Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable - 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 03-24-2003, 03:17 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,187
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik
Saddam is a disbeliever in the eyes of Osama as well in the eyes of all other islamic fundamental groups. But who knows? Maybe the Al Qaida does have contacts with North Korea, or with Micronesia or with Tchad...who knows...


And you are sick of listening the "israelian argument" cause Israel is an ally of the United States, and because they are an ally they are allowed to breach the UN resolutions. I don't expect the US to do something but why the hell are they supporting the israelian politics, which is based on terror agains the palestinians which 3 billions a year?

Like I said before, to invade in Iraq without solving the problem of palestinia will lead to more destabilisation, as the arabs think (and they are right to think that) : Israel can do anything but an muslim country is attacked, that is the massage they get. And as you can see for example in Jemen, Egypt or Bahrain, the ppl go on the barricades. And as longer this war goes on their hate will increase.
I never said Irael should be allowed to break UN resolutions, I only said that you shouldn't expect the U.S. to be the ones to do anything about the situation because the 2 countries are allys. And do you think Germany is more of a supporter of Israel or Palastine?

As for you last comment, that is argueable. Most Iraqi exiles living in the U.S. believe that Saddam needs to go and that it will provide greater stability to the middle east.
__________________

__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 05:02 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:52 AM
I know the fact that the exil iraqis want Saddam to go, and this is absolutely understandable. But Exil-Iranis or exil-cuban does want ist too.
But what if Saddam goes? Do you really think that after Saddam there will be democracy and stabilization? Iraq is not a nation, its more an "artificial formation", divided in Kurds, and what is very important Sunnis and Shiias, who are enemies of each other.

The iraqi opposition is divided in more than 50 different parties which are at odds with each other and the favourite for the post-saddam iraq is a criminal (previously convicted in Jordania).

Let me give you an example: Afghanistan

The president Karsai rules only in Kabul and the other parts of this country are divided between clans, all enemies of each other. The cruel Taliban are gone, but with them the stabilization.

And what is to be expected in Iraq? There is no arab country where you can see democratic structures, so how can you expect it in Iraq, divided in three parts whose ppl have some nasty thoughts about the USA???

What I think is the danger of a civil war, old bill to be payed...

And about Israel, well I can't accept the argument that Israel's resolutions breaches are tolerated only because they are allies of the US. I don't blame only the americans for this situation, don't get me wrong.
The european also have to be blamed. And Germany never will be against Israel cause of WWII for understandable reasons.
__________________

__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 05:15 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,187
Local Time: 04:52 AM
So that is why I'm saying I am tired of the Israel arguement because it really is off topic to me, but anyway....

I do see your point of stabilization issues. I have heard good things from the Iraqi-American Alliance that says that they are planning on presidential council of 6 to 8 members to head up a new government. I just know that none of us can foresee what will happen. I can't argue that I think everything will be stable and fantastic after Saddam is gone. I just think that over time, it will be better to not have him in control of the country.

I think there is a large percentage of Iraqi's just waiting for him to be gone, and to start fresh. Why do you think Iraqi TV is playing these taped messages of Saddam that they say are new? It's to keep the people afraid. If they think he is still alive and in control, then they dare not stop fighting against the coalition forces. If he were confirmed dead, i think it would change their attitude dramatically.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 06:02 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Easier... Russia never supplied the mentioned stuff to Iraq. Russia has never ever supplied anything to Iraq after sanctions were set. As a country that supported sanctions on Iraq it must not supply anything to Iraq which would violate the regime of sanctions. Russia is in compliance. At the same time I do not rule out that Iraq may have purchased some Russia-made military equipment. Not from Russia though but through third countries.
That is how the French Companies have been doing it. They sell to a middle person, usually in Syria, and then to Iraq.

All nice neat and tidy so France does not get the stain all over them.

I have not once, in all of my reading on this situation, found any evidence that Russia has supplied Iraq with anything.


Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 07:07 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,187
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


That is how the French Companies have been doing it. They sell to a middle person, usually in Syria, and then to Iraq.

All nice neat and tidy so France does not get the stain all over them.

I have not once, in all of my reading on this situation, found any evidence that Russia has supplied Iraq with anything.


Peace
Actually looking at the CNN archives Russia has a pretty long history of hooking up Iraq either directly or indirectly (without gov't. knowledge)

Here is one link from a month or so ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...rms/index.html

and here's a link from yesterday about the products I mentioned - GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, and anti-tank shells.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...les/index.html
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-25-2003, 04:26 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish


Actually looking at the CNN archives Russia has a pretty long history of hooking up Iraq either directly or indirectly (without gov't. knowledge)

here's a link from yesterday about the products I mentioned - GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, and anti-tank shells.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...les/index.html
If the CNN article is true, then it is a violation of the sanctions, it's illegal. At least in what regards the anti-tank systems. But once again I do not believe Russia supplied ARMS to Iraq in violation of the sanctions. Negligible profit to run the risk.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 04:35 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,187
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


If the CNN article is true, then it is a violation of the sanctions, it's illegal. At least in what regards the anti-tank systems. But once again I do not believe Russia supplied ARMS to Iraq in violation of the sanctions. Negligible profit to run the risk.
I wouldn't think they would either, I assume this is probably the work of more black market arms dealers without full knowledge of the Russian government. At least I hope.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-25-2003, 04:49 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:52 PM
The GPS Scramblers in question no longer work properly....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 08:46 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Great comments Tariq...

Unlike woman fish, I feel that Israel is a big part of this war, along with the primary objective of controlling oil and keeping the U.S. dollar strong relative to the rising Euro.


US Middle East policy is therefore Israelo-centric. Through the rallying of Jewish lobbyists in the U.S. over the past few decades, US middle east policy is committed to the destruction of Israel's enemies, and really stabilizing the young Israeli state.

Potentially Iraq is the most fearsome enemy of Israel because of that country's economic and human resources; Palestinians are formidable because they stand in the way of complete Israeli hegemony and land occupation. Saddam was also creating propaganda in Israel by supporting the idea of suicide bombing to fight back against the oppressive and unjust occupation of Palestine.
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 09:19 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Man Inside The Child
Great comments Tariq...

Unlike woman fish, I feel that Israel is a big part of this war, along with the primary objective of controlling oil and keeping the U.S. dollar strong relative to the rising Euro.

1. I am quite skeptical that the US, Britain and Australia would all consent to be proxies for Israel in a war.

2. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this, but if oil were a primary objective, Bush would just go on the air and say "we think the Iraqi people have suffered too long under the UN economic sanctions, so we are going to put forth a motion to the UN that they be ended." He'd score a couple points with the Arab street and open up the way for American oil companies to do business.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 01:28 AM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 04:52 AM
I respect your opinion speedracer, but I believe in idea that if America's objective in the world, were weapons of mass destruction, then why aren't they in Pakistan, India, and more importantly North Korea. If it were regime change, then why aren't they in Colombia, Indonesia, or Zaire.

There is, in my mind, an alterior motive to this war - controlling the supply of oil to the world - thereby setting of a rising Euro which has really hurt the U.S. dollar in recent years. Such control can really put an American stronghold/chokehold on the global economy for decades to come. As far as Australia and Britain, they want a piece of the action as well.

You also mentioned that Bush "would score a couple of points with the Arab street" after ousting Saddam.

I can't imagine that there is a single Arab or Iraqi who would not like to see Saddam Hussein removed. But lets be serious, consider for a second what exactly, in terms of LIVED EXPERIENCE, that will mean for the people who actually live there, especially after B-52 strikes tear their land and homes apart relentlessly - by Americans, for a second time. The Americans already have a foul name in the region for their support of the inhumane Israeli government. Nobody in the middle east is going to embrace the Americans, no "points will be scored. If anything, animosity towards the United States will rise even further, likely increasing the threat towards American security.

later
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 09:37 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Man Inside The Child
I respect your opinion speedracer, but I believe in idea that if America's objective in the world, were weapons of mass destruction, then why aren't they in Pakistan, India, and more importantly North Korea. If it were regime change, then why aren't they in Colombia, Indonesia, or Zaire.

Well, the US reserves the right to pick its spots. We haven't the time or resources to intervene everywhere, obviously.

We don't feel threatened by Pakistan, India, Colombia, Indonesia or Zaire.

We definitely feel threatened by North Korea. I have no idea what we're going to do about it. Unless we know exactly where all their nuclear weapons are located, it is foolish to attack them now, unless we want to turn Seoul and Tokyo into smoking holes in the ground.

There are certainly other countries in the world where great injustices are committed against the people. One example that comes to mind is Sudan, whre Christians and other non-Muslims are enslaved and massacred. Sudan also happens to be an oil-producing state. Until about a couple weeks ago, a Canadian company owned a large stake in the Sudanese oil industry.

Quote:

There is, in my mind, an alterior motive to this war - controlling the supply of oil to the world - thereby setting of a rising Euro which has really hurt the U.S. dollar in recent years. Such control can really put an American stronghold/chokehold on the global economy for decades to come. As far as Australia and Britain, they want a piece of the action as well.
This may very well be true, but I won't believe it until somebody gets a hold of secret planning documents that say so.

Quote:

You also mentioned that Bush "would score a couple of points with the Arab street" after ousting Saddam.
I think you misunderstood me. I said that Bush would be more popular around the Arab world if he left Saddam in place and dropped the sanctions.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 10:10 AM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:52 AM
so speedracer, you mentioned that the USA has the right to "pick up its spot" and that they feel "threatened by Iraq."

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.

And if you now want to argue with Saddams assumedly connections with international terrorism then I think SAUDI ARABIA, an US ally, would have to be more afraid of a regime change.

I don't think that the oil reservers in Iraq are the only reason for this invasion, but to say that this fact doesn't matters here, sounds ignorant to me.
And once again: What after Saddam?

I don't think they will support "AYATOLLAH HAKIM", an charismatic leader accepted by the shiites, cause they don't want a second IRAN.
But the shiites have to play a role in a post saddam iraq as they represent the majority (65 per cent) of the ppl.

I'm afraid of a civil war after Saddam is gone / killed, what do you think?
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 10:48 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik
so speedracer, you mentioned that the USA has the right to "pick up its spot" and that they feel "threatened by Iraq."

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?
So what exactly has been happening since 1998?

Under the disarmament program, Saddam was supposed to be completely forthright in destroying his WMDs or presenting records that show they had been destroyed. He was not supposed to play hide and seek with the inspectors.

Quote:

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.
We put US troops in Saudi Arabia because they felt threatened by Iraq. They may say publicly that they do not support the war, but they haven't asked the troops to leave.

And who do you think these 15 countries who support the war in secret are?

Quote:

And if you now want to argue with Saddams assumedly connections with international terrorism then I think SAUDI ARABIA, an US ally, would have to be more afraid of a regime change.
You're right, there are a lot of things in Saudi Arabia that need to change. I think we have a better chance of negotiating these things with them than with Iraq though.

Quote:

I don't think that the oil reservers in Iraq are the only reason for this invasion, but to say that this fact doesn't matters here, sounds ignorant to me.
Well, of course oil matters--it is supposed to provide a lot of the funds for reconstructing the country. But I hardly think it's a primary motivation.

When supporters of the war give multiple reasons for going to war, the anti-war crowd seems to think this is a weakness in our case. On the contrary; these different reasons are parts of a solid cumulative case against Iraq (though I think that the fact that Saddam terrorizes his own people makes up the bulk of the case).

Quote:

And once again: What after Saddam?

I don't think they will support "AYATOLLAH HAKIM", an charismatic leader accepted by the shiites, cause they don't want a second IRAN.
But the shiites have to play a role in a post saddam iraq as they represent the majority (65 per cent) of the ppl.

I'm afraid of a civil war after Saddam is gone / killed, what do you think?
I think some sort of federalist government can be put into place (where the country is divided up into individual states).
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 11:17 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.

this argument is ridiculous



Osama bin laden technically is no threat to the US then..but he killed 3,000 ppl on american soil.


Tarik...the rules changed on 9/11.



Also...it isn't US agression.....it's an enforcement of resolution 687 based on the deploration of iraqs commitment to disarmement outlined explicitly in resolution 1441.



The arab worlds consistent aggression towards israel....is NOT justifiable.


and if iraqs neighbors dont' feel he's a threat??? why are they giving us airspace??? or int eh case of kuwait..the ability to base troops. ???
__________________

__________________
V Nura 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 11:52 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