Who to "Liberate" Next? - Page 2 - 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 04-13-2003, 06:39 PM   #16
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The purpose of having these weapons was not as much to terrorize the U.S. as much as to terrorize his own people from revolting. As you can see, gas was used on the Kurds.

Melon
i know your a smart man, melon, so im surprised you actually said this.

the kurds were not his own people. they controlled the northern part of iraq, and saddam had nothing to do with them.

ofcourse, he did gas them, and im certainly not making any excuses for him.

but to say he gased his own people, at least when talking about the kurds, is incorrect.
__________________

__________________
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:02 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Ah, but you forget something, dearest Gagickies. That was before the no-fly zone that allowed the Kurds to be de-facto autonomous. By "own people," I define that as people within the political boundaries of Iraq.

War wrangling aside, to somehow excuse away the Kurds as insignificant compared to his "own people" (Sunni Muslims?) is kind of disturbing.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:03 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:52 AM
man/child unfortunately you are ppb right

That always frustrates me, too.


When people repeat propaganda sound bites.


Did the US slaughter it's own people, i. e. the so-called American Indians, the Mexicans etc.



As for who is next?

It is a coin toss, Syria or Iran,

Whichever one the American people will believe was responsible for 9-11.


“There is a direct link”

“He gassed his own people”

“Weapons of mass destruction”

“Precision bombing’

Blah blah blah
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:07 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Melon,

Were not the people he gassed Shia who sided with Iran during that war?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:10 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:52 AM
While reprehensible, those occurred over 100+ years ago, and those responsible have long since been deceased. The world operated under different philosophical paradigms, and, while regrettable, we cannot go back in time and stop it. Almost every nation has a bloody past, whether that be in the Western world or otherwise.

Thankfully, we live in a world where genocide should be intolerable, and, while we will all disagree as to the methods of Saddam's removal, I think we can agree that such genocide is intolerable in the modern world.

This "it's okay because everyone does it" argument does not fly here, and I would expect better from you than to regurgitate leftist propaganda.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:12 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Melon,

Were not the people he gassed Shia who sided with Iran during that war?
I think he gassed the Kurds and slaughtered the Shi'ites.

He also gassed Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. However, I cease to see why this is important. Are you somehow implying that some people are deserving of chemical warfare?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:22 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:52 AM
First, In 2002 I posted in this forum that Saddam was despicable and should not be in power.

Second. I am glad he is gone.

He did crimes against his own people, torture, executions, etc.


To say he gassed his “own” people. Is as correct as saying the US killed it’s “own” people when they killed native Americans.

I don’t want to be put in a position of defending those actions. I do not.


I have stated before Saddam should have been removed for crimes against humanity. And put on trial like Milosivic and others.

This war was sold on half-truths and straight out lies, that’s all.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 07:24 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
This war was sold on half-truths and straight out lies, that’s all.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with this. My thread is supposed to be a bit acidic in tone anyway.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 11:25 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Saddam's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the UN is not a half truth or a lie, it is a FACT!

For 12 years, everyone tried another way besides military force to bring Saddam into compliance. These actions failed. Military force was the only option that would ever bring about compliance with the resolutions given Saddam's unwillingness to cooperate. Oh, and no those resolutions were not just pieces of paper. Its to late for several hundred thousand Iraqi's, but fortunately its not to late for potentially several million people that could have been killed by Saddam in the next decade especially if he had developed nuclear weapons.

BUT, to the topic of this thread and it is an interesting one. There is not going to be and invasion of Syria, Iran, or North Korea, chiefly because the reasons and conditions for the invasion of Iraq do not exist in the way or to the degree that they do in the other countries.

Syria: Syria does have a past of invading Israel and occupying parts of Lebanon. But unlike Iraq, Syria has not invaded any countries in the past 20 years where as Iraq has attacked and invaded 4 different countries. Syria has extensively supported Hezebolah and other terrorist organizations responsible for terrorism in Israel. But its behavior for the most part is not nearly as threatening as Saddam's Iraq. Feeding and giving a few dollars to terrorist is one thing, Invading and occupying countries unprovoked and using chemical weapons against other countries is another. Syria is a country that needs to be looked at, but at the time being is not a candidate for regime change. Hopefully it will never make that list. Syria is to geographically seperated from the Persian Gulf to mount an effective invasion of the area and has to worry about Israel, which takes away from any insane effort to occupy the rich oil fields of the Persian Gulf.

Iran: Iran unlike Syria is much better positioned for an oil field grab. But Iran does not have a history of invading other countries. It did have plans after it was invaded by Iraq to defeat Iraq and not stop there, but that was in the few years after the Iranian revolution when the situation was constantly evolving. Like Syria, Iran has not invaded any country in the past 20 years(Except Iraq, but lets not forget it was Iraq that started the war). Iran's conventional military in terms of weapons is much smaller than Syria or Iraq. It is still primarily an infantry based military although it has purchased 800 tanks from Russia over the past 13 years. Iraq rebuilt or until then guarded by US troops will be able to deter any Iranian Aggression. Iraq blocks Iran's access to oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In terms of capability, Iran is less of a threat than Iraq was and Syria is. Its geographic proximity is not relevant as long as Iraq can remain a strong buffer. Its behavior is not even remotely suggestive in the way that Iraq's behavior was. More importantly, there have been many changes in Iran over the past 20 years. Slowly, people are getting more rights, but very slowly. There is not a single person in the Iranian government where all the power is located, unlike Iraq. There are progressives, conservatives, and moderates. Over the next 10 years there will be a huge population boom in Iran and hopefully, this youth can help bring about more change with a government that is not closed off to it, or dictitorial in the way Saddam's regime was. Like Syria, the main concern with Iran is its support for terrorism, primarily against Israel. Their nuclear ambitions are also a great concern, but again, this concern is moderated by its past behavior in regards to direct invasions and attacks on other countries, of which it has done neither unlike Iraq.

North Korea: Is a well armed Giant compared to Iraq prior to Gulf War II. Its posture is very threatening until you look at its history over the past 50 years. 50 years of no invasions of other countries. Some say geography has played a role in this and maybe it has. If thats the case, geography is not going to stop playing that role in the future. Unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait vs. Iraq , South Korea, China, and Russia can prevent North Korea from overruning their countries. But the fact remains that North Korea's past behavior is not threatening when compared with Iraq's past behavior. . It is a fact, even without nuclear weapons or WMD, that North Korea could kill over 200,000 South Koreans at a minimum the first day of a war. This is because 80% of North Korea's 11,000 toobs of artillery are all in range of Seoul's metropolitan area of 15 million people. Seoul is only 25 miles from the DMZ. This is the only place in the world where this unique condition exist. The artillery is well hidden in the mountains with many of the large guns protected by large hidden concrete doors that open when the weapon is ready to fire. The US military could eventually take out and destroy this artillery, but it could take several days if not weeks. The civilian loss of life in South Korea could pass a million during that time. This is without the use of Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. Add those in, and the number of civilians killed jumps even higher. Because of North Korea's relatively good past behavior plus its enormous capability that could cause massive loss of life in the South in just a day, the cost of invading North Korea for outweighs the cost continueing to deter it.

To sum up none of these countries have behavior's that rise to the level of Saddam's regime.Syria,Iran are less capable than Iraq was for both military and geographic reasons. North Korea is more military capable than Iraq was, but is not geagraphically situated to do much.

Unless something were to radically change, there is not going to be any invasions of Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Iraq always was the most threatening out of all four do to its behavior,its military capability and geographic location. Saddam's regime was a unique threat to the world which is why it had to be overthrown.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 01:06 AM   #25
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 07:52 AM
To my understanding, the Kurds are the ethnic (and disdained) minority in Iraq. They are not Saddam's "own people."
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 03:32 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 02:52 PM
I'm no expert on US, but I'm just wondering whether it can actually afford another campaign like this any time soon when it's got so much on its plate already.
__________________
Saracene is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 09:44 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Why are so many people so tied up with the pharse "his own people"? Look, we all know that Iraq is made up of many different tribes and such. But the fact that the Kurds live within Iraq's boundaries is why they are called "his own people". What if the American President gassed Hispanic Americans...wouldn't you say "The president taxed his own people" even though they aren't from the same race? Also, let's not forget that when Saddam gassed the Kurds, they weren't living in autonomy up in the north under US protected air space. That happened after the gassing.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 11:40 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Also, let's not forget that when Saddam gassed the Kurds, they weren't living in autonomy up in the north under US protected air space. That happened after the gassing.
So, when they were gassed, what did your government do? I don't remember any liberation then, it was business as usual with Iraq. That's why now, when Rumsfeld cries crocodile tears over those poor Kurds, 15 YEARS later, it all sounds just a tad hypocritical, you see.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 01:18 PM   #29
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: 03:52 PM
anitram:

That was the time where Saddam was the US bastard, it was ok to kill humans in a barbaric way as long as he was against the evil communists

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 01:20 PM   #30
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Syria! From WSJ:

"As the major U.S. military campaign in Iraq neared a conclusion, the U.S. continued to intensify its focus on Syria, again warning Iraq's western neighbor not to harbor Iraqi leaders or hide chemical and biological weapons.

The U.S. has accused Syria several times in recent weeks of providing haven to fleeing Iraqi leaders, and possible weapons of mass destruction, while sending equipment and volunteers into help the fight against the coalition. President Bush on Sunday said he expected cooperation from the Syrians."

Unfortunately, according to most polls, people believe the most important issue in the 2004 election is the economy. and I highly doubt Americans will support a war that is just American troops. Also, Saddam Hussein is a REALLY bad guy, but most people don't know anything about Syria.

As for Bush, I really, honestly, believe this guy is not going to get past his first term. Is it good that we overthrew Saddam? yes. but I really think people are going to be tired of all this incursion crap next year when the elections roll around. Not to mention that we STILL don't have Osama.

Just remember that George Sr. went to war with Iraq 18 months before the election -- and he lost to someone most had never heard of despite a 70% approval rating during the war. Sound familiar?
__________________

__________________
sharky 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 09:52 AM.


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