retired_jmeshew

Some excellents points there. Just a couple things to clear up: firstly, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1986- while Saddam was in power- because they feared what he would do with it. And though it was pre-Saddam, Iraq has sent troops to every Arab-Israeli war- 1956, 1967, 1973. Not a good track record. Israel has historically feared Iraq. Less so than Syria and Egypt because there is no land border, but more so because Iraq has had one of the largest militaries in the region. And what did Saddam do in the first Gulf War? Launched Scuds at Israel, even though they were non combatants (at the request of the Coalition).

Second: how can you even compare the U.S. to the Soviets? Good God man! The true extent of the people Stalin alone killed will never be known but is estimated around 50 million. You show me where the United States or ANY Western country has even come close to that. Stalin killed more people than Hitler for Pete's sake.

Thirdly,as for the WMD's, just because none were found, why must the assumption be that they weren't there? What did Saddam use on the Kurds and Iranians? One of his top generals has claimed that the chems were moved to Syria ahead of the war. Regardless, Saddam had them at some point, and used them (an important point), but now all of a sudden because the UN wagged its finger we should believe that he had given it all up and was being good? That is naive. Just like the UN "Inpsections" of Iran. Yeah, like they would show any nuclear warheads or materials to UN inspectors. If you are relying on the UN to keep you safe from nuts with WMDs then good luck to you, because you'll need it. Ask the Kurds, or the Rwandans, or the Sudanese about UN "protection."

And yes, I AM comparing Saddam and Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Not in policy but in principle, as should have been obvious. Like I said, to appease them and hope they'll go away has been shown to be stupid in the past, and will be stupid in the future. Maybe the US shouldn't worry, since it's doubtful Iran will develop first -strike capability that can reach North America anytime soon. Then while Paris or London or Prague or Rome or Tel Aviv is smoking pile of rubble you can all ask why someone didn't see it coming or stop it. Maybe it will never happen, but history is replete with nutjobs that HAVE done things philopsophically similar, so why take the risk? Is it so hard to believe that Iran is capable of nuking Israel? Or Saudi? Or whoever they take issue with? What in the history of the world leads you to believe that people are any different now than they were sixty years ago? I submit to you that the world cannot really afford to take a wait and see approach with people like Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Kim-Jong Il, because the stakes are too high. For leftists who claim to care so much about lives lost due to aggression, there is a curious absence of concern for those that are at risk if lunatics like the above three are left alone to develop their weapons and their plans to use them.

Finally, to reduce the whole thing to a ****ing match about oil is popular, I know, but it's also very one dimensional. Its obvious that what you find to be credible are sources that are anti-US. That's fine, we have a lot of them here at home as well. That doesn't make them right. I can concede that some of the charges are justified- I believe that oil played a role- but that doesn't make everything you say correct. I have understanding as well as you do. We apparently have two conflicting worldviews here, and that is where it's at. I don't claim to have any particular corner on the absolute truth in this situation, and I mistrust anyone who does make that claim.

What I read, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that you have a very intense dislike for the US for whatever reason, and think the worst of it, and are therefore going to believe things you read that puts my country in a bad light. That is your right, but at least be honest about it. Saying that if someone doesn't agree with you then they are mad or deceived just isn't a very nice way to discuss issues (though I know it can get passionate and heated).

Lastly, where are you located at? AC/DC land is OZ? And FWIW, I am not a supporter of the war so much. I was initially, but at this point, I am less enthusiastic about it. I am also not a huge fan of Bush (though probably for very different reasons that most on this board)but I don't believe he is the Devil incarnate, either.

retired_sandra

So to sum up... war sucks and Bush is a twat.

retired_lizthibert

Fucking hell, I'm going to have to dust off my essay reading glasses!

KingsbayYHPE

Northern Ireland, the Al Quaeda situation, are notoriously difficult subjects for Government to deal with. One thing I've had immense difficulty with is giving the terrorist organisations justification by allowing them to promote themselves as anything other than the criminals they are.

The IRA kept up this political prisoner, prisoner of war crap when they were caught and jailed when they were criminals, murderers who killed innocent civilians in acts of cowardice when they bombed them from afar.

As soon as Bush and Blair decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, on whatever justification, they gave Al Quaeda credibility they don't deserve. Even now they (the insurgents) are planting bombs, using terrorist tactics and are probably coming out top of the public opinion struggle because of the Coalition's continued killing of civilians, and disclosures like the killing of the 24 civilians by American Marines and the maltreatment of civilians and prisoners by the Americans and the British.

Public opinion is stacking heavily against the continued occupation, in the YooEss, the YooKay and the rest of the World.

About the IRA. Most of their funding came from the YooEss and from other ex-Pats, a lot of their training was carried out by Americans and Arabs, but I don't want to invade the US or North African countries because of it because I realise the majority of the population of those nations wanted no part of the killing.

The only way to fight terrorist cells is from the inside, by clandestine means. Not by invading countries and killing their civilians.

They're criminals, they should be hunted like criminals and treated like criminals.

retired_babymwc07

Cheers guys. I was going to buy a book, but I'll print this off and take it on holiday with me.

KingsbayYHPE

Wait...this is LLM, not OTF :o

retired_lapepe

And UN investigators found out that the reactor Iraq were building were meant for civilian purposes, ie nuclear power. The US already had a client in the region with nuclear weapons, no need for another one. Every Israeli war has been one of expansion and atrocities. Look at Palestine FFS, it's basically a huge prison, and now they are stealing even more land with their wall, and building bridges and roads very similar to the Apartheid did in South-Africa to completely lock out palestinians. Saddam was the US' boy up to the Gulf war, Israel knew he wouldn't do a thing wrong towards them.

The communist regime was horrible, perhaps the most horrible we have had in history, at least fairly recent history, no doubt. But the US in many ways are worse. The Soviets didn't invade countries all over the world to control them, they did only do horrible things in their relative near region. The US has done this to a much greater degree than Soviet (terror-wars in South-America since 1954 Guatamala for instance, with a peak in the 70s and 80s), but they also invaded and occupied countries far away on the pretext of containing communism, in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea - and now Iraq and Afghanistan, and pretty much the rest of the region. There has been much discussion of the Nuclear crisis in Cuba - and rigthly so - but few people know that the US did the same thing in Turkey years before Soviet tried to do the same at Cuba.

Then there is the extension of the US policy, if we include the horrors of capitalism as well. This doesn't just fall on the US, but obviously also Europe, especially the UK. The situation we see in Africa today is to a big degree a result of the downsides of capitalism and the Anglo-American slave-trade and imperialism in the beginning of capitalism. We don't know how many million people have died of this. Just as we include the million of deaths due to starving as a result of communism, we should include the millions of deaths in Africa and Asia as a result of capitalism. It's the same thing. A horrible policy and economic system has led to litteraly tens of millions of deaths, both in communism and capitalism.

Then there is of course the military part that is directly related to the US and SU governments. No war SU fought after 1945 killed in the millions of people. Vietnam killed from 3-5 million civilians, we simply don't know how many. That is pretty damn many people.

Because there had been inspections since at least 1996, and nothing was found? The US has been in Iraq now for 3 years constantly looking for the WMD that was supposed to be there, and haven't found squat. The inspections took care of this by 1998. As you should know, even the CIA doubted there was WMD in Iraq in 2003.

They did of course have WMD before though. We know this - as the joke goes - because USA have the receits. The US provided Saddam with WMD like nerve-gas and whatnot. This he used for instance in Halabja to kill 5000 Kurds. At the time there was no protest from neither the US nor the UK. They were find with it. Saddam was "our kinda guy" back then. A quote from Rumsfeld IIRC. You have perhaps seen the photo of him shaking hands with Saddam back in the 80s. As long as he was loyal to the US it didn't matter what horrible things he did. It is quite interesting to see that this Halabja massacre - probably the worst Saddam did - is not included in the trial now in Bagdad. The ties to Washington are perhaps too obvious.

So you think it is right to compare Hitler - who invaded all of Europe - with Ahmadinajad (who hasn't even threatened anybody, let alone attack anybody) and Saddam Hussein (who did fight two wars, one in a dirty politics game as I think I outlined in the last post). The Kuwait story is a bit complex too btw, it used to be part of Iraq before the English divided it out to create a state where the biggest oil reserves were. Hussein has killed many people, no doubt, and almost all are in his own country. Bad? Sure. But Hitler-esque? No way. It's just a joke to compare Ahmadinajd to Hiterl. A hasn't fought any wars, and hasn't threatened anybody either. Hitler did slightly more than that. I could go on and compare Bush to Hitler, but I think anybody can see the simliarities between Bush/Hitler are more than Ahmadinejad-Hussein/Hitler. Just a look at history will prove that right. Very simple really.

The oil-story is very popular as you say, because it is the true one. Anybody in the Arab world can see it very clearly. Only elements in Europe and the US cannot. There we have it - "anti-US", was kinda waiting for it, always seems to pop up. If you're critical of US policy you are "anti-US". If you are critical of any other country's policy you are not anti-German or anti-Russian or anything like that, you are simply voicing criticism. It has taken me quite a while to come to terms with the US not being the "guardian of freedoms" etc. It takes time to tear down so strong illusions. But with time I have seen the world with the glasses the rest of the world have. The truth is that the US governments - especially since WWII - has committed enormous amount of suffering, violence and death across the globe. I'm a lot more worried about the US having nuclear warheads than most other countries. The US has a plicy of "strike-first" if an adversary should become a serious competitor with the US. Google for "Post Cold-War Deterrence" or something like that, and you'll see a declassified document that is quite terrifying. Apply the same logic to the West as we are applying to Iran, and the world looks very different. I mention the NPT in the last post for instance. The US and Israel have not signed it (US did, but Bush pulled out), Iran have signed it. Iran voted yes on a UN resolution that would establish an agency that oversees all nuclear material in the world and controls it, the US voted no. This would have done exactly what US/Europe/Russia wants for Iran, but it would count for the entire world, not just the regimes the West doesn't like. Hence they wouldn't be part of it.

If we look at the facts and history it is very clear who we should be afraid of, and who is a menace to world peace.

Simply not true, and this goes back to "anti-US" I suppose. I detest the policy of the US government, that is true. But I very much like the people of the US. The majority is very nice people, and they care for others, just as any other human being does. And most importantly perhaps, they hold the key to getting rid of the horrible regime that currently occupies the White House (you may remember that Bush lost the 2000 election before his father and brother intervened). The American people on most issues strongly disagree with Bush, and the Democrats for that matter. They want the UN to play a more active role in world affairs, they want the Kyoto protocol signed, they want more public spending etc etc. The list is long. And on count after count the two parties disagree with the American public. This is a very serious issue. It is quite ironic that the supposed "leader of the free world" has a huge democratic deficit on its own turf.

AC/DC land is more of a mental state I suppose. Put it in last weekend after listening heavily to some AC/DC bootlegs I got. It would be great to visit Australia once day (and among other things visit Bon Scott's last resting place), but I'm on the other side of the world - currently in Norway.

Jus out of interest, why are you not a supporter of Bush?

Again, sorry for a long reply, but these are issues that need to be discussed properly, especially with all the illusions out there.

retired_sandra

So to sum up...

War sucks and Bush is a twat.

Much more concise.

retired_lapepe

True. A bit short, but that's the gist of it.

retired_jmeshew

It's a losing battle, and therefore I withdraw in the face of the oncoming tide 90% or better of the folks in this forum dislike Bush and U.S. foreign policy. Ok ;0. I'll get my last post in then bail out before Ian's red face turns into massive aneurism!

Why I don't support Bush- 1) he spends too much money. The tax cuts are great, but if you don't trim expenses, it doesn't work. Along with the spending is the growth of government. I dislike big government. 2) He is waffler on some critical domestic issues, particularly border security and immigration control. He has also failed to lead on the issue of a sane and progressive energy policy. 3) I dislike the way the war in Iraq is proceeding. I was fine with taking out Saddam, he's a twat (in the famous words of Nobby ) but to me that's about as far as it needed to go.

Norway eh? I once heard Norway described as "the land of great skiing and high meat prices" (this from a Finn)