The War in Iraq Thread (post here)

[sabrewolf]

d.p.
sorry, the forum was so damn slow i reloaded

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
Contrary to the stereotypical "liberal" viewpoint, I don't think that surveillance is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, the whole big brother thing bothers me, but I know that the government isn't going to waste it's time with me if I'm not planning to blow up a bunch of people. So ....

Wait, am I awake? Sava is not taking the stereotypical "liberal" viewpoint???

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
so saddam lied?

Correct. That means that his full, final, & complete declaration puts him squarely in violation of the UN resolution.

It appears that I was wrong about you. You can admit basic facts. I'm sorry for underestimating you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Willem
Yeah right, you've been setting a good example haven't you? Something about consequences if we don't kiss the US's ass?

Willem, I was reading about the Security Council debate in 1990. After the Yemenis had voted against the Security Council resolution authorizing war against Iraq, Secretary of State Baker was quoted as saying that that was the most expensive vote Yemen ever made. Later, Yemen's United States foreign aid dropped by about 500 million dollars per year.

So, when I say that the U.S. will remember its allies and will not forget those who opposed it the current debate, I say this is some assurance that it is true.

[Ned]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


stop saying "anti-americanism"

no one in europe was against america under clinton - it's only since mister "my words are backed by nucular weapons" regime is in power, that we DOUBT (note: "to doubt" is not equals "to hate" or "to dislike") the present governements decisions.

i also strongly disagree with the italian governement and think (or know?) it's a bunch of corrupt guys. but i love italy and i love the italians...

btw: my girlfriend is us-american. i love her too.

Fair distinction. I know the left is very strong in Europe and is naturally suspicious of any Republican.

So, when considering whether Bush is honest about the US's intentions, why don't you listen to what leading Democrats have to say? Do you know, for example, know what Hilary Clinton had to say when she voted in favor of the Iraq resolution? Do you know why she gave Bush standing ovations when he spoke on the subject of Iraq during last Tuesday's speech?

[darcy]

I don't think "in dubio pro reo" can be applied to international relations. IMHO, it can be replaced by a much simpler formula: Whoever fires the first shot is the perpetrator.

The true Evil in this whole thing is the Bush doctrine which sanctifies wars of aggression. The USA want to be the sole judge and the sole excecutioner, deciding at will which sovereign countries to invade and which heads of state to execute and/or replace. It is this arrogance I oppose.

Whoever fires the first missile in the Persian Gulf will be the sole perpetrator and responsible for many, many deaths. If it's Saddam, go ahead and crucify him, he is a tyrant. If however Bush starts the war, please don't apply a different standard just because he provided some nicely-drawn pictures of trucks and some garbled voice recordings. Saddam could do the same if he had a bigger propaganda budget.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Ned
Fair distinction. I know the left is very strong in Europe and is naturally suspicious of any Republican.

So, when considering whether Bush is honest about the US's intentions, why don't you listen to what leading Democrats have to say? Do you know, for example, know what Hilary Clinton had to say when she voted in favor of the Iraq resolution? Do you know why she gave Bush standing ovations when he spoke on the subject of Iraq during last Tuesday's speech?

i don't know if you read michael moore's "stupid white men". it's a very extreme point of view and only considers one side of the truth (imho there are 3 truths: one side, the other side and the real truth:somewhere in the middle).
but he shows in one of the (statistical based) facts, that being in the democrat party doesn't mean that you vote democrat. e.g. senator zell miller, GA voted 100% of the time with the republicans and didn't vote for democrats. in the house, ralph m. hall, TX (80%), ken lucas (75%), jim traficant (70%) and so on, voted against the democratic party principles and for the republicans.
i don't know why. either they are in the wrong party or they just worry about their votes and don't care about their political stance. in both cases i think this is the worst possible. i prefer a racist who admits it than a racist who pretends to be tolerant.

so to me it doesn't mean much, if a democrat sais something. you saw it with the patriot act. far more than half of the democrats hadn't been allowed to investigate the act, but all except one (who was considered as anti-american) voted for it.
sorry... but i expect my representative at least to READ what he's voting about, otherwise it's not worth having someone.

even though the democrat party is nearer to the european point i have even less respect of them than of the republicans. in my opinion the republican have the wrong point of view. but at least they are honest about that.

[sabrewolf]

talking about fake:
the worst of all is the british governement. my anthony blair is a so called "labour" party member, but he doesn't care a sh1t about what his voters think. at least he admitted, that his so called proofs, was a bunch of lies, old data and copied from a 12 year old thesis from a iraqie student. woohoo MI6... shame on you...

the same with most eastern european countries who are officially supporting america on the pre-emptive strike against iraq. in the most cases it's purely self-orientated reason to support this. turkey, poland, etc. are in whatever way on the payroll of america and they don't want to lose that money or want to get more.

italy, spain and very few others honestly support the attack and don't say so due to money. gotta respect that honesty.

same to germany: he might have fùcked up the national economy, but at least schröder is honest about his opinion on the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


i don't know if you read michael moore's "stupid white men". it's a very extreme point of view and only considers one side of the truth (imho there are 3 truths: one side, the other side and the real truth:somewhere in the middle).
but he shows in one of the (statistical based) facts, that being in the democrat party doesn't mean that you vote democrat. e.g. senator zell miller, GA voted 100% of the time with the republicans and didn't vote for democrats. in the house, ralph m. hall, TX (80%), ken lucas (75%), jim traficant (70%) and so on, voted against the democratic party principles and for the republicans.
i don't know why. either they are in the wrong party or they just worry about their votes and don't care about their political stance. in both cases i think this is the worst possible. i prefer a racist who admits it than a racist who pretends to be tolerant.

so to me it doesn't mean much, if a democrat sais something. you saw it with the patriot act. far more than half of the democrats hadn't been allowed to investigate the act, but all except one (who was considered as anti-american) voted for it.
sorry... but i expect my representative at least to READ what he's voting about, otherwise it's not worth having someone.

even though the democrat party is nearer to the european point i have even less respect of them than of the republicans. in my opinion the republican have the wrong point of view. but at least they are honest about that.

Thanks, for the compliement, in a way. I am a Republican.

But what I see in the US is that many Democrats want to politicize everything. Thus, they will find some excuse to bash a Republican position even if historically they held the same position. For example, Tom Daschle was all threats and bluster about Iraq in '98 when Clinton was president. Today, hardly anything Bush does or says on Iraq pleases Daschle even though Hilllary Clinton backs the president's policy.

As for European view of American run by a Republican, I can recall substantially the same sort of reaction when Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and the original Bush Sr. were presidents. The Republican party during this era were generally more anti-communist than democrats, and this caused, in my view, a corresponding negative reaction in the sizable Europe left who do not seem to have the same fear of communism as do Americans.

If I recall correctly, any time a Democrat president visited Europe in the last 60 years, he would be surrounded by large crowds of adoring fans. In contrast, whenever a Republican president visited Europe, he would be surrounded by large crowds of demonstrators chanting down with America.

Now, others here have said that these demostrations do not reflect the opinion of the average German or Frenchman. But even if that were once true, it seems that it no longer is true. It appears the average German or Frenchman has a strong dislike for the current Republican president.

What this means is that anti-Republicanism has spread beyond the far left.

[Ned]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
talking about fake:
the worst of all is the british governement. my anthony blair is a so called "labour" party member, but he doesn't care a sh1t about what his voters think. at least he admitted, that his so called proofs, was a bunch of lies, old data and copied from a 12 year old thesis from a iraqie student. woohoo MI6... shame on you...

the same with most eastern european countries who are officially supporting america on the pre-emptive strike against iraq. in the most cases it's purely self-orientated reason to support this. turkey, poland, etc. are in whatever way on the payroll of america and they don't want to lose that money or want to get more.

italy, spain and very few others honestly support the attack and don't say so due to money. gotta respect that honesty.

same to germany: he might have fùcked up the national economy, but at least schröder is honest about his opinion on the war.

Blair, in commons, said he did not want to be the prime minister who did nothing when the evil was small. He is quite aware that Iraq poses a threat to Britain and to the world just as Hitler once did. He does not want to go down in history as another Chamberlain.

As to Schroeder, I have no idea wherther his pacifism is purely polictical or a matter of prinicple. But it does seem polictical given that he adhering to that positon to gain votes while Blair is quite aware that his position is unpopular.

As I said elsewhere, the Allies taught the Germans to be pacifists and to hate war. We did this for a purpose. We should today not critized them for being the pacifists they are. This is good for Europe as it permits European unification which would probably not occur if Germany were to again become a well armed superpower.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ned

What this means is that anti-Republicanism has spread beyond the far left.

No, it means that your president is a diplomatic dolt.

[axi]

I'm getting sick....

I'm getting sick of all this warmonering.

Well, here's something to make you sick:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=372767

The Independent
Focus: Part one The human cost -
'Does Tony have any idea what the flies are like that feed off the dead?'
By Robert Fisk
26 January 2003


On the road to Basra, ITV was filming wild dogs as they tore at the corpses of the Iraqi dead. Every few seconds a ravenous beast would rip off a decaying arm and make off with it over the desert in front of us, dead fingers trailing through the sand, the remains of the burned military sleeve flapping in the wind.

"Just for the record,'' the cameraman said to me. Of course. Because ITV would never show such footage. The things we see – the filth and obscenity of corpses – cannot be shown. First because it is not "appropriate" to depict such reality on breakfast-time TV. Second because, if what we saw was shown on television, no one would ever again agree to support a war.

That of course was in 1991. The "highway of death", they called it – there was actually a parallel and much worse "highway of death" 10 miles to the east, courtesy of the US Air Force and the RAF, but no one turned up to film it – and the only true picture of the horrors we saw was the photograph of the shrivelled, carbonised Iraqi soldier in his truck. This was an iconic illustration of a kind because it did represent what we had seen, when it was eventually published.

For Iraqi casualties to appear on television during that Gulf War – there was another one between 1980 and 1988, and a third is in the offing – it was necessary for them to have died with care, to have fallen romantically on their backs, one hand over a ruined face. Like those First World War paintings of the British dead on the Somme, Iraqis had to die benignly and without obvious wounds, without any kind of squalor, without a trace of **** or mucus or congealed blood, if they wanted to make it on to the morning news programmes.

I rage at this contrivance. At Qaa in 1996, when the Israelis had shelled Lebanese refugees at the UN compound for 17 minutes, killing 106 civilians, more than half of them children, I came across a young woman holding in her arms a middle-aged man. He was dead. "My father, my father," she kept crying, cradling his face. One of his arms and one of his legs was missing – the Israelis used proximity shells which cause amputation wounds – but when that scene reached television screens in Europe and America, the camera was close up on the girl and the dead man's face. The amputations were not to be seen. The cause of death had been erased in the interests of good taste. It was as if the old man had died of tiredness, just turned his head upon his daughter's shoulder to die in peace.

Today, when I listen to the threats of George Bush against Iraq and the shrill moralistic warnings of Tony Blair, I wonder what they know of this terrible reality. Does George, who declined to serve his county in Vietnam, have any idea what these corpses smell like? Does Tony have the slightest conception of what the flies are like, the big bluebottles that feed on the dead of the Middle East, and then come to settle on our faces and our notepads?

Soldiers know. I remember one British officer asking to use the BBC's satellite phone just after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. He was talking to his family in England and I watched him carefully. "I have seen some terrible things," he said. And then he broke down, weeping and shaking and holding the phone dangling in his hand over the transmission set. Did his family have the slightest idea what he was talking about? They would not have understood by watching television.

Thus can we face the prospect of war. Our glorious, patriotic population – albeit only about 20 per cent in support of this particular Iraqi folly – has been protected from the realities of violent death. But I am much struck by the number of letters in my postbag from veterans of the Second World War, men and women, all against this new Iraqi war, with an inalienable memory of torn limbs and suffering.

I remember once a wounded man in Iran, a piece of steel in his forehead, howling like an animal – which is, of course, what we all are – before he died; and the Palestinian boy who simply collapsed in front of me when an Israeli soldier shot him dead, quite deliberately, coldly, murderously, for throwing a stone; and the Israeli with a chair leg sticking out of her stomach outside the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem after a Palestinian bomber had decided to execute the families inside; and the heaps of Iraqi dead at the Battle of Dezful in the Iran-Iraq war – the stench of their bodies wafted through our helicopter until the mullahs aboard were sickened; and the young man showing me the thick black trail of his daughter's blood outside Algiers where armed "Islamists" had cut her throat.

But George Bush and Tony Blair and **** Cheney and Jack Straw and all the other little warriors who are bamboozling us into war will not have to think of these vile images. For them it's about surgical strikes, collateral damage and all the other examples of war's linguistic mendacity. We are going to have a just war; we are going to liberate the people of Iraq – some of whom we will obviously kill – and we are going to give them democracy and protect their oil wealth and stage war crimes trials and we are going to be ever so moral, and we are going to watch our defence "experts" on TV with their bloodless sandpits and their awesome knowledge of weapons which rip off heads.

Come to think of it, I recall the head of an Albanian refugee, chopped neatly off when the Americans, ever so accidentally, bombed a refugee convoy in Kosovo in 1999 which they thought was a Serb military unit. His head lay in the long grass, bearded, eyes open, severed as if by a Tudor executioner. Months later, I learned his name and talked to the girl who was hit by the severed head during the US air strike and who laid the head reverently in the grass where I found it. Nato, of course, did not apologise to the family. Nor to the girl. No one says sorry after war. No one acknowledges the truth of it. No one shows you what we see. Which is how our leaders and our betters persuade us – still – to go to war.

This is the sad truth about all wars and you know it...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Willem


No, it means that your president is a diplomatic dolt.

How so?

[Ned]

Axi, true. People get killed in wars. But that is not enough, by itself, to say that wars have to be avoided.

This debate about whether a Christain could engage in war when killing any human was murder is as old as St. Augustine, isn't it?

But it does point out that one should always pursue war only as a last resort and only after a clear ultimatum. (Cicero, of all people, said this.)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ned


How so?

Bush has this distinct knack for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. Same with Rumsfeld. If the two of them had been the least bit adroit at dealing with other nations throughout this situation, they wouldn't find themselves in nearly as big of a mess as they are now. Much of the resistance from other nations has more to do with the way they've handled things, than with the issues themselves.