argentina were in the top 40 back then. To be better off in 1970 than they are today would mean that in 1970 they had a standard of living equal or superior to many European countries. I've not seen anything to substantiate that.

Columbian Guerrillas threaten the Columbian government and peace and stability in the country. In addition they make huge sums of money by helping to supply drugs to the streets of America. They are a threat to the USA because of these things.

Grenada and Guatamala had forces that were Soviet supported and a threat to US interest in the region, especially in light of the context of the Cold War. Noreiga was a threat to US interest in Panama because of the importance of the Panama Canal. His behavior was totaly unexceptable and involved the murder of a US serviceman.

We certainly did help many of the governments to power that wasted US aid money, but that certainly was not our intent that they should use the money like that. With the Cold War over, we can use other criteria for determinining when and where we give aid, but the Cold War was a crises situation in which we tried to make the best of bad situations considering the many threats, restrictions or constraints we had to operate under.

Vietnam today would be far better off if the USA had not abandon South Vietnam in the early 70s. Who do you think is better off in Korea today, the North or the South?

Certainly foreign intervention has caused problems as you say, but in general when considering US intervention, it is a net benefit over the long run for the that country.

I agree that the US only supported those that would with absolute certainty pursue the goal, what was not certain though was whether the goal would be attained given the limited resources available to these non-Eurpean area's of the Cold War.

Actually if the only groups in Afghanistan opposing the Soviets were Nazi's we would support them. Considering the threat from the Soviets it would be totally justified. After all your not going to question US support for Stalins Soviet Union during World War II are you? My point of course is the fact that we did support the resistence in Afghanistan, that happened to be fundamentalist, is not evidence of a worldwide campaign by the USA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. Evidence for this is severely lacking.

The rising of fundamentilism was not an asset to the USA in fending off Soviet penetration of the region. We already had the Shah to do that, but when he fell we lost what ever leverage we had with Iran before. This also created a new threat in addition to Soviets in the region. Undetered Islamic fundamentalism put the USA in the position of sitting and cheering for the Soviets client state, Iraq. US weapons sent to Iran for hostages were outdated Tow missiles. If you know of other weapons systems please state the type and the quantity.

The Soviets would not mind US weapons being sold to any country they had influence in, so long as their overall influence was not compromised. Rather its the USA that would be concerned about sending US weapons that could fall into Soviet hands with their technology being copied and fielded by the Soviets. With much older weapons this would not be a concern, but definitely with new weapons it would be. The Soviets copied things they came accross all the time. The Israely's created a brand new (explosive) armor called reactive armor for tanks before their invasion of Lebanon in 1982. During the course of the conflict, Syrian troops came across a reactive armor tile that had fallen off an Israely tank. They gave it to the Soviets. In the next 2-3 years, every single Soviet tank in Eastern Europe was fitted with this brand new armor, causing western anti-tank weapons designer's to briefly go back to the drawing board to defeat the new armor. The point is, the Soviets always did everything they could to steal or study western technology.

You say there is evidence of US armanment supply to Iraq in 1986/1987. If thats so please state weapon system and the quantity sent. I'll stop here briefly and post what Iraq had as far as weapon systems, in what quantity, and where they came from as of June 1, 1989.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 08:35 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:34 PM
I hope this won't take me to long, but here is the military organisation and equipment holdings for Iraq as of June 1, 1989. This information comes from The Military Balance 1989-1990 published by Brassey's for THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES. The IISS is an independent, internationally staffed centre for research, information and debate on the problems of security, conflict and conflict control, arms and arms control in the modern world.

The equipment tables list all weapon systems and usually list type or name. It does not actually list country of origion, but from my own knowledge backed up by other sources on military weapons, I am able to list if the weapon system is Soviet, Chinese, French, German, USA, etc. for most of the weapons in the equipment table that have a type listed but not all. Weapon systems that are not known are from countries other than the Soviet Union, China, or the USA. The combat weapon systems that are listed as USA are captured weapons systems from Iran and are listed as inoperable. The same applies for British weapon systems found in the table. Iraq only has small numbers of both.

TOTAL ARMED FORCES:
ACTIVE: 1,000,000
RESERVES: 850,000

ARMY: 955,000
7 corps HQ.
7 armd/mech divisions.
42 inf divisions
6 Presidential Guard Force Divisions(3 armored, 1 infrantry, 1 cdo brigade)
20+ SF Brigades
2 SSM Brigades

EQUIPMENT:
MAIN BATTLE TANKS: 5,500: 2,500 T-54/-55(SOVIET) M-77(ROMANIAN), 1,000 T-59/-69(CHINESE), 1,000 T-62(SOVIET), 1,000 T-72(SOVIET), 30: Chieftain(United Kingdom), M-60(USA), M-47(USA).
LIGHT TANKS: 100 PT-76(SOVIET)

RECONNAISSANCE: BRDM-2(SOVIET), 300 AML-60/-90(?), FUG-70(?), ERC-90(FRENCH), Mowag Roland(GERMAN), EE-9 Cascavel(?), 300 EE-3 Jararaca(?)

ARMORED INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLES: 1,000 BMP(SOVIET)

ARMORED PERSONAL CARRIERS: 7,100: BTR-50/-60/-152(SOVIET), OT-62/-64(CZECH), M-113A1(USA), Panhard M-3(?), EE-11 Urutu(?)
TOWED ARTILLERY: 3,000: 105mm: M-56 pack(?); 122mm: D-74(SOVIET), D-30(SOVIET), M-1938(SOVIET); 130mm: M-46(SOVIET), Type 59-1(CHINESE); 152mm: M-1937(SOVIET), M-1943(SOVIET); 155mm: 100 G-5(SOUTH AFRICA), 200 GHN-45(?), M-114(?)

SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY: 500: 122mm: 2S1(SOVIET); 152mm: 2S3(SOVIET); 155mm: M-109(USA); 85 AUF-1 (GCT)(?)

MULTIPLE ROCKET LAUNCHERS: 200: 122mm: BM-21(SOVIET); 127mm: 60 astros II(IRAQ); 128mm: Ababil(IRAQ); 132mm: BM-13/-16(SOVIET); 180mm: astros SS-40(IRAQ); 300mm: astros SS-60(IRAQ)

MORTARS: 81mm; 120mm; 160mm.(type's not given)

SURFACE TO SURFACE MISSILE(launchers): 30 FROG-7(SOVIET); Sijil(IRAQ); 36 Scud B(SOVIET); Abbas(IRAQ); Husayn(IRAQ).

ANTI-TANK GUIDED WEAPONS: AT-3 Sagger(SOVIET), AT-4 Spigot(SOVIET), SS-11(FRENCH), Milan(GERMAN), HOT(FRENCH).

RECOILLESS LAUNCHER(S): 73mm: SPG-9(SOVIET); 82mm: B-10(SOVIET); 107mm(type not listed)

ANTI-TANK GUNS: 85mm(type not listed); 100mm towed(SOVIET); 105mm: 100 JPz(GERMAN), SK-105 SP(?)

HELICOPTERS: some 160 armed helicopters.
ATTACK: 40 Mi-24 with AT-2 swatter(SOVIET), 20 SA-342(FRENCH); 13 SA-321(FRENCH), some 30 SA-316B(FRENCH), 56 Bo-105(GERMAN)
TRANSPORT: heavy: 15 Mi-6(SOVIET); medium: 100 Mi8/-17(SOVIET), 6 AS-61(?), 10 SA-330(FRENCH), 20 Mi-4(SOVIET), lt: 3 A-109(?), 5 AB-212(?), 40 Bell 214 ST(USA) Hughes 300C/500D/530F (30/30/26)(USA), 30 SA-342(FRENCH)

AIR-DEFENSE GUNS: 4,000: 23mm: ZSU-23-4 SP(SOVIET); 37mm: M-1939(SOVIET); 57mm: ZSU-57-2 SP(SOVIET); 85mm(no type listed); 100mm(no type listed); 130mm(no type listed).

SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE'S: 120 SA-2(SOVIET), 150 SA-3(SOVIET), SA-6(SOVIET), SA-7(SOVIET), SA-9(SOVIET), SA-13(SOVIET), SA-14(SOVIET), 60 Roland(GERMAN).


NAVY: 5,000

FRIGATES: 5:
4 Hittin (lt Lupo) with 1AB-212 hel(asw)(?) 2 x 3 ASTT(?); plus 8 x Otomat SSM, 1 x 127mm gun(?). 1 Khaldoum (training) with 2 x ASTT(?).
MISSILE CRAFT: 8 Nisan 7 (Sov Osa) with 4 x SS-N-2 Styx SSM(SOVIET)
TORPEDO CRAFT: 6 Sov P-6 with 2 x 533mm TT(SOVIET)
PATROL INSHORE: 20: 3 SO-1, 4 Nyryat II, 13(?)
MINE WARFARE: 8:
MCM: 2 Sov T-43 MSC, 6 MSI(SOVIET)
AMPHIBIOUS: 6
3 Al Zahraa LST(?), capacity 250tps, 20 tk, 1 hel.
3 Sov Polnocny LSM(SOVIET), capacity 180 tps, 6 tk.
SUPPORT AND MISCELLANEOUS: 3: 1 Agnadeen(lt Stromboli)(?) AOR, 2 Presidential yachts.


AIR FORCE: 40,000 incl 10,000 Air Defense personnel; 513 combat aircraft.
BOMBERS: 2 sqn:
1 with 8 Tu-22(SOVIET); 1 with 8 Tu-16(SOVIET), 4 H-6D(CHINESE)

FIGHTER'S, GROUND ATTACK: 17 sqn:
4 with 70 Mig-23BN(SOVIET)
4 with 64 Mirage F-1EQ5/EQ5-200(FRENCH)
2 with 30 Su-7(SOVIET)
2 with 50 Su-20(SOVIET)
2 with 30 Su-25(SOVIET)
2 with 40 J-6(CHINESE)

FIGHTER: 16 sqn with 25 Mig-25(SOVIET), 80 J-7(CHINESE), 70 Mig-21(SOVIET), 30 Mirage F-1EQ(FRENCH), 18 Mig-29(SOVIET)

RECON: 1 sqn of 8 Mig-25(SOVIET)

TRANSPORT: 2sqn 10 An-2(?); 6 An-12(?); 6 An-24(?); 2 An-26(?), 19 Il-76(?), 19Il-14(?)

AIR TO AIR MISSILE'S: R-530(?), R-550(?) Majic, AA-2/-6/-7/-8(?)
AIR TO SURFACE MISSILE'S: AS-30 Laser(?), Armat, Exocet AM-39, C-601, AS-4, AS-5.


As one can see from the list, the Soviet Union was the chief supplier of weapons to Iraq followed distantly by China and France with others making smaller contributions. The small number of USA combat equipment listed in the totals was captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. There are transport helicopters(non-combat) that were supplied to Iraq. If anyone created the Iraqi war machine it should be clear from this that its MOSCOW. The Soviets kept a force of 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq through the Iran/Iraq war and up to a couple of months before the USA invasion of Iraq in 1991. Not only did the Soviets supply most of Iraq's weapons, but they also trained their pilots tankers and other troops in Soviet Military, tactics, doctrine, and theory's!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 10:44 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:34 PM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

The fact that Iraq's military was heavily dependent on the Soviet Union does not mean Saddam would colapse when the Soviet Union broke up. First Saddam was already cut off from the Soviet Union before it colapsed, sanctions on Iraq started in August 1990 while the break up of the Soviet Union started in August of 1991.

As you can see from weapons tables I posted Iraq had massive support from the Soviet Union and relied on imports from them for most of their major weapon systems. Some spare parts were later able to be locally produced with Soviet help. Iraq lost nearly 2/3s of the equipment in the table, in the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq has been unable to replace this equipment and has often canabolized other weapon systems to keep others running. Despite the loss of their weapons suppliers, Iraq does have a sizable amount of weapons left, enough to crush any revolt against its rule and to perhaps defend against a major invasion by Iran, although after 11 years this is in serious doubt. But without a doubt, Saddam could crush a civilian uprising. Saddam would need far less than what he had left after the 1991 Gulf War to do that.

The Soviet Unions colapse does not mean that is former client states would colapse as well. Look at North Korea and Cuba. But lets go back to the weapons table for June 1, 1989. That alone tells you who armed and built the Iraqi war machine.

Iraq today is not a conventional military threat to its neighbors so long as the USA continue's to have a limited force in the region with pre-positioned stocks of equipment for other forces to quickly come in.

Iraq's threat today is its Chem/Bio/Nuclear program to produce WMD weapons to possibly supply terrorist to use them in a strike on defensless US civilians or anyone else, with the trace back to the Iraqi government hidden. Iraq's Chem/Bio/Nuclear program is a terrorist threat because, it is only through conventional weapons systems and forces that the Iraqi's can take and hold land in Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It is true that a Nuclear Weapon could aid in attacks on these and other countries, but Bio/Chem weapons are really only likely to be effective in terrorist attacks against unprotected civilians. The military has protective equipment and gear to defend them from Bio/Chem attacks and the main effect on them would be the restrictions incurred when fighting with protective equipment on and other restrictions when operating in a Bio/Chem environment.

I don't see Israely responses to Palestinian terror to be the equal of suicide bombers at all. The reason that Palestinians suffer so many casaulties is that the Palestinian terrorist use civilian area's to make their stand, instead of going to the hills away from the cities to fight the Isrealy army. By using palestinian towns and cities as ways to withstand Israely attempts to bring justice to them, Palestinian terrorist attempt to use their own civilians to shield them and frustrate Israely attempts to bring them to justice. It would be impossible for the IDF to prevent all civilians from getting caught up in the crossfire since the terrorist decide to make their stands in the cities. Not only are the Palestinian Terrorist killing Israely teens in Disco's but their killing their own people by attempting to fight the Israelies in the cities rather than facing them in the hills. Their location determines where the fight will be, and they always choose to fight in the cities. In those situations civilian losses are unavoidable. These terrorist are largely responsible for the loss of life on both sides.

Again saying that the Palestinians have no army is no rationalization for blowing up teens in a disco perhaps listening to U2. How would that effect the situation on the West Bank which is supposedly what they are fighting for? Its just idiotic, stupid, accomplishes nothing for anyone or anyside.

Israely force on the other hand is used for legitmate security concerns. Israel is not going to withdraw until the threat to its security is gone. This is not just about Palestinian Terrorism, but the threat from foreign invasion which happened 4 times in the last century. Israel is a tiny country and easy to overrun given other circumstances. The high ground on the west bank is excellant defensible terrain and should not be given up until its security without it from foreign invasion is insured and the threat of terrorism from it is if not neutralized for good, contained to a level that is acceptable to the people of Israel.

In regards to Pakistan and their support of the Taliban, they supported the Taliban in order to defeat their enemies in the Northern Alliance. You seem to imply that nothing happens in this region unless the US lets it happen. That was far from the truth before 9/11. Back when the taliban was being formed in the mid 90s, Pakistan was under US sanctions. So again, your claim that because the US supported Pakistan and there for supported the Taliban just doesn't fly. If you have proof to show that the US helped create the taliban lets see it. The fact is, the USA pulled out of this region, militarily, economically, and politically when the Soviets left in 1989.

In regards to the balance of exports and imports, importing more than you export does not mean a country is not economically healthy. The country with the longest and largest trade deficit is the USA. The Trade Deficit in fact reached its peak during the height of US economic expansion in the 1990s. The year that the South East Asian Crises hit South Korea, exports in Korea in fact jumped way ahead of imports. Part of the reason is the weak Korean currency made Korean exports cheaper, but of course made imports more expensive. In addition the normal buying power of Koreans which decreased helped to bring down imports as well. But back to the USA, one of the reasons the USA has such a large trade deficit is we have one of the most open economies to internaternational trade which benefits other countries directly and only later indirectly benefits the USA.

In regards to the ceacefire issue:

Sorry but I disagree with your statement that the US intervenes when the safety and security of its citizens is not threatened even remotely.

The UN is not a world government and the UN does not decide when the government of the United States can and cannot defend its citizens! The USA is willing to cooperate with the international community but not to the point that it compromises the safety and security of its citizens. It would be absurd if we did. The problem is the international community that refuses or is unable to enforce any of the resolutions it passes including the most important ones that regard to Iraq and international security.

It is not unprovoked to attack Iraq but is in fact mandated by the ceacefire agreement which Iraq signed! The ceacefire agreement had conditions and Iraq has been in open violation of them since 1998. That means technically and legally that the 1991 Gulf War restarted in 1998 and that we have been at war with Iraq since then. Scott Ritter stated when he resigned from the UN team in 1998 that Iraq was still a threat to the international community and still had WMD capability and could reconstitute much of the capability they destroyed in 6 months. Those are Scott Ritter's words from 1998 when he was on the inspection team, and the last time he was in a position to know anything. As far as senior members of the team speaking out, I guess you never heard Richard Butler or David Kay.

I don't have an explanation for why much of the international community does not want to enforce 16 of its own resolutions against Iraq. I know its not based on the facts of Saddam's threat to the international community. Much of the world is under the mistaken belief that force is not necessary to enforce these resolutions against Saddam. After 4 years though, they have failed to come up with an alternative solution that will enforce these resolutions without force and will not repeat the same dumb dance which often occured when the UN went to visit sensitive sites. Iraq would simply pause, while they removed what the UN was looking for out the back and then they would let them in. UN inspections while successful in many cases before 1998 were also often a joke.

Its true that the USA is concerned about Saddam Hussains development of WMD would threaten the region which is important to the USA, but its also because his behavior in the region indicates that he could threaten area's beyond the immediate region. The ceacefire agreement is for a war that was fought to restore peace and security to the region and now his open violation of that threatens the region and given the effectivness of terrorist groups, any place in the world.

I brought up the Ceacefire agreement in response to Not George Lucas's claim that an attack would be unprovoked and against international law. International law is the ceacefire agreement which has been broken by them which means we are legally at war already. If you want to bring the "UN" and "international law" into this, it is according to both legal for the US to attack. But if international law is not applicable to this case because you feel the USA has a double standard, then don't bring it or the international community up! The US, if it has to, will act unilateraly to defend itself and its allies.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 09:56 AM   #117
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Sting2
I guess this discussion has reached a stagnant point since most of what you've replied you had already stated before and have not added any new input based on my own response. It makes no sense then that I reply all over again to the same points. Obviously you've got a point of view on American foreign policy and I have a different one. Nevertheless I have to necessarily clarify a few misconceptions derived of the mistaken interpretation of my previous posts and there are a couple of points I'd like to respond to:

Quote:
I don't deny that people suffered in Chile as a result of our actions. I question the degree to which we were directly responsible for that suffering and whether or not these things would of happened with or without US involvment. Speculation and conjecture of course, but still a valid point.
Well Pinochet was responsible for Chilean people's suffering and his rise to power was the result of a CIA run operation.

Quote:
I don't buy the theory that the CIA operations in Latin America were done for the financial gain of the USA in the way you describe. I realize the problems with loaning money to these regimes that simply lined their own pockets, was unwise policy, but the intent was to help the situation there, not make it worse. Its simply not in the long term interest of the USA to impoverish a continent of people and there by make them more susceptible to communist revolution.

We certainly did help many of the governments to power that wasted US aid money, but that certainly was not our intent that they should use the money like that. With the Cold War over, we can use other criteria for determinining when and where we give aid, but the Cold War was a crises situation in which we tried to make the best of bad situations considering the many threats, restrictions or constraints we had to operate under.
There's nothing for you to buy since I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm just stating easily verifiable fact. If the policies applied during the last 25 years in Latin America aren't first world subservient, I don't know what else they could be called. That "it was not US intent that they should use the money like that" is rather a feeble argument since it is obvious that dictatorial governments are easily prone to lining their pockets and not serving the people's needs since they don't have to respond to the people's mandate. You can't seriously believe that your government didn't know who they were helping and what they were doing with the money loaned/granted. Your previous statement "some action needed to be taken to secure US interest in the region" is more appropriate.

Quote:
If you think the standard of living in Chile and Argentina is worse now than it was in 1970, please prove it. Is life expectancy less in these countries today than it was 30 years ago? Is literacy less in these countries than it was 30 years ago? How about the average number years in school? What is per-capita GDP compared to 30 years ago?
According to the UN Human Development Report for 2001, the standard of living in Argentina is #34 in the world, while Chile is #39. I don't have the UN Human Development Report for 1970, but I doubt Chile and Argentina were in the top 40 back then. To be better off in 1970 than they are today would mean that in 1970 they had a standard of living equal or superior to many European countries. I've not seen anything to substantiate that.
I happen to live in Argentina and I can perfectly well prove what I have to say. In fact the following are examples excerpted from first-hand experience and not from data sheets. In 1970 my parents, standard middle-class people: a father running an independent small scale trading business and a mother with a standard secretary job at an office could send me, their only child to a private bi-lingual school, pay for all the side frills (books, school transportation, diner, social life involved, etc), send me to a sports club, pay for music lessons, buy food and clothing for all of us, pay all the bills and taxes, provide for a proper health scheme, eat out regularly and holiday for a month a year. This with basic variations was as I said standard middle-class lifestyle. Today a middle-class family similar to my own of the time can't possibly hope in their wildest dreams for such a standard of living. In fact to live in that style nowadays is only the prerogative of very rich people. Presently a middle-class family of three similar to my own in 1970 can barely send their child to a public school, let alone pay for sports clubs or music lessons, forget ESL, brand-new books or extra-neighbourhood schools (basically to save on transportation costs). Nowadays the standard middle-class Argentinian family has to forget about cable TV, home insurance, entertainment expenses, eating out and holidays longer than a week a year if they can be afforded at all, they can barely use their single car (NOT one per family member) because of the outrageous price of petrol - the recent bicycle boom as popular transportation medium is self-explanatory - they can't possibly pay all their bills and taxes let alone afford private pre-paid health systems. The latter is really a necessity since the public health system is run-down to say the least, many employers don't contribute towards unions' social security systems for their employees (in many cases because they can't otherwise they have to close down) and there's 30% by official statements unemployment which means that a lot of people have no possibility to access union social security altogether and have to consequentially lean on the public system which lacks amongst other things basic hospital material such as bandages and aspirin.

Professionals. My best friend is an architect, has been working as such with a partner for many years and managed to make a basic but decent living out of it. Today as an experienced professional she can barely lay something to eat on her family's table, is up to her neck in debt and has to think about emigrating as many others have already done, accept any other sort of job (taxi driving is quite popular among unemployed professionals) or be faced with the reality that ends won't meet anyway whatever extra expense she gives up.

Pensioners. Both my mother and my father contributed during their whole lives more than generously towards their pensions expecting to receive a decent salary the day they retired. Adding up both pensions together they don't make HALF what the government officially stated is necessary for a family to barely SURVIVE. Such figures, as we know, are by far lower than the real cost of living. My parents' present income is barely enough to cover only partially their health scheme rate. Fortunately they were able to put aside some money, a luxury very few people can afford nowadays in this country, and I'm priviliged to have a decently paid job, though not as well as in the past, and I can help out, but I can because my own lifestyle is fairly simple (no car, no mobile phone, no fancy frills) and don't have any children. To count on savings and relatives who can contribute financially is certainly not the case with most pensioners. Re savings it's interesting to point out BTW that most people who had some money set aside placed it in the form of term deposits in different local banks. Last December shortly before the elected government was ousted all bank deposits were virtually state-confiscated. This means that most people who were counting on those deposits for various expenses or merely surviving off them just can't now.

All these examples which are REAL and are certainly not exceptions to the rule - in fact they constitute the rule itself - are from Buenos Aires, where the situation is by far better than in the rest of the country. In remote areas and in the growing shanty towns that surround the larger cities people are literally STARVING and KILLING for food. For proof it's enough to see the thousands of homeless who invade the main cities daily scavenging garbage containers for food or recyclable material to sell in order to buy the day's single meal, not to mention all the ones including kids who beg in the streets, subways and even sneak to do so in restaurants and bars Furthermore the wild escalation in crime rates this situation has brought about as of late was unheard of. The other day I was watching on TV a religious congregation principal being interviewed, it was a nun who'd come all the way from India to supervise her congregation's Argentinian branch situated in a place called Santiago Del Estero, 700 miles north of Buenos Aires. She was saying that she was appalled at the conditions people were living over there and that she had barely seen in INDIA's most impoverished areas what she saw in Santiago Del Estero. This country is NOT India, it is full of resources yet our children are suffering from malnutrition and many are DYING from STARVATION. So much for #34 in standard of living rankings and per capita GDP figures.

Re literacy and average numbers in schools. Literacy is actually lower than 30 years ago when this country held one of the lowest illiteracy rates in the non-developed world. Illiteracy rates started climbing a few years ago due to the increasingly critical economic situation which resulted in kids being removed from school at a young age to be sent to work. More recently the reason changed since there's no work available: parents esp in remote areas can't financially afford to even send their children to school. They only may do so provided the school secures the child his/her daily meal. In addition it must be mentioned that the children and young people who do manage to go to school get a really sub-standard education, since the once excellent level of public education has plummetted in the last few years. This is due to various factors: the ludicrous pay teachers get which doesn't allow for selection of really capable or fully committed teaching staff, the dramatic reduction in education budget which prevents modernisation of contents, methods and learning material, the increase of demand due to the fact that less and less people can afford private education for their children, the need at government level to show for high numbers of yearly school graduation which necessarily leads to the lowering of minimum promotion standards. This is a result mainly of: misuse of public money on part of past administrations, several of which externally supported, IMF stringent conditions to pay back debt no matter what area has to be subjected to cutbacks and the interest of certain administrations (in particular the same previously mentioned) in providing low-quality education, since it is known that poorly educated people are easier to manipulate at will.

Re life expectancy. A run-down public health system, undepaid nursing and medical staff at every level including in private systems, malnutrition, diseases such as cholera which had been done away with in the past but reappeared together with others brand new to us like hantavirus and leptospyrosys as a result of the conditions of lack of hygiene some people have to live in even in city suburbs due to the lack of proper sewage and water supply don't contribute precisely to prolongued life expectancy. 30 years ago you didn't hear of malnutrition or diseases such as the above mentioned which as it is clear are the result of rampant poverty.

Quote:
Certainly foreign intervention has caused problems as you say, but in general when considering US intervention, it is a net benefit over the long run for the that country.
It's a net benefit from your point of view. Your point of view is not necessarily the supreme truth.

Quote:
I agree that the US only supported those that would with absolute certainty pursue the goal, what was not certain though was whether the goal would be attained given the limited resources available to these non-Eurpean area's of the Cold War.
The "limited resources available" were more than enough to handle intervention in the non-European areas. Again the US would not have put up a single cent if success was not minimally guaranteed.

Quote:
Actually if the only groups in Afghanistan opposing the Soviets were Nazi's we would support them. Considering the threat from the Soviets it would be totally justified.
Machiavelli seems to be a favourite inspiring character in your list. He certainly isn't in mine. The policy of using "whatever there is available" to counter a temporary greater evil regardless whether the ethics and inspiring principles of the said group are minimally compatible with the US' own, added to the fact of later turning against these previously useful assets, reflects an inherent despise of basic ethical principles which not only do I find revolting but is also contradictory of the very values the US claims to stand for.

Quote:
My point of course is the fact that we did support the resistence in Afghanistan, that happened to be fundamentalist
The US also supported disgusting dictators who "happened" to systematically violate human rights, governments led by the likes of the Saudi royal family or the Shah who "happen/ed" to oppress their own people.

Quote:
My point of course is the fact that we did support the resistence in Afghanistan, that happened to be fundamentalist, is not evidence of a worldwide campaign by the USA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. Evidence for this is severely lacking.
What "worldwide campaign"??? What "evidence" do you expect, an official statement from the US government? Or perhaps merchandising with the Stars and Stripes and a slogan in the line of "A fundamentalist a day keeps the Soviet away"??? Facts are there to see, if you prefer not to it's your business.

Quote:
The rising of fundamentilism was not an asset to the USA in fending off Soviet penetration of the region.
Well they were in Afghanistan and in every other area they control since they are clearly anti-communist.

Quote:
US weapons sent to Iran for hostages were outdated Tow missiles. If you know of other weapons systems please state the type and the quantity.
We're not talking of "weapons sent to Iran for hostages" but rather weapons sold to Iran during the conflict which was publicised fact at the time. I can hardly have access to the type and quantity.

Quote:
The point is, the Soviets always did everything they could to steal or study western technology.
They certainly did in the same way the west in turn didn't spare efforts to try and find out what the Soviets were up to.

Quote:
As one can see from the list, the Soviet Union was the chief supplier of weapons to Iraq followed distantly by China and France with others making smaller contributions. The small number of USA combat equipment listed in the totals was captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. There are transport helicopters(non-combat) that were supplied to Iraq. If anyone created the Iraqi war machine it should be clear from this that its MOSCOW. The Soviets kept a force of 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq through the Iran/Iraq war and up to a couple of months before the USA invasion of Iraq in 1991. Not only did the Soviets supply most of Iraq's weapons, but they also trained their pilots tankers and other troops in Soviet Military, tactics, doctrine, and theory's!
It was unnnecessary to post all that information, which BTW doesn't make sense other than to armament experts (but thanks anyway), since I never said that Iraq wasn't supplied by the Soviet Union. I simply said that the fact that they bought from the Soviet Union mainly didn't necessarily make them a Soviet satellite state. BTW I fail to follow your logic on the following statement "the small number of USA combat equipment listed in the totals was captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war". Didn't you say that Iran was NOT supplied by the US with equipment other than "a few outdated Tow missiles in exchange for hostages"??

Quote:
The fact that Iraq's military was heavily dependent on the Soviet Union does not mean Saddam would colapse when the Soviet Union broke up. First Saddam was already cut off from the Soviet Union before it colapsed, sanctions on Iraq started in August 1990 while the break up of the Soviet Union started in August of 1991.
Certainly not. That was precisely my point. He would have collapsed if Iraq had been a Soviet satellite state which you implied was but really was not. On the other hand the breakup of the Soviet Union started well before August 1991. That was the date it officially broke up but the process was under way since much earlier.

Quote:
Again saying that the Palestinians have no army is no rationalization for blowing up teens in a disco perhaps listening to U2
I never said it was and certainly don't appreciate that you should even remotely imply that I justify terrorist acts. My reference about their not having an army was in reply to your suggestion that they counter Israeli forces militarily.

Quote:
I don't see Israely responses to Palestinian terror to be the equal of suicide bombers at all. The reason that Palestinians suffer so many casaulties is that the Palestinian terrorist use civilian area's to make their stand, instead of going to the hills away from the cities to fight the Isrealy army. By using palestinian towns and cities as ways to withstand Israely attempts to bring justice to them, Palestinian terrorist attempt to use their own civilians to shield them and frustrate Israely attempts to bring them to justice. It would be impossible for the IDF to prevent all civilians from getting caught up in the crossfire since the terrorist decide to make their stands in the cities. Not only are the Palestinian Terrorist killing Israely teens in Disco's but their killing their own people by attempting to fight the Israelies in the cities rather than facing them in the hills. Their location determines where the fight will be, and they always choose to fight in the cities. In those situations civilian losses are unavoidable. These terrorist are largely responsible for the loss of life on both sides.
Excuse me but bulldozing Palestinian homes because terrorists were using their own civilians as shields is hardly an attempt on the IDF's part to "prevent all civilians from getting caught up in the crossfire". Anyway the fact that Palestinian terrorists use their own civilians as shields is not a valid pretext to justify the murder of innocent civilians on part of the IDF since putting at risk innocent lives through violent action against criminals who use civilians as shields is condemned by international law. Such methods are in practice equivalent to suicide bombers' regarding deliberate targeting of innocent people. Do you condone that the police try to shoot down a criminal while the lives of hostages are at risk? Or is it that Palestinian civilians are seen as "collateral damage" because they are Palestinian? Would the IDF be so virulent in trying to zero in on terrorists if they were using Israeli civilians as shields instead? And BTW your suggestion that they go to the hills and fight the Israeli army is ridiculous since they resort to terrorist methods precisely because they can't size up against the Israeli army which is much more powerful. They obviously attack where they feel they have more chances to score a more incisive strike. Before you jump into conclusions and misconstrue again, I'm NOT saying with this that the terrorist approach of attacking innocent people is justified, I'm trying to put across the notion of why they do it and why they don't wage a straightforward war.

Quote:
the threat of terrorism from it is if not neutralized for good
The threat of terrorism will be neutralised for good in the area the day Palestinians are given a place to live in which they can administrate for themselves.

Quote:
The UN is not a world government and the UN does not decide when the government of the United States can and cannot defend its citizens! The USA is willing to cooperate with the international community but not to the point that it compromises the safety and security of its citizens. It would be absurd if we did. The problem is the international community that refuses or is unable to enforce any of the resolutions it passes including the most important ones that regard to Iraq and international security.
The US is a UN member and as such must comply with UN regulations when operating on the foreign front. The UN will certainly not oppose any measure designed to preserve the safety of the citizens of a member nation. If it does it is because there's no conclusive proof that such safety is really impaired. If the US wants to makes its own decisions it is free to leave the UN.

Quote:
Scott Ritter stated when he resigned from the UN team in 1998 that Iraq was still a threat to the international community and still had WMD capability and could reconstitute much of the capability they destroyed in 6 months. Those are Scott Ritter's words from 1998 when he was on the inspection team, and the last time he was in a position to know anything. As far as senior members of the team speaking out, I guess you never heard Richard Butler or David Kay
Well it's not what he is saying now, however no, I haven't in fact heard of Butler or Kay since they never stepped up to discredit what Ritter is claiming. If they have different knowledge based on more trustworthy sources they should step up and publicise it and thus contribute to the public's better information. However, how come they haven't been able to persuade UN officials about the threat Iraq is posing?

Quote:
If you want to bring the "UN" and "international law" into this, it is according to both legal for the US to attack. But if international law is not applicable to this case because you feel the USA has a double standard, then don't bring it or the international community up!
Please don't twist my words to fit your argument. I never said that international law is not applicable because the US has a double standard!! I did say the US has a double standard since it invokes UN resolutions at will when they are useful to back their desired action but ride roughshod over them when they are seen as obstacles against the course of action they wish to pursue. What I'm saying is that if the US expect the cease-fire agreement to be enforced by the UN they must in turn comply with UN basic regulations and procedures. If the US wishes to act unilaterally I don't see the need of kicking up so much fuss to get UN approval since as I said before no-one is forcing the US to remain a UN member.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 12:14 PM   #118
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:34 PM
I'm afraid I don't have much to add to this thread, but I just wanted to say again how impressed I am by the level of thought and research in these posts, as well as the civility and respectfulness that the involved parties are demonstrating. The FYM mods dearly appreciate it.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 05:55 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:34 PM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

Ok you live in Argentina and this has been your personal experience from you have seen. But, I'd like to see national statistics which would contradict UN DATA which shows Argentina at #34 standard of living in the world. I live in the USA, and of course were the wealthiest country in the world, but there are people in my country who could describe somewhat similar personal experience in regards to their situation from 1970 to 2002. But obviously this persons personal experience is not the situation for most people as shown by national statistics on poverty and wealth in the USA. The point here is while personal experience is informative, it alone cannot be extrapolated to be the condition for the nation as a whole. If the United Nations has made a mistake in its ranking then please list the national statistics that show this. I have the Human Development Report from 1991 as well and I can look to see where Argentina ranked then, but I doubt it was higher than it is today. I'm not saying your wrong on the conditions today vs. 1970, I'd just like to see more "national data" that would contradict the United Nations information.

The USA launched many interventions during the Cold War that had no guarantee of succeeding in its actual goal. The absense of a guarantee should not prevent one from acting.

A question, do you find it revolting that the USA helped the Soviet Union(Stalin was as evil as any Nazi if not worse) during World War II? Do you think the USA should not have helped the Soviet Union during World War II? Do you know what that would of meant for the world if the Soviet Union had been knocked out of the war by the Germans? In my view your comendable idealism needs to be infused with a healthy dose of realism.

I'm certainly not expecting the USA to advertise a supposed policy of using Fundamentalism as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. But I do expect a lot more than the "facts" you gave to support that conclusion. I do not deny the logic, it just that the fact that we supported resistent fighters in Afghanistan does not alone prove your point.

Again if its a well publish fact that we sold weapons other than Tow missiles to get the release of hostages, please show me an article that proves this and just list one or two weapon systems other than the Tow missile that was sold to Iran, and in what quantity. The USA sold lots of weapons to Iran while the SHAH was in power, but not after his fall. Please list any weapons system and in what quantity. You don't have to list everything, I'd just like to see some of this evidence that you say you have.

Again, I don't follow your logic that if the Soviet Union was colapsing that would mean that their client State would colapse as well. Other examples that don't mix with your theory are North Korea and Cuba. The close political/military relationship between the two countries is well documented. No other country on the Planet had as close a relationship to Iraq as the Soviet Union did. More than selling them equipment, the Soviet Union trained the entire Iraqi army and maintained a military presense in Iraq of 2,000 troops up to just before the 1991 Gulf War. If you have any trouble reading anything on the list of Iraqi equipment or have questions about anything there, I'd be happy to explain it for you.

I NEVER SAID Iran did not buy US weapons! They did when the SHAH was in power! I said the USA only gave Iran some outdated Tow missiles in the early 80s for hostages, after the Shah was out of power. I'm sorry you failed to understand me there.

Its true that Palestinian terrorist don't go to hills because they can't size up to the Israely military. Like all terrorist they use the local civilian population as shield to hide behind. If they actually cared about the people they were fighting for, they wouldn't decide to fight in the cities. Many of the liberals and Palestinians claimed the Israelies killed 7,000 people at Jenin, it was later discovered that 48 people were killed and that most of them were terrorist. It was also discovered that the Israelies warned everyone to leave before they launched their attack on the terrorist, at least the IDF seems to care about the Palestinians unlike the terrorist who claim to be fighting for them!

Actually Police whether it be in the USA, UK, Ireland or anywhere else often use deadly force against criminals in urban area's which does put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. I fully condone the Police using these means to bring criminals to justice, because the risk is minimal compared to letting criminals simply get away. How could the allies in World War II or any other country taking legitimate military action against an enemy be able to if the possible risk of civilian casaulties prevented them from acting.

I'm not sure exactly why the Israelies bulldoze the house of a terrorist, probably because they do not want it used as a base for terrorist after they leave the area. I'm not going to say that individuals in the IDF have never murdered Palestinians, but as a policy government or military, its not policy to murder innocent Palestinians. If it was, the IDF could have killed everyone on the West Bank back in the 1960s. Thats one reason I never buy into equating the IDF with the terrorist. If the terrorist could kill all the Jews in Israel they would. The IDF has the capability to kill everyone on the West Bank, but they don't, they try to avoid civilian casualties but accidents happen, just like they do when POLICE go after criminals in New York City or London.

In trying to explain why the terrorist attack civilians instead of military targets, you have failed to explain how that would accomplish their goals of having the IDF leave the West Bank. There is simply no logic in attacking civilians. They have nothing to do with the IDF being on the West Bank. There are far better methods for resisting IDF occupations on the West Bank. If one has the ability to blow up a building with innocent civilians why wouldn't they have the ability to at least attempt to do the same against a military target. Their slaughter of Jewish civilians in Israel cannot be explained by any logic.

The USA is in obeying the UN by enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq. It is other UN members that are in defiance of their own organization by not enforcing the resolutions against Iraq. Since the other countries are not obeying the UN resolutions regarding Iraq by enforcing them, then by your logic they should all leave the UN as well.

Scott Ritter may not be saying that now, but that is irrelavent, because in 1998 when he was resigning from his UN post, he clearly stated Iraq was a threat to the international community and that Iraq could reconstitute its weapons capability with in 6 months. Remember he has not been apart of the UN inspections regime since then, so his only relevant comments on the matter stem from the last time he was in a position to know anything which was back in 1998.

David Kay and Richard Bulter have both come out against what Ritter has said and in fact Richard Butler was in a debate with Ritter on Cnn!

Because the UN cannot be convinced to act on a certain situation does not in fact mean the condition that is claimed does not exist. The UN failed to act in Kosovo! Civilians were being slaughtered by the Serbs by the UN could not act because of the Soviets veto power in the UN. NATO acted and brought peace to the region. The UN is a wonderful attempt to communicate and resolve differences, but it is not a world government. I guess you think all 19 members of NATO should leave the UN since their action in Kosovo was not approved by the UN.

You know your criticism of the USA and the UN could also be leveled against virtually any member of the UN at one time or the other. Again, WE are complying with UN resolutions by enforcing the ceacefire agreement. Countries that refuse to enforce the ceacefire agreement are in defiance of it. You should be suggesting that these other countries leave as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 09:37 AM   #120
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:34 PM
QUOTE]Originally posted by STING2
I still don't see why it is "respectless" for me to point out some similarities between the two assholes. Do you deny that Saddam Hussein has killed thousands of his own people merely for their political opposition to his rule? Do you deny that he has funded terrorist acts against Israel?[/QUOTE]

Adolf Hittler was much more than that and comparing him over and over again with different other assholes just to show how bad that other "new Hittler" is (I think i hear about comparisions like that once a month) just reduces his unique cruelty or his sick vision of the "Herrenrasse" to name just a few. Besides that he told the world what he wanted to do in advance ("Mein Kampf").

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Bin Laden's role in the 1979-1989 occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was primarily that of supplier and financer of Mujahadeen rebels. At this
time, Bin Laden had not been apart of any terrorist attack or any military attack, except for actions against Government Afghan forces and Soviet forces. It is
So you think Terrorism is okay as long as it is against Soviets or other non Americans?

That's a main reason why the US has a negative image in large regions of the world. The doctrin "enemies of our enemies are friends" lead to lots of chaos - not only in the arabic world.

Quote:

unlikely although possible that some CIA support found its way into the hands of Bin Laden, but even if true is not relavent since Bin Laden at that time was NOT a terrorist. In 1989 the USA pulled out of
This is only true as long as you don't care for non-us victims

Quote:

A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that causes damage and loss of life of a magnitude many times greater than average weapons systems or conventional munitions. It is also usually
For me a weapon of mass destruciton is every weapon which kills not only the one you wanted to kill (difference gun - bomb).
In your definition above the first atomic bomb is just a mass destruction as long as other bombs are smaller.


Quote:

dificult to control its effects when used. It is for that reason usually not a good weapon for military use, but an excellent one for terrorist and their goals.
Not only for terrorists - or would you call the US terrorists just because they have tons of mass destruction weapons?

Quote:
The USA is not breaking any international laws by invading and changing the regime in Iraq. In fact by doing so, we are complying with UN resolutions by enforcing the ceacefire agreement.
Wrong! It's against international laws to
intefer in inner affairs of foreign countries.
Only the UN is alowed to do that and their resolutions are allways verry specific.
There is no UN resolution that justifies a regime change in Iraq (yet)

Quote:

The Soviet Union, might and I underline might fit into my criteria for nations that are candidates for regime change, but we did not attack because we did not have the military capability to invade and change the regime in the
And because of that lots of other regimes who are not US allies will try to get ABC Weapons asap. Just to make sure that the US respects them.

Quote:

Again the USA is obiding by international law by resuming offensive operations against Iraq which is called for in the ceacefire resolutions which Iraq has violated!
I do not agree - and most governments don't agree either (that's one reason why the US government would like to get a new UN res.

Quote:
Again, the USA seems to be the only country willing to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq which call for military force if Iraq is in violation of the ceacefire agreement and other resolutions. IF the UN is unwilling to
No the focus of the US has changed they don't care anymore for the UN res. they want a regime change to get more power in that important (because of it's oil) area.

Quote:

German cities like Dresden were bombed because of their importance in the war effort. What is so cruel about a
If you mean "weaken the morale of the people by bombing civilists you might be right.

Quote:

Daisy cutter weapon rather than another weapon. Its got a larger radious of fragmentation and effects, which makes it an effective weapon when properly used than can help to bring a conflict to a quick resolution and save lives!
daisy cutters and Fuel Air Explosive Bombs (FAE), violate international Laws (Zusatzprotokoll to the "Genfer Abkommen" 12.8.1949 - protection of the victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) of 8.6.1977.

A little side note to non-honourable warfare:
It was pretty cynical for me that the US dropped care packages over Afghanistan with the same color than the Cluster Bombs but with an English! instruction manual

Quote:

I'm sorry but the passage of 11 years does not in anyway change what is called for under the UN ceacefire resolution. How could it? Thats like saying maybe in 11 years shoplifting and murder will all of a sudden become legal! How strange can you get?
Just because Sadam violates international laws dosn't allow the US to do the same - we are living in a world with international laws and the UN is the only organisation who is allowed to interfer in national affairs

Quote:
The world was attacked by Iraq when it attacked Kuwait because the world has strong international trade ties with Kuwait that effect everyone on the planet economically.
And that's the reason why there was a UN mission to free Kuwait.

Quote:
AGAIN, LISTEN, The US invasion of Iraq is mandated because they have violated the UN CEACEFIRE AGREEMENT! The US invasion of Iraq

Quote:

By invading Iraq and changing the regime, the USA is the only UN member that is complying and enforcing the UN resolutions that call for such an invasion of Iraq if they violate the UN ceacefire agreement! Your idea's go against UN
Wrong the UN didn't allow a regime change yet. If you think so please tell me in which resolution.

Imho the Free World is powerful enough to force countries to change without war.
Sometimes war is necessary but we should always spend the same engergy and money on peaceful solutions.

I know that it can hapen that war is the only solution. But not in Iraq.

War without international legitimation from the US could result in much hate.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com