Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Eh?........The state may have been created by the UK government in the past...but it has very little to do with the tin-pot dictator that the USA installed in Iraq

I was not talking about Saddam Hussein - which everyone had a part in putting into place. I was referring to the different "tribes" that are expected to exist together in Iraq. Europe arbitrarily drew up borders for the various middle eastern countries - ignoring the different peoples. That is why everyone is afraid of Iraq disentagrating if we remove their "tin-pot dictator" from power. Without a repressive regime in place to control by violence - then the people may seperate and Iraq may dissolve. Turkey, Iran, Jordan are all afraid of this - because they all have Kurds living in their countries and the Kurdish "terrority" extends into all these countries.

[Coney]

I was not talking about Saddam Hussein - which everyone had a part in putting into place.

We all did? uh huh

Europe arbitrarily drew up borders for the various middle eastern countries - ignoring the different peoples.

I'm presuming by this you mean the splitting of the Palestinian state to produce Isreal (sorry Zionists).

That is why everyone is afraid of Iraq disentagrating if we remove their "tin-pot dictator" from power.

Nope, everyone is worried that the Ayhotolah (sp?) in Iran will re-awaken and resume control of the Iraqi people.....sure he is complacent now but just because USA may enforce a democratic government does not mean that they will keep the country in such a state ....blood is thicker than water..........but faith pales even the thickest ties..........The UN cannot even inflict its whims on the Afaghans..........they have no chance in the ME.

[wahine]

Just want you to know that you guys are a riot.


Bye

[markedel]

Hate to say this Coney but when France and Britain carved up the Ottoman Empire Iraq was an artificial creation-unsustainible without a workable federal system (highly unlikely in the ME where the only truly multicultural country in the region is none other then that evil racist state Israel). That's why invading it is stupid-the mess involved in deposing Saddam, as dangerous as he is would be very great. I don't like the U.S's ability to create a controlled demolition.

As to carving up a palestinina state-this is unrealted, but as a Zionist I'm commited to defending against such obvious ignorance of the situation. The British handed over present day Israel and Jordan to the Zionists as a homeland with explicitly protected minority rights. Most palestinians were pushing for pan-Syrian nationalism at the time. WInston Churchill gave Jordan over to the Hashemites, and closed it to Jewish settlement (i.e 2/3 of palestine was made arab in 1922,). The rest was settled by Jews and arabs from around the Middle East. In 1937 and 1947 there were plans to partion the remains of the mandate between Jews and Arabs-and both partitions were accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, resulting in a war that rages on to this day.


How does this relate to Iraq? Iraq should really be partitioned-but it won't because someone won't accept the idea.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
...only truly multicultural country in the region is none other then that evil racist state Israel

[I've edited out my comments because after reading this several times I feel that you were being sarcastic with this statement]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I'm presuming by this you mean the splitting of the Palestinian state to produce Isreal (sorry Zionists).

Maybe you should read your English history more - then you'd know that England had a hand, as well as ALL of Europe in forming the arbitrary countries that exist today from South Africa to the Middle East - this includes Saudia Arabia. They disregarded the ethnic make up of the people or the in fighting between the tribes. They gave the countries to the people who helped them during World War I and established the boundaries.

[Coney]

I must have been drunker than I thought last night....I can't even remember posting in this thread ......sorry about that hehehe

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I must have been drunker than I thought last night....I can't even remember posting in this thread ......sorry about that hehehe

Okay - so how are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even remember posting.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Okay - so how are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even remember posting.

If I'm posting on a Friday night/early hours of Saturday morning 'tis probably best to be a bit skeptical

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
If I'm posting on a Friday night/early hours of Saturday morning 'tis probably best to be a bit skeptical

I'll make sure I remember that and let you just ramble.

[Tar-Elendil]

Ive been gone from the forums for quite a while now, and this thread is too long to have read all the posts; sorry if I repeat something someone had already said.

The war on iraq would have nothing to do with morals or "making the world a safer place." It would be a war completely driven for economic purposes, oil especially. America tries too hard to police the globe, and thats why many countries hate America. the U.S. has chose conflicts in Europe and the Middle East to benefit the economy. An example of this is the Armenian Genocide, but i do not want to stir up any problems, so, ill leave it at that.
If America could stop interfering as much as it does in foreign affairs, there would be more peace throughout the world. Sometimes fighting is necesarry and is inevitable. If we had not gone to war in World War II, the globe would probably be dominated by fascism. This isnt like that at all. If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America. That,I think, will not happen, for bush is a war economy fanatic.

Many religious ideas, such as the Bible and Indian folklore, point to the destruction of the world: famine, war, uncontrollable fire, etc. At this point in time we should focus in the preservation of the human race, not the destruction of it; we shall have to strive for peace.

If my post has sounded in any way "anti-American," I would just like to say I am in no way so. I love my country and I am proud to live in a place where I can govern my own life and not be persecuted for such things as religion or race.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
The war on iraq would have nothing to do with morals or "making the world a safer place." It would be a war completely driven for economic purposes, oil especially. America tries too hard to police the globe, and thats why many countries hate America. the U.S. has chose conflicts in Europe and the Middle East to benefit the economy. An example of this is the Armenian Genocide, but i do not want to stir up any problems, so, ill leave it at that.

That is total bs, look at the crap Iraq has hidden from the world, and against the treaty they signed to DISARM after the Gulf War. I don't understand how you can call it a political and economic purpose for trying to protect life from someone who has blatant disregard for his own people let alone neighboring and worldly countries...

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
If America could stop interfering as much as it does in foreign affairs, there would be more peace throughout the world. Sometimes fighting is necesarry and is inevitable. If we had not gone to war in World War II, the globe would probably be dominated by fascism. This isnt like that at all. If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America. That,I think, will not happen, for bush is a war economy fanatic.

More peace? You mean how France, Belgium, Poland, and countless many other countries would now be Germany if the US didn't intervene some 50 years ago? Also, the US is supposed to sit back after we had planes flown into two of the most treasured US landmarks, killing countless amounts of people. So we should allow finatical (sp?) regimes to arm themselves with weapons, be it biological, chemical or nuclear?

And are you kidding me about the UN? The UN is about the weakest organization out there, I don't think you can get any weaker.

Also, I did not vote for bush, nor am I a republican, but I feel very strongly about going to war against Iraq and I think more importantly we need to watch North Korea more intently than we have been. And about the whole France/Germany crap and them wanting more inspectors. First of all, inspectors are only scientists, not weapons experts, there is 1 yes 1 weapons expert out of the entire lot of inspectors now in Iraq. Countless inspectors have said Iraq is hiding weapons and they are constantly moving them. The US has also provided proof, yes PROOF, that Iraq is doing everything in their power to deceive the world and to also build weapons in violation of their disarmament agreement, that the UN made them sign, yes the UN...

It is laughable also about the countries wanting peace. What do you think we want? If we allow Iraq to build up, then what do you think they will do? They will attack those that are keeping to themselves, and most likely he will invade a country for land again, as he did to Iran and Kuwait. And yes, oil is important, it is just as important to America as it is any other country, if we have some madman at the helm of the biggest worlds resource then we are all in trouble, especially if he decides to let off one of his bombs and then we all are out of oil plus our lives in general will be in danger.

To say the US are warmongers is ridiculous also. If that were the case, do you really think we would have waited this long to fight? We have put this war off for almost a year now just to appease the world and to give Iraq a second and third and fourth and so on and so on chance. Open your eyes....

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
Many religious ideas, such as the Bible and Indian folklore, point to the destruction of the world: famine, war, uncontrollable fire, etc. At this point in time we should focus in the preservation of the human race, not the destruction of it; we shall have to strive for peace.

Ummmm, what do you think bringing down a tyrant is the point of? We are not sending troops over and fighting a war for fun. It is to acheive a sense of stability and peace in the world and to avoid another September 11th from happening in America or around the world again....

[jerseydevil]

I agree Dúnedain. I wrote these two e-mails to the BBC yesterday in regards to two questions they asked. Not that they'd post them though.

France, EU and Iraq....
France has always been arrogant and condescending. The opinions of the US which are being stated today are no different than they have been for DECADES. They're just being voiced openly now. It's no secret that France has had contempt for America, the American people and our culture. So why is it so surprising that we feel the same about them and their arrogant attitude?

France's problem is that it can't accept that it's not a world power and that it's so called "culture" they're so proud is all in the past. But now - riding on the waves of "Anti-Americanism" which is flooding all of Europe and the world - they want to cash in on that.

Europe seems to be fracturing. France and Germany are trying to gain control over the European continent by pushing the "Anti-Americanism". The tiny country of Belgium seems to have sided with the two who it thinks will make the rules in the New Europe. Any European who can't see this - I feel sorry for. If they succeed - I'm sure you'll be wishing for the good old days when you worried about the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic - instead of the two arrogant countries at your front door.

In terms of Iraq - the world has a choice - we can either stop Hussein now, or risk having another Hitler or North Korea. Hitler was allowed to capture part of France, take over Austria, part of Czechoslovakia. All of this while Europe stood by and said "Let's try to negotiate" - it wasn't until he broke his agreement and invaded Poland that Europe said "Okay - you've gone too far now."

When the US took retaliatory strikes against Osama Bin Ladin after he blew up our Embassies - people were outraged we were taking such action against him. Everyone, even in America, said that he wasn't really that much of a threat. Today - after he managed to take down TWO 110 story buildings, killing 3,000 innocent people - we know better. Yet worldwide there was outrage when the US attempted to take military action against him before he officially declared his religious war against the West on 9/11/2001.

North Korea has been developing it's nuclear weapons program ever since it agreed to abandon it. We now know that North Korea just moved it underground from prying eyes. UN inspectors had even said they were clean and didn't have a nuclear program. Today we know better and they now hold that region hostage. When it comes to Iraq - I guess we can take similar UN inaction and just sit back - let Hussein continue to develop his weapons. Of course during this time the world will slowly lose interest in Iraq, as it always does, and turn it's back on Hussein. Then before you know it - we'll have another Hitler and North Korea on our hands. After Saddam develops his chemical and biological agents, and has fully functioning nuclear bombs -after he has obtained his ultimate goal of holding the Middle East hostage - I think we should make France be the front line in the assault. Maybe America will just sit this one out while we see how the great "old world powers" solve the problems of the world. The problems that THEY created when they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East into their respective countries during their colonial OCCUPATION.

The whole of the Middle East has a problem, it's not just related to Osama bin Ladin. In order to combat the threat of terrorism we have to bring down these regimes that will and do support terrorism. Unless there are free peoples and democracy in the Middle East there WILL always be terror in the world and the West will always live in fear. We need to create a Middle East we can trade with - where we have economic ties with - and I don't mean oil. Currently oil is the only thing they have - that is why there is 30% unemployment rate in Middle Eastern countries. Something needs to be done in order to make sure that the next generation of Arabs have a future - or else they won't have jobs, and if they don't have jobs - they will be bored, and if they're bored - they're going to need someone to blame for their situation. That someone is going to be the west - because their governments and religious leaders would much rather have them throw their anger at the West than look at the real problems. They're real problems are with their government and religious leaders who want to keep them chained - but they can't do anything to stand up to them.

continued...

[jerseydevil]

20 years ago no one could have foreseen the relationship which Russia and the US now share. Now that democracy has taken root in the old Soviet Empire - the people are enjoying freedom, able to leave their country, people aren't risking their life to cross the Berlin wall in Germany, there aren't reports of defection from Russia, Warsaw Pact members are now full-fledged members of NATO. Sometimes in order to bring about this type of change - hard action needs to be taken. These types of regimes need to be taken down or else the west will never be free from terrorism.

I'm, tired of hearing that iraq isn't an imminent thread. Are we supposed to wait agin until some massive attack come about? Do we have to wait until it's another North Korea situation? The only reason why France wants to wait is because they have billions of dollars in deals with Iraq and it's the same for Germany.

Why I won't be march for peace....
So where are these so called "peace marchers" when Iraq is torturing and executing it's own people? Or North Koreans are starving at the hands of it's government? Where are they while cannibalism goes on in Africa? I see the marches against the US's death penalty in Europe - but amazingly the demonstrations are silent as thousands are put to death for just speaking out against their government in the Middle East.

I'll give you a reason why I WON'T be marching. I'm for the FREEDOM of the Iraqi people - not the continued torture and enslavement of them. The whole of the Middle East has a problem, it's not just related to Osama bin Ladin. In order to combat the threat of terrorism we have to bring down these regimes that will and do support terrorism. Unless there are free peoples and democracy in the Middle East there WILL always be terror in the world and the West will always live in fear. We need to create a Middle East we can trade with - where we have economic ties with - and I don't mean oil. Currently oil is the only thing they have - that is why there is 30% unemployment rate in Middle Eastern countries. Something needs to be done in order to make sure that the next generation of Arabs have a future - or else they won't have jobs, and if they don't have jobs - they will be bored, and if they're bored - they're going to need someone to blame for their situation. That someone is going to be the west - because their governments and religious leaders would much rather have them throw their anger at the West than look at the real problems. They're real problems are with their government and religious leaders who want to keep them chained - but they can't do anything to stand up to them.

If you want to truly save the lives of the Iraqis and encourage democracy to take root in the Middle East - then you wouldn't be marching. Or at the very least you'd be marching for the TRUE atrocities in the world - instead of always looking for the evil in the countries which actually ALLOW you to speak out.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
North Korea has been developing it's nuclear weapons program ever since it agreed to abandon it. We now know that North Korea just moved it underground from prying eyes. UN inspectors had even said they were clean and didn't have a nuclear program. Today we know better and they now hold that region hostage. When it comes to Iraq - I guess we can take similar UN inaction and just sit back - let Hussein continue to develop his weapons. Of course during this time the world will slowly lose interest in Iraq, as it always does, and turn it's back on Hussein. Then before you know it - we'll have another Hitler and North Korea on our hands. After Saddam develops his chemical and biological agents, and has fully functioning nuclear bombs -after he has obtained his ultimate goal of holding the Middle East hostage - I think we should make France be the front line in the assault. Maybe America will just sit this one out while we see how the great "old world powers" solve the problems of the world. The problems that THEY created when they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East into their respective countries during their colonial OCCUPATION.

I could not have said it any better. I agree with what you have said. The above quote is the exact reason why we are stuck in the current position we are in and backs up my statement about the UN being the weakest worldy organization next to NATO. It is truly laughable that the world is feigning to factual proof and yet they still want to sit back. It is funny how history repeats itself and you are right, Iraq is just another Nazi Germany in the making, except with less resources currently at their disposal, thanks to the US if I may add....

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm, tired of hearing that iraq isn't an imminent thread. Are we supposed to wait agin until some massive attack come about? Do we have to wait until it's another North Korea situation? The only reason why France wants to wait is because they have billions of dollars in deals with Iraq and it's the same for Germany.


So where are these so called "peace marchers" when Iraq is torturing and executing it's own people? Or North Koreans are starving at the hands of it's government? Where are they while cannibalism goes on in Africa? I see the marches against the US's death penalty in Europe - but amazingly the demonstrations are silent as thousands are put to death for just speaking out against their government in the Middle East.

Yup, it amazes me that so much of this stuff has been going on and yet everyone including the UN and NATO just looks the other way. I mean, did they not see the Iraqi plan dropping the anthrax onto their own people? When I saw that, it made me sick and shocked me that the world is letting this stuff just happen, and in their backyards!!! Unreal, it is simply unbelievable that the world is content in just sitting back and not taking proactive measures to prevent another catastrophe.

A wise historian once said, LEARN FROM THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED BEFORE YOU. History has proven time and time again that it repeats itself, and yet the world still remains blind in seeing that it is just repeating itself again...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Yup, it amazes me that so much of this stuff has been going on and yet everyone including the UN and NATO just looks the other way.

Well it's finally being said and discussed openly about the UN. - it's just a glorified debating club that does nothing to back up it's resolutions. I've said this for a long time, I've continued to say that the US needs to get out.

I love the Saturday Night Live skits they're having about the UN and the peace marchers. It's so funny. SNL had "Powell" give his speech - then afterward the other members started saying how they wanted to go out to lunch to really expensive restaurants, use their diplomatic immunity and go shop lifting at Tiffanys, etc. It was funny. I imagine this Saturday they'll have a bunch of stuff to say about Franch and Germany.

[Lief Erikson]

I've been keeping up daily on the Iraq issue for some time now, as well as North Korea, and I couldn't agree with you more, jerseydevil and Dúnedain. When Colin Powell gave his speech, Iraq denied the evidence and the other countries ignored it. The UN Council, both with Iraq and North Korea have chosen to ignore their own resolutions. Those resolutions were meant to keep those countries in line, but that was assuming a different character in the governments of those countries than has been observed. Saddam Hussein has openly violated the UN's resolutions time and again, openly and for everyone to see. You have to bend the resolutions in loops to be able to avoid taking their meaning for what it was. I believe that the UN Council, after this war with Iraq is over, could be in danger of that irrelevancy it was warned of approaching.

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America.

This is plainly ridiculous- your logic runs in circles. If you know a man who is in charge of getting a job done, but is shirking his duty, naturally you warn him about it. If he refuses to pay attention to you, you can just continue along with your normal activities, but if you really care about the job, you'll go and do it yourself.

This is normal behavior- it's ridiculous to say that if someone is shirking his job and you really care about it, you'll leave it to him to deal with.


When the U.S. does invade Iraq, I'm looking forward to its being proved to the world's eyes by what they find that Iraq does have the weapons it is accused of having. Although considering the evidence that has already been offered, I don't suppose the proof of what they have would make much difference .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
When the U.S. does invade Iraq, I'm looking forward to its being proved to the world's eyes by what they find that Iraq does have the weapons it is accused of having. Although considering the evidence that has already been offered, I don't suppose the proof of what they have would make much difference .

No - sadly it wouldn't. I also imagine that many people will just claim that America placed them there.

This is the "Talking Point" I was responding to in my above e-mailing to the BBC concerning France and Iraq Is France right to force a split on Iraq?

Someone had sent them the following which I thought was funny.

Jay Leno may have stated it best when he said, "How can we (US) expect France to help us get Saddam out of Iraq? We couldn't even get France to help us get Germany out of France!"
Bill, USA

This was the "Talking Point I was responding to in my other e-mail. Anti-war protest: Are you going to the march?

[Earniel]

Europe seems to be fracturing. France and Germany are trying to gain control over the European continent by pushing the "Anti-Americanism". The tiny country of Belgium seems to have sided with the two who it thinks will make the rules in the New Europe. Any European who can't see this - I feel sorry for. If they succeed - I'm sure you'll be wishing for the good old days when you worried about the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic - instead of the two arrogant countries at your front door.

Oh for crying out loud, France and Germany are NOT Anti-American! Why is that that every one who doesn't agree with the Americans immediatly get's the label 'Anti-American'? I am really, really getting sick of it. It's a grave misunderstanding and it is this sort of talk that will only cause more misunderstanding between America and the rest of the world. The world is NOT out to bring America to his knees. And Europe REALLY hasn't forgotten what the Americans did for us in the World Wars, whatever you may think. And neither have we forgotten what Hitler did. Our countries still bear the scars of that. But that doesn't mean we have to rush into battle as soon as someone cries 'Tyrant!'.

It's true that France and Germany are large players in the EU. Isn't that logical? They're big countries, with large populations. And naturally they'll want to have a lot to say in Europe. I don't agree with some of the stuff they want either. But really! A new Europe.... jezus...

Tiny Belgium does NOT think that Germany and France will establish a new Europe. That's NOT why we are against this war! But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

Also there was NEVER a time before now that I was worried about 'the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic. But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!