THE USA MUST NOT GO IT ALONE!

[CrushingBore]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> Perhaps the term 'liberation' is a bit tricky and is better avoided ? I
> guess it's better to use specific concepts like freedom, justice,
> democracy and self-determination.

I'm afraid all those terms are pretty meaningless also - democracy is probably the only one it could be argued Iraqis don't have at present (relatively speaking).

 

[8597664]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> I'm afraid all those terms are pretty meaningless also - democracy is
> probably the only one it could be argued Iraqis don't have at present
> (relatively speaking).

quite disagree.

"Liberation" has a political history as antonym to "occupation". It's not really suited to the Iraqi situation.

And the other concepts are not "pretty meaningless". I bet the Iraqis have a clear idea of those concepts.

The "liberated" Iraq is however entirely a different matter. Alas.

 

[LoafingOaf - All Praise to Allah]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this. I've never argued
> Iraqis wouldn't be better off without Saddam - I've merely argued that
> their interests MAY not be best served by a war to achieve that. Tens of
> thousands of ordinary Iraqis will die in such a war, whereas if Saddam
> could be squeezed out by other means (and yes, the threat of irresistable
> military force should be one of the methods used for this AND it may yet
> become necessary to act upon that threat) it would be the best possible
> outcome FOR IRAQIS.
> I want liberation for Iraq, but not at all costs.

Okay, I can accept that.

> Oh, and you might ask your beloved Mr Barham A. Salih what he's doing
> about the Al Qaeda operatives active in his territory.

Well, ah...he's kinda one of the primary targets of those terrorists, so I don't know what you're trying to say with this.

 

[Notastitchtowear]

Re: and all your crap isnt propaganda?

> yes, i know this. we've been through this. 1) bush didn't have U.N support
> and didn't want to push his luck 2) he tried to bargain with saddam 3)
> some other reasons i can't think of this early in the morning

> bottom line: if we, as you claim, really cared about the iraqi people, we
> could have removed saddam completely ten years ago. the argument goes both
> ways. have you not seen "three kings"? (and no, i am not
> suggesting that i or anyone else should get all their political
> information from a hollywood political/action movie. but the movie does
> make you think. in fact, it's one of the things that inspired me to get
> more information.)

This is exactly what is fishy about the Bush Admin.'s case for going to war, the reasons waver around. They say they want to remove Saddam to free the people of Iraq, but if that reason doesn't work, then it goes to 'well he refuses to disarm or admit what weapons he has'. Similarily US also says 'we are doing this for the benefit of the world, to protect others from terrorism', but if that doesn't work then it's 'well America is in danger, we must protect ourselves and if the UN doesn't support us we are going it alone', so the the reasons start out altruistic, a desperate attempt to gain support but when it really comes down to it, it's purely about the US self-interest.

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> Well, ah...he's kinda one of the primary targets of those terrorists, so I
> don't know what you're trying to say with this.

I'm saying the only part of the country where I've seen any documentary evidence of an Al Qaeda presence is in the KURDISH-CONTROLLED regions.

 

[8597664]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> I'm saying the only part of the country where I've seen any documentary
> evidence of an Al Qaeda presence is in the KURDISH-CONTROLLED regions.

Well - there are documents and press reports relating of Al Qaeda inspired hitmen attacking the fellow.

The fact that Al Qaeda linked people are present in the Kurdish territory are not necessarily an indication of the fact that Kurds and Al Qaeda collaborate.

At best, it means that that region is highly unstable, and that there's no real control on who's in and who's out and who's doing what. The Kurds can't claim to be in total control of the situation.

 

[Mindy]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

i read that saddam considers the al quaeda an enemy and that he has actually been a target of theirs.

anyone read such information?

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> i read that saddam considers the al quaeda an enemy and that he has
> actually been a target of theirs.

> anyone read such information?

Mindy, haven't you heard? Saddam takes tea and cakes with Osama bin Laden every Friday afternoon! Colin Powell told me so. Apparently he has the photos. And an Al Qaeda operative once visited a fish and chip shop in downtown Baghdad, so it's obvious they're in this whole thing together.

The only way to stop terrorism is to bomb things, starting with that fish and chip shop, then that hospital he's supposed to have visited, then the Chinese embassy, no - hang on we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here . . .

Pardon my sarcasm - I'm a little sleep deprived. From what I know Saddam has no truck with fundamentalists until it suits his needs. He's happy to support them outside of Iraqi soil as it suits his propaganda needs - "hero and supporter of Palestine, bollocks, bollocks", but he's never allowed them to operate within Iraq - he's far too paranoid to allow such elements to get too close. I've not heard anything about him being a target of theirs.

 

[madness of King George]

Re: and all your crap isnt propaganda?

> This is exactly what is fishy about the Bush Admin.'s case for going to
> war, the reasons waver around. They say they want to remove Saddam to free
> the people of Iraq, but if that reason doesn't work, then it goes to 'well
> he refuses to disarm or admit what weapons he has'. Similarily US also
> says 'we are doing this for the benefit of the world, to protect others
> from terrorism', but if that doesn't work then it's 'well America is in
> danger, we must protect ourselves and if the UN doesn't support us we are
> going it alone', so the the reasons start out altruistic, a desperate
> attempt to gain support but when it really comes down to it, it's purely
> about the US self-interest.

EXACTLY. That is the way this administration has always operated. Afghanistan started out as, we need to go in and extract Usama Bin Laden. That became wipe out Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. That became Liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban. That became Usama who? Iraq is the real threat! Any bets on which oil rich nation will fall next after Iraq in the war against Terra?

 

[Mindy]

Re: and all your crap isnt propaganda?

do you think our government even realizes that all this war is going to do is make saddam (well iraq at large) a martyr? i mean, we're supposed to be the good guys and good guys don't start wars. good guys don't attack unless they're attacked first (or their buddies are attacked). this is just another example of america's bullying tactics, and i really think the muslim world at large won't stand for it -- and i don't blame them.

the whole liberating iraq thing is bullshit. and as for the ubiquitous reply to that statement "but he gassed his own people," yeah, it's true. but that was over a decade ago (1988 to be exact). why on earth are we worried about it now? we told the iraqi rebels that we would help them in the first gulf war, and then we ditched them. i have a feeling something similar is going to happen this time (i.e. we will get control of the oil and just leave the iraqi people to fend for themselves -- to rebuild with no help from us. they'll never see their share of profits from the oil).

 

[8597664]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> i read that saddam considers the al quaeda an enemy and that he has
> actually been a target of theirs.

a target ... perhaps, although it is unlikely that an attack (even succesfull) on Saddam by Al Qaeda would change anything to Iraq's laicity policy.

Osama & followers want a fundamentalist islamic system. Saddam: not !
That's basically why Saddam was considered a "good" one by many western nations, at least compared to Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, for example - but that's a while ago.

 

[Mindy]

Re: So-called "liberals" trying to deny Iraqi's their liberation

> a target ... perhaps, although it is unlikely that an attack (even
> succesfull) on Saddam by Al Qaeda would change anything to Iraq's laicity
> policy.

> Osama & followers want a fundamentalist islamic system. Saddam: not !
> That's basically why Saddam was considered a "good" one by many
> western nations, at least compared to Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, for
> example - but that's a while ago.

well i know saddam is about the furthest thing from an islamic fundamentalist. i know he likes his alcohol and his women (read: he's not especially strong in his faith at least privately).

 

[madness of King George]

Haha..reports coming out of England

Leaked papers..British Intelligence says no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

Then the Uk Government lied to the UN trying to get them to support this "war against terror".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html
Ha they said their report was up to date...and they are saying anything to support their oil war.

 

[Mindy]

Re: Haha..reports coming out of England

wunderbar! more proof that both the united states and the british government are nothing but f***ing lying bastards. i read a similar article about how both the FBI and the CIA have found no links and are mystified as to why the government is saying otherwise to the american people and the rest of the world.

right, i will try to find it again.

 

[CrushingBore]

That's My Bush (he's the son of a BAD man)!

> i have a feeling
> something similar is going to happen this time (i.e. we will get control
> of the oil and just leave the iraqi people to fend for themselves -- to
> rebuild with no help from us. they'll never see their share of profits
> from the oil).

It's already happening - the US government has made it quite clear they don't want to be involved in the long-run unless there's some kind of ongoing oil-revenue benefit to them. What amazes me is that the US public is so happy to see their hard-won budgetary surpluses thrown away on a battle that is so little in the US's long-term interest. I don't care how many people Lockheed-Martin employs- their employees will be just about the sole beneficiaries form this war-in-waiting at the expense of every other US taxpayer.

 

[CrushingBore]

Reports coming out of conservative US press ....

> wunderbar! more proof that both the united states and the british
> government are nothing but f***ing lying bastards. i read a similar
> article about how both the FBI and the CIA have found no links and are
> mystified as to why the government is saying otherwise to the american
> people and the rest of the world.

> right, i will try to find it again.

Melbourne 'Age' Mon Feb 3 (source: New York Times)
"Some CIA analysts have complained that senior Administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq- particularly about its possible links to terrorism- to strengthen their argument for war. At the FBI some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush Administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network."
"We've been looking at this for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a Government official said.
"It is more than just scepticism", said an official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is so obviously being politicised."
END QUOTE.

But I'm sure Oaf will tell us the CIA and FBI are a bunch of lying commies, anyway.

Basically, Rumsfeld had Iraq in his sights not 24 hours after September 11. If I had lost loved ones in that tragedy I'd be livid beyond all belief that their memory was now being sullied as an excuse to fulfill long-standing US foreign policy objectives, throw away the "peace dividend" and ramp up the military-industrial complex afresh.

"It will have blood, they say, 'blood will have blood'"
Can we not move on from this medieval thinking and find a better, more universal and legitimate means to settle any existing international differences? Above all, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, Bush and co. - DO NOT LIE TO US! The body politic will support you acting against legitimate threats where they exist, but most will know a straw man when they see one.

 

[Mindy]

Re: That's My Bush (he's the son of a BAD man)!

> It's already happening - the US government has made it quite clear they
> don't want to be involved in the long-run unless there's some kind of
> ongoing oil-revenue benefit to them. What amazes me is that the US public
> is so happy to see their hard-won budgetary surpluses thrown away on a
> battle that is so little in the US's long-term interest. I don't care how
> many people Lockheed-Martin employs- their employees will be just about
> the sole beneficiaries form this war-in-waiting at the expense of every
> other US taxpayer.

it's too bad taxes aren't more like charitable donations where you can tell them what you want the money spent on. talk about taxation without representation.

 

[Mindy]

Re: Reports coming out of conservative US press ....

thanks. that's not the article i was thinking of, but it says basically the same thing anyway.

my sole consolation on this matter is the thought that perhaps in years to come, people will see through the lies and the history books will be written truthfully.

also, if it were proven that the U.S. declared war and justified it on false information which they used to garner support, do you think dubya could get hauled in for war crimes?

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: That's My Bush (he's the son of a BAD man)!

> it's too bad taxes aren't more like charitable donations where you can
> tell them what you want the money spent on. talk about taxation without
> representation.

Well in theory, you can. But in practice it never seems to work that way. Often otherwise sympathetic people get jaded and effectively drop out of the political system and stop voting. It makes a mockery of terms like 'Democracy' when a large percentage of the population feels it does not in any way relate to them.

When I've told Americans in the past that we have compulsory voting in Australia they get all indignant and tell me it's like some kind of communist system. In reality I think it's a truer from of Democracy - everyone is enfranchised by sanction.

Even truer democracies, however have forms of proportional representation which eliminate the dualistic nature of many western systems, and almost guarantee that a governing party will have to form an alliance with other parties in accordance with the will of over 50% of the population. To my mind this is the truest democracy of all.

 

[Mindy]

Re: That's My Bush (he's the son of a BAD man)!

i quite like france's system. i mean, i don't know what you'd call it, but i think the balance of power is quite admirable (i.e. having a president for international affairs and a prime minister for domestic ones).

> Well in theory, you can. But in practice it never seems to work that way.
> Often otherwise sympathetic people get jaded and effectively drop out of
> the political system and stop voting. It makes a mockery of terms like
> 'Democracy' when a large percentage of the population feels it does not in
> any way relate to them.

> When I've told Americans in the past that we have compulsory voting in
> Australia they get all indignant and tell me it's like some kind of
> communist system. In reality I think it's a truer from of Democracy -
> everyone is enfranchised by sanction.

> Even truer democracies, however have forms of proportional representation
> which eliminate the dualistic nature of many western systems, and almost
> guarantee that a governing party will have to form an alliance with other
> parties in accordance with the will of over 50% of the population. To my
> mind this is the truest democracy of all.