Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable - 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, 08:13 AM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable

To be contrary to some ppl in this forum, lets talk factually.

The most importent arguments of the war supporters are:

1. Saddam breaches the UN. resotion 1441 as well as he breached further resoltions regarding weapons of mass destruction

2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war 1980 - 1988

3. Saddam has connections with Al Qaida (so this argument means that according to this, he was involved in the 11.9. attack

4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights

Lets go through point by point:


1. Its a true and a fact that Saddam breached 17 resolutions of the security council. But it is also a fact that Israel breached (and still is breaching) UN resolutions, as (according to the res.) they have to leave the territories occupied '67 as well as their colonies in the Westbank are illegitimated.
But Israel needn't to be afraid of an invasion, as well as there even are no sanctions or not a boykott agains israel.

Far from it! Israel annual get 3 bil. US dollars from the United States.
But back to the last UN resolution. The last two reports from Blix (expecially the last) commended the iraqi cooperation. If the inspectors had more time (of course with the US military compression) this conclict would be solved peacefully. But to invade in Iraq WITHOUT UN MANDATE and without solving the Palestinian problem can have fatal consiquences.


2. Its true that Saddam used chemical weapons agains Iran and the Kurds. But if this fact would be an argument for a change of that regime, it would have to take place in 1991. During the gulf war this year almost all provinces in Iraq were occupied by the allied troups or by revolters.

But what happened? "Suddenly" the US made peace with Saddam, giving him time to break down the revolts.
And what about 1992, when to US government refused to help the shiites in South Iraq, although they liberated importent cities like "BASRA" and "NASIRIJAH"?
Its a fact that the Saddam during the 90's has remained in power cause the USA DIDN'T WANT A REGIME CHANGE.


3. This is the flimsiest argument. Saddam is in almost the same manner accountable for the 11.9. attack like the pope. Saddam's baath party is laical and the eyes of islamic fundamentalists he is a "heathen" (osama himself called him so), which party ist not compatible with an islamic theocracy. In Iraq there is for example the "Ansar Al Islami" group fighting agains Saddam.

In my opinion the intention of this argument is a "brain wash" of the american ppl. And it works: Almost 50 percent of the US ppl. believe that Saddam is hand in glove with Osama (no wonder if you read "Stupid White Men").
As I live in Germany I have the chance to see more objective reports and news as against you in the united states.

4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:

- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited

What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"
__________________

__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:34 AM   #2
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:42 PM
This and all other war-related threads should go in "War."
__________________

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


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:00 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Re: Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable

Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik


4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights

Lets go through point by point:

4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:

- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited

What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"
I certainly don't have any nice words for the other corrupt regimes in the Middle East that receive US support. But I have to ask you, what is wrong with the US picking and choosing its spots? Especially since there is already a somewhat functional democracy in Iraqi Kurdistan that could be a precursor to some sort of federalist government in Iraq once the war is over.

And I have to ask you, why do you think that all American media is jingoist nonsense? I've been pretty satisfied with the reporting from CNN, the New York Times,, the Washington Post, and the New Republic. And I've compared these sources with other good sources such as the BBC, the Guardian, and the Independent.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:50 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 04:42 PM
No - don't you see Speedracer. Only the people in the U.S. are brainwashed. Tarik is from Germany, so obviously he knows the real truth.


So tell me Tarik - what does "serious consequences" mean to you? And I am sick and tired of the stupid, useless Israel arguement. Israel is an ally of the U.S. - no one is disputing that. I wouldn't expect any country to use military force on an ally. If other countries have such a big problem with Israel, then THEY can do something about it. But as you can see, everyone expects the U.S. to do the work.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:57 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:42 PM
First of all an independent kurdistan will never be accepted by the turkish government. This is one of the reasons they marched in Northern Iraq independent from what the turkish government is saying.
Now, we can talk about the kurdish problem, which in my opinion is tragic. But on the other hand the reason Turkey will not allow an independent kurdistan is similar to the reason why Russia will not allow a free Chechenia...

And I was talking about arabic dictators. The Kurds are not Arabs by the way. If Hussein's supposed connections to Al Qaida (which is nonsens as I mentioned before) were the reason for this invasion, Saudi Arabia would have to be more afraid of an invasion, as they are financially helping terror groups like the HAMAS and not to forget:

Most of the Terrorists from 11.9. were Saudis, not Iraqis.
So why Iraq? Iraq does not pose an acute threat to the USA as well as to their neighbours (according to the declaration of Iraq's neighbours some month ago).
The inspectors could not find any clues of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US could not prove Saddams connections to Al Qaida.
And Iraq shut down 95 per cent of their mass weapons till '98 so I'm asking you, why does the USA choose Iraq as a spot and not other countries which are more dangerous as Iraq WITHOUT AN UNO MANDATE, BREACHING THE UN-CHARTA?

The fact that you are trying to get infos from different souces is very good. But the american medias you mentioned are PRINT MEDIAS, except CNN (which in my opinion is not so objective like the BBC).

But print medias does not play this central role as for example the propaganda of FOX NEWS and all the other stations without trying to get the bottom of the REAL reasons for this war.
And the majority is absolutely satisfied with it.

Sorry, but wtf is reading the NEW YORK TIMES? And I'm talking about the common ppl in the USA.

How else can you explain the fact the half of the US population thinks that Saddam is involved in 11.9.?

It's very easy: Brain wash by the media.
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:00 PM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:42 PM
By the way let me just add this:

http://ericblumrich.com/antiwar2.html
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:09 PM   #7
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,436
Local Time: 11:42 AM
1. 1441 provides a UN mandate... unless of course "serious consequences" means standing in the corner and taking a time-out

2. in '91 US ground forces never even approached baghdad, let alone occupy the majority of the nation. the point of that mission was to liberate kuwait, which occured. afterwords, saddam was allowed to stay if he followed a set group of guidelines for doing so... every one of which he has violated.

3. saying the iraqi regime has connections with al qaeda in no way connects saddam to 9/11. saying that the iraqi regime had connections to 9/11 would connect them to 9/11. it is a fact, seeing as you like facts, that there were al qaeda operatives in baghdad recieving medical attention. never once has anyone in the bush administration, or the american media, which is apparently an arm of the US government, said that saddam had anything to do with 9/11. what has been said is that they have had connections with al qaeda, which is true, and with other terrorist groups, which is true, and that we want to stop them before another 9/11 happens.

4. mom: you know you were not supposed to go to that party, davey!
davey: but mommmm... joey from around the block's mom let him going to the party.

this argument by you makes the least sense... well yeah saddam is a horrific human being, but there are other horrific human beings too, so we shouldn't do anything about saddam. yeah that makes sense.

so lemme just step back here a bit... so you gave 4 reasons why hte "willing" are going to war... and your responses were
1. true, with excuse
2. true, with excuse
3. brain-washed americans
4. true, with excuse

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:12 PM   #8
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,436
Local Time: 11:42 AM
oh and wouldn't ya know... the iraqis have been launching scuds at kuwait, which they said they never had and blix found no proof of them having

oh and lookie there... the marines found a chemical weapons plant south of baghdad. i am just shocked... i mean after all, saddam told dan rather he didn't have any chemical weapons, and hans blix didn't find any. golly gee... where did they come from? oh look at that billy bob... all the materials in this factory that the iraqis used to make these chemicals have "made in france" or "made in germany" printed on them! aww shucks... who woulda thunk it
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:24 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Oh and don't forget the night vision goggles, and GPS scramblers provided by good ol' Russia. Even on the spot training in Iraq from Russian arms dealers. Now that's service!
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:26 PM   #10
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,436
Local Time: 11:42 AM
service with a crooked corrupt smile
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:33 PM   #11
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
1. 1441 provides a UN mandate... unless of course "serious consequences" means standing in the corner and taking a time-out


Tarik: Well, if the secretary general of the UNO is saying that this invasion on Iraq breaches the UN CHARTA what else is here to say? Military pressure against Iraq was in my opinion right. But to invade at a moment were iraqi cooperation was good according to the chief inspector is not justifiable.

2. in '91 US ground forces never even approached baghdad, let alone occupy the majority of the nation. the point of that mission was to liberate kuwait, which occured. afterwords, saddam was allowed to stay if he followed a set group of guidelines for doing so... every one of which he has violated.

Tarik: Sorry, but the US knew at that time that Saddam used poison gas against the Kurds and almost all provinces (11!) were free from Saddam, and it is not enough if the US government is talking about a mistake in '91. Every political step of the US has been calculated. And I remember statements of US politicians in *91 that saddam has to be kicked of.

3. saying the iraqi regime has connections with al qaeda in no way connects saddam to 9/11. saying that the iraqi regime had connections to 9/11 would connect them to 9/11. it is a fact, seeing as you like facts, that there were al qaeda operatives in baghdad recieving medical attention.

Tarik:If you believe that saddam has connections with Al Qaida and that he in fact didn't know anything about the 11.9. than its just nonsens.

never once has anyone in the bush administration, or the american media, which is apparently an arm of the US government, said that saddam had anything to do with 9/11. what has been said is that they have had connections with al qaeda, which is true, and with other terrorist groups, which is true, and that we want to stop them before another 9/11 happens.

Tarik: Which is true? but which has not yet been proved by the US and which has been denied by any SERIOUS expert for terrorism and the middle east...very intersting

4. mom: you know you were not supposed to go to that party, davey!
davey: but mommmm... joey from around the block's mom let him going to the party.

this argument by you makes the least sense... well yeah saddam is a horrific human being, but there are other horrific human beings too, so we shouldn't do anything about saddam. yeah that makes sense.

Tarik: That was not the point my friend. The problem ist that there are other countries which are more dangerous as Iraq but which are SUPPORTED by the US. Thats the point.




__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:34 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Also - Tarik

I wish you would explain why you believe that it is "nonsense" that Iraq has connections with terrorist groups? It is still questionable in my mind as to what extent they are involved, but intelligence has proven that they are at least has been contact between the two. And I, being an American that can think for myself (i know you don't believe they exist), will not believe that Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 until I see concrete believable evidence.

One just needs to look at a map to see that it is almost impossible that Iraq COULDN'T be involved with terrorists. They are sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed of the world. It would be like someone living in a crackhouse, saying they have no contact with drugs or anyone who uses them.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:43 PM   #13
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 06:42 PM
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.
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:51 PM   #14
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
Oh and don't forget the night vision goggles, and GPS scramblers provided by good ol' Russia. Even on the spot training in Iraq from Russian arms dealers. Now that's service!
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.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 03:12 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 04:42 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.
As far as I've heard this is true (as of information that CNN and Reuters had receieved yesterday) and that Russia and the U.S. are in talks right now about ceasing any more sales and getting the arms dealers out of Iraq that are currently providing training to the Iraqi's on how to use this equipment.
__________________

__________________
womanfish 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 11:42 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