This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


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.

Most Kurds live in what is Turkish territory, and in fact, the Mosul province (northen Iraq) was disputed by Britain and True back before the Pecae treaty with Turkey (forget the name) and for many nationalist Turks the Mosul area should be theirs. The US will never help create an independent Kurdish state, as long as Turkey is a key strategic ally in the region. At best, an attack by the US v. Iraq might give the Kurds an autonomous federal state in a Federal Iraq, assuming such a thing comes about, and the Turks don't object to streneously or invade northen Iraq to prevent it.

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...

Basing rights do not make the territory sovereign terrain of the other. S, even if the US built Prince Sultan, it is still regarded by law as Saudi territory, to be used at Saudi permision. Also, the Saudis try to keep the oil prices stable- not too low, not too high: the US supports this type of Saudi behavior. Bu ehy aren't a vassal state by any means.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
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.

Currently, 3/4rs of the Kurdish people live in Turkey, a US ally. We have supplied Turkey with the weapons to wage a genocidal war against the Kurds for nearly two decades now. As bad as Hussein has been to the Kurds, including gassing them, the Turks have killed more Kurds than Hussein has. Over two thousands Kurdish villages have been destroyed in Turkey. Up until a few years ago, the Kurdish language was illegal. Even using Kurdish names was illegal. The Kurds may have been oppressed within Iraq, but they aren't slaves.

Today the Kurds have their own virtual country in Nothern Iraq. If the US said, "we recognize the government of the Kurds," it would become a legitmate country. That's all we have to do to give the Kurds their own country.

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.

We're talking about royalty. I don't recognize the right of royalty to exist, let alone hold property.

As for the American Indians (which is off-topic), where their land was stolen or defrauded from them outright, it should either be returned or restitution should be made. There were fair deals made between the US and the First Nations, and at times the First Nations started wars with us and lost. I don't see any reason to return that land.

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...

1) The people of those countries, not the countries themselves, want the bases to go.

2) Despite the fact that they can "dictate" whether or not we can use their territory to lauch attacks, they seem to grant it an awful lot. Despite the stupidity of the current regime in America, the US is capable of acting subtly and behind the scenes to influence its "vassals."

3) They don't dictate oil prices, the market does. They can influence that by deciding how much oil to produce, but thy are as much slaves to the market as any producer nation. At this point, they don't have the option to produce less because they need the money.

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...

At that time was a period of time from 1989 to 199+. The invasion of Panama was less than one year before the invasion of Kuwait. If Iraq hadn't obliged us by invading Kuwait, we would have found someone else, somewhere, who would have provided an exucsse for us to flex our muscles. I didn't say Middle Eastern, and I didn't say that it had to be January, 1991. Stop putting words in my mouth.

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

Less than a year past, and the different situation was irrelevent. The excuse for attacking Panama was even more flimsey than the one for attacking Kuwait.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Most Kurds live in what is Turkish territory, and in fact, the Mosul province (northen Iraq) was disputed by Britain and True back before the Pecae treaty with Turkey (forget the name) and for many nationalist Turks the Mosul area should be theirs. The US will never help create an independent Kurdish state, as long as Turkey is a key strategic ally in the region. At best, an attack by the US v. Iraq might give the Kurds an autonomous federal state in a Federal Iraq, assuming such a thing comes about, and the Turks don't object to streneously or invade northen Iraq to prevent it.

I was specifically refering to the Kurds WHO ARE in Irag's territory right now... and how they are being treated by their fellow country man. All your wonderful comments and arguments are fine... but right at this moment, the leader of the country they are currently in is treating them WORSE than slaves. And Che claims that is a good enough reason to attack another country when it comes to Kuwait by Iraq...

Yeah... the Kurds are currently screwed no matter where they are.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
And Che claims that is a good enough reason to attack another country when it comes to Kuwait by Iraq.

See, once again you put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was legitimate for Iraq to attack Kuwait. I said I was opposed to a US attack on Iraq to defend Kuwait, because (short version) Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people.

I never stated my actual opinion on the legitmacy of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or my opinion on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. My actual opinion, as opposed to the characture you have created in your own mind is: I don't give a damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people. F**k 'em. I see no difference between one evil country ruled by one evil person and two evil countries ruled by two evil people. However, I do give a s*** when American bombs and American power get thrown into the mix, killing all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives if the squabbles between little evil countries and little evil people had stay little.

[Fitz]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara ... Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people.

That seems remarkably closed minded and judgemental, although that doesn't mean it isn't true ...

Seriously though, historically Kuwait was part of Iraq, but I somehow doubt that the population of Kuwait was jumping at the thought of reunion with the motherland.

It was staightfoward piracy. Iraq invaded what was currently a soveriegn nation. They needed to leave. It is actually sad that the U.S. stepped in only because of compelling interest, but the reality is that the U.S. needs to make up it's mind:
1) Be even handed in promoting it's supposed doctrine of democracy for all, human rights and western superiority. (not all of them want this though)
2) Be a equal member of the internation community and work with others to decide what is acceptable and what is not, and only intervene when those lines are crossed.
3) Let other countries sort it out for themselves.

Personally, I would like to see number two with a healthy dose of human rights tossed in, but the U.S. prefers a mix of 1 & 3, depending on compelling interest in the issue at hand. That's one of the reasons we have a huge mess in the ME in the first place (the other bigger one is institutionalized hate in most of the countries there).

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Currently, 3/4rs of the Kurdish people live in Turkey, a US ally. We have supplied Turkey with the weapons to wage a genocidal war against the Kurds for nearly two decades now. As bad as Hussein has been to the Kurds, including gassing them, the Turks have killed more Kurds than Hussein has. Over two thousands Kurdish villages have been destroyed in Turkey. Up until a few years ago, the Kurdish language was illegal. Even using Kurdish names was illegal. The Kurds may have been oppressed within Iraq, but they aren't slaves.

Read my above response... and now you are claiming that since somebody else treats them worse than Hussein does, it make the argument not valid. And by your reasoning... I guess it's better to be dead than be a slave, because Hussein did gas them... not something that has happened to the "slaves" in Kuwait yet.

So again... by using your logic, an attack on Iraq is as legitmate as you claim Iraq's attack on Kuwait was.

Today the Kurds have their own virtual country in Nothern Iraq. If the US said, "we recognize the government of the Kurds," it would become a legitmate country. That's all we have to do to give the Kurds their own country.

Your grasp of international politics is interesting to say the least. It's not that easy and you know it. But I guess you are saying it only because it helps your currently non exsistent argement.

We're talking about royalty. I don't recognize the right of royalty to exist, let alone hold property.

Most of the current European states were built on royality... So, by using your argument, ALL the states in the EU should be desolved? or are you saying you don't recognize the rights of these countries to exist.

And what if somebody didn't recognize your right to exist. I guess that means you would have no problem if somebody killed you because that's how they felt.
And don't claim that that would be against the law, because the Kuwait government is considered legal.

Again... another non argument on your part.

As for the American Indians (which is off-topic), where their land was stolen or defrauded from them outright, it should either be returned or restitution should be made. There were fair deals made between the US and the First Nations, and at times the First Nations started wars with us and lost. I don't see any reason to return that land.

You should be consistent with your arguments... you claim it's ok to steal land via war, but not ok if you are royality... So a government can steal land, but royality can't... WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

Come on Che... you are grasping for straws with this non logical crap.

The people of those countries, not the countries themselves, want the bases to go.

And many of their governments are listening to their people and not us.

Despite the fact that they can "dictate" whether or not we can use their territory to lauch attacks, they seem to grant it an awful lot. Despite the stupidity of the current regime in America, the US is capable of acting subtly and behind the scenes to influence its "vassals."

I knew you couldn't go a post without letting the anti american venom drip from your lips.
But the point is, they sometimes don't... which means they aren't are vassel states. The fact they do, just means that they agree with us sometimes. Using your logic, just because England agrees with the US most of the time, that they must be a vassel state of ours...

They don't dictate oil prices, the market does. They can influence that by deciding how much oil to produce, but thy are as much slaves to the market as any producer nation. At this point, they don't have the option to produce less because they need the money.

And when they had a chance to stick it to us during the oil crisis... THEY DID... AND LAUGHED ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK... If they were indeed the "vassel states" that you so like to claim, we wouldn't have let them do it.

So again... no substance to your arguments. Just your weak and unsupported opinions

At that time was a period of time from 1989 to 199+. The invasion of Panama was less than one year before the invasion of Kuwait. If Iraq hadn't obliged us by invading Kuwait, we would have found someone else, somewhere, who would have provided an exucsse for us to flex our muscles. I didn't say Middle Eastern, and I didn't say that it had to be January, 1991. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then stop making things up. Your above anaylsis is pure opinion and absolute speculation with no proof.

So me saying just the opposite is just as valid.

Again... no real argument but opinion.

Less than a year past, and the different situation was irrelevent. The excuse for attacking Panama was even more flimsey than the one for attacking Kuwait.

I'll grant you that Panama was a crock. But you are implying that we had no valid reason to "HELP" Kuwait...



Hmmm... some nation makes an UNPROVOCKED attack on one of our allies... And we help. That's A FACT, unlike your opinions and speculation. A FACT.

We had a legitmate reason to help an Ally who was brutely attacked on surprise by it's neighboor.


So next time you respond... find some facts. And don't try to shift blame, make up stuff, state your opinion, put in a bunch of a bunch of anti american crap, change the subject, or sprout more propaganda... just the facts.

It should be a much shorter post

[chequita guevara]

Why am I arguing with an ad exec? You guys are masters of the big lie. You continually distort what I said.


I wonder if mods can be put in ignore lists?

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why am I arguing with an ad exec? You guys are masters of the big lie. You continually distort what I said.

Yeah... more misdirection... You distort everything, but when somebody else does it, it's the big lie.

Get a grip... but more importantly, get some facts. They sure help in real arguments vs just an anti american attitude and your own weak personal opinions

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



Actualy, Bush41 was going to LET iraq take kuwait. It's just that when the Saudi's started pulling money out of the US by the plane full, Bush41 conceded and started pressureing Iraq to pull out.

I stand corrected then. It was someone else's assertion. My apologies.

[chequita guevara]

You haven't really argued yet, Ming. You've done a lot of strawmaning and ad hominems, but no real arguing.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My actual opinion, as opposed to the characture you have created in your own mind is: I don't give a damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people. F**k 'em. I see no difference between one evil country ruled by one evil person and two evil countries ruled by two evil people. However, I do give a s*** when American bombs and American power get thrown into the mix, killing all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives if the squabbles between little evil countries and little evil people had stay little.

Oh I see... Irag soldiers who raped pillaged and burned Kuwait are just "all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives".

Yeah... some innocent people die. It happens in war, stop being silly... We didn't start the war. If Iraq hadn't been GREEDY, none of it would have happened.

They started it, and we ended it, on the request of Allies. You may not like them, but they are our allies.

But it is sad to see how little concern you have for human life, especially the people who are only stuck following the orders of their leaders. I would think your communistic attitudes would give you some sympathy for all these poor people that got caught in a war because of another countries greed... but instead, you don't seem to care about them at all... and you seem to wish they were dead... sad... so very sad...

[Velociryx]

Che...dude....by any measure you care to look at it, he handed you your arse. This is a fight you can't win. Your position is untentable. Best to simply concede defeat or shift the argument onto more a more defensible position.

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx shift the argument onto more a more defensible position.

And that's what surprises me. Che usually raises some really valid arguments, and supports them well.

This time, it's all anti american venom supported only by his own personal opinions.

Lord knows there is more than enough to jump on the US for. Our country has done some really stupid and bad things...

I just prefer to have facts thrown out to support opinions. So far, I have seen none in this discussion.

[Velociryx]

Ming....an excellent job in the debate....strong, well-laid arguments....five star....almost enough to earn you the title of Master Debat.....er...never mind....

-=Vel=-

PS

[uh Clem]

What the Kurds have to look forward to in Iraq following the removal of Saddam isn't hard to determine. All we have to do is look back at the last time a pro-US government was in power in Baghdad...namely before August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Before then, it was open season on the Kurds, pure and simple. Any degree of violence directed by the Iraqi government againt them was of little or no concern to Washington. The extent to which the US assisted this process, as opposed to merely looking the other way, is still debated. What isn't debatable is that the Reagan & Bush 41 administrations couldn't have given a flying **** about the Kurds.

There's no reason to believe that things will be any different this time.