If you oppose the war on Iraq, make your voice heard...

You use the word "Angry" to liberally.

Iraqis are not angry at all with the US, I did say in fact however, if you'd read, that Iraqis are more and more wanting to get their own representative government going.

However, what I've ONLY refuted is that the US should follow the UN's demands.

Iraq was a "soveriegn" nation and should not have been attacked, the UN does not dictate this.

The League of nations stood by as Nazism rose to power, and if the UN is to stand by as more evil comes to power, should we stand by and do nothing?

And the claims that America aided Saddam's rise to power, that I also have refuted, and correctly so, I challenge you to present the evidence of such, as there is no evidence for what does not exist.

__________________
За родину, за победу, за веру.
Za rodeenu, za pobedu, za veru.

It's the NATURE of this war, and its failings, that you are dodging around here

I have not dodged this, as there is no "nature of this war" to argue about.

Bush followed the Constitution and Law, it's that simple, the UN does not make laws nor dictate actions of any nation, they simply and ONLY can influence actions.

The UN is a diplomatic resource, not a legislative body.

As for failings, that is debatable.

What you call failings I see as success, the conditions in Iraq constantly improve, and the attacks become less and less sever with each passing week.

So what failings are you talking about?

I think the hardest part of posting is indeed justifying the facts, but what most should matter is simply justifying your IDEAS.

You fail to do that.

Oh this time I intend to justify my claim that Bush is withing bounds of Constitution and law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch33.html

If you'll thumb through that for a while, I really don't care why Bush lied, I see it as having had been necessary to try and convince others to go with him...but really, he should have simply told the UN, that they were protecting a Hitler, and America would not stand for that...and he then should have attacked, without any "Inspectors" or otherwise.

I haven't had the time or the patience to counter Golgot's liberal stampede, but hopefully that doesn't invalidate anything I say here now. I am sorry about that, by the way. It's just that this guy turns out a thousand word post like it's nothing, and so much of his writing is just him following his ideas into weird areas of speculation. That's not a diss, don't get me wrong. It's just difficult for me to discern the actual arguments from the witty asides, clever change of subjects, honest questions, and excessive winking...which is my own laziness rather than his, since Caitlyn and others don't seem to have a problem.

So then. I'll try to fight both sides here.

You're wrong in saying that the President only needs to follow American law in matters of foreign policy. The UN is necessary because, ideally, it is a system in which everyone has to give up some "freedom" or another so that countries can coexist peacefully. And, contrary to what some Americans like to believe, the United States is part of the world, so it ought to seek improvement/reform of the UN, rather than ignoring it entirely after it ****s up.

These 'disruptions' have become fewer and further between, thanks to a well-managed Iraqi police force patrolling the streets alongside the American troops. And you say that the 'majority' is 'angry' with the US - where has this been proven? And, for that matter, is 'angry' the same as 'willing to commit acts of terror against the US?' (Personally, the biggest 'disruption', at least in my eyes, was the shooting by US officers of those Iraqi policemen. It nearly brought me back to the other side.)

The intelligence community bungled the reasons for intervention, it's true. But I think although our leaders ought to be held accountable for their reliance on that poor intelligence, the action was still justified on its own terms. People can complain all they want about the terrorists swarming about in Tikrit, but FreeMason's pictures, sensational as they may be, speak on behalf of the previous government in Iraq. What's really awful is that those are only the tip of the iceberg. And I know that you're not denying the depravity of Saddam's regime, but you don't seem too terribly bothered by it. You appear to be maintaining the position which pretty much argues that the US had no place intervening.

(As an aside: of course there are al Qaeda factions slithering through a few less-than-stable cities at the moment, but it's clear that many of these people were in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime, because the strict border patrols weren't allowing anyone in during the conflict. So all of the peacenik claims about how Saddam didn't harbor terrorists have at last been disproven.)

Isn't the absence of Saddam's regime 'humanitarian' in itself? How about the Iraqi Council, the police force, the restoration of electricity, running water, the tremendous amount of food being given to the Iraqis? (Saddam systematically starved and blacked out villages before he went to visit them.) It's a shame that such a proud culture has been reduced to recieving food from the Peace Corps, but we have to remember that it isn't their fault, they've suffered for two decades, and nearly everybody was being shafted save Saddam and his sons.

...

I guess it's time to jump back into the fray, so to speak. Sorry for not answering before, Gg, & if you want me to reply to your super-long posts that I neglected before, PM me.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Over all good post, thanks It's glad to know people out there realize that beyond the WMD's beyond the "Oil" (accusation only), this was only about the Humanism of it.

America, should no longer be some giant beast, sleeping in its cave, rising only to kill hunters who would harm it.

America shall be a knight of old. Lending a strong arm to the weak. And bringing justice to the lawless. Extending Good.

For in this world, if Good does not reside in a land, Evil does...there are no other alternatives.

America shall be ever ready, to free the oppressed, that another Nazi Germany may never be seen again.

And with such virtues, America, even thousands of years after its passing, will be a role model to all, to fight the good fight, and ignore all greed.

America's charity shall not extend only to foreign aid, we should be charitable with our most abundant resource.

Freedom

You've interpreted the situation in iraq too conservatively

Constant docs and reports arriving steadily here in Britland, and the opinions of iraqis here in contact with family in iraq, contradict what you are saying about the nature of the anger in iraq (what are your sources?) There IS anger towards the US and the UK, and according to these sources it is increasing over time.

But yes, they do want the new government off the ground as well. This is one of the reasons some UN members are pushing for a much earlier hand-over of power than the US admin is suggesting.

Personally i think the this might be the best solution i.e.: a quick hand-over of power, to allow elections to be structured, but with a continued (and multi-national) military presence to aid law and order and reconstruction.


What are you saying here?? Are you against the war suddenly? You're incoherant sometimes.

As for the second bit - listen, the fact that Saddam has comparatively small amounts of WMDs (compared to other countries), is mainly down to UN harrassment. All the lessons of the past have been taken on board [to the extent that even this frequently undermined, maligned, and indeed genuinly bovine political body can take some steps to contain madmen.]

The step to remove Saddam would probably have had to come at some point (tho North Korea does seem more pressing). But the UN had made it incredibly difficult for Saddam to generate and use WMDs on his neighbours (of course he was still trying - and they knew that.)

Marvellous to know you think you're correct . This is considered common knowledge, to varying degrees, amongst european press. I assume the original info/source was fairly light i.e. from diplomats, or "intelligence" reports (). (The only sort of things that are considered purely "alledged" are the ones about whether the CIA helped Saddam and others in a failed assassination attempt on the ex-brigadier character running the revolutionists who removed the Brits.)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Erm, help, world calling strange insular american. You can't justify international actions under national laws. If you wish there to be international laws then don't drop out of agreements like the recent ICC one.

The UN, despite all its failings, might be the one thing that can pull our fat out of the fire here. So i'd be nicer about it if i were you (at any rate, it will have to be a collective of internationals coming to "our"/Iraq's aid.)

By the nature of the war, i meant that it needed to be multilateral to have been able to succeed more smoothly in the regime-change (and the "leaving gracefully" stage ). Having it being US led is a red rag to a bull. It's stupidity itself.

Heheheh. That's an intriguing notion. We'll see (after all, things will restabilise one way or the other eventually, i just don't think it's currently the smooth sliding scale you perceive). It's not how the iraqis seem to see it. But ok, so long as the new statedly-anti-us militia groupettes that keep filming themselves don't attack anyone else, things'll be just dandy. I think the fairly steady hit count on soldiers undermines your interpretation too.

I'm not thumbing through your federal laws, as they seem fairly irrelevant here. I am however looking forward to hearing the sources/thinking behind the claims of legality of British involvement in the war. We might be able to sue TB, if they've twisted it all too much (again)

As for the rest. You are a rabid dog my man, a rabid frothing dog. Aside from all the inconsistancies in the supposed "moral" claim (i.e. why not other suffering countires that also threaten their neighbours, much more than iraq in fact etc) - it's not how international politics is normally performed (and when it is it's done badly, like Kosovo, where america had to be prodded and pushed into it). I would love it if it were so, but power politics suggest that profit and stability come first to these guys. Ironically this action may actually have destabilised the area more (i.e. Saddam on the run wasn't threatening or colluding with anyone, successfully).

I do hope things work out well in iraq, and in a beneficial way for the region. But that's just a hope - it's not looking that likely in reality right now.

Heheheh. That's such a nice description. Cheers stevo. I am trying to lessen my word-flow as time goes by. But i think Cait and the likes just jump on an ice floe of sense if they see one go by. Don't blame y'all

Erm, i think loads of stuff just doesn't get reported. On the docs you can see burnt out police vehicles and accidental shootings of civilians and other signs of continuing unrest on all sides. And these are shot over the last few weeks it seems. I admit, new reports haven't mentioned anything (big) recently.

The general anger, as it comes across, does facilitate a terrorist-nurturing environment to me. Altho many see this as a necessary period of suffering, they are also dismayed at the progress of the supposed world leaders. Others just see all of this as reasons to turn their hate to actions. (some say things like, the US must fix everything up then ship out within 4 months or so etc, or they'll also take matters into their own hands!)


Well, from this side, it looks like the politicians bungled most, by using what intelligence they had to decide to go to war when they did. And bungled even more by failing to convince other world nations this was the best course (all made next to impossible by the US's hard stance on getting things its own way)

So, i know i don't seem to pay much attention to Saddam's record, but i do! Like so many anti-this-war people, I'm happy saddam is gone, but we foresee more instability and suffering brought about due to the nautre of this invasion/occupation. That's why we were against war in this way.

Oh come on. The strict border controls were a nonsense. Saddam was known to be trading on the black market all the while, and the interim report does show he was planning to get long range weapons delivered for a start. But more than that - most assessments and reports i've seen say the attacks are from outside terrorists who've arrived recently (from Iran etc), Baath loyalists, and locals with terrorist tendancies who didn't express them under Saddam's rule [i.e. they didn't have the US on their doorstep ]). Where's your evidence that Saddam harboured terrorists Stevo?? He gave funds, like many others, to Palestinians, yes. But what else? You can't invade in a way that will be perceived as occupation by some, and then say they were a terrorist all along coz they're now attacking you. That's silly.

It's only humanitarian in potentia, coz the violence on the streets and the intermitant nature of resources (especially fuel shortages!! Caused by intermittant electricity apparently), make everything still very fraught, just in a different way. [i've seen recent pictures of queues for petrol backing this up]

The problem is the long-term potential for instability. If it does unfold in a bad way, with US-Arab bad relations embedding themselves in this region - with Iran getting drawn in, with other countries potentially rebelling against US intereference in their countries (Saudis etc), or with the US trying to clamp down with an iron fist to prevent these things ....well then, no new regime is going to be able to protect their citizens from the violence and disruption of all that.


Good to have you bakc. No worries on the older posts - I'm sure i'll churn out another rambling bit of non-reductionism soon . I'm off to find the bulletin points button (see, wasn't a wink)

Overall, such a funny post. Thank you for fully establishing your credentials as a raving lunatic.

Only??? Only??? You are so deluded. It's not even a proven outcome yet. And oil profit is not an accusation - as soon as that oil goes back to petrodollars (if it hasn't already), that's a huge profit for america. Fact.

Ahahahahahaha, Ohohohohohh. You bring tears to my eyes. Such a funny boy. The Knight of old. Good versus Evil. It's all so clear now.



Nice sentiments chum. But now rub the arrogance-dust from your eyes, and recognise that this is not a moral crusade you are embarked on. Nor is it seen as such around the world. In fact, many people are more likely to see it as an expansionist act by the US - a pseudo-nazi affair. Seeing as the instigators of this action can't claim WMDs or Terrorism as a reason for going in, you therefore believe this backs up your idea that this is the US on the white horse off to fight the bad people??

Please please Freemason, brick up your mouth before any more fanciful context-free fantasy escapes. Your perception of the world is so black and white i wouldn't be surprised if you thought things were mainly pure good or pure evil i.e. Saddam's pure evil and the US admin is pure good. What does that make Donny Rumsfeld then, for having sold anthrax spores to Saddam in oil/trade deals in 82?

Now you must know the world's not that simple. Why try applying your simplistic thinking to such a broad and complex problem as this? Why? Coz baby, "you can't handle the truth" - You think you're the hard-liner doing the right and mighty thing - while instead your undermining your own dreams from within. Very sad.

I don't have a lot of time, nor care to point out all your flaws golgot as most are just differences in opinions.

First let me state, the last time We did listen to the UN, and it resulted in the deaths of 200,000 Iraqis from 1990 - 2000 of which most we are now uncovering in the deserts of Iraq.

As for what your news agencies get? I don't consider your news agencies much better than say our New York Times...you know what the New York Times did?

They posted a picture, of a beat up man, bleeding in the face, with an Israeli Gaurd above him with a club. And the caption read, "Israeli Gaurd and Palestinian on Temple Mount."

Well in the next few days, came a letter from that man's father, "That is my son, and he's not Palestinian, but American, and he is Jewish, and that gaurd was beating off a crowd of Palestinians...and it's not the Temple Mount..."

The only retraction from New York Times was a reposting of that same picture and a caption "American Student beaten by palestinians..." Greatly forgetting that he was Jewish...

This kind of dispicable behavior is through and through both American and especially European News papers, and news agencies, particularly Rueters and BBC. Those are YOUR sources of information?

I don't doubt it as you seem to think the Iraqis are discontent with what we've done.

How about you read this.

The Speech of Dr Chalaby to UN in English part1


Ladies and gentlemen

I came to you to convey the voice of Iraqi human, who suffered the hardships of all the times. The nearest ones, to him, caused him all sorts of the most severe atrocities, violated his moral sanctuaries, murdered his people, insulted him, deprived him, abused him and sent him to hopeless wars.

His brothers and his neighbours kept quiet and pretended didn’t know about his predicament. But they blamed him when he raised his voice. All around the world, the Mercenaries cooperated with his oppressor and executioner to profit from his predicament.

A few said the truth full-heartedly, a few took notice to the catastrophe of this human and declared he was oppressed but no one responded. So the Iraqi human stayed lost and oppressed twice, once from the oppression of the atrocities inflicted by the tyrannical system in his own home and once by the oppression of the twisted tongues, cover ups, which are the worst. But this Iraqi human didn’t surrender to despair. He persisted resolutely fighting in his thinking, by words and by practice until he achieved what he wanted.

I come to you today to bring you the voice of this Iraqi human as much as possible, declaring with it the end of cover-ups and calling every one, one by one to listen to him.

I come to you today to show you four fundamental facts to point out two rights through them.


The first fact that I start with is that the long dark night of Iraq has gone. Then the bitter experience that the Iraqis witnessed throughout three decades of coercion, persecution, tyranny and humiliation have ended with the escape of the head of the regime and its followers and the fall of its symbols in Baghdad areas and all over Iraq ...

As for the second fact, the liberation of Iraq and whatever took place for that purpose, were liberations without doubt, it would not have happened if not for President Bush’s resolute determination, which coalition countries abided by, USA and UK were on the forefront of this, but today we hear the voices of Sceptics regarding the intentions of USA and UK for liberating Iraq. We call these Sceptics to visit mass graves, to visit the marshes and Halabja and to see the long lists of the disappeared ones, whom the regime deprived from their right to life

And the third fact is that the liberation came as an embodiment of the will of complete Iraqi patriotism, and it came as the result of the persistent work of the Iraqi opposition groups against the extinct system throughout the long years, during which hundreds of thousands martyred. The last ones were not martyr Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Al-Hakim and his comrades ‘may god rest their soul’, who opened a new page in the record of Iraqi heroism on the day of last August, the day of Iraqi Martyrdom. This also includes the Martyr Mrs Al-Hashimy, who became the victim of treachery

And here the fourth fact is that the fall of the regime is not some thing exceptional except the beginning on the way of the birth of new Iraq, this birth that all Iraqi patriots spared no effort in the preparation of the means to, in their Iraq and in their Diaspora as well, and the time for this has started today...

To be compliteded:

America is justified in her actions of removing Saddam, and the Neo-Nazi European Union controlled UN should shut up.

Or do I need to remind you, that it is the Anti-semitism of Britain that inspired Hitler when he was doing his research during his "mein kampf" period.

There seems to be a few nations on this earth that are free from such hate crimes as slavery of races or genocide of races, and none of them are in Europe.

But at least America tries to make up for their past crimes. Too bad europe doesn't do the same.

Glad you see that. Now, start to imagine the idea, that if i possibly sit near one extreme, then you sit far off towards the other. You are extreme. (I'm reasonable )

Yes, there was laziness and greed behind that decision. The UN's far from perfect. But in this current situation it's still "our" (how i hate being even vaguely related to arseholes like yourself) best hope of gaining a functioning, international rescue-plan for iraq. A US led coalition-of-the-milling is just SO UNLIKELY TO WORK. You'll be a magnet for terrorism all the way down the line. Face the reality.

Honestly, Freebie....firstly
-The New York Times was also the one that never checked up on that jorno writing nonsense about the sniper etc wasn't it? Nice example! And besides, with the monopolies restrictions being removed on the US press, they're such a great role-model for the world - not to mention being famously slanted/conservative-dominated in mainstream formats. NBC is owned by General Electric, a prime military-industrial complex contractor; there's a Bush in Fox; and Rummy worked for the Tribune company (Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, NY's Channel 11 etc etc). So yeah, all looks above board and trustable

-The only criticisms you muster against european press is that they consistantly contradict your point of view. That's not a valid criticism. Are you saying that coz the british press is prepared to criticise as well as praise governmental action they're dangerously leftist perhaps? My standard sources are: The Guardian/Times/Observer/Independant (all the more rigourous ones - even if the Times is part of the evil Murdoch empire ), INDEPENDANT documentaries, attributed documentaries and reports from ALL news sources available to me, and international online papers. The docs are the things that especially don't seem to make it your side. The advantage of being close you see - we can go and have a look - in great numbers. And report back. i take it you're saying i shouldn't listen to people from countries opposed to or neutral in the war? I take it i shouldn't listen to reports by british journalists. I take it that you belive it's ALL unsubstantiated lies, coz they contradict what you believe for the most part, and coz there's a lack of jornalistic integrity and rigorosity in the US the moment (which is a huge shame - coz your "fact-checker" system is more rigourous than the sensationalist and inaccurate approaches of many papers in this country - but notice - NOT ALL - just as i dare say the best aspects of american democracy-preservation still exist, just in a fairly muzzled/muffled form until recently)

The speech was interesting btw - altho it just backs up what we already know - Saddam was scum and they're very happy he's gone. When was this speech btw? Recent? Or just after the war "finished"? Was he perhaps addressing the UN coz he knows they're needed to fix things up i.e. a "world"-intervention. Could be. He's an educated man

Please note tho - that the leader of Afghanistan, for example, makes very polite speeches while touring for aid, as he did the other day at the Labour conference. But he's talked more frankly to doc-makers etc, about the woeful state of his country and the attempts to stem its return to anarchy and extremism. Interesting that eh?

Ahahahah. - oh you're so cute. So the European union controls the UN now (but China controls them yeah?). You eejut - if anyone could be accused of "controlling" the Un, it's the US. You have the most influence in almost all international spheres of decision making - and are often noted for being exceptionally greedy and obstructive in neogitation, and then frquently absent from signing up when things don't go your way.

Erm, well, what british anti-semitism are you talking about? There was Molesly (or however you spell it - the charasmatic leader of the socially-abhorred fascist movement. As abhorred and unsuccessful as the tiny British National Party is today in fact.). But, it's always possible some institutionalised anti-semitism wasn't passed on to us during history classes. I know of none, and that includes the ridiculous Mosley. If anything, we learnt that it was Mussolini's social-structuring, bombast and scapegoat-utilising that encouraged Hitler to his horrific course of action. Not Britain. We know he liked the Uk - saw us as genetic and cultural allies - but that doesn't mean he wasn't misguided in that as he was in many things. Now - substantiate that slur on my country (and explain why even rabid jewish fundamentalists i've come across have never mentioned it)

What the F*CK are you talking about? In what way has europe failed to make up for the crimes which you mention - perpetrated equally in your country???? You've already conveniently forgotten that Britain dropped out of slavery before the US (tho for the same venal profiteering reasons of course - i.e. slavery was becoming uneconomic)

I take it you're saying coz no one invaded Iraq we don't care about genocide. You're such a moralising bigoted fish-wife. What about the coup/assasination interventions in South America that led to oppressive regimes that put down their own country men. As Moore puts it... (and before you start - the man hasn't lied - he just exaggerrates and hypothesizes occasionally the lies amongst his detractors are more worrying than the spin-thing that everyone does)....
-US overthrows Arbenz of Guatemala in 54 - 200,000 civillians killed.
-1963-1975: US kills 4 million people in South East Asia (and did SUCH a good job at regime change too )
-US stages coup in Chile (73) - Allende assassinated - Pinochet murders 5000 people.
-US backs military rules of El Salvador - 70,000 locals killed.
-1980's - US trains Osama and friends.
-1981 - Reagun trains and funds Contras - 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
-1982 - US provides billions in aid to Saddam for weapons to kill Iranians (and of course - they helped out the Iranians too in 83. Keep keeping those mass-murder figures down now y'hear)
-3,000 Panamanians killed when CIA stooge Noriega gets taken out in Panama invasion
-Iraq invade Kuwait, aided by US weapons. (and the re-installed Kuwaiti dictatorship receives US backing to this day - How nice)
-500,000 estimated child deaths in Iraq due to bombing and sanctions combined (who was doing that oh-so-effective bombing one asks? Hmm, could it be, would it be, why yes, i believe it was you and me buddy. It was the US for the most part - with, i think, your little puppy dog doing some of the ****ting-from-a-great-height too)
-2000-2001: Taliban receives 245 million in "aid" from US

Yeah, you're such big friends to world peace and freedom. Give me a break. (now of course, we need contextual stuff for all of that to really discuss each one - and indeed i'm not saying the US hasn't acheived positive effects in the wider world. I'm just saying you're SOOOOOO FAAAAAAAR from being the bastions of morality that you, Freemason, obviously think you are)

Hey! Here's that thread where I called Silver a minion!!

Sunfog! How can you talk so trivially - and today the day WMDs have finally been found in Iraq! Haven't you heard about the 800 or so "world war two-era torpedoes" found near the Syrian border? My god, you should be celebrating in the streets, our governments weren't peddling blue-pill sweets! You really shouldn't be talking about attempts to shackle silver

Is that true? Iraq has submarines?
I forgot why I called Silver a minion but I remember he didn't like it.

Invisible submarines that burrow under the sand. They're the worst sort Nah, i think he does/did have some small ageing subs actually. But like all his other ageing equipment, it was no good against a "modern" army, and contained no capacity for releasing what scant biochemical materials he may still turn out to have [it's looking more and more like he was just lying to try and deter invasion etc - i.e. he'd spun a web of apparent deception - probably thinking it was a cheaper/easier way of acheiving the same WMD-effect that other big nations enjoy - deterrant - until he could actually get his hands on some actual stuff)

I'm gonna watcha a very thorough looking doc by Panorama investigating the actions of the WMD search teams tonight. I'll let you know (i've got a feeling it's fairly scathing, in an objective way )