iraq

oh my god what a ****ed up country. its a real shame a potetially that rich country cant even buy the most basic things, like water supply and medicine, for its population. only 40% of the population of bagdad have access to 'relativly' fresh water (= fresh and uncleaned out of some random river), which means infections and deceases for everyone, especially for children.
if this war ever starts, 100,000s will die, smart bombs or not, because if the elctricity breaks down, all will colapse
i just hope this inspections work, one way or the other, and any war will be avoided

(sorry to annoy you with yet another thread about iraq, but this whole thingylooked somewhat shocking)

[LHC]

It's a backwards country. People die of those eastern diseases all the time. A little war won't make a difference. They have all that cholera and diptheria and AIDS and the plague and locust swarms from god and stuff.

I don't think we should go to war because our [civilized] soldiers will catch those [barbaric] diseases.

Beware. It's bad.

perhaps this has something to do with the brutal,dictatorial regime currently in power?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
perhaps this has something to do with the brutal,dictatorial regime currently in power?

I was wondering, do brutal, dictatorial regimes breed bad conditions or is it the reverse?

Originally posted by JonnyBGood



I was wondering, do brutal, dictatorial regimes breed bad conditions or is it the reverse?

it can work both ways round,however this particular one is certainly keeping it there.

[Bloomers III]

perhaps it has something to do with the UN sanctions

Originally posted by Bloomers III
perhaps it has something to do with the UN sanctions

which are in place because of...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Insane Badger


which are in place because of...

That's a bit dodgy, if i kill you because you looked at me wrong it's hardly your fault. I'm looking for slightly more advanced reasoning here.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood



That's a bit dodgy, if i kill you because you looked at me wrong it's hardly your fault. I'm looking for slightly more advanced reasoning here.

The Iraqi government did alot more than 'look at someone wrong'

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Insane Badger


The Iraqi government did alot more than 'look at someone wrong'

Quite, however your original justification was complete drivel. If you expanded on this slightly better it'd be perfectly acceptable though. The right conclusions with the right methods.

Originally posted by Bloomers III
perhaps it has something to do with the UN sanctions

indeed, they lack somewhat in efficency as they dont hit saddam but only civilians

[Nodrog]

what do you think we should do?

Originally posted by Nodrog
what do you think we should do?

*cue vulture dialogue*

Originally posted by Nodrog
what do you think we should do?

hope that these inspections work, everything else will be catastrophic

Originally posted by JonnyBGood



Quite, however your original justification was complete drivel. If you expanded on this slightly better it'd be perfectly acceptable though. The right conclusions with the right methods.

actually my original justification was 100% accurate

Originally posted by wu_trax

hope that these inspections work, everything else will be catastrophic

letting things continue as they are will be just as catastrophic, probably more so

[Vermillion]

The sanctions are not responsable for the current suffering, had the Iraqi regime had the welfare of the people at heart there would not be anywhere near the difficulties in the country.

Firstly, the sanctions all but do not exist anymore, Iraq is selling 90% of its 1990 oil amounts on the open market, and getting substantially more money for it. Imports of food, medical supplies and other humanitarian goods have been allowed for about 8 years, and yet the main source of spending in Iraq ofver this time has been the military. There is no question that sanctions always hit the people of a nation, but Iraq has had the money, the supplies and the resources to end privation, and the government chose not to. In a case like this, the fault lies not with the sanctions, but with the government which chooses radar and weapons installations over feeding its people.

I have never understood people who say the sanctions are the source of so much evil. What, I ask you, is the alternative? Sanctions are an effective means of diplomatic and economic pressure, and they have been used many times in the past. South Africa was subject to FAR more restrictive and universal sanctions for far longer, yet nobody was blaming the poor straits of the blacks on the sanctions, but on the regime which refused to treat them as human or see to their needs.

Yes the sanctions tighten the belts of nations they target, thats the point. Yes it is unfortunate, but it is better than open warfare. You remember the 'half-million dead children' qote that was being thrown around? Firstly, that quote was taken from a speech by Saddam Hussein, not th most reliable source, but secondly, if he cares so much about these supposed starving children, why does he not do something about it?

I am not trying to justify Bush, or the recent US actions, or anything of the sort. I am rather just put things into perspective.


If you believe sanctions are so terribly evil... then fine, I accept your opinion.

Please suggest a more effective alternative.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
You remember the 'half-million dead children' qote that was being thrown around? Firstly, that quote was taken from a speech by Saddam Hussein, not th most reliable source, but secondly, if he cares so much about these supposed starving children, why does he not do something about it?

There might have been an incident where people quoted Saddam, but when people say "half a million children dead" they are generally referring to a Unicef Report : http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

Most times I've seen that figure bounded around (it's still dubious, since it's an extrapolation) it's referenced back to Unicef, not Saddam.

so the irak is allowed to sell as much oil as it wants and buy everything it wants (except for weapons ofc)?
about the children: that guy on tv yesterday said there were 7 children dying everyday in his hospital (and that was only one hospital in bagdad alone), and no, he wasnt even from iraq, but some uno-person.
another point: what are the sanctions there for? to maqke saddam weaker? failed, even though that 'election' was obviously faked, his support is stronger than 1991, simply because this large pro-western middle class is gone now
to stop saddam buying weapons? also failed, didnt he just buy some anti aircraft weapons in ukraine or something?
another question: what are these inspection going to prove? lets assume they dont find anything, how can that prove that the iraq doesnt have bc-weapons? they could be hidden somewhere in the desert or whatever. a few inspectors can hardly control the whole country.
as far as i see it, there are three options:
- do nothing at all and lift the sanctions, which means that saddam will buy new bc-weapons as soon as he can get his hands on them. so not an option.
- keep up the sanctions until the inspectors prove that there are none of these weapons or destroy all of them, which isnt possible, because you can never be 100% sure and have 1000s of people die for whatever reasons
- remove saddam from power by force, which also means 1000s of death
pretty much ****ed up situation if you ask me

Originally posted by wu_trax

pretty much ****ed up situation if you ask me

it is,so was nazi germany but eventually they got over it.The sooner Saddam is removed the sooner the people will get over him.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
it is,so was nazi germany but eventually they got over it.

Interesting example.

And in the case of Nazi Germany, the allies imposed upon the defeated Germans an acceptable form of government to replace the National Socialists, then stayed there for 50-odd years making sure that government held.

Is the US willing to do that? Set-up camp in Iraq, surrounded by nations opposed to the idea, in order to prevent a second Hussein, or worse a religious state from replacing what now exists? Iraq is at the moment one of the few secular Arab nations. If a power vaccum is left, a lot of radical Islamists are just aching to get in there.

The US occupying Iraq will suffer like Israel occupying Palestine. Guerilla attacks, local terrorism, civil unrest, violent rebels funded (overtly or covertly) by nearby states... Is this a price the US is willing to pay?

[G_frog]

There are not just occupational costs to consider, but quite possibly financing a fairly large rebuilding effort. If we do go to war i don't think we can depend on global economic recovery. Will britain (aside from the brown/short/cook) and america be keen to spend that much money in iraq in what could well be the 12 months prior to elections?

[WarFalcon]

I don't think it will be as easy to reform Iraq\arab states as it was to reform Germany\Japan...

Originally posted by Vermillion


Interesting example.

And in the case of Nazi Germany, the allies imposed upon the defeated Germans an acceptable form of government to replace the National Socialists, then stayed there for 50-odd years making sure that government held.

did the allies stay there for 50 odd years to make sure that germany didn't suddenly return to nazism or because of the Warsaw Pact sitting on the other side of border?

Originally posted by Vermillion
Is the US willing to do that? Set-up camp in Iraq, surrounded by nations opposed to the idea, in order to prevent a second Hussein, or worse a religious state from replacing what now exists? Iraq is at the moment one of the few secular Arab nations. If a power vaccum is left, a lot of radical Islamists are just aching to get in there.

They're doing it in Afganistan,and I don't see what them being secular has to do with anything.It's not exactly making them friendly towards the west,it doesn't make them better for it.

Originally posted by Vermillion
The US occupying Iraq will suffer like Israel occupying Palestine. Guerilla attacks, local terrorism, civil unrest, violent rebels funded (overtly or covertly) by nearby states... Is this a price the US is willing to pay?

Once again they're doing it in Afganistan.

I'm certainly not saying that it will be easy or that its a guaranteed success,or even that it's a desirable situation.However the Iraqi has broken its agreements with the UN,invaded neighbouring countries,gassed its own civilians and may be developing weapons of mass destruction and is preventing its citizens from having a decent life with a useless military build-up.I really don't see any reason to not iraq.

Originally posted by G_frog
There are not just occupational costs to consider, but quite possibly financing a fairly large rebuilding effort. If we do go to war i don't think we can depend on global economic recovery. Will britain (aside from the brown/short/cook) and america be keen to spend that much money in iraq in what could well be the 12 months prior to elections?

most likely the EU is the one who will pay for this little adventure, the us bombs it, then we pay to rebuild it
as for afganistan: IB, you did notice that Kazai has close to 0 power outside kabul, didnt you? to ensure stability and democracy far more troops would be needed and i dont see that happening, not for afganistan and not for irak

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by G_frog
There are not just occupational costs to consider, but quite possibly financing a fairly large rebuilding effort. If we do go to war i don't think we can depend on global economic recovery. Will britain (aside from the brown/short/cook) and america be keen to spend that much money in iraq in what could well be the 12 months prior to elections?

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has enough oil to finance their own occupation/recovery/rebuilding/whatever.

[Monkeypimp]

Saddams 5 people or something.



surely one of them must be good.

[Intrepid00]

Originally posted by wu_trax
oh my god what a ****ed up country. its a real shame a potetially that rich country cant even buy the most basic things, like water supply and medicine, for its population. only 40% of the population of bagdad have access to 'relativly' fresh water (= fresh and uncleaned out of some random river), which means infections and deceases for everyone, especially for children.
if this war ever starts, 100,000s will die, smart bombs or not, because if the elctricity breaks down, all will colapse
i just hope this inspections work, one way or the other, and any war will be avoided

(sorry to annoy you with yet another thread about iraq, but this whole thingylooked somewhat shocking)

You p**** flower picking hippy

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Insane Badger


I'm certainly not saying that it will be easy or that its a guaranteed success,or even that it's a desirable situation.However the Iraqi has broken its agreements with the UN,invaded neighbouring countries,gassed its own civilians and may be developing weapons of mass destruction and is preventing its citizens from having a decent life with a useless military build-up.I really don't see any reason to not iraq.

Israel have broken agreements with the UN, and invaded neighbouring countries. Israel have also developed weapons of mass destruction. They have also murdered diplomats, and palestinian civilians.

Why should Iraq get precedent over Israel? Especially since Israel have been doing this for a lot longer than Iraq.

Originally posted by Vermillion



If you believe sanctions are so terribly evil... then fine, I accept your opinion.

Please suggest a more effective alternative.

the way i understood the new resolution, they will have to lift the sanctions if they ont find any weapons of mass destruction.
i mean the sanctions would be hardly justifiable if ther isnt any weapons n iraq(utill now they havent found anything)

[W]

Originally posted by wu_trax
indeed, they lack somewhat in efficency as they dont hit saddam but only civilians

What hits Saddams civilians, hits Saddam.

Originally posted by m.ar.d
the way i understood the new resolution, they will have to lift the sanctions if they ont find any weapons of mass destruction.
i mean the sanctions would be hardly justifiable if ther isnt any weapons n iraq(utill now they havent found anything)

how do inspections proove that there are no nbc-weapons? as i see it, this inspections can only proove that there are none of these weapons in the areas the inspectors are inspecting at the time they are there, not more. another point is that saddam will most likely try to buy new weapons if the sanctions are lifted

Originally posted by wu_trax
how do inspections proove that there are no nbc-weapons? as i see it, this inspections can only proove that there are none of these weapons in the areas the inspectors are inspecting at the time they are there, not more. another point is that saddam will most likely try to buy new weapons if the sanctions are lifted

vermillon your the most informed here, help out here.
are the sanctions going to be lifted if the inspections go well??

yes or no?

Originally posted by m.ar.d
vermillon your the most informed here, help out here.
are the sanctions going to be lifted if the inspections go well??

yes or no?

Bush will most likely not support that idea, so No, im quite sure
(how long is this embargo on cuba in place?)

[Barrow|Pony]

I really resent the "The US bombs 'em, the EU pays for 'em" argument. Personally, I'm not too keen on the war on Iraq, as i think its being used as a political tool, and there is little to no evidence that shows that Iraq is more of a crisis than say...Rwanda, or The Congo.

But to imply that in the event of a war on Iraq, the United States shuns responsibility is really not grounded. Hell, I pay taxes, 100 billion dollars is going into this war, thats money that could be going to my education, my envrionment, your education, your envrionment, so on so forth.

We spend the money on defense because we're the only ones who A) can, and B) are willing to do it. Feel free to start sacrificing in the EU's pockets and pitch in, because god knows the US can use it.

Originally posted by Jammers
Israel have broken agreements with the UN, and invaded neighbouring countries. Israel have also developed weapons of mass destruction. They have also murdered diplomats, and palestinian civilians.

Why should Iraq get precedent over Israel? Especially since Israel have been doing this for a lot longer than Iraq.

Israels agreements where under a different chapter to the ones Iraq has broken and as such aren't 'enforceable'.Israel also didn't launch wars of aggression,if I recall one of their wars was pre-emptive against the arab states preparing for war against them,not something that justifies a regime change(especially when Israel is a democratic state)

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
vermillon your the most informed here, help out here.
are the sanctions going to be lifted if the inspections go well??

Thanks for the vote of confidence, however misplaced. Just because I know a lot about a subject does not mean I am omniscient.

I suspect they will not be, not without a lot of wrangling. But Bush and the world are well aware that the sanctions are already de facto 90% lifted, s I cannot see any rush to change the situation even if no evidence of WMD is found.

But thats just a guess.

Originally posted by Insane Badger
Israels agreements where under a different chapter to the ones Iraq has broken and as such aren't 'enforceable'.Israel also didn't launch wars of aggression,if I recall one of their wars was pre-emptive against the arab states preparing for war against them,not something that justifies a regime change(especially when Israel is a democratic state)

in 1981 they bombed iraq which was a clear act of war and aggression and in 1988 they bombed tunis which again was a clear break of all laws and an act of war.
of course you can call those attacks ´´preemptive strikes´ but fllowing that logic, the attacks on poland and the sovjet union by the nazis would also be preemptive strikes.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by m.ar.d

fllowing that logic, the attacks on poland and the sovjet union by the nazis would also be preemptive strikes.

Hitler was an invasionary force intending to sequester those countries. I don't see the US occupying iraq.

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
(especially when Israel is a democratic state)

Democratic in that everyone is equal as long as they're Jewish, and if you're an Arab you deserve to be shot at\have your house demolished\generally mistreated.
Seems like a nice enough regime, lets just leave it in place, and be thankful we aren't Palestinians.

[Vaio]

Iraqis make me laugh

I keep seeing them telling BBC reporters that they will kill the 'yankee dogs with their bare hands if the imperialists invade'

My ar5e you will towelheads, if you dont shit yourselves first then a bullet in the head if you even think of moving will convince you otherwise

Vaio

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Vaio
Iraqis make me laugh
I keep seeing them telling BBC reporters that they will kill the 'yankee dogs with their bare hands if the imperialists invade'
My ar5e you will towelheads, if you dont shit yourselves first then a bullet in the head if you even think of moving will convince you otherwise
Vaio

this demonstrates such a good knwledge of the situation.

[CamelToe]

Originally posted by Jammers
Democratic in that everyone is equal as long as they're Jewish, and if you're an Arab you deserve to be shot at\have your house demolished\generally mistreated.
Seems like a nice enough regime, lets just leave it in place, and be thankful we aren't Palestinians.

Praise the lord for primetime news... always sure to keep the peasants informed

[Caesar2]

Originally posted by Rick
U AR CHELARLY TEH GENEIOUS!!!11112222

Except that Isreal's citizens are 40% arab, and they have the right to vote.

40%=20%
world factbook

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by wu_trax
oh my god what a ****ed up country. its a real shame a potetially that rich country cant even buy the most basic things, like water supply and medicine, for its population. only 40% of the population of bagdad have access to 'relativly' fresh water (= fresh and uncleaned out of some random river), which means infections and deceases for everyone, especially for children.
if this war ever starts, 100,000s will die, smart bombs or not, because if the elctricity breaks down, all will colapse
i just hope this inspections work, one way or the other, and any war will be avoided

(sorry to annoy you with yet another thread about iraq, but this whole thingylooked somewhat shocking)

The reason for the lack of facilities/services in Iraq, is the Policy being enforced by the UN/US since the Gulf war, which has placed severe restrictions on what Iraq can buy.

Arguably the problem is of thier own making, in that the Leader (Saddam Husein) has been buying weapons and lining his own pockets with the proceeds of the permitted Oil sales, instead of buying food and medecine for the general population.

Unlikely that the inspections will work, even if Iraq full complies with the requests of the Weapons inspectors, it is not possible for them (the Inspectors) to comply with the timetable imposed upon them by the US.

The US wants war in Iraq, it needs influence in the Middle East, it also needs the Oil, the actions or innactions of the Iraqi leadership is irrelevant, the war will happen. It will just be that when it does, you can bet your last 10c that it will be at a time that is likely to be an ifluence on some domestic political situation in the US.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
perhaps this has something to do with the brutal,dictatorial regime currently in power?

... or something to do with the sanctions that stop enough medicine getting into Iraq?

[Monkeypimp]

im sick of foreign people.


they cause all the problems in the world.




death to foreigners!!

[Nusselt]

are we going to attack Iraq because its people are starving which is the result of UN sanctions and/or its leadership??

If so can we attack Zimbabwe?

Or are we attacking Iraq because it might have an NBC weapons?

If so surely North Korea is the bigger threat since it has missiles capable of reaching beyond a few hundred miles

Or are we attacking Iraq because it is a breeding ground for Islamic extremists?

In which case surely Saudi Arabia should be attacked since most of the 11/9/01 attackers came from there, as well as OBL.

Or are we attacking because we could win?

Please note im not against military action, i support what happened in Afghanistan. Its just that despite all the reports that various governments are putting out, im still no sure what exactly the problem is with Iraq.

Originally posted by Vaio
Iraqis make me laugh

I keep seeing them telling BBC reporters that they will kill the 'yankee dogs with their bare hands if the imperialists invade'

My ar5e you will towelheads, if you dont shit yourselves first then a bullet in the head if you even think of moving will convince you otherwise

Vaio

no wonder 60% of you cant find iraq on a map.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Vaio
Iraqis make me laugh

I keep seeing them telling BBC reporters that they will kill the 'yankee dogs with their bare hands if the imperialists invade'

My ar5e you will towelheads, if you dont shit yourselves first then a bullet in the head if you even think of moving will convince you otherwise

Vaio

its good to laugh