iajafer

Maybe it's a kind of 100 year card game they play close to their chest.

Pangaea

I'm afraid you're filled to the teeth with propaganda Ignats. Before the election in Iraq (tat the US did everything in its power to prevent from happening), all parties had one goal, get the US outta here! The last PM said he wanted the Iraqi security forces to take control of Iraq, instead of the US/UK forces. Next day, the US wanted a new PM.

There was a poll in Iraq not too long ago about how the saw the US. About 70-80% wanted them out as fast as possible. 1% wanted them to stay. 1%

Al Qaida probably was responsible for attacking the US that day, but there has still not been presented any kind of evidence. The US wanted to attack, and nothing would come in the way of achieving that goal. Rumsfeld actually wanted to attack Iraq right then, but in the end had to postpone that for about 18 months. If it was so glaringly obvious it was Al Qaida, the US could have come forward with evidence, the suspects would have been handed over, and they could have been tried in the justice system, as all acts of crime should. Terrorism is a crime, although a very serious one. Al Qaida was not the government of Afghanistan, it was a group that felt betrayed when the US stopped supporting them after Soviet pulled out of Afghanistan. They probably saw what the US wanted there, and got a bit mad about it.

Are you really so full of natinalistic racist thoughts that you can't see that the US may have other aims in the Middle-East than to "defend itself"? How the feck do you defend yourself by going to the other side of the world and bombing two countries back to the Middle Ages is beyond me.

There are many ways to fight terrorism that is a lot more effective than what the US are currently doing. Stop being part of terrorism is a good start, that would dramatically reduce the amount of terrorism in the world. I can come with definitions and go from there if you want. If you think killing 3,000 US citizens is terrorism, but killing 200,000 Iraqi citizens is not, you have a serious problem.

Despite the huge amount of propaganda in the US getting the public mind ready and eager for yet another war, there wasn't all that much support for it in the US. The only other country whose citizens supported it was Israel, and even there it was only barely. The rest of the world saw what a 3-year-old could see - that it was a majour crime and act of aggression (the ultimate crime according to Geneva conventions).

The only people in the world that feared Saddam Hussein were the Iraqi people, not even his nabouring countries were afraid of him. To then bring the entire US military machine across the world to defend the US against a regime that not even his neighbours feared is beyond a joke, if it wasn't so serious. Only intense propaganda can get people along with such thinking.

Read up a bit on US history and you'll see what your government is really about. This goes way back, and intensified a lot since 1945.

I could also add that the US casualties so far in Iraq is actually greater than it was in Vietnam after 3 years of occupation. Perhaps it won't be as bad as there (about 4 million Vietnamese killed and close to 60,000 US), but it should be alarming that so far the casualties are worse.

There is no such thing as "collateral damage". It is people being killed to achieve political gains. Step out of the propaganda-storm, and you'll see the world a bit clearer.

Pangaea

Wow, that got a bit long. And I thought that was brief :o

Cosmo-poof

It's the usual problem with propaganda victims. They read something and get told "it's true.". It's short. It's to the point. It's easy to understand.

Then someone comes and explains in detail what it all is about. It's complex, and it's a lot to go through, and lots of people lose interest.

It's so much easier to stick with the easily digestible opinion.

Ignats75

You have so little understanding of America and believe the socialist crap that is spoon-fed you over there that Im not even going to discuss it any further--its pointless.

3000 people were executed for the crime of being American. You want to believe what you want to believe no matter how much is based on lies...I'm not going to change it because you don't even recognize it...so I'm not going to discuss it.

iajafer

This is the kind of sensationalist, fatuous rhetoric that really gets my tits.

There's no doubt people were killed by an act of terrorism, but executed? Give me a break.

Do you know how many British people, how many Moslems, how many Europeans were killed in that act?

Do you know how many British men, women and children have been killed at the hands of the IRA?

They're criminals, they're not an army going to war against America. Spanish, Australians and UK citizens have been targeted by Al Quaeda, it's not just an American thing (although many will say that those Nations were attacked because of the links with Bush and his war-mongering ways).

Does Bush honestly believe that waging war on the innocent citizens of Iraq will have any effect on Al Quaeda save to stir up a hornets' nest.

Iraq and the situation there is all about some kind of revenge, and like in Vietnam the President and the Pentagon can't see when they're getting their arse kicked, getting American and coalition people killed, and gaining nothing.

The only way to get any peaceful solution is being held up by the continued killing in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

gil

Your location is spot on, Ignats... I hope you see the light soon.

Dr. Hook

To be honest, there is a lot of unreasoned rhetoric on both side. Why is that only Americans who support or at least understand the war in Iraq are victims of Propaganda? All of you who piled onto Ignats are speaking the same thing only on the other side of the issue. You all are making out that your beliefs on the issue are the only truth, and dissenting opinion is based on propaganda and lies.

About Iraq, Panagea, Israel has been afraid of Saddam Hussein since he came to power in 1975, so saying that even his own neighbors weren't afraid of him is silly. What about the bloody Iran/Iraq war that raged for 8 years? Ask the Kuwaitis about Saddam. Now we can debate whether the US needed to make war on him, but the guy was a destabilizing force in the region, showed no ability to restrain himself if he thought it could work- look at the Kurds and Iranians he gassed. So let's not paint the man as a petty little tyrant like Castro who wasn't a threat to anyone but his own for the sake of anti-U.S. beliefs.

As to the real issue here, I have heard a lot of objection to US policies, but not a lot of reasoning as to why they are bad. Is it a general objection to war and violence? Is it a fear that the situation is going to degenerate into a larger conflict? Is it simply an innate dislike of a nation that you think is a world bully? I am interested in knowing.

I also point out to you that it is a long way from a finished fact over there, and much too early to be labelling the mission a success or failure. It will be a lot of mud in a lot of people's eyes if Iraq emerges as a stable democracy. The fact is, though, that no one really knows what will happen. It's just far too easy and fashionable to be pessimistic.

Lastly, I think we need to bear in mind that a lot of what you all are saying sounds eerily like what was said about Hitler in the 1930s. And the same tune is being sung about Iran currently. No one wanted to press Hitler because of the fear that he would react and start a war. We all know what happened. And the Soviet leadership were no prizes either, was were they? Not one single Western power lifted a hand in Czechoslovakia or Hungary (to name a couple) for the same reason. Why is it hard to accept that such things couldn't happen again? Is it an unrecognized form of racism here? That because Ahmadinejad or Hussein were Arabs leaders in charge of backwards countries they can't possibly pose a threat to global security? All it takes is one nuke, fellas, and it is dangerous to assume that these guys wouldn't/couldn't do such a thing.

Ian, one thing about terrorism. Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s was like an armed camp. If it was a police matter, what were all the British soldiers doing there? And isn't that exactly what it took to finally break the PIRA down to the point that things are under control? I realize that there are more factors involved, but certainly if the Provos had not been so badly damaged by British military operations would they be as eager to
come to the peace table? They would have had no incentive. Also, what is to be done with nations like Syria (and we can throw Afghanistan in that group, and Iraq too) that fund, train, and equip terrorists? Is that still a police matter? What police force is going to deal with "criminals" like that?

Pangaea

I've pretty much had an allnighter of FM, but this is too important to not clear up. Warning: this will be long


I agree that there is propaganda on both sides, no doubt about that. But you will find the most propaganda in the pro-US-to-stay-in-Iraq news-sources. If you look at the facts there should be little doubt about that. The people that "understand the war in Iraq" are not pro-US, let me tell you that much. That would make me pro-war, and I'm not. Of course not saying I understand it all, nobody does, but it's glaringly obvious they entered because they wanted to control oil. This has been a huge political aim in US politics for decades, and they are now trying to achieve that goal. Remember not even the CIA could find a link to Saddam and 9/11, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. There are however lots of weapons of mass deception in Western news-outlets.

I very much doubt that Israel has been seriously concerned about Saddam Hussein, ever. Why you ask? Because he was the West's and US' friend until 1990. He disliked Israel, but there was no way he would attack them as the US wouldn't agree. Then the Gulf war happened. The reasons are complex, but let's just say that after that the US changed its views on Saddam. After the war Iraq's army was decimated, and there was mass-uprisings against Saddam. If the US hadn't protected weapons and ammo sites the opposition would have taken control of them, and most certainly overthrown Saddam. This story is absolutely horrible, just read a bit about it if you want. Then the US bombed Iraq more of less continuesly, with a peak in 1998 IIRC. Then there is the course of events before the invasion of 2003. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector chief had a good overview of Iraq's sites, and estimated that within 6 weeks they would know for certain whether Iraq had WMD or not. This was of course dangerous to the US plan of attack, so they had to act quick. Powell did his acting and lying in the Security Council, the US public fell for it, the US invaded, and over 100,000 people lost their lives. That number is probably doubled by now, as it was in October 2004.

The US wants control over the oil in the Middle-East, not access. Access they can get anyway, but control is imperative. China is becoming a competitor in the global market, and Europe is too. We are more and more seeing a tripolar world order instead of the one we've had the last 15 years. China needs oil, and lots of it. If the US can control Mid-East oil, they can control China. Big-arse politics in other words.

This is why they invaded Iraq, and this is why they are threatening Iran. Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, Iran has. Israel doesn't allow inspection of their nuclear sites, they won't even admit they have them. Iran have been fairly straight about it, and allow inspectors to all its sites. Switch Israel with USA if you will, same picture basically (obviously except the admitting part).

I have done through some points above. It is obvious that this can spread to at least a regional war, if not global. It depends how mad Washington is re:Iran basically, and how much more they can feck up in Iraq.

The worst nightmare for the US administration is if Iraq actually gets democratic. As I mentioned in the last post, the US did everything in its power to prevent the election, and they had great control over who could run, and their access to TV, ads etc. That the election went underway was in fact a big victory for non-violent demonstrations headed by al Sistani. That the US turned around and claimed the election to be because of their efforts when the had to allow it, is no surprise. They control the flow of information. Look inside Iraq, and you get a different picture.

Are you seriously comparing Saddam or Ahmadinejad to Hitler? You're mader then I thought then.
We can do the Iran case too, but I will just say that what happened in 1979 was that the US/UK established Shah got overthrown, then it turned into a Islamic Republic. For decades before the UK controlled their oil resources etc, this was the first time they were really free for probably 100 years. No wonder it's easy for a quite hated character like Ahmadinjad to stir up nationalistic thougths and support. The US are making him stronger, not weaker. Iran has threatened nobody with attack. True a dodgy comment about Israel, but not a threat. The US has however directly threatened Iran with military attack. If we should use Bush's logic of "preventive war" it would make sense if Iranian aircrafts bombed Washington and Pentagon, and decimated US military installation etc. Same logic, but it doesn't sound so good when you turn the gun around, does it?

True, the Soviets did a lot of terrible things, but compared to what the US has done, they are lambs. Vietnam is the worst case with the US. We litteraly don't know within the million how many people got killed in that atrocious war, but estimates run from 3-5 million.

So the logic is kill enough people and there will be peace? That is a recipe for war. The next step would be "there are still people left that disagree/oppose us - destroy them!"
I'm no expert on Northern Ireland (apart from Annagh Utd ), but as I understand it the people in Northern Ireland got fed up of it, and the leaderships of both sides eventually understood that negotiation was the only thing that could bring peace. There is little doubt that the English did horrible things up there - Bloody Sunday comes to mind for instance - and they eventually understood that this couldn't go on.

This was a long post, but I still feel I've only scratched the surface. There is plenty of material and actions to take from. Cosmo is very right. These are very complex issues, and they can't be explained by soundbites such as "they hate our freedoms" and other complete bullsh!t. The bottom line however is fairly straightforward - the US wanted control of the oil reserves of the Middle-East. To achieve this they must have "US-friendly" regimes in Iraq and Iran. Step one was Iraq. Time will tell what they do with Iran.

Pangaea

I forgot that very last bit.

The terrorists that probably attacked the Pentagon, World Trade Center - and were perhaps heading for the White House - were trained by the US. After 9/11 there were no terrorists being trained in Iraq, or probably any other countries in the region. When USA entered Afghanistan, and especially Iraq, it was a lot easier for extremist groups to gain support. Now Iraq is the biggest training ground for terrorists in the world (even if we exlude the occupation forces). This was not the case before 9/11. Is the "war on terror" working? Not if you're sain, it's not.

Crimes is a police matter, not "bomb-them-back-to-the-stone-age"-matter. The hatred against the US in the Mid-East, and rest of the world, is building up. Who knows when it will explode, but if US foreign policy doesn't change, I can guarantee that it will explode somewhere.

I also forgot to say why democracy in Iraq is a nightmare to the US. The majority of Iraq are Shia. Iran is a Shia country. With democracy in Iraq it's a no-brainer that Iran and Iraq would tie closer bonds, both economically and politically. They would most probably be much more inclined to selling oil to Asia, instead of the US, and also Europe. Asia is a lot more friendly you know. Iran has had plans to establish an oil boerse not based on dollars. If the Mid-East jumped on board this would mean a dollar in free fall, and the Western economy possibly in ruins. No wonder Bush is shaking in his pants. A democratic Mid-East would be a complete catastrophe for the US.

Asia is already integrating much more closer than in the past few years. This is why the US wanted to get India on board by sharing nuclear technology (hello contradictions two-facedness re:Iran!!).

These are issues that means the world can flare up in flames if not the West is a bit more careful in its actions. I'm not just talking about the US, but also Europe. It's not long ago that France for intance threatened nations developing WMD with nuclear attack. If we take away the racist underpinnings of this, he will be busy bombing the Western countries for a while, but nobody seemed to pick up on this huge controversy.

As you can see there are many ugly cats that can be pulled out of the bag if we look in the mirror. The truth is that the West, and in particular the US is keeping the rest of the world under its control, and the rest of the world is getting tired of this, and wants to break free. Before jumping on Bush' war-talk next time, think a bit about the reasons behind it. Politicians are liars, we know that, it's what they do we should focus our attention at.