This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Against the would be restorers of feudalism and clerical reactionaries, the bourgeoisie and proletariat have a common interest. They are our common enemy.

Ahh yes... resort to blind useless sayings instead of addressing the facts. Your list of reasons was shot down like a duck in hunting season over Wisconsin, and all you do is resort to empty slogans...



Again... if you are going to give Iraq the benifit of the doubt, do the same for the US... oh yeah, that's right, it only weakens your already weak arguments

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MtG, al-Qaeda is not being harbored by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, like the rest of Iraq, are ruled by secular leaders, specifically two Maoist factions. Al-Qaeda linked operatives are attacking the current Kurdish "government." They are operating in a border area along Iran and Northern Iraq.

Secular, shmecular. All sorts of secular governments have harbored Al-Qaeda. Being officially blessed and sanctioned at the top level isn't necessary. If they're fighting, it must not be very hard.

If commies are running the Kurdish factions, you ought to be gung ho for the war - this is the chance to reestablish a communist government somewhere, compared to all those losses in the last several decades.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Given US track records, there is no reason to give the US the benefit of the doubt.

Nor do I simply assume that Hussein would have followed his word. However, the option was never explored, and it resulted in a situation that has led to the deaths of over a million people. At the very least, given that the military force was in place, the US could have tried negotiations, and then attacked if that failed.

I still would have opposed it. In a confrontation between to thugs I side with the innocent bystanders.

Che, This I totally agree with. Weapons inspectors and sanctions are no substitute for what we could have done at the time. We could have left our Army in place, conducted the inspections and weapons destruction coercively, and witdrawn with a permanent peace treaty, no WoMD and no sanctions. The alternative to a failure to cooperate was a drive on Bagdad that would have been easy with our army still in place.

[Ned]

MarkG, In an absence of a response to whether Clinton had sought and received Congressional authorization for his attack on Yugoslavia, the answer is a resounding NO!

https://WASHINGTON, DC -- As of 12:0...ious trouble."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Secular, shmecular. All sorts of secular governments have harbored Al-Qaeda. Being officially blessed and sanctioned at the top level isn't necessary. If they're fighting, it must not be very hard.

It's not as if the Kurdish "government" has a lot of power. Hussein would have overrun them a decade ago if we hadn't set up the safe zones. At best they can manage basic social services and a modicum of a police force.

Originally posted by Ming
Ahh yes... resort to blind useless sayings instead of addressing the facts. Your list of reasons was shot down like a duck in hunting season over Wisconsin, and all you do is resort to empty slogans.

Ned was talking about al-Qaeda, and I was responding about al-Qaeda. I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned was talking about al-Qaeda, and I was responding about al-Qaeda. I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

No it wasn't... but you don't seem to understand that the comments still hold true, no matter who you were responding to

Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best...

Try again

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What Hussein may or may not have done in 1990-91 before the war and ten years of sanctions and after are very likely two different things. We'll never know, really. Up to that point, Hussein had been a "co-belligerent" of the US against Iran, and he thought he had a good relationship with us. If we hadn't deliberately attacked his honor, who knows what would have happened.

Yes, we do know. Hussein wasn't our co-belligerent. He attacked the Iranians in a rather stupid and ineffective manner, and got his ass in a sling quickly. The US had a problem, in that Hussein was a nasty bastard, but he had started a war that Khomeini was likely to finish, with the distinct possibility of a major territorial grab and the spawning a of fundamentalist proxy state in Iraq.

The US originally considered Hussein the lesser of two evils, but Bush & company made the mistake of thinking that because we were bailing that no good son of a ***** out of his mess, that he'd be our boy.

Hussein repeatedly lied and manipulated, it's his life-long trademark, that and killing. There was no negotiated settlement to be had - Hussein (as he does) used the pretext of negotiated settlement (with conditions to be changed at Iraqi convenience) as a diplomatic weapon to try to derail the Arab league from supporting his forcible ouster. There were talks between Kuwait and Iraq going on within the Arab league - the semi-infamous statements by April Glaspie (then US ambassador) that the US had no interest in the Iraq-Kuwait dispute were made in the context that the US saw it as an Arab League diplomatic issue. NOT an encouragement to invade.

Besides, I thought it was commie doctrine to use diplomacy as just another tool in war? Ain't that part of Mao's little red book that was ripped off from Sun Tzu?

Saddam Hussein has been one of the most consistent leaders in the world for decades now - he will always manipulate, lie, kill or do anything he sees as useful to his position.

It is clear that the US had no intention of reaching a negotiated settlement. It wanted total surrender. That's its imperial prerogative as the planetary hegemon. People of good conscience, however, must act against against the empire, however.

Bull****. The US called for "immediate and unconditional withdrawal" from Kuwait, which is entirely correct. Hussein's position was that "you negotiate and give us the concessions that we want, then we'll withdraw" which is unacceptable. If we'd wanted "unconditional surrender" we wouldn't be debating what to do with that mother****er now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... let's talk about the Kurds...

Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

Well I don't give a damn about your property, does that give me the right to take it away from you?

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

Hmmm... did we take any land for ourselves in this situation... Hmmm

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

So you saying that even if no invasion of Kuwait would have happened, we would have attacked a country just to prove how strong we were?

So quickly you forget Panama.

Please remember that Iraq was the agressor and doing the attacking... Iraq was in the wrong here. They started the war.

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Besides, I thought it was commie doctrine to use diplomacy as just another tool in war? Ain't that part of Mao's little red book that was ripped off from Sun Tzu?

I'm not a Maoist. I wouldn't know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best.

So when you can't argue, resort to ad hominems?

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Ming
Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best...

Sad Ming, especially considering that once you take Chi's political beliefs into account (ie the slant), his list of reasons to be against the first Gulf War were entirely accurate.

His key complaint I think, and an entirely accurate one IMO, is that the U.S. struts around like the biggest bully on the block, regardless of the specific individual justifications (ie Saddam & Iraq currently).

And the truely sad thing is that so many Americans have been brainwashed while young to believe in their Maifest Destiny as the obvious rulers of the world. Thus they accept that they have the right to dictate at will to any other country how they will live (or cease to do so).

I must say that I was sickened by the attempted brainwashing that I encountered in 8 of my 9 years in the American elementry and high school system. It wasn't until 12 grade that my teachers actually tried to encourage independant thought, and that was likely because they were almost all AP science/math teachers at that point.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... let's talk about the Kurds...

Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

Yep, but it's not just the US - the Syrians, Turks, etc. all have issues with it.

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

The Emir of Kuwait and his family does not own all property in the place. Private property ownership exists, the problem is with the oil resources. So you're saying ownership by a state which consists of a corrupt dictator is superior to ownership by a state which consists of a corrupt Emir?

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

Hmmm, given the choice between our flag, the Iraqi flag or the Iranian flag flying over all those resources, I'll take ours, thank you kindly.

So quickly you forget Panama.

Panama was ours to begin with. We stole if from Columbia, we created it, they even use our currency. Noriega was our boy, he just got out of line and had to be spanked.

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

Come up with an alternative besides kissing Hussein's ass. There can be two wrong sides in a war, but it takes two sides to negotiate peace, and Saddam only wanted "peace" on his terms. After initiating an invasion, then it was a bit too late for that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

But... who currently holds their fate, hmmmm... Iraq does... who is trying to suppress and kill them... Hmmm... their fellow country men. Your point was that most of Kuwait citizens are slaves and for that, their govenment isn't legitiment... well, the Kurds have it worse thanks to the Iraq govenment.. so by using your own logic, If the US government attacks, they are actually in the right.

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

Hmmm no right to it... They currently own it.
So you think all the land in the US should be given back to the indians... even land that you might own now.

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

Hmmm... we sure as hell aren't doing a good job of it then... because most of the countries want our bases to go, or won't let us use their countries as bases of operations for future action. We are also paying for oil at the prices they dictate. They sure has heck don't sound like vassel states to me...

So quickly you forget Panama.

No I don't... but your point was "at that time" they would have attacked a middle east country just to show their power to a weakening Russia... How do you know that. It's pure speculation on your part... just so you can claim the US is evil...

Panama was in the past... Different situation...

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

Sure there can be sometimes. But here are the FACTS that you can't deny.

1) Iraq launched an attack on ONE OF OUR Allies in the region.

2) We came to the defense of our ally and kicked them out... We didn't take the government down (even though many wanted to) we kept attacking until they surrendered! And then stopped, leaving the government in place. We didn't ransack the entire country like Iraq did when they tried to steal Kuwait.

3) Iraq were the ones that didn't live up to what they
agreed too...

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That was never my point, nor did I ever write such. I have said all along that the US was the driving force, and that had the Security Council not gone along with Sush's war drive, he would have attacked Iraq anyway. Which means that the UN did not order an attack on Iraq, it allowed one.

Lotsa posts inbetween but you did say that the only reason the US did anything was because the Saudis started taking their money out of the US to pressure us into acting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Lotsa posts inbetween but you did say that the only reason the US did anything was because the Saudis started taking their money out of the US to pressure us into acting.

That wasn't me. In fact, I would actually dispute that. The US had to twist the Saudi's arms, not the other way around.