Europe Supports War on Iraq

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
yes, they want that. until he comes to their doorsteps...

Do you seriously think that Saddam Hussein is likely to invade Europe? This is a serious enquiry.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Texan
I have no idea what he wants. I am asking if you and Wu want to let him do whatever he wants?

There is something very wrong with your reasoning.

PS. I have no idea what my neighbour wants, should i go kill him now?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
And you recommend that sanctions are the best choice??? That has already been tried and failed. Or do you recommend that the world just let Hussein do what he wants?

as i said in the other thread before, personally i dont give a damn if saddam has nukes or not, stalin had them aswell and nothing happened.
what your goverment is doing now is making things worse. if you have a problem, do you try to solve it by making it worse?
this whole thing will just end up in even more terrorism and that is certainly nothing i want to happen.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Do you seriously think that Saddam Hussein is likely to invade Europe? This is a serious enquiry.

ofc not, it was meant in a figurative way

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
greece also was against a war against yugoslavia and they invented the butt****ing so i dont trust em one bit...

do you trust the eu-parliament then?

[Texan]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Sanctions, in their current form should be removed. Half-starving the Iraqi population isn't any actually achieving anything (well, aside from starving them obviously).

And, Hussein should be left to it, yes. Hussein is not much more dangerous than he was say, two years ago, yet apparently now it's "urgent" we remove this man from power. It's not like he's moments away from building the Doomesday Device.

You obviously trust Hussein more than do I.

He is, of course, moments (months, maybe even five years) away from building nuclear weapons. If you trust him, then you will assume he will not use them. I don't trust him.

I think he would nuke Tel Aviv, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, and Brussels if he thought he could get away with it. Probably a few more i can't think of off the top of my head. Vienna and Prague too.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
do you trust the eu-parliament then?

lol, i dont trust our own government, let alone that bloated object called eu-parliament

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I think he would nuke Tel Aviv, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, and Brussels if he thought he could get away with it. Probably a few more i can't think of off the top of my head. Vienna and Prague too.

why ???
remember, hes not a fundamentalist, in fact he faught them about 20 years back

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
do you trust the eu-parliament then?

I put my whole trust in an imaginary body from time to time as well!

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I put my whole trust in an imaginary body from time to time as well!

at least they represent what the people want. a pitty they have no power :/

[Texan]

Originally posted by Emperorn
There is something very wrong with your reasoning.

PS. I have no idea what my neighbour wants, should i go kill him now?

If he has already poisoned your other neighbors, I would recommend a small caliber weapon at about 5 a.m. Maybe he will be asleep. The other choice is to set fire to his house at 5 a.m. and hit him with a machine gun when he comes out the front door.

If he had not poisoned your other neighbors, then I recommend you move to another neighborhood. Obviously, he is planning to hit you first.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
at least they represent what the people want. a pitty they have no power :/

remember that the eu parliament is just an institution formed to keep those politicians of the street which have failed miserably in their home countries (sozusagen ne abm maßnahme)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Texan
I think he would nuke Tel Aviv, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, and Brussels if he thought he could get away with it.

I always find it amusing when I hear of such accusations. Even of the most blatantly evil governments that have ever been established, I doubt that even the Khmer Rogue would do that (i.e. nuke New York, etc). But furthermore, it's not like Iraq (or anywhere) are one man states. I think people have seen a little too many movies if you believe that governments are willing to drop nukes willy-nilly. I have major problems with the US government for instance, but I know that pretty much every senior member of the Bush administration (for instance) are all pretty "good" people with good intentions, etc, etc. I don't think the US is about to blow up the whole world because they have a bad day. The actions of each state can generally be justified by their own internal logic. There's no constructive reason why Saddam (or Iraq more generally) would want to kill everyone in Europe - it wouldn't actually do anything particularly to help him/them.

Also, Saddam Hussein (and his entire command staff) do not seem to be clinically insane. They would never be allowed to get away with nuking anywhere, let alone Europe or America, and clearly if they did they'd be removed from the map forever.

Finally, even if he is "months" from having nukes (highly unlikely with the state of Iraqi infrastructure, but still) he's nowhere near having the technology to deliver the beyond his immediate neighbours. Tel Aviv is a possibility, the rest is fantasy. Even a nation like China (which is far larger, more powerful, etc) does not have the capability to nuke the US (As far as I'm aware).

I know it's sounds incredible, but not everyone in the world wants to kill whitey. But the more we continue this mad path of trying to take on everyone, the more that does become true.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
at least they represent what the people want. a pitty they have no power :/

Pity? There's going to be 700 members or something. How in the name of god will something that large effectively function? I cannot personally see how a single body can govern such a diverse continent. Clearly some absolute principles are possible, indeed vital, but some areas traditionally controlled by national parliaments are too specific to be given over to a centralised bureaucracy.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Texan
If he has already poisoned your other neighbors, I would recommend a small caliber weapon at about 5 a.m. Maybe he will be asleep. The other choice is to set fire to his house at 5 a.m. and hit him with a machine gun when he comes out the front door.

If he had not poisoned your other neighbors, then I recommend you move to another neighborhood. Obviously, he is planning to hit you first.

Heh, I laughed. Last sentence made me a little worried though

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
as i said in the other thread before, personally i dont give a damn if saddam has nukes or not, stalin had them aswell and nothing happened.
what your goverment is doing now is making things worse. if you have a problem, do you try to solve it by making it worse?
this whole thing will just end up in even more terrorism and that is certainly nothing i want to happen.

You have no proof that the United States is making things worse with its current actions. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. You are entitled to express it. I am not, on the other hand, required to believe it.

I think the best defense is a good offense. I am aware that people will get upset about the United States attacking Iraq. I am also aware that people said the same thing about Afghanistan, yet there were no huge protests or "Arab street" violence. The Arabs respect strength. They do not like it when it is not their strength, but they respect it. They have no respect for weakness. If their opponents show weakness they will redouble their efforts to destroy them as was proved in Israel by the second Intifadah.

Thank you for not saying what "I "am doing now since it is what my government is doing now and not me personally.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
why ???
remember, hes not a fundamentalist, in fact he faught them about 20 years back

They support his enemies. If he nuked them. He could take advantage of the chaos around him.

[Akallabeth]

Originally posted by Texan
It does not bother me in the slightest bit, because it was explained quite well by the founding fathers of the United States based on their study of Rome.

Basically, if people are authorized to to make decisions based on what they want, eventually they will destroy the country. Instead the people vote for someone they want to represent them in the government and then that representative makes choices for them.

If they are not happy with the choice of representative, they are free to choose a different one during the next election.

The theory, if you can call it that, is "Bread and Circuses." You can google that if you want more clarification.

[troll] the roman empire basically imploded once they ran out of real enemies, had weak leaders etc ... notice parallels ? :P [/troll]

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Texan
Thank you for not saying what "I "am doing now since it is what my government is doing now and not me personally.

You live in a democracy. You hold responsibility for your government's actions if you have a) the right to vote and b) freedom of movement. Don't shift it off onto politicians just because you're too unmotivated to affect changes yourself.








(Of course you don't live in the US so I've just realised I look like a right spanner here heh).

[Texan]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I always find it amusing when I hear of such accusations. Even of the most blatantly evil governments that have ever been established, I doubt that even the Khmer Rogue would do that (i.e. nuke New York, etc). But furthermore, it's not like Iraq (or anywhere) are one man states. I think people have seen a little too many movies if you believe that governments are willing to drop nukes willy-nilly. I have major problems with the US government for instance, but I know that pretty much every senior member of the Bush administration (for instance) are all pretty "good" people with good intentions, etc, etc. I don't think the US is about to blow up the whole world because they have a bad day. The actions of each state can generally be justified by their own internal logic. There's no constructive reason why Saddam (or Iraq more generally) would want to kill everyone in Europe - it wouldn't actually do anything particularly to help him/them.

Also, Saddam Hussein (and his entire command staff) do not seem to be clinically insane. They would never be allowed to get away with nuking anywhere, let alone Europe or America, and clearly if they did they'd be removed from the map forever.

Finally, even if he is "months" from having nukes (highly unlikely with the state of Iraqi infrastructure, but still) he's nowhere near having the technology to deliver the beyond his immediate neighbours. Tel Aviv is a possibility, the rest is fantasy. Even a nation like China (which is far larger, more powerful, etc) does not have the capability to nuke the US (As far as I'm aware).

I know it's sounds incredible, but not everyone in the world wants to kill whitey. But the more we continue this mad path of trying to take on everyone, the more that does become true.

I am not going to argue all your points here because I suspect that you are mostly correct; however, if Saddam Hussein thought he could get away with nuking all those western cities without get caught, he could use the chaos to seize a lot of oil fields and small countires around him. He might do it. I am certain he would not care even the slightest bit about all the "whiteys" who died or anyone else of any color.

[Akallabeth]

Originally posted by Texan
I am not going to argue all your points here because I suspect that you are mostly correct; however, if Saddam Hussein thought he could get away with nuking all those western cities without get caught, he could use the chaos to seize a lot of oil fields and small countires around him. He might do it. I am certain he would not care even the slightest bit about all the "whiteys" who died or anyone else of any color.

If the US (for example) thought they could take over the world without any1 being pissed off at em, u bet ur life they would...

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Even a nation like China (which is far larger, more powerful, etc) does not have the capability to nuke the US (As far as I'm aware).

China has the capability to nuke the US. Not the whole continent, but they can reach the west coast. Within ten years they will propably introduce a new missile that will be able to reach most of North-America.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
You have no proof that the United States is making things worse with its current actions. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. You are entitled to express it. I am not, on the other hand, required to believe it.

but it is obvious. imagine someone would attack, lets say, canada and your goverment wouldnt do a **** about it, you would see canadian civilians die and as an extra addition your media tells you this all happens only because of <whatever resources canada has>. then some mad guy would pop up and tell you he knows how to fight these people, what would you do?
(i dont know how much you care about canada though, just a stupid example)

I think the best defense is a good offense. I am aware that people will get upset about the United States attacking Iraq. I am also aware that people said the same thing about Afghanistan, yet there were no huge protests or "Arab street" violence. The Arabs respect strength. They do not like it when it is not their strength, but they respect it. They have no respect for weakness. If their opponents show weakness they will redouble their efforts to destroy them as was proved in Israel by the second Intifadah.

they dont repect strength very much in israel, do they? (and that 2nd intifada only started after that dumb sharon did something stupid)
musharaf lost quite a lot of power because of his pro-american policy and things will only get worse in paristan if your goverment continues bombing now. dont forget that they already have nukes.
(and dont tell me anything about the motivations your goverment has, it doesnt matter. the point is, how can the us-goverment convice the people in the countries around about that motivation? it cant even convice a large part of its own population, not to talk about us in europe, so how should it work with people who hate you anyways?)

Thank you for not saying what "I "am doing now since it is what my government is doing now and not me personally.

i took special care of that

[Texan]

122 posts in six and a half hours. In the words of Austin Powers, Yea baby.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Akallabeth
If the US (for example) thought they could take over the world without any1 being pissed off at em, u bet ur life they would...

I believe the United States would not do that. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]but it is obvious. imagine someone would attack, lets say, canada and your goverment wouldnt do a **** about it, you would see canadian civilians die and as an extra addition your media tells you this all happens only because of <whatever resources canada has>. then some mad guy would pop up and tell you he knows how to fight these people, what would you do?
(i dont know how much you care about canada though, just a stupid example)

[b]
they dont repect strength very much in israel, do they? (and that 2nd intifada only started after that dumb sharon did something stupid)
musharaf lost quite a lot of power because of his pro-american policy and things will only get worse in paristan if your goverment continues bombing now. dont forget that they already have nukes.
(and dont tell me anything about the motivations your goverment has, it doesnt matter. the point is, how can the us-goverment convice the people in the countries around about that motivation? it cant even convice a large part of its own population, not to talk about us in europe, so how should it work with people who hate you anyways?)

i took special care of that

I don't fully understand the first question about Canada. I suspect that anyone who attacked Canada would find themselves hurting in very short order from the combined NATO and U.S. military as a result of Article V.

Some people believe the Palestinians started the second Intifadah because the Israelis appeared weak after giving back some land in the northern part of Israel called the "something" farms.

Gen. Perfez Musharraf has the same amount of power. He just has less support from the general populace.

The United States is authorized, according to the constitution, "to provide for the common defense," of the United States.

Elected officials take that constitutional right seriously, and will do so with or without the consent of the people.

People can hate Americans all they want. That is their right. When they start planning to kill people based on their hate, they will be prosecuted or killed. That is the plan.

Must sleep now. Be back tomorrow.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I don't fully understand the first question about Canada. I suspect that anyone who attacked Canada would find themselves hurting in very short order from the combined NATO and U.S. military as a result of Article V.

as i said: its an example. the idea was to show you how some people in the middle east would feel like if the bombing starts. so, please read it again and imagine there is no nato and your goverment wouldnt do a **** at all.

Some people believe the Palestinians started the second Intifadah because the Israelis appeared weak after giving back some land in the northern part of Israel called the "something" farms.

people want to live in peace, all of them, except a few braindead idiots.
everything worked fine with the peace deals until that pm of israel got killed.
and ofc, the terrorism wont stop from one day to the other, but on the long run it would fully stop. why should the average people support the terrorists if they can live in peace in their own country ??

Gen. Perfez Musharraf has the same amount of power. He just has less support from the general populace.

and what will happen if some kind of revolution starts? that would be a bad thing.

The United States is authorized, according to the constitution, "to provide for the common defense," of the United States.

yes, defence is perfectly fine, but the war on iraq obviously is an offensive war.

Elected officials take that constitutional right seriously, and will do so with or without the consent of the people.

People can hate Americans all they want. That is their right. When they start planning to kill people based on their hate, they will be prosecuted or killed. That is the plan.

Must sleep now. Be back tomorrow.

so you think its ok that people hate you? wouldnt it be far more usefull (and cheaper) if they stop hating you and dont fly freakin planes into your buildings or blow up your embassies?

[Texan]

Originally posted by Akallabeth
If the US (for example) thought they could take over the world without any1 being pissed off at em, u bet ur life they would...

That plan does not work very well, because then it would be the United States of China after the next election when the 1.2 billion Chinese outvotes the rest of the world.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by Texan
That plan does not work very well, because then it would be the United States of China after the next election when the 1.2 billion Chinese outvotes the rest of the world.

but as a plus you could say the all those nike sports shoes fabricated by poor children in india get the "made in the usa" label back

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]as i said: its an example. the idea was to show you how some people in the middle east would feel like if the bombing starts. so, please read it again and imagine there is no nato and your goverment wouldnt do a **** at all.

[b]
people want to live in peace, all of them, except a few braindead idiots.
everything worked fine with the peace deals until that pm of israel got killed.
and ofc, the terrorism wont stop from one day to the other, but on the long run it would fully stop. why should the average people support the terrorists if they can live in peace in their own country ??

[b]
and what will happen if some kind of revolution starts? that would be a bad thing.
[b]
yes, defence is perfectly fine, but the war on iraq obviously is an offensive war.


so you think its ok that people hate you? wouldnt it be far more usefull (and cheaper) if they stop hating you and dont fly freakin planes into your buildings or blow up your embassies?

Let's use a different example. Texas shares a border with Mexico and I lived there as a boy.

Mexico (now a repressive authoritarian dictarship) invades Guatemala. The European Union (NATO having been dissolved after the fall of the Berlin Wall) decides to kick Mexico out of Guatemala. Mexican leader signs cease fire agreement. 20 years later, same Mexican leader has still not fulfilled terms of the cease fire. EU decides to get rid of Mexican leader and install new government. Media report that EU is only attacking because EU needs Mexico's uranium to build nuclear weapons. United States refuses to do anything.

I would not be upset, though I'm sure a lot of people in the United States would be upset.

I think a lot of people do not want to live in peace.

Revolution in Pakistan would be a bad thing. We are talking about Pakistan, right?

Many people, including, I believe, the U.S. government, think war on Iraq is a defensive issue. A pre-emptive strike is considered a defense strategy using offensive tactics.

I would much prefer that people not hate me because I was born in Dallas. The bottom line is that they do, and the only way I can see to get them to stop hating me is if the United States pulls back troops to within the borders of the United States. That is, as far as I can tell, not a viable option. Any number of bad things would happen. The biggest thing I think would happen is that a lot of Muslims would say to themselves, "I knew the Americans were weak. Now is the time to destroy them completely." That means that the United States after pulling back all its troops would have to stop letting people come into the country. No more refugees. No more tourists. All non-citizens would have to be expelled. Lots of Muslims (8 million) would have to be rounded up and put into re-education camps. Then, of course, the EU would complain about human rights abuses in the United States. And also 5.9 million Jews would be killed in Israel as the Arab countries get revenge because of their embarrassment from get their ***** kicked by the descendants of apes and pigs. the united States would also have to pull all of the U.S. embassies out, because they would be attacked.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Let's use a different example. Texas shares a border with Mexico and I lived there as a boy.

Mexico (now a repressive authoritarian dictarship) invades Guatemala. The European Union (NATO having been dissolved after the fall of the Berlin Wall) decides to kick Mexico out of Guatemala. Mexican leader signs cease fire agreement. 20 years later, same Mexican leader has still not fulfilled terms of the cease fire. EU decides to get rid of Mexican leader and install new government. Media report that EU is only attacking because EU needs Mexico's uranium to build nuclear weapons. United States refuses to do anything.

if the eu would at the same fight a war on us-terrorists, who try to convice the whole world that their constitution is the only valid in the world (heh ) and who blew up brussles or something, it certainly wouldnt help to invade mexico.

I would not be upset, though I'm sure a lot of people in the United States would be upset.

and in that way a lot of people in countries around iraq will be upset.

I think a lot of people do not want to live in peace.

i thik a lot of people do.

Revolution in Pakistan would be a bad thing. We are talking about Pakistan, right?

yes

Many people, including, I believe, the U.S. government, think war on Iraq is a defensive issue. A pre-emptive strike is considered a defense strategy using offensive tactics.

pre-emptive? what is pre-emptive?
whats a war of agression then?

I would much prefer that people not hate me because I was born in Dallas. The bottom line is that they do, and the only way I can see to get them to stop hating me is if the United States pulls back troops to within the borders of the United States. That is, as far as I can tell, not a viable option. Any number of bad things would happen. The biggest thing I think would happen is that a lot of Muslims would say to themselves, "I knew the Americans were weak. Now is the time to destroy them completely." That means that the United States after pulling back all its troops would have to stop letting people come into the country. No more refugees. No more tourists. All non-citizens would have to be expelled. Lots of Muslims (8 million) would have to be rounded up and put into re-education camps. Then, of course, the EU would complain about human rights abuses in the United States. And also 5.9 million Jews would be killed in Israel as the Arab countries get revenge because of their embarrassment from get their ***** kicked by the descendants of apes and pigs. the united States would also have to pull all of the U.S. embassies out, because they would be attacked.

it doesnt work that way, israel still isnt safe and they spend 8% of their GNP on military and have guards and police all around

[Vermillion]

This is a slightly extended and fleshed-out copy of a post I made in a similar thread.

* * * *
As usual, the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

If there is war in Iraq, there will be civilian casualties, there will be human suffering, there will be missed targets, there will be friendly fire, hell, the USAF might even take out a Chinese Embassy. Nobody who supports war in Iraq is blind to these facts, nor are they (one would hope) immune to the potential human suffering.

However, the siren’s call of ‘people will die’, while compelling, is not enough to make a case that war is not necessary. To those who favour peace above all, let me pose this simple question. Each of you, in your minds, ask yourself what Iraq would have to do in order for military intervention on the part of the West to be justified.

I too am a player of that great Canadian national sport of disliking the United States. If prompted, I could launch into a quite significant tirade about the foolishness of their social structure, of their government, of their President, of their political parties, of the new National Security office, and much more.

What I fear is that too many people have let their feelings of malaise towards the United States cloud the issue of whether or not the current leadership of Iraq is a danger to world stability.

Let me ask this parallel question. Pretty much everyone would agree that Europe and Canada was right to go war with Germany in September of 1939 rather than sell out Poland. The question is, in hindsight, can we say it might have been smarter to go to war earlier than 1939? Perhaps, in retrospect, shouldn’t we have gone to war with Germany sooner, say, in March 1939 following the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the annexation of Prague? Or possibly after Kristallnacht in November 1938? Or possibly in 1935 following the promulgation of the Nuremburg laws removing human and property rights from Jews? Might not that have been not only the more moral, but also the smarter thing to do?

Perhaps the lessons of World War Two are that we should not wait until the absolute last minute to confront tyranny and oppression.

Now don’t get me wrong, Hussein is certainly not Hitler, he is not even Pol Pot. But there is a real possibility that allowing Saddam Hussein to gain the technology of atomic weapons may allow him the opportunity to become one of that elite few of truly prolific mass-murderers of history.

In all likelihood, were Hussein to gain atomic weapons, he would not be so foolish as to use them, but rather use them as tools of brinksmanship for local power. But the possibility is too great, the threat is too strong that with two atomic powers, Israel and Iraq, in such a close proximity, that somebody somewhere will push a button. Then what happens when Tel Aviv, or Tehran, or Jerusalem, or even Manhattan or Detroit or London or Ottawa vanish into a cloud of radioactive dust? Then will we say we should have intervened?

Obviously this is the worst case scenario, and will probably not happen. But the possibility exists, and it is not remote. Just as the seeds of the Holocaust existed in 1938, the seeds of a serious disaster exist in allowing Hussein to grow and develop unfettered.

I don’t want war, I think we should give the inspectors more time. I think we should allow diplomacy another chance. But there has to be a point, somewhere, when people and nations of good conscience must say that war, no matter how abominable or destructive, is still better than the possible alternative. I don’t know if we have reached that point yet, but I know that if we do, there MUST be a war to disable the Iraqi regime.
* * * * * *

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
snipped
I don’t want war, I think we should give the inspectors more time. I think we should allow diplomacy another chance. But there has to be a point, somewhere, when people and nations of good conscience must say that war, no matter how abominable or destructive, is still better than the possible alternative. I don’t know if we have reached that point yet, but I know that if we do, there MUST be a war to disable the Iraqi regime.
* * * * * *

Well written. Just one point. It's Department of Homeland Security.

As to giving more time, I believe more people will die in Iraq because of the inspections and sanctions than will do so because of a war. That is just my opinion, and I am certainly not an expert. I do not know how long the inspections will last. Inspectors have already found items Iraq said it did not have. If the inspectors find a few contravened items every two or three months, the inspections could continue into eternity. Eternal inspections and sanctions are not in the best interest of the Iraqi people. Ending sanctions and inspections is not in the interest of the rest of the world.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texan
Well written. Just one point. It's Department of Homeland Security.

Actually, when it was created I called it the Ministry for Reich security. Nothing the US has done scares me more than a creation of an internal security ministry complete with a new informer system. Has nobody pointed ut that the only nations in the world to have such a ministry are places like Cuba, China, the former USSR... all places where the decision was taken that security emant more than freedom.

Warfalcon would have a field day with that.

As to giving more time, I believe more people will die in Iraq because of the inspections and sanctions than will do so because of a war. That is just my opinion,

Give the Devil his due, I am so impressed with the whitewash propagande effort which has ben mounted against the concept of sanction. Perhaps I am older than others on this board, but I remember when the world BEGGED for sanctions against Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf war, when the aclaimed the success of sanctions against South Africa, when economic sanctions were the bloodless alternative.

I do not care what you have read, sanctions do not kill people. Sanctions make the state poorer, and the states refusal to spend money on its people kills people. That is the action of the state, and saying it wascaused by the sanctions is like saying a knife manufacturer is responsable for some guy stabbing his wife.

A leader has a responsability to his people, and in this case Hussein has chosen to spend on tanks and radar rather than on his own people. Blaming sanctions for that reeks of perversity. Just ask any ranking South-African official over 40.

[Satoeng]

Originally posted by Texan
Well written. Just one point. It's Department of Homeland Security.

.

scares me to death....
reminds me pretty much of the gestapo in the 3rd reich and the power given to them after the Reichstagsbrand.Everyone knows what they used it for.

After 911 lot of stuff is happenning at e.g. the mexican border even if the terrorists never even came from there but other western nations. probaly just came pretty conveniant to the state..

hope it will work out well, just people should stay alert and critical when their governments initialise such institutions.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Actually, when it was created I called it the Ministry for Reich security. Nothing the US has done scares me more than a creation of an internal security ministry complete with a new informer system. Has nobody pointed ut that the only nations in the world to have such a ministry are places like Cuba, China, the former USSR... all places where the decision was taken that security emant more than freedom.

Warfalcon would have a field day with that.



Give the Devil his due, I am so impressed with the whitewash propagande effort which has ben mounted against the concept of sanction. Perhaps I am older than others on this board, but I remember when the world BEGGED for sanctions against Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf war, when the aclaimed the success of sanctions against South Africa, when economic sanctions were the bloodless alternative.

I do not care what you have read, sanctions do not kill people. Sanctions make the state poorer, and the states refusal to spend money on its people kills people. That is the action of the state, and saying it wascaused by the sanctions is like saying a knife manufacturer is responsable for some guy stabbing his wife.

A leader has a responsability to his people, and in this case Hussein has chosen to spend on tanks and radar rather than on his own people. Blaming sanctions for that reeks of perversity. Just ask any ranking South-African official over 40.

im sorry, but the iraq is not allowed to import the things need to reapir the water supply and to clean water. this does kill people

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but the iraq is not allowed to import the things need to reapir the water supply and to clean water. this does kill people

Yeah, because Saddam has never actually ignored rules before and obtained items through other means. Right.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Yeah, because Saddam has never actually ignored rules before and obtained items through other means. Right.

you can use almost everything for weapon production, which makes the whole sanctions somewhat pointless.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by wu_trax
you can use almost everything for weapon production, which makes the whole sanctions somewhat pointless.

Whereas a proper sewerage system requires a team of highly proficient quantum physicists with 400 civil engineers trained at harvard to build it!









PS Highly proficient quantum physicists..........heh.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but the iraq is not allowed to import the things need to reapir the water supply and to clean water. this does kill people

Really? They cannot import concrete? They connot import water pumps or desalinisation equipment?

I think you will find that just because Iraqi government has chosen not to bother rebuilding their aquaducts, that does not mean it is a target of sanctions.

Notably, Iraq has its own domestic industry for most of these things, and they managed quite well in the past. Do you really contend that they have the mechanical know-how to build a new SAM radar set every 10 days (the rate at which they have been going up over the last year) but somehow lack the knowhow to build a pipe?

So please list the items required to repair the water supply and provide clean water which are banned from import, and why they are so technically advanced that Iraq cannot build them themselves.

Sanctions limit the available wealth of a nation. How that nation chooses to spend its available welath is its own choice and its OWN RESPONSABILITY.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by Vermillion

Lots of stuff making sense...

well spoken...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Vermillion

This is exactly what I said in phd form minus the sarcasm. Heh.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Really? They cannot import concrete? They connot import water pumps or desalinisation equipment?

I think you will find that just because Iraqi government has chosen not to bother rebuilding their aquaducts, that does not mean it is a target of sanctions.

Notably, Iraq has its own domestic industry for most of these things, and they managed quite well in the past. Do you really contend that they have the mechanical know-how to build a new SAM radar set every 10 days (the rate at which they have been going up over the last year) but somehow lack the knowhow to build a pipe?

So please list the items required to repair the water supply and provide clean water which are banned from import, and why they are so technically advanced that Iraq cannot build them themselves.

Sanctions limit the available wealth of a nation. How that nation chooses to spend its available welath is its own choice and its OWN RESPONSABILITY.

they are not allowed to import some sorts of chemicals to clean the water. and they are not allowed to import some sorts of sorts of medicine.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
This is exactly what I said in phd form minus the sarcasm. Heh.

heh... well, my apologies for that, its been a bit of a rough week.

Notably, I do have my Muay Thai next qualification testing in just over an hour... nervous...

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but the iraq is not allowed to import the things need to reapir the water supply and to clean water. this does kill people

If Saddam didn't need so many palaces his people would have evrything they need.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/863736.asp

NEW YORK, Jan. 24 — They are the gold-plated living memorials to the 20-year reign of Saddam Hussein, enormous in scale, exquisite in material and opulent in taste — the 100 palaces and “VIP luxury residences” Saddam has built across Iraq. U.S. officials and a former U.N. inspector say they also are perfect hiding places for weapons of mass destruction.

THE PALACES, say U.S. and U.N. officials, are the only places in Iraq that are secure enough, large enough and protected enough to conceal not just documents about the development of weapons, but the weapons and weapons material themselves.
“It would be ideal for the storage of weapons of mass destruction,” says former chief U.N. inspector Richard Butler, now an NBC analyst. “They were places directly associated with the president of Iraq’s special security apparatus — the people who both protect him and protect the weapons of mass destruction.”
So far, only two of Saddam’s palaces — the Republican Palace, Iraq’s White House, and the Sijood Palace, Iraq’s executive office building, have been examined during the current round of inspections, but the United States wants inspectors to be more aggressive — and soon.


They won’t lack for locations. Of the 100 palaces built by Saddam, half were constructed after the Gulf War at a rate of around five per year, said U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.
During the war, seven were struck by coalition bombs; all were rebuilt.
The total construction cost, as estimated by United States intelligence: $2 billion. “We based it on regional construction costs,” said one official, “and that doesn’t include the furnishings.”

Full story available at link above.
Don't tell me the Iraqi people are suffering and dying because of sanctions, it is because of Saddam Hussein.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Vermillion
heh... well, my apologies for that, its been a bit of a rough week.

Notably, I do have my Muay Thai next qualification testing in just over an hour... nervous...

I have not the faintest clue what that is but good luck regardless.








PS What do you actually do as a job? I assume nobody's paying you to teach history to a bunch of cretins over an online bulletin board here.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by wu_trax
they are not allowed to import some sorts of chemicals to clean the water. and they are not allowed to import some sorts of sorts of medicine.

The only chemical associated with water purification they cannot import is Chlorene, and they have a fairly significant domestic textile industry which makes plenty of Chlorene as a byproduct. hey are allowed to import any on of a hundered other chemicals usable for water purification.

As to medicine, I keep hearing that story: they are not allowed to import some kinds of medicine! Yet nobody can tell me exactly what kinds of medicine are banned from import.

In fact, any medical drug or treatment is specifically allowed under the sanction act, even such questionable drugs as atropene, a loophole the US is trying to close at the moment. However, very few orders for medicine are being recieved, the Iraqi government seems to have no interest in importing any. Thus hospitals are devoid of Lukemia drugs (allowed by the sanctions) IV fluids and plasma (allowed by the sanctions) and even antibiotics (allowed by the sanctions)

Sorry, once again, its the responsability of the Iraqi government to spend its resources on its people. If they chose to spend their entire budget on the military, they can hardly blame the sanctions for that.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I have not the faintest clue what that is but good luck regardless.

Thai (as in Thailand) kickboxing.

PS What do you actually do as a job? I assume nobody's paying you to teach history to a bunch of cretins over an online bulletin board here.

No, but wouldn't it be nice if they did?

I work for the Canadian Government.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Vermillion


I work for the Canadian Government.

And now that you've told us you have to kill us right?
Thanks alot Jonny

/me runs away \o/

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Nixjim
And now that you've told us you have to kill us right?

Nah, besides, the Canadian government is quite a large operation. I could be a janitor or a groundskeeper for all you know.