# Happy Independance Day, Iraq!



## MDLarson (Jul 2, 2004)

Congratulations, U.S. Armed Forces and allies!
Congratulations, Iraqi people!
Congratulations, George W. Bush!

With the focus from the media on the negatives, I want to bring up the positives.  For the first time in years, people are speaking their minds in Iraq.  They have freedom.  Reporters are now over there asking questions about Saddam, and the people are feeling comfortable enough to respond honestly and not worry about going home, and soon getting knocks on the door from Saddam's henchmen.

It's a good thing, and the world is a little better off now, I think.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 2, 2004)

Congatulations to the propaganda machine of the the Bush/Cheny regeim. It seems you have been successful in convincing people in Maple Grove that the occupation has ended.

Now if you can only convince the Iraqi people who are still surrounded by US tanks and troops that this is true.

Let's be VERY CLEAR here. There is not one single thing about this damn "war" that it "positive"! PERIOD!!

Bush & Cheny 4 More Wars


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 2, 2004)

TommyWillB said:
			
		

> Let's be VERY CLEAR here. There is not one single thing about this damn "war" that it "positive"! PERIOD!!


Oh come on now, you're being quite unfair, I think.  One positive thing, of course, is that they are no longer living in fear of Saddam Hussein.  You can at least admit that.  If you can't, you are an _unreasonable man_.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 2, 2004)

I never said the occupation has ended, either.  Don't do that.

If we can compare Iraq to Germany, one can say that Germany was "free from Naziism" before we completely withdrew our troops from there, right?


----------



## pds (Jul 3, 2004)

Now, Now Tommy. It is a truly evil wind that blows no-one good. 

One positive thing about Iraq is that it has the military so bottled up that the rest of the "dominoes" that the "Bush Doctrine" had lined up are not in imminent danger of invasion....


----------



## Salvo (Jul 3, 2004)

I just hope our Australian troops are out by Christmas. The only way that is going to happen is if;
1) Iraq has stabilised no longer needs International Assistance.
2) Our Sycophantic little Turd of a PM loses the up-and-coming election.

The US, UK and Australia should never have gone to War in Iraq. That should've been the job of the UN.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 3, 2004)

Salvo said:
			
		

> The US, UK and Australia should never have gone to War in Iraq. That should've been the job of the UN.


Yeah, except they wouldn't have...  I distinctly remember Saddam refusing the UN weapons inspectors access, and the UN wasn't standing tough.  But don't miss my point; the UN *should* have enforced their own rules, but they didn't.  Therefore, it's the duty of responsible nations to do a little "correcting".


----------



## pds (Jul 3, 2004)

Not even yeah, sorry the UN has no sovereignty and therefore no army and no right or reason to "wage war" or do anything other than apply sanctions and attempt other diplomatic solutions. 

Only sovereign states can wage war. They can do that to protect their sovereign interests, including preemptively to prevent imminent attack. The problem is not that the US did it alone, it is that they did it at all. They were wrong to attach an imminent threat to a crippled regime. They were wrong to apply a might makes right philosophy to a problem that needs an emancipated worldview that sees the whole problem, not just the symptoms.

Hello, George, if you're reading. The solution lies in Ramallah and Gaza, not in Baghdad or Fallujah.


----------



## Cat (Jul 3, 2004)

The Iraqi people have the freedom to speak their mind, and they are saying: "Yankees go home!". Then their dauhgters are kidnapped and their sons imprisoned in Abu-Ghraib.


----------



## mdnky (Jul 3, 2004)

Should have happened years ago...only we had a leader who was more interested in Cigars and a female intern's company than doing his job during that time.  The UN was too busy bickering amongst themselves to manage to do anything other than cry about Saddam's defiance.

The last time European countries allowed a similar thing to happen millions and millions of people died.  Guess they forgot the part about learning from History, huh?

He should have been handled long ago and wasn't for no good reason I can see.  He spent the next 10+ years laughing at sanctions and agreements he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.  That alone was more than enough reason to oust him, but then you also have to consider the atrocities he's committed during his reign.  WMDs or not, the world is a better place without him in control of anything other than a jail-house bunk-bed or a coffin 6' under ground.

I don't necessarily like Bush that much, but he at least had the ____'s to finally do something about Saddam.  The worse part is I absolutely hate Kerry.  So chances are I'll have to vote for Bush again.  He's the lesser of the two evils IMO right now.  Had Gore won we probably would have been invaded by and defeated by Peru.


----------



## pds (Jul 3, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> The last time European countries allowed a similar thing to happen millions and millions of people died.  Guess they forgot the part about learning from History, huh?



Perhaps they coulda/shoulda back in Gulf I, but other than thumbing his nose at the UN, there was nothing really doing with Saddam that fills the shoes of Mr. Schickelgruber. If you want to find someone along his lines - aggressive uberracist - look a few clicks west of Baghdad. You will incidentally see the one of the main tap-roots of Arab resentment against the west. Granted, it's not the only one, but it's the one that we can do something about. 



> He should have been handled long ago and wasn't for no good reason I can see.  He spent the next 10+ years laughing at sanctions and agreements he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.  That alone was more than enough reason to oust him, but then you also have to consider the atrocities he's committed during his reign.  WMDs or not, the world is a better place without him in control of anything other than a jail-house bunk-bed or a coffin 6' under ground.



How does $40 oil, daily internationalized terror attacks, fomented resentment and $87 billion poured down the desert sand make the world a better place?



> I don't necessarily like Bush that much, but he at least had the ____'s to finally do something about Saddam.  The worse part is I absolutely hate Kerry.  So chances are I'll have to vote for Bush again.  He's the lesser of the two evils IMO right now.  Had Gore won we probably would have been invaded by and defeated by Peru.



Sadly, so will I.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 3, 2004)

Independance day? The way it looks like right now, there is more war, dying ppl and fear than before. To me the whole Bush politic was a pure mess and made things much worse


----------



## markceltic (Jul 3, 2004)

Imagine if it all turns out well,generations in the future may wonder why Saddam was never apprehended after Gulf War pt.1 for waging an aggressive war against Kuwait.Remember Kuwait?And before you say we in the west supported his war on Iran remember at the time what Iran represented!But now with hindsight on that slaughter we can only hope someday the innocents will forgive us.A thought just occurred to me that probably most of the folks here aren't old enough to remember that far back anyway!                                                                                             .         On Zammy's comments about people with fear & death well that shouldn't be any surprise.Tragic of course but you can blame some of that on old scores being settled.What of the criminals that were emptied out of the prisons when the war was on full speed ahead.You can be certain not all were there for only political reasons either!                                                                                                                    `       The earlier poster saying the problem lies in Gaza shows the lack of understanding the Arab mindset in the "west".I know I can't make that jump.Must be a cultural thing I guess.This really boils down to the need for more dialogue so we can get our heads around these issues.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 4, 2004)

markceltic said:
			
		

> The earlier poster saying the problem lies in Gaza shows the lack of understanding the Arab mindset in the "west".I know I can't make that jump.Must be a cultural thing I guess.This really boils down to the need for more dialogue so we can get our heads around these issues.


Thanks for saying that; we all know we have our own well-formulated opinions, but we've demonstrated before that we can talk civily about the most serious of issues... 

Anyway, I want to challenge you all to a hypothetical question:

If the George W. Bush you know and hate today was in office to stay, (read: no term limits, absolute power, whatever)  Would you support military action to remove him?  Whether you are a citizen or not of the USA is irrelevant in your answer.

If you can see that I'm trying to set this up as a comparison to Saddam's removal by force, you're right.  I think it's hypocritical for those who are so blindly filled with hatred for Bush to claim that the removal of a ruthless dictator (who REALLY had torture chambers) was not a good thing...


----------



## Darkshadow (Jul 4, 2004)

That depends on how Bush handled himself.  If he started acting like Saddam did, probably we would.  But if he kept going like he is now?  Probably not, even though many of us dislike him.

I wouldn't say anybody here is 'blindly filled with hatred for Bush,' though.  I haven't seen any posts by anybody that would indicate that.  Dislike, yes, but not outright hatred.

Heck, I haven't liked the man since he was governor of Texas.  <sigh>  (And just so y'all know, I grew up in Texas...moved north 4 years ago.  Perfect timeing. )


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 4, 2004)

Dang, did that thread get deleted?  Truthfully, I was talking to somebody on this board who insisted he absolutely *hated* Bush.  That was the only reason I remember it, because I pressed him on it and he wouldn't back down.  I didn't get it.

Anyway, the point is, there are people here and everywhere who say that they really do hate Bush.  The larger point I am illustrating is how people like TommyWillB fail to see _any_ good in the liberation / occupation / *whatever* of Iraq because of their overwhelming hatred of Bush.


----------



## pds (Jul 4, 2004)

Specious Hypothetical - it's not a political equivalent...
That would depend on who's military. How about if the army that removed him didn't speak our language, didn't understand our culture and had a history of emnity with us that was cast by people within and without as a clash of culture? How about if they looked as though they were moving in to stay?

As citizens, it would be our right, our sacred honor and duty to remove him by whatever means. It would not be the right of any other country to do so without direct imminent threat to their sovereignty.

(BTW I don't hate George Bush, I just think the incursion into Iraq was an ill-advised move designed by a bunch of cold-warriors that have a skewed vision of how to approach a monopolar world.)


----------



## Cat (Jul 5, 2004)

> Would you support military action to remove him?


No, but I would give support to all other means to remove him. I would call his lies lies, I would speak out against him from a political tribune, I would publish critical articles of his policies, I would show my support for his rivals, I would challenge his moral right to do what he does: ALL FROM WITHIN THE LAW. 
Bush broke the international law by attacking a country while unprovoked, he circumvented the law by arresting people without chrages or the possibility of a fair trial, he bypassed the security council of the UN, he smeared his opponents with lies and tried to boost his own stature with lies.
I do not hate him, I honestly fear him. The actions he has taken up to now are the same steps dictators have always taken in the past: to unite your people and make them rally behind you, create an enemy. To assure your dominion, request special powers for an emergency and then make them permanent. Promulgate laws that heighten the control that you can excert over people's daily lives. Control the media and punish critics.
This is exactly what has been done from Cesar to Hitler. Do you know that Mussolini said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power." This quote does indeed remind me of Bush. He protects the interests of the powerfull, so they can help him stay in power. A government should protect the interests of the weakest in its society. It should care for those who cannot care for themselves. I do not see this happening, quite the opposite really.
Bush has been bullying the world around, sometimes with success, sometimes not. He has successfully removed Saddam from power, but what has he brought instead? Up to now he hasn't brought a good alternative. Think about Afghanistan. Is there a democracy in Afghanistan now? No there is not. Is there freedom in Afghanistan now? No there is not. Not yet at least, but I wouldn't dare to say yet whether the people there are better off now. The Taliban had an iron rule there and a wrong one from our perspective. We removed that rule and instead of it there now in chaos. There have been philosophers that have argued that civil war, anarchy and chaos are much much worse than tyranny. The same applies to Iraq. We have removed a dictatorial regime, and up to now this has only brought more death and destruction. The Iraqis have lived in fear under Saddam and arguably live in worse fear right now. Time will tell how this will change and whether it will change to the best.

Concerning Germany: America dragged its feet at coming into the war. Up to Pearl Harbor it didn't do absolutly anything of significance to stop Hitler. Arguably the worst fact about the war was the racism, etnich cleansing and holocaust. As for the rest, it was simply an ordinary war. One countries military against the other countries military. A lot of innocent civilians died on both sides. Whereas in america's attack on Iraq, Iraq didn't really ahve any armaments worth speaking of. The USA could simply barge in. But this has been a much different war. Barging into Iraq was like barging into a beehive, because the Iraqis resorted to guerrilla warfar. Yes, you can call them terrorists, but in fact this is simply guerrilla warfare. Small groups attacking and retreating. If the Iraqis would win in the end, we would call them Freedom Fighters and Rightful Rebels, if the USA win, we call them terrorists and enemy combatants. 

The reasons that have been give for the war are no reasons at all but simply an attempt to rationalise the fact afterwards. Saddam did not help Al-quaeda: it was a secular military dictatorship, which is very different from a clerical theocracy. Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction: all he ever had was bought from the USA anyway. Saddam was not actively capable of anything else but "defying" the UN in very general terms. Besides sneering he could't do much more. Iraq was backrupt and dependent on foreign aid for the most part of its supplies of food and medicine. What could he have done? 

The USA claim to protect and bring freedom on democracy. The ones who have killed Allende and installed Pinochet should think twice before repeating this claim: read some of these declassified documents (introduction). I know my enemy, do you know yours?


----------



## Darkshadow (Jul 5, 2004)

Actually, I don't see much good in the war on Iraq, either.  There was no reason to.  They didn't antagonize us in any way.  They didn't try to invade us or try to force anything upon us.

In my *personal opinion*, Bush attacked Iraq because he felt that Americans needed a war.  We were pissed about 9/11, and the hunt for Osama was going badly, so he attacked someone else.  And I have actually, really talked to people that feel better about 9/11 _because Saddam was pulled out of power_.  Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack!  <sigh>

I agree with Cat on that one, though I think it's all a way to see him re-elected for a second term, rather than a way for him to stay in power (continually).  Now, if I start seeing something about them trying to get around the term limit, _then_ I'll start getting really worried.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 5, 2004)

Bush's stance on Iraq was actually a very risky thing to do, politically.  He knew the risks and knew that he might NOT get elected BECAUSE of the Iraqi conflict.  Colin Powell said as much to Bush before it all happened;  "You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all."

Bush has made it clear that he never claimed Saddam's regime was specifically backing the 9/11 attack.  The sticky point is whether or not there was a link between Saddam's regime and terrorism at large.  There is evidence to say there was, and ANY association with terrorists was considered grounds for recourse.


----------



## Cat (Jul 5, 2004)

I reiterate what I posted in another thread: _Iraq was in no way responisble for 9-11, no hijacker was from Iraq, Saddam did not have ties with Al-Quaeda, no fundamentalists were hiding in Iraq, Iraq was probably the most secular state in the middle-East. The USA helped Bin-Laden economically and directly with weapons and intelligence, to combat the "phantom menace" of the Sovject Republic. Now they reap their rewards._

Invading a country while unprovoked is not foreign policy, it is a criminal act in international legislation, on a par with terrorism IMO.

_Every single inspector up to now has stated the Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after 1995, they did not develop them, they did not buy uranium from Nigeria, they did not hide them in Syria._ What could they possibly offer terrorists? Rusted trucks?

Again, I repeat, there are more reasons to fear the USA than to fear Iraq:


> Bush maintains that despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein posed "a grave and gathering threat to America and the world."
> 
> This allegation simply is not true, however much a monster Saddam may be.
> 
> ...



As far as links with terrorist go, the USA scores quite high. They sponsored Pinochet, Bin Laden and Israel, i.e. a military coup, a terrorist and a war of conquest. The USA also strongly supported Saddam in his war against Iran. Mmmh, tell me again: who are the bad guys?


----------



## markceltic (Jul 5, 2004)

While I can appreciate Cats opinion, likening US links to Isreal as sponsoring terrorists smacks of anti-semitism.


----------



## Cat (Jul 6, 2004)

You're joking right? I am criticising a government's actions, a government doesn't have a race. Regardless of the ethniticity of the population, the Isreali government has waged war on its neighbours and has conquered land. This action has been condemned by the UN and has been partially paid for by the US. According to international law the Israelian state is illegally occupying land. Moreover, the state of Israel is using its full-blown modern military power to keep those territories under control. The inhabitants of these territories rebel against this illegal occupation with the means they have. This could be likened to the situation of the US in Iraq. Using a state's full military power, incuding Apache helicopters and 500-pound bombs, against an uprising populace with rifles and primitive explosives comes damn close to massacre and genocide. All this, regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrators and the victims. 

You cannot always scream "RACIST!" whenever someone criticises Israel or the US ties with Israel. Israel is being supported financially by the US. Isreal threw out the Palestinians from their land by bulldozing and blowing up their homes and then coming after them in their refugee camps. Tell me, what is anti-semitic about these facts? Flying into a populated town and shooting rockets at a car in a busy street or at an apartment in a block, killing not only your "objective" but also many innocent bystanders and maiming scores of them for life, tell me, would you say that this cannot be compared to terrorism? 

Thank heavens the supreme court has granted the right of fair process to the captives at Guantanamo bay, because before that there wasn't one jota of a difference between that and the kidnappings in Iraq.


----------



## pds (Jul 6, 2004)

Hear Hear!

Well put Cat. 

Arabs, by the way, are Semites. 

As an American, living in the Middle East, aware of the fact that Israel is the only true rechtstadt in the region, and completely commited to the existence of the state of Israel, I am appalled at the attitude of the present authority in charge there. 

They sponsor pre-emptive killings of "suspected terrorists" - what happened to due process? They participate in the surreptitous occupation of unowned land both on an individual level (the settlements) and as a state (through the security fence). They engage in unilateral destruction of private property - again,without due process. - what happened to eminent domain?

It is in constant violation of UN resolutions (though due to US veto - not of the security council) and even in violation of it's own commitments to reduce settlement activity and retire from occupied lands (the famous land for peace concept)

The state of Israel flaunts the very values that justify it's existence. It is a cruel occupying power that has as it's goal the expulsion of all Palestinians from the West Bank and the establishment of territorial sovereignty from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.


----------



## kendall (Jul 6, 2004)

i love european attitude about the iraq.  how they should have just been left alone to do whatever it was they wanted to do.  military is bad, talk is good.  this is the same attitude europe had between wwi and wwii with germany and hitler.

well, we all know how that turned out.  most of europe got obliterated.  they begged the US for help and ended up being saved from a life of death or servitude thanks to the actions of the US in a war it had no business being in.

europe is big on letting history repeat itself.  it must be a recessive stupid gene or something.  maybe they're just pussies.  there is no way iraq could have been changed without war.  whether for good or bad.  

sure bush is a SOB.  sure he had a political agenda but i dont know of a leader who isnt or doesnt.

despite how the war was carried out.  cant anyone just agree that disposing of a crackpot like saddam was a good thing?  he murder over 1 million of his people.  the guy is hitler.

its pointless to disagree with the war at this point.  its at the point of no return.  its like swimming across the english channel then deciding to quit halfway.  that could be very bad for the person swimming. 

in anycase, instead of focusing on what CANT be UNDONE, focus on what this thread was created for.  iraq is free of a tyrannical leader.  freedom, schools, hospitals, these are all nice things.


----------



## Cat (Jul 6, 2004)

> i love european attitude about the iraq.


So do I.


> how they should have just been left alone to do whatever it was they wanted to do.


No, that's not the european attitude: we sent in inspectors to control what they were doing and to prevent that they would do anything wrong.


> military is bad, talk is good.


Yes indeed.


> this is the same attitude europe had between wwi and wwii with germany and hitler.


No it is not. At that time ther was no "europe" which could decide collectively what to do and what not about a countries dictator. Moreover, Hitler in the beginning had the support of the majority of his subjects. Many other european countries had governements that were either very close to Hitler's nazism (like Italy and Mussolini's fascism) or didn't care (like the wannebe-neutral kingdom of the Netherlands). Anti-semitism was widespread and commonplace even before Hitler, not just in europe, but also in the US. Hitler negotiated treaties and alliances to prevent intervention in his internal affairs with many of the european countries fo the time. Since then much has changed. If there is a Europe that vaguely approaches unity, that is because we wanted to prevent a second Hitler. We can now act in a more unified and coordinated way. And we have learned things about dictators and oppression, things we now accuse others of doing, Saddam as well as Sharon as well as Bush. Saddam murdered a rebellious, separatist population. Sharon is mudering Palestinians, Bush is murdering Iraqi's. None come close to the number exterminated in WWII. Saddam didn't kill millions. In the gas attacks on kurdish villages, tens of thousands died, but the numbers don't really matter. What matters is the motive. You have no right to kill. None. There is only one single possible excuse (not a right) to kill, which is to prevent to be killed or that more be killed. 



> well, we all know how that turned out. most of europe got obliterated.


That is not true. The regime's of the Axis were Europe as well as the regimes that opposed them. The nazis and fascists, like it or not, represented much of what makes Europe europe. Cesaer conquered Europe and brought the Roman culture, Napoleon conquered Europe and brought the French culture, if Hitler had conquered Europe, maybe we would speak as highly of him as of Cesar and Napoleon. Charlemange passed thousend onthe sword to christianise Europe, would you call that "obliterating"?



> they begged the US for help and ended up being saved from a life of death or servitude thanks to the actions of the US in a war it had no business being in.


No, we did not. Only after Pearl Harbor, when the USA were personally thretened by the Axis they did interevene. Moreover, the USA did not single-handedly win the war. Remember that Russia was approaching from the East and was winning her war unaided. 

Remember not just the atrocities of the defeated, but also of the victors. the english bomber Dresden, a red-cross refugee city, holding women, children, elderly and wounded. It was bomber to the ground by the allies, with Napalm. Tens of thousends died a horrible death, while the war was already as good as won. Why? To impress the advancing Red Army.



> europe is big on letting history repeat itself. it must be a recessive stupid gene or something. maybe they're just pussies.


Remember that all americans originally are europeans. So before insulting yourself, please try to learn from history. We want to avoid history repeating, that is why we are opposed to the war. 



> there is no way iraq could have been changed without war. whether for good or bad.


That is not true, you do not know it. The UN was taking action not only to contain Iraq and control it, but also to change it. It could have changed, like other regimes change. Think about Lybia, for instance. It would have been a much slower, but much less violent process. As Iraq was not a direct threat, this was still a worthy possibility.  



> sure bush is a SOB. sure he had a political agenda but i dont know of a leader who isnt or doesnt.


I don't accuse Bush of having an agenda, but I denounce the ruthless and inconsiderate way he is carrying it out.



> despite how the war was carried out. cant anyone just agree that disposing of a crackpot like saddam was a good thing? he murder over 1 million of his people. the guy is hitler.


No, I do not agree. Military action that costs thousands of lives is never the best way. There was no reason and no right to intervene. Saddam was not a threat to the US  and not the his neighbors anymore. He was a dictator and to depose him would have been a good thing, but waging war against him was the wrong way to tackle the problem. Hence the US did wrong. 



> its pointless to disagree with the war at this point. its at the point of no return. its like swimming across the english channel then deciding to quit halfway. that could be very bad for the person swimming.


I disagree. I have good reasons to still disagree with the war, case in point, I want to prevent history repeating. I think it is wrong for the US to decide at whim to invade a country it doesn't like. I think other ways should ahve been tried first, like diplomacy. I want to make sure that the USA stop acting in this way. While Iraq is still under occupation and Afghanistan still hasn't a democratically elected government I think it makes good sense to argue over the way the USA have conducted itself and to decide whther it has done good or bad and what should have been done instead. If the war is seen as a wrong decision, we con focus on removing the people who make the wrong decisions and to elect the ones that make the good ones. If you just say that there is no point in evaluating what your government does and whter it takes good or bad decisions, then I would almost come close to suggest that maybe you have no right to vote.



> in anycase, instead of focusing on what CANT be UNDONE, focus on what this thread was created for. iraq is free of a tyrannical leader. freedom, schools, hospitals, these are all nice things.


I do not want to undo things, I want that wrongs are set right. I want to make sure the USA gets out of Iraq as soon as possible. That the prisoners get a fair trial and are not abused anymore. That contracts for rebuilding Iraq are not assigned by the US government to its big-corp friends, but are assigned by the Iraqi government and possibly help to employ Iraqi people. I want things to be done that the USA is not doing. I want the Iraqi's to be masters of their own fate, I want the UN not the US helping them. I want to be able, one day, to truly say "happy independence day, Iraq!" which will probably be the anniversary of the last US soldier leaving, and not the damn fourth of july.


----------



## chevy (Jul 6, 2004)

kendall said:
			
		

> freedom, schools, hospitals, these are all nice things.



Yes, for sure. That's why Iraqi people are still expecting these to come after the massacres of the war.

War should be the last solution. War should be well prepared when it cannot be avoided.

But these are only words.


----------



## kendall (Jul 6, 2004)

thanks for the long-winded psychobabble cat.  you can be sure i read it.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 6, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> I want the Iraqi's to be masters of their own fate, I want the UN not the US helping them. I want to be able, one day, to truly say "happy independence day, Iraq!" which will probably be the anniversary of the last US soldier leaving, and not the damn fourth of july.


Geez, Cat, you're too cynical.  Why *shouldn't* the USA help them?  Using the pessimist's argument, we caused it, so we should fix it, right?

Negative, negative, negative...


----------



## markceltic (Jul 6, 2004)

You cannot always scream "RACIST!" whenever someone criticises Israel or the US ties with Israel.
    Who was screaming "racist"?I was pointing out the fact it could be taken that way, geesh 
Thank heavens the supreme court has granted the right of fair process to the captives at Guantanamo bay, because before that there wasn't one jota of a difference between that and the kidnappings in Iraq.[/QUOTE]                         I would say probably the biggest difference was more than likely the said prisoner had a gun pointing at a soldier.Not wearing a uniform of any particular country,the list could go on.Oh I doubt the Americans would BEHEAD them either.


----------



## Darkshadow (Jul 6, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Geez, Cat, you're too cynical.  Why *shouldn't* the USA help them?  Using the pessimist's argument, we caused it, so we should fix it, right?
> 
> Negative, negative, negative...



Actually, I'd say the fact that the Iraqis _want_ the US to leave would be a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be sticking around... are you saying we should force ourselves upon them?


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 6, 2004)

Darkshadow said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say the fact that the Iraqis _want_ the US to leave would be a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be sticking around... are you saying we should force ourselves upon them?


No, I think if I were in their shoes, I'd be grateful to my liberators and *still* want them to leave, which we are in the process of doing.  The two emotions are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## pds (Jul 7, 2004)

anti-semitic means racist, so - who shouted racist?, the one who brought up the thought. BTW Arabs are semites too.

I see nothing wrong with a rightful use of military power, but it is power and by it's own nature a genie that does not go back in the bottle well. While Afghanistan may have been necessary, the next blow was at least in part influenced by the fact that troops were already over there. Indeed, once you start killing people and breaking things, you wind up having to go all the way....

The world is a complicated place and although we may think that simply invading Iraq makes it better, it does not. Even today, Iraq - and Saddam Hussein - is a symptom, not a cause. We have to get to the causes of the problems and solve those that are solvable. Many of them are parked in our own garages.


----------



## Cat (Jul 7, 2004)

From the perspective of international right, holding people captive without charges and a fair trial is equivalent to kidnapping. Several hostages in Iraq, captured by militias, have been gruesomely put to death. Many of these were soldiers or mercenaries of the occupying forces. Several hostages, captured by the US Army, have been gruesomely tortured and put to death. Many of these were innocent civilians who simply were in the wrong place at the wrong moment, like in their homes, where they lived, when the US Army arrived. Many women and children too.

If you want to fight terrorism, you have to learns a new meaning of fighting. A fighting that does not proceed with bullets and Apaches, but with medicine and education. Freedom cannot be imposed with war, but it can be taught. Write off third world debts, spend more on helping developing countries help themselves, invest in the future by bringing medicine and education instead of death. Provide food and water to poor starving nations. Then they will have something to be grateful for, instead of hating you. Al-quaeda is capable of bringing hope to people by giving them something to fight for, but what is that? A chimera. House them and feed them, then they truly will have something to fight for, by living for their future and families. People who have nothing, have nothing to lose and are easily swayed to vengeance. Give them a future to protect and they will have something to love instead of to hate. Build, don't tear down. instead of bringing in you military, bring doctors and teachers. Peace brings stability, stability brings growth and prosperity. War brings instability and america brought war. Is it strange to loathe them for that?


----------



## pds (Jul 7, 2004)

Bingo!

BOOM!  

But Cat, that sounds like optimism, not cynicism. You're out of character.


----------



## kendall (Jul 7, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Several hostages, captured by the US Army, have been gruesomely tortured and put to death.



what the hell are you talking about.  this is a LIE.  get your facts straight before you spread BS.

but when the US does step out of line with the handling of hostages, we take care of the situation and punish all american soldiers involved.

but we sure as hell aint cutting their heads off and mailing the video to cnn.  that would be my definition of "gruesomely tortured."


----------



## pds (Jul 7, 2004)

Sorry Kendall, that is true, though not pervasive. Three soldiers were just arrested for beating some guy and tossing him in the river. They have been charged with murder.

That's the problem with using force to solve these kinds of things, it gets out of hand. No American wants to believe what happened in Abu Gharib, I don't. But when the genie is out of the bottle....


----------



## Cat (Jul 7, 2004)

Well, many prisoners have been physically abused and some of those have died from their injuries. This is a fact with photographic evidence to back it up. There were women in Abu-ghraib and other prisons which appear to have been raped. There is still no conclusive evidence for many of these cases, as the US Army prevents the Red Cross and Amnesty International access to prisons. Children have been detained in horrible conditions under mental and physical duress, in Iraq and a Guantanamo bay, which I would definitely call torture. Also here the US Army has prevented Unicef access to these children. 
Besides these cases of illegal detention or kidnapping, during the invasion the US Army has displayed much unnecessary violence towards civilians. Resulting in detentions and harsh interrogations of perfectly innocent people, even journalists, who have documented these facts.

The hostages of the militias are far fewer that the prisoners the USA made. In the end many have been released, some have been killed. The criminals who did this will be prosecuted and get at least life term jail when caught. How have the American Soldiers been punished? Is anyone yet actually in prison? The poor saps who executed the mental and physical tortures of course say "Befehl ist Befehl" and the commanders say "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" (now where did I hear that before ...). How many have been condemned yet? And what sentence did they get beside a note that says "naughty boy, go to your room" i.e. dishonourable discharge "You're fired for misconduct"?
I'd say they be all tried in front of the International Court in The Hague and I would hold the Commander in Chief personally responsible. Has your Minister of Attack already resigned over this? Perhaps he cannot be dishonourably discharged because he has no honour ...


----------



## kendall (Jul 7, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Well, many prisoners have been physically abused and some of those have died from their injuries. This is a fact with photographic evidence to back it up. There were women in Abu-ghraib and other prisons which appear to have been raped. There is still no conclusive evidence for many of these cases, as the US Army prevents the Red Cross and Amnesty International access to prisons. Children have been detained in horrible conditions under mental and physical duress, in Iraq and a Guantanamo bay, which I would definitely call torture. Also here the US Army has prevented Unicef access to these children.
> Besides these cases of illegal detention or kidnapping, during the invasion the US Army has displayed much unnecessary violence towards civilians. Resulting in detentions and harsh interrogations of perfectly innocent people, even journalists, who have documented these facts.
> 
> The hostages of the militias are far fewer that the prisoners the USA made. In the end many have been released, some have been killed. The criminals who did this will be prosecuted and get at least life term jail when caught. How have the American Soldiers been punished? Is anyone yet actually in prison? The poor saps who executed the mental and physical tortures of course say "Befehl ist Befehl" and the commanders say "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" (now where did I hear that before ...). How many have been condemned yet? And what sentence did they get beside a note that says "naughty boy, go to your room" i.e. dishonourable discharge "You're fired for misconduct"?
> I'd say they be all tried in front of the International Court in The Hague and I would hold the Commander in Chief personally responsible. Has your Minister of Attack already resigned over this? Perhaps he cannot be dishonourably discharged because he has no honour ...



you paint an ugly picture which is mostly comprised of LIES and PROPAGANDA.  as for US soldiers who break the geneva convention.  when found guilty, as many in the past have been,  they are imprisoned in leavenworth.  of all the places to go to prison, this is by FAR one of the worst.  

a dishonorable discharge is the same as a US felony conviction.  you wave most of your rights as a US citizen.  its definitely not a slap on the wrist.

if you look at the pictures of the prisoners at Abu-ghraib, they are all in good health.  no cuts, brusies, missing toes or fingers.  they were not beaten or abused physically.  yes the mental abuse is wrong but its psy-ops.  every military in the world, EVEN YOURS, practices it as a means to extract information.  though its no excuse, id much rather endure that then having my legs broken in multiple places, multiple gun shot wounds, multiple stab wound, beaten, tortured, raped, and left to die (jessica lynch).

but please, feel free to spread your LIES and UGLY PROPAGANDA. as you said, "There is still no conclusive evidence for many of these cases," but please, go on anyhow.  it only helps your weak argument against the war and prejudice against the US.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 7, 2004)

kendall said:
			
		

> "There is still no conclusive evidence for many of these cases," but please, go on anyhow.  it only helps your weak argument against the war and prejudice against the US.


was there any conclusive evidence for the us that iraq does have any nuclear bombs or other kind of mass destruction weapons? Still, they just went on anyhow..


----------



## Cat (Jul 7, 2004)

Kendall, can you please tell me literally what part of my posts consists in "LIES and PROPAGANDA"? I would appreciate if you could produce any proof to the contrary of what I have stated. Support for what I have said exists in photographs which have been published in the last months throughout the world. Moreover, what do you mean exactly with "propaganda"? Who do you think has recruited me to convince whom of what? Are you implying that I couldn't be honestly convinced of what I am posting and that I have been manipulated and brainwashed? I am telling you that I arrive at my own conclusions which I deem to be the Truth to the best of my knowledge. If everybody is fine in Abu-Ghraib and the other prisons, why will the US Army not permit certified UN personnel access to the prisoners in order to verify their health and juridical rights? My statement the "There is still no conclusive evidence for many of these cases" referred to rape of women. These cases are difficult to prove, as the victims know that if they admit to have been raped they must face dishonour at home and this will ruin their lives. Hence they prefer to hide it. 

You want proof? Read this:





> "*etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force.  The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.  I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
> 
> a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
> 
> ...


*

Also you might be interested in this article. Be sure not to miss the sodomy parts. Have a nice day.*


----------



## kendall (Jul 7, 2004)

cat, your fingers are definitely clickin away but all im reading is "blah blah blah blah blah."


----------



## Cat (Jul 7, 2004)

... and men preferred darkness to the light ... (John 3-19)


----------



## pds (Jul 7, 2004)

mind made up, do not cloud issue with facts....


----------



## Ricky (Jul 7, 2004)

"Some minds are like concrete... all mixed up and permanently set."  Unknown


----------



## markceltic (Jul 7, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> ... and men preferred darkness to the light ... (John 3-19)


  Hey look MDLarson! Cat is quoting the bible   I'm not one to make light of the abuse in Iraq, but there are some out there that think it's something like university initiation rituals!I find that the most disturbing of all,& I'm sure the population of Iraq would as well.Oh they claim the "kids"just went a little too far in their hazing.Yes I'm sure the superiors in charge had to have known what was happening.So everybody here who is concerned about this issue must have seen the news about the memo that had been circulating in the Justice Dept. about torture of prisoners & the legalities that could allow such things to occur.In efffing credible!that as much as anything this administration has done has me hoping for a Kerry/Edwards victory!


----------



## speedfreak (Jul 7, 2004)

Some interesting items for the Euros to think about.

The US military still occupies Germany to ensure German "national" security.  The German people are free to govern themselves.

NATO assists in the "national" security of Europe. NATO's power is derived from the US military. The EU is free to govern itself.

Europe in free and democratic because of the US military. 

NATO/US military cleaned up the latest genocidal maniac in Europe recently in the Balkans.  How many times do we have to help you?

If the US wants to go to Iraq and bring the same freedom to people there, why does Europe object so much?  My guess is that there is resentment of the US ability to accomplish great things. Freedom to Eastern Europe, Freedom to Western Europe, Freedom to Russia, Freedom to South Africa, Freedom to Iraq.  

Remember Freedom is not free.  Visit any WWII cemetery in Europe.  There are plenty of them and there are plenty of Americans and Europeans buried in them. 

Also remember, America could have removed Saddam without one American casualty.  However, the cost of Iraqi live in that type of war would be unbearable.  The US military shows great restraint in modern warfare.  Civilian casualties are limited as much as possible.  Less civilians have been killed by the US military in Iraq than were being killed by Saddam.


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm kinda out of the loop (haven't been getting notification emails recently for some reason...) but I wanted to say a piece about the Abu Ghraib thing.

1) We don't know what information the U.S. Military was trying to extract from the prisoners; I believe that under special circumstances, "torture" is justifiable.  Having said that, I do not believe that the majority of reported abuses coming out of Abu fall under this category (meaning they probably *were not* justified).  My point is simply that we don't know the circumstances surrounding the pictures.

2) Even if 100% of the abuse cases were inappropriate, the whole thing was being handled responsibly by the military several weeks (months?) BEFORE the press even knew about it (and subsequently blew it out of proportion).

3) Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks equating Saddam's torture chambers to Abu Ghraib is assinine.  The few fatal cases of torture by the U.S. military cannot be compared to the atrocities commited by Saddam's regime (drilling holes through people's hands or just cutting them off, for instance).

4) I can't immediately substantiate this, but I've heard that the Iraqi people (at least those that do not decapitate people) have seen our President react to Abu Ghraib and have generally accepted the news with more grace than the press and the liberal left has in America.

In short, bad things happened, but the story has been blown WAY out of proportion.


----------

