War (1 Viewer)

[billygannon]

Iraq rejected that UN resolution. Should be a war just in time for the New Year.


Does anyone think there's some kind of biblical nature to all this?

 

[P. Littbarski]

it hasn't officially been rejected yet....

Sadam has the last word on this, so no matter what the government recommends, it's the man himself who makes the decision...and he's stalling the ball as he usually does.

his (psycho) son has said the resolution should be backed which could be an indication that Hussein Snr. might be willing to negotiate*

*save his ass

 

[silo]

he'll accept the resolution, but piss around with the inspectors. probably end up being in "material breach" of the resolution*. whether there's war then depends to a certain extent on what's going on in israel/palestine, but i'm reckoning february.

*just like the u.s. of a. on several hundred other resolutions but you're not meant to mention that.

 

[silo]

eh, of course, it also depends on the american domestic scene, so lets hope the protests hot up... we can help by going to the demo in dublin on the 7th of december...

 

[InsidePoint]

Originally posted by silo
we can help by going to the demo in dublin on the 7th of december...

Actually, you won't really help. Don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but the UN/US/UK ain't gonna pay a blind bit of notice to a few lefty/swp/crusty-types protesting in Dublin. But it's a decent enough issue to protest about I suppose, even if all it will do is make you feel good about yourself. Personally, I get the feeling that if the US invade Iraq, the Iraqi army will implode, and a coup will be attepted against Saddam, which I'm guessing will be successful.

Originally posted by silo
whether there's war then depends to a certain extent on what's going on in israel/palestine

Personally I don't believe this will be an issue, the Arab nations don't care for Israel/Palestine as much as we think they do. Although Saddam has always used anti-Israeli rhetoric for his own ends, i.e. to drum up support among anti-Israelis around the world.

 

[P. Littbarski]

news felch

Iraq accepts UN Resolution on weapons inspectors

16:36 Wednesday November 13th 2002

Iraq has unconditionally accepted the UN resolution on weapons inspections in the country after a four year absence. Iraq's UN ambassador said that he will deliver a letter to the UN Security Council which diplomats said would accept the UN resolution which orders Baghdad to disarm. Baghdad are now awaiting the visit of the weapons inspectors. Members of the UN council have responded favourably to the response saying that it is a positive reply. There has been no reply to the news as yet from the US President George W. Bush.

 

[silo]

true, it won't really do much. a more constructive course of action would be to get down to shannon and do something to a hercules transport plane, like smashing it up; this would be a direct raising of the cost of state violence rather than the symbolic opposition of marching. though that doesn't mean that marching doesn't also have its uses...

Originally posted by InsidePoint
Actually, you won't really help. Don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but the UN/US/UK ain't gonna pay a blind bit of notice to a few lefty/swp/crusty-types protesting in Dublin. But it's a decent enough issue to protest about I suppose, even if all it will do is make you feel good about yourself. Personally, I get the feeling that if the US invade Iraq, the Iraqi army will implode, and a coup will be attepted against Saddam, which I'm guessing will be successful.
Personally I don't believe this will be an issue, the Arab nations don't care for Israel/Palestine as much as we think they do. Although Saddam has always used anti-Israeli rhetoric for his own ends, i.e. to drum up support among anti-Israelis around the world.

 

[Dan]

Originally posted by InsidePoint
Actually, you won't really help. Don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but the UN/US/UK ain't gonna pay a blind bit of notice to a few lefty/swp/crusty-types protesting in Dublin.

It is true. I heard a radio interview months back with a senior guy in the British ministry of defence. He said that protest from a few leftys actually spur Bush on, more than anything. Its sad really, it makes you feel really helpless.

I also like the way bush said he won't accept "denial" from the iraqis. So what? They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't have weapons.

 

[Keeror]

Saddam backs down, the next day Osama reappears.

Coincidence?

Is February too late for war in Iraq, I wonder? Depends on how long it drags out I suppose. The US can only really attack in winter. Too damn hot to fight otherwise.

 

[InsidePoint]

...And the sooner they get those two scumbags, the better for everyone. Ireland, of course, will sit on the fence and pontificate on neutrality while the rest of the world just gets on with it.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Originally posted by InsidePoint
...And the sooner they get those two scumbags, the better for everyone.

the better for everyone? I doubt it would be better for all the innocent children in iraq that will be killed.
didn't you mean the better for bush and his oil baron mates ?

 

[InsidePoint]

...say that to the families of the (literally) thousands of innocent children that have died as a result of Saddam Hussein's redirection of UN medicine and food to his army. Note that I never said I supported US military action (although I will support UN-backed military action). Note also that we are both only predicting what might happen: you predict that thousands of innocent children will die - exactly how? I predict that Saddam's regime will crumble very quickly - which would be the best thing that's ever happened to Iraq (and don't even try and convince me that this wouldn't be the case, because we all know it's the truth).

As an aside, I recently heard a commentator state that one of the main reasons for opposing a war on Iraq isn't because they are anti-war, but because they are anti-America, anti-right-wing politics and pro-left-wing politics (communism, socialism). You can be sure that if Saddam was perceived to be a right-wing dictator, there would be very little protest.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Originally posted by InsidePoint
...say that to the families of the (literally) thousands of innocent children that have died as a result of Saddam Hussein's redirection of UN medicine and food to his army. Note that I never said I supported US military action (although I will support UN-backed military action). Note also that we are both only predicting what might happen: you predict that thousands of innocent children will die - exactly how? I predict that Saddam's regime will crumble very quickly - which would be the best thing that's ever happened to Iraq (and don't even try and convince me that this wouldn't be the case, because we all know it's the truth).

As an aside, I recently heard a commentator state that one of the main reasons for opposing a war on Iraq isn't because they are anti-war, but because they are anti-America, anti-right-wing politics and pro-left-wing politics (communism, socialism). You can be sure that if Saddam was perceived to be a right-wing dictator, there would be very little protest.

considering the amount of children that have died as a result of the uranium tipped missiles used in the gulf war perhaps?cancer rates in iraq have gone through the roof.

I do not think saddams regime would crumble very quickly.consider it , if somebody was bombing your country would you side with them?no you bloody well would not.the iraqis would side with their government.

I am not opposing a war on iraq as I am anti american , Im against it as I think it is wrong. I am against a war as enough iraqis have died already as a result of the gulf war.and also because its only over the oil (iraq nationalised their oil companies in 1972 , it is cheaper to buy a litre of petrol than a bottle of water in iraq).

 

[silo]

Originally posted by InsidePoint
You can be sure that if Saddam was perceived to be a right-wing dictator, there would be very little protest.

what?

he is a right-wing dictator!

i haven't a clue what you mean, but the rest of what you said was bizarre as well.

 

[InsidePoint]

What was bizarre about what I said? Bizarre because you couldn't understand it or bizarre because you didn't want to understand it? I'll spell it out more clearly for you if you like. It's pretty well known that Saddam has redirected "UN medicine and food to his army." This means that food and medicine, which was intended for civilians, was given to his army to keep them onside. What's bizarre about "I never said I supported US military action (although I will support UN-backed military action)."? Similarly do you actually believe that the fall of Saddam's regime would be anything other than the best thing that's happened to Iraq in the last 20 years?

As for the Saddam being rigt-wing/left-wing, it is true that in reality he is a fascist, plain and simple. But his policies and politics have always been from the Socialist/Marxist side of the spectrum - particularly during his first 10 years in power. That's why the communist/far-left groups around Europe have always been very soft in their criticism of him. Labour MP George Calloway's meeting with the tyrant (including a filmed handshake and exchange of niceties) is a good example.

 

[silo]

Originally posted by InsidePoint
I'll spell it out more clearly for you if you like. It's pretty well known that Saddam has redirected "UN medicine and food to his army." This means that food and medicine, which was intended for civilians, was given to his army to keep them onside. What's bizarre about "I never said I supported US military action (although I will support UN-backed military action)."? Similarly do you actually believe that the fall of Saddam's regime would be anything other than the best thing that's happened to Iraq in the last 20 years?

500,000 iraqis have died as a result of u.s./u.k. sanctions on iraq since 1991, according to u.n. estimates (something madeleine albright said was "worth it", in her opinion). this is the fault of both saddam hussein and the u.s. and u.k., who have the power to stop this happening but choose to escalate their belligerence at all times. of course the fall of saddam would be the best thing that would happen to iraq (if he was to be replaced by a democratic government, which is precisely what the u.s./u.k. don't want to happen). this also ignores the fact that the u.s./u.k. ably supported saddam hussein from the late 70's until 1991, right through his worst atrocities, which the elites in the u.s./u.k. now so loudly decry.

Originally posted by InsidePoint
As for the Saddam being rigt-wing/left-wing, it is true that in reality he is a fascist, plain and simple. But his policies and politics have always been from the Socialist/Marxist side of the spectrum - particularly during his first 10 years in power. That's why the communist/far-left groups around Europe have always been very soft in their criticism of him. Labour MP George Calloway's meeting with the tyrant (including a filmed handshake and exchange of niceties) is a good example.

saddam hussein has done whatever is necessary to maintain his own power: analysing it from the point of view of political theory really doesn't make sense. i said he was right wing in that he resembled other fascists. hitler, for example, was a great supporter of the idea of nationalising core industries.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Originally posted by silo
500,000 iraqis have died as a result of u.s./u.k. sanctions on iraq since 1991, according to u.n. estimates (something madeleine albright said was "worth it", in her opinion). this is the fault of both saddam hussein and the u.s. and u.k., who have the power to stop this happening but choose to escalate their belligerence at all times. of course the fall of saddam would be the best thing that would happen to iraq (if he was to be replaced by a democratic government, which is precisely what the u.s./u.k. don't want to happen). this also ignores the fact that the u.s./u.k. ably supported saddam hussein from the late 70's until 1991, right through his worst atrocities, which the elites in the u.s./u.k. now so loudly decry.



saddam hussein has done whatever is necessary to maintain his own power: analysing it from the point of view of political theory really doesn't make sense. i said he was right wing in that he resembled other fascists. hitler, for example, was a great supporter of the idea of nationalising core industries.

when madeline albright was asked whether the lives of half a milion iraqi children were too high a price to pay "I think this is a very hard choice , but the price , we think , is worth it".

it wasn't just the sanctions that killed these children , it was also the destruction of the infrastructure in iraq.

in evidence submitted to the parlimentary foreign affairs select committee , the major international relief agencies reported that 1.8 million people hd been made homeless , and iraqs electricity , water , sewage , communications , health , agriculture and industrial infrastructure had been ''substantially destroyed'' producing ''conditions for famine and epidemics''
( and in case insidepoint thinks I read that in some socialist propaganda rag that information is taken from the memorandum to the foreign affairs select committee entitled the economic impact of the gulf crisis on third world countries , march 1991 )

the clark commision concluded that the nature of american led attacks violated the geneva convention of 1949 which expressly prohibits attacks on ''objects indespensable to the survival of the civilian population , such as foodstuffs , agricultural areas ,drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works'' as well as ''dams , dykes and electrical generating stations'' without which there will be '' consequent severe losses amoung the civilian poulation''.

more about my uranium missiles point.as well as defending the saudi economy from cheap iraqi oil , another reason for the gulf war was so america could test its shiny new weapons.
munitions made using depleted uranium (du) were used for the first time in iraq.
du has a radioactive half-life of 125,000 years and its effect on the population and on future generations of iraqi people will be insidious and devastating.
that to me is a weapon of mass destruction , no?


considering this past I for one would not trust america one fucking bit.

 

[silo]

and another thing:

Originally posted by InsidePoint
What's bizarre about "I never said I supported US military action (although I will support UN-backed military action)."?

what's bizarre is that the strategy of "bringing the u.n. on board" is so clearly a pretext, in fact nobody is even denying it anymore: the americans' policy is "multilateral where possible, unilateral where necessary"; i.e. we do whatever the fuck we want to, whether people agree with us or not. the u.n. is going along with this because it has no choice; it's primarily a face-saving operation. what's more, the americans are sticking to the absolute letter of their policy of appearing irrational to the average iraqi. consider these quotes:

"it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. [...] That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

"We must communicate, specifically, what we want to deter without saying what is permitted."

"We must be ambiguous about details of our response or preemption (edit: my emphasis) if what we value is threatened, but it must be clear that our actions would have terrible consequences for them."

"Our deterrence plans need to be country- and leadership-specific."

all part of the stated intention of "full-spectrum dominance" of world affairs, i.e. taking over the world. the quotes are from "essentials of post-cold war deterrence", written around 1995, recently declassified and available as a pdf file here: http://www.nautilus.org/nukestrat/USA/Advisory/Essentials95.pdf

 

[potlatch]

So the UN is irrelevant then. When it comes to international security.

 

[silo]

well... yeah.

the rule of force in world affairs. that's how the world operates. y'know?

Originally posted by potlatch
So the UN is irrelevant then. When it comes to international security.