<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 21 2003, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 21 2003, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ummh i dont fear terrorism. I fear things that are more likely to hurt me (drunk driving / heart disease) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The majority of the american public do. thats what i was getting at.
The majority of the American public fear that they will be injured/killed in a terrorist attack, or do they fear an attempted attack in general? If it's the former then I will be very surprised.
<!--QuoteBegin--Soviet~Dictator+Mar 21 2003, 09:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soviet~Dictator @ Mar 21 2003, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The majority of the American public fear that they will be injured/killed in a terrorist attack, or do they fear an attempted attack in general? If it's the former then I will be very surprised. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Both, according to every poll made by every major news organization......
-USA shot accidentically 2 Tomahawk missiles to Iran Edit: 1 Tomahawk to Iran and 2 cruise missiles to Turkey, no casualties(Thanks for clearing this BathroomMonkey)
-USA shot UK plane down with Patriot missile
-Friday one chopper goes down, 8 british and 4 americans die
-Saturday 2 british choppers collide, 7 casualties
-American soldier throws grenades in to 3 allied command tents, 1 casualty, 13 wounded
-Allied claims to be coming as "liberators" instead of "counquerors", yet some US Marines managed to get flag of USA in to flagstaff in Iraq city, although they got it down after they realized what kind of mistake they made. It still shows what normal G.I Joe thinks of this war: "This is now our land"
-Dispite of heavy bombing, Saddam is still probably alive(or so allied believe)
-USA soldiers captured by Iraq, and as Iraq minister promises that Geneva convention will be respected, USA government denies showing films of captured soldiers. They don't want people to see "dangerous enemy propaganda" and become even more anti-war. Reminds me of Soviet Union, where reading enemys propaganda-posters would result in execution.
-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire
-Allied expected for thousands of surrenders, yet only couple of hundred have shown up
-Allied are now bombing Baghdads normal peoples living-quarters. That means, NO focused Iraq military action in there. Dunno, for fun?
-There has been a lot of fighting over "already secured" cities and areas. Guess they didn't just give up so easily
-Iraq actually stroke back(which allied never expected) and destroyed 10 tanks and about 20 other vehicles in middle-Iraq
Yep, war is going well.
I don't have time right-now to look for linkies, but if you have watched television, you'll probably know already most of these. I got all the information from newspaper(real ones, not tabloid), from TV-news and news-webpages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Allied are now bombing Baghdads normal peoples living-quarters. That means, NO focused Iraq military action in there. Dunno, for fun?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've watched a lot of news, and read a lot of different sources, and have yet to find any info on this. Please provide.
And Al-Thawra doesn't count.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the only one I've seen was the reporter killed by a car bomb, which I <i>don't</i> believe is part of the allied arsenal.
**Edit: Correction: Terry Lloyd and two companions were probably killed by friendly fire.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Mar 24 2003, 02:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Mar 24 2003, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Allied are now bombing Baghdads normal peoples living-quarters. That means, NO focused Iraq military action in there. Dunno, for fun?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've watched a lot of news, and read a lot of different sources, and have yet to find any info on this. Please provide.
And Al-Thawra doesn't count. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I read about it in the newspaper. Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source? <a href='http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_219187,0005.htm' target='_blank'>Here is something.</a> <a href='http://www.sabcnews.com/world/other/0,1009,55542,00.html' target='_blank'>and here</a> Its hard to find independent sources, most are clearly anti-US or pro-US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the only one I've seen was the reporter killed by a car bomb, which I <i>don't</i> believe is part of the allied arsenal.
** Forgot about Terry Lloyd . . . . reading up now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/23/print20030323_113816.html' target='_blank'>Hmmm</a> , I read about them probably been shot by allied from newspaper. Don't know where they pulled it.
Actually, I believe it was one Tomahawk in Iran and 2 cruise missles that landed in Turkey (no casualties in either)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I remembered wrong. Sorry my mistake, but thats actually even worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as the accidents go, do you think the fact that you haven't heard of any accidents on the Iraqi side means that there haven't been any?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I bet there has been a lot of accidents on Iraq side too, but since allied troops keep themselves very elite(like 1 US Marine matches 10 Iraq soldiers), I thought that kinds of accidents shouldn't happen to that kind of "highly trained" soldiers.
Edit: And the fact that you have managed to kill more your own troops than Iraq. I think its kind of sad for Allied and Iraq(don't take this the wrong way, I didn't mean it's sad they didn't kill more).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Additionally, one of the major Iraqi victories the other day came from an assault after a fake surrender. Sure, that move works . . . once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Concidering the armament of Iraq and that they have to fight this war desperately under-powered, I say that is a move _every_ country and human would do to protect their own homes.
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Mar 24 2003, 10:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Mar 24 2003, 10:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the fact that you have managed to kill more your own troops than Iraq. I think its kind of sad for Allied and Iraq(don't take this the wrong way, I didn't mean it's sad they didn't kill more). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This rather unique war puts me in mind of a troop of level 0 marines against a troop of onos. I reckon more onos would get stuck and have to kill themselves (or acidentally gore each other in tournament mode) than would be actually brought down by enemy fire.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The War in Iraq is going well: (and other sarcasm or tiresome failure of the left commentary)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All you posted spoken with no military experience of any kind Dread(bring back the draft). What you don't have in your list is thousands of iraqi's captured and disarmed without casualties, 2/3rds of iraq under coalition control in 4 days, the majority of the incredibly light bagdahd civilian casualties (according to NPR, perhaps the most liberal of mainstream US news) caused by anti-aircraft fire returning to earth (not from US attack), the extremely low number of so-called friendly-fire casualties (go look at vietnam or WW2 stats if you want to see FF casualties that would sicken you) - if you consider that there are 2000 planes and helos in the air and over a period of a week one plane was shot down accidentally, that's a pretty amazing number.
As for some of your other stats, they are just incomplete or wrong. There have been thousands of iraqi POW's taken, and if you read further, thousands more that were captured and then released, as they were just slowing down the advance and posed no harm to anyone anymore. Fighting in secured areas is a natural consequence of occupying a city - even though it's under your control there might still be handfuls of resistance left. If a city in your country has criminals in it, do you consider it out of the control of the authorities? There is no evidence of iraqi's destroying any US tanks, you are repeating iraqi propoganda as news. If you haven't noticed, every single US unit has an attached report or reporters, and they would likely have gotten something as huge as that out. I could go on and on here, but posts like this show that failure of the left I keep harping on, so I'll stop for now.
The post reminds me of people who experience problems with their computer. It crashes 2 times so 'it's always crashing', even if it doesn't crash 99.99999% of the time. Ridiculous expectations and bad attitudes. Believe whatever you want though.
To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All spoken with no military experience of any kind<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that a <i>good</i> thing?
The omnipresence of the military troubles me. Military jargon is everywhere, and news reporters exhibit a startling fascination with every disgusting detail of the war machinery, using its euphemisms as if they were normal words. They are losing their distance.
I'm afraid that these are attempts to make civilians think in terms of soldiers, to make them lose their disgust and fear of weapons. I don't want to adopt the cynicism inherent in this way of thinking, and the euphemisms it uses to cloud death and destruction. I should watch less CNN, but the martial pictures have a diabolical attraction that is hard to escape.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 24 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 24 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All you posted spoken with no military experience of any kind Dread(bring back the draft). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We have mandatory(mostly, you can still avoid it) military service in Finland, im 17 so I still have to wait one year <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Nem has to do with this? Is this for Nem or me?
Edit: And as I said, I read/saw it ALL in the news. What can man do if not trust news, which should give you objective and right information(I think it should be atleast mostly right information)?
OK, I've got time, a bottle with my favorite softdrink next to me, and songs from The Pimps in my playlist. Let's get back in here. As usual, Ned gets the benefit of my first punch.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Yes, Iraq supports terrorism. They give palestinian suicide bombers a $25,000 reward for their families everytime they blow up an israeli bus or shopping mall. That's just one example. They nerve and mustard-gassed 5000 iraqis and 25000 iranians to death that we know about, and who knows how many people who were merely scarred for life. That's another example. I can go on if you like?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, please do, because, as cynical as it might sound, the sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is common to pretty much all Mid-Eastern governments that try to keep their fundamentalist population calm. If this is enough to warrant a war, we'll see quite a few regimes crumble within the next year (And I'll slap whomever say 'Iraq is the first step' or something along those lines. Not even the US' economy can afford multiple wars in a row.) I fail to see how the undoubtely terrible genocide commited by Hussein is a support of terrorism - it was his army doing this, after all.
Aside from this, please pay attention to my wording. I did not talk about 'links to terrorism', I reffered specifically to Al-Quaeda, which is proclaimed the firstmost aim of the 'War on Terror'. The truth is that Hussein is regarded an unsure ally by Al-Quaida and most other fundamentalist terrorists because he's considered an atheist (keep in mind that his regime bases itself on a 'socialist' party).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Yes, they most certainly have biological and chemical weapons. They have no capacity (anymore) to make nuclear weapons, but there are 30,000 nuclear warheads in the former soviet union, and plenty aren't accounted for. Considering your point about how he was supplied chemical weapons (by the US, britain, france, germany, and other countries - try not to be such a nationalist) dissolves your argument about him needing to make the weapons himselves in factories. As for us not being able to find them? It's a big country with a big city, and once you're underground, satelites and UN inspectors aren't going to find anything. It's a safe rule to assume that if a country develops/buys WoMD for 25 years straight and then they suddenly disappear overnight without fanfare that they just aren't being made on mainstreet anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then let's assume for a second that Hussein truly has WoMD. Why did he not use them? Why were the short-range rockets that were the first counter at Thursday conventionally armed? The man stands with his back against the wall. If not now, when would he use those highly destructive and demoralizing weapons we know he has no morallic dilemma to use?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Economics - all wars are, at their core, about economics. It's one of the few absolutes. To say that's not a good reason is to simply say that war is not a good thing - and there would few people to contradict you. But to dismiss a war about the safety of a mere 1/3 of the entire earth's oil supply under the control of a crazed dictator, who has threatened and invaded another 1/3rd of that supply is lunacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, he threatened and invaded this second third. Note the past tense. Recently, I couldn't see him threatening or invading anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People seem to think that oil is just used for their car and that if Americans just drove less it would not be ncessary. In reality, gasoline makes up only a tiny portion of oil usage in America (or worldwide) - the vast majority is used for plastics. Unless you are willing to stop using plastics, you are unwilling to give up your main dependence on oil. This means you can probably multiply by 100x the number of people who die in a hospital each year without sterile plastic medical supplies, for just one example. We can all live in the 1850's again...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, a big portion of the oil is not used for gasoline, although calling that part a 'tiny fraction' is a <i>slight</i> understatement, but apart from that, you're getting overly dramatical. Many plastics can nowadays be exchanged with non-oil based substitutes, for example. The core issue is that the American economy, which features a traditionally strong oil lobby and traditionally lobby dependent administrations, has never been forced into oil-preserving methods and thus consumes unholyly big amounts of oil which just get more and more expensive with the continually rising oil prices. If an economy demands something, like cheap oil, it's almost impossible for a government, especially one which features members that have oil tankers named after them, to withstand that call. The arising problem is that even obtaining those new sources will only buy a little more time, and that at a horribly high price. Sooner or later, the economies of this planet will have to be readjusted to become energy-preserving, instead of energy-consuming.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Politics - yes, Iraq is a good confluence of legitimate defensive and economic points that has the happy side-effect of allowing the creation of the only Arab democracy in the history of the human race.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold it right here. You believe that an American government which has prime interests in the only build-up capital of the Iraq, that consists of exactely the same people who <i>armed</i> Hussein in the first place, and whoms own democratic legitimation is, to say the least, debated, to bring peace and democracy to a country that's historically only had one stable period, being the reign of its current dictator, about which other countries governments, namely the Turkish and Iranian regimes, already make occupant plans, which has <i>no</i> democratic tradition, not to mention leading figure, whatsoever, and happens to be inhabited by people who were raised to hate the possible short-to-long-time administrators (I'm <i>not</i> talking about Curds or exile Iraqians here. I'm talking about the people in Baghdad which are currently running into bunkers each night to stay safe from their liberators bombs.)?
This isn't 1945. Bush isn't Roosevelt, and I can't see a Marshall plan anywhere.
Would it be great to institutionalize a democratic system in the Iraq? Hell, yes! But in the current situation, and especially with the people who're in charge in charge, it's just unrealistic.
I'll keep the family pride issue, although in my opinion important to understand Bushs personal motivations, aside.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Nem has to do with this? Is this for Nem or me?
Edit: And as I said, I read/saw it ALL in the news. What can man do if not trust news, which should give you objective and right information(I think it should be atleast mostly right information)?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe MonsE reffers to my post <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26884&st=15' target='_blank'>here (third post on the page)</a>. In short, you're asked to further educate yourself about the specific issue.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Mar 24 2003, 11:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Mar 24 2003, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All spoken with no military experience of any kind<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that a <i>good</i> thing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Absolutely not! Because you can have little understanding of the military without having been involved in it (like most things in life). It means you end up being dependent on a bunch of reporters who have ALSO not been in the military. And you also have little idea of what to believe, as your own experience is missing. Not meaning you as in personally, more like you as in 'non-veterans'. You are hamstringing yourself.
Moving on to Nem (/me rubs hands together in anticipation):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is common to pretty much all Mid-Eastern governments that try to keep their fundamentalist population calm. If this is enough to warrant a war, we'll see quite a few regimes crumble within the next year (And I'll slap whomever say 'Iraq is the first step' or something along those lines<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entire point is that it will not be as necessary once the world understands that countries which harbor and fund terrorists will be attacked. It's very interesting that all of the Leftists here have suddenly gotten very quiet on the subject of Iraqi terrorist links as soon as the al-islam camp was discovered and attacked, and its subsequent carbombing of an Aussie journalist and some kurdish border guards. I thought one of the big anti-war points was that iraq did not have ties to terrorism?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then let's assume for a second that Hussein truly has WoMD. Why did he not use them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go ask about 6000 kurds (that we know of) and 50,000 Iranians (many more we certainly don't know of) about how often Iraq has used WoMD. Oh wait, they're all dead from chemical weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Recently, I couldn't see him threatening or invading anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh. Ok, he only invaded Iran, fought Syria, shot at Israel, invaded Kuwait, and massed on the Saudi Border to attack it as well (until US troops showed up and skoshed that idea). So you're right, In 25 years, he has only been invading his neighbors for about 10 years total. Seems totally trustworthy to me. Germany did not invade France after WW1 for another 20 years, but there were certainly plenty of indicators along the way that people ignored...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The arising problem is that even obtaining those new sources will only buy a little more time, and that at a horribly high price. Sooner or later, the economies of this planet will have to be readjusted to become energy-preserving, instead of energy-consuming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While true, it is not relevent to the present, only to the long-distant future. We cannot remove our dependence overnight.
As for democracy and civil rights, if we ran the place like a US prison it would still be 100 times better than how it is now. And I certainly doubt we will. I am of teh opinion that Iraq is heading for its first government by the people in its history, and that this is what really pisses off the failed Left: like <b>most</b> times throughout history, democracy will be created via conflict, and that does not jibe with the 'no war at any price' rhetoric. If you could convince them to crack open a book every once in a while, they would understand this.
Hopefully this came across as polite. I got a bit worked up here, obviously...
Extra note on the 'why haven't iraqi's launched posion gas yet?' question you posed (and I failed to answer): We aren't even sure if Saddam is alive, and you know darned well he keeps a tight rein on those weapons, as they are a portion of his triumvarite of power (republican guard, secret police, chemical weapons). If he's dead, or simply can't talk to the commanders in the field, that might explain it. Why didn't he use chemical weapons when he invaded kuwait, when he most certainly had hundreds of tons of the stuff then? Who knows? He's a freaking lunatic FFS...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully this came across as polite. I got a bit worked up here, obviously... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No problem. If I hadn't become used to it by now, I'd be a sobbing mess spending 90% of my time in fetal position <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point is that it will not be as necessary once the world understands that countries which harbor and fund terrorists will be attacked. It's very interesting that all of the Leftists here have suddenly gotten very quiet on the subject of Iraqi terrorist links as soon as the al-islam camp was discovered and attacked, and its subsequent carbombing of an Aussie journalist and some kurdish border guards. I thought one of the big anti-war points was that iraq did not have ties to terrorism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First and foremost: Could get a link to the al-islam issue? I haven't read a thing about this up till now.
Aside from that, the first step of the War on Terror was the hunt for those directely responsible for 9/11, and you'll have to agree with me that the US govt. tried to make it seem as if Hussein had had major influence in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Go ask about 6000 kurds (that we know of) and 50,000 Iranians (many more we certainly don't know of) about how often Iraq has used WoMD. Oh wait, they're all dead from chemical weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're getting cheap. I was obviously talking about the most recent events. The question that's debated is whether Hussein is <i>still</i> in possession of considerable amounts of WoMD. Nobody in here discusses the question whether he had mustard gas 12 years ago. Same with your next argument - I'm not discussing so much whether Hussein wants to threaten other countries, but whether he can with the limitations imposed on him after the first Gulf War.
[edit]OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for democracy and civil rights, if we ran the place like a US prison it would still be 100 times better than how it is now. And I certainly doubt we will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure 'you' aren't planning on running the place like a prison, the question is whether you'll be able to run the place at all. Even in your favorite example, post-WW2 Germany, it took several years to get the country to its first democratic elections, the situation won't be much better here. Now imagine a multiple years lasting American military administration, which will, don't kid yourself, be viewed as occupation, in a country that's at least surrounded by countries harboring terrorists and with neighbours all too keen on expanding their own territory a little. Even without a government that's proved already that it values current militaric power higher than democratic dedication about its allies, this would be a walk through hell. I don't doubt the good intentions of the people currently risking their lives, but all they'll win is further conflict, which was the outcome of <i>most</i> conflicts, be that the French Revolution, the Russian February Revolution, the two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Boxer Uprising, or pretty much any other violent struggle for democracy that doesn't happen to be the Independence War. As for the "and that this is what really pisses off the failed Left" comment, I'll assume that this is what you meant by "I got a bit worked up here, obviously...".
Ahhh, Nem I love when you walk into my traps like that! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> J/K, On to my replies:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First and foremost: Could get a link to the al-islam issue? I haven't read a thing about this up till now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it surprising you didn't hear more about this on German news coverage (maybe the anti-war axe continues to grind in the europress? Or maybe you were just nappin' <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). See links below, and a quote from one of them if you don't feel like reading it all (although I recommend you do):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->KAGAN: As far as coalition forces are concerned, Kevin, do you have any information if there were any injuries or casualties in the coalition?
SITES: Well, at this point the Iraqis have not been firing back on this location. I think they are basically scrambling to assess what has happened to them right now. There hasn't been any firing on this side.
But in terms of coalition forces coming into this area, there are reports that actually moved on the wires [Sunday] night -- American soldiers may have come in transport planes near Sulaimaniya ... to assist the Pesh Murga in taking on a couple of fronts against the Iraqis here in Chamchamal and possibly also another front against the Ansar al-Islam. That's the fundamentalist group that Secretary of State Colin Powell says is the al Qaeda link to the Iraqi regime with Saddam Hussein. So they may go ahead on two fronts.
Now, those Ansar al-Islam strongholds had been hit by U.S. bombs for two nights in a row. So those positions are being softened up possibly for a Pesh Murga attack in the coming days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a whole camp of terrorists (protected by the Iraqi's from kurdish attack, as they exist on the edge of the 'kurdistan' enclave. They are supposed to have al-qaeda links, but I couldn't speak for that. They are certainly not above carbombing journalists and kurds though, which doesn't make them any friends of kurdistan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[edit]OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.[/edit]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will continue to point to the Kuwaiti example. He uses them, he doesn't use them, and there is no rhyme or reason to it. This does not lessen the risk, and my points above about command and control, or Saddam even being alive certainly are valid in my mind. I agree that no news is good news though, when it comes to Sarin or VX...
I might suggest not using Germany as an example of the failure of democracy after a conquest, as it is perhaps America's greatest legacy in europe on how well it worked out. Yes, it takes time. No, that does not mean it's impossible. You are living proof of that, as otherwise you'd be 4th generation hitler youth and we'd likely not be having this conversation... But name as many democracries as you like, and I can give evidence that they were formed via conflict to remove a bad government or regime. I was not speaking about the American Independence, I was speaking more about post WW2, post-cold war, etc.
Interesting reads. You have the key phrase in your quote, however:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the fundamentalist group that Secretary of State Colin Powell says is the al Qaeda link to the Iraqi regime with Saddam Hussein.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This refers directely to the 'student-paper' affair. So, what we know from these informations is that Hussein apparently allows a terroristic group to train within his borders - a group with, as you said, <i>alleged</i> links to Al-Quaeda. Point taken on the general 'links to terrorism', though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I might suggest not using Germany as an example of the failure of democracy after a conquest, as it is perhaps America's greatest legacy in europe on how well it worked out. Yes, it takes time. No, that does not mean it's impossible. You are living proof of that, as otherwise you'd be 4th generation hitler youth and we'd likely not be having this conversation... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christ, stop dodging the point. Yes, it worked out, thank god, but don't act as if this was an easy process. I'm saying that your assumption of democratic elections within maybe a year, as you put it in another topic, are just illusionary - it took four years here, with a fully formed political scene that had survived in the exile. Nothing like this will happen in Iraq. People will have to be educated to democracy, and this means American administration for years <i>on end</i>, with the aforementioned government, which, as we agree, "sucks", in the background. Democracy isn't some kind of positive political virus that spreads wherever the GIs set foot. It'll take a long time, and this time, 'you' do not have, because the also already mentioned rest of the Middle Eastern world won't give it to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But name as many democracries as you like, and I can give evidence that they were formed via conflict to remove a bad government or regime. I was not speaking about the American Independence, I was speaking more about post WW2, post-cold war, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously asked, which examples are you referring to?
How am I dodging the point, and please quote me where I said it would be easy? I have never said anything about creating the the first arab democracy in the mideast would be easy. I'm saying its possible, which does not seem to be the prevailing opinion of the failed Left. Having democratic elections in a year is certainly possible. You are completely glossing over the fact that germany was in utter ruin, and that they were using 1940's communications for all of that process. It's apples to oranges, as Iraq has not been leveled like Berlin and Dresden and the rest. 1 year is completely possible, but in reality, neither of us have a good idea. I just think you are not allowing for 60 years of technological development and a different infrastructural situation. Try and at least think about that point before you discard it...
Sigh... ok, democracies formed via conflict (I'm going to kill you for making do this list rather than you cracking open a book, Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) :
Japan - enforced democracy by US military occupation at end of WW2, removal of king and military junta as leaders Phillipines - enforced democracy by US military occupation at end of S-A War, removal of spanish king and local governor France - several stages, but ultimately democracy fully reinstalled by european-led army of Britain Russian Federation - an attempted coup, followed by revolt of the people and army against the communist party Roumania - spontaneous revolt of people and army against Czeachescau (sp?) totalitarian government Mexico - armed revolt and american external influence against dictatorship and corruption in early 1900's Sweden - democracy comes out of the longish 'War of the Hats' in the 1700's Norway - democracy comes out of the napoleoinc wars in part due to the weird relationships and fighting of sweden, norway, and denmark Germany - already covered USA - already covered
Are you going to make me keep going - there are lots more but I am at work, you know...
Edit: almost forgot about all of those balkan countries like Serbia and such coming out from under the thumb of dictators like Milosevic and headed to democracy (as long as they can keep their Presidents from being assasinated by thugs). Armed conflict from both internal and external sources there. I'll add more as they occur to me. Or not. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I was trying to find any sort of info on the origins of parliament ( starting in 1300 or so? can't recall), but it's slim pickin's. You'd think the world's longest running legislative body would post some friggin' historical info... oh well
I don't want to make you two discuss it without my involvement, so I will make a few modest remarks: <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 24 2003, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 24 2003, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Extra note on the 'why haven't iraqi's launched posion gas yet?' question you posed (and I failed to answer): We aren't even sure if Saddam is alive, and you know darned well he keeps a tight rein on those weapons, as they are a portion of his triumvarite of power (republican guard, secret police, chemical weapons). If he's dead, or simply can't talk to the commanders in the field, that might explain it. Why didn't he use chemical weapons when he invaded kuwait, when he most certainly had hundreds of tons of the stuff then? Who knows? He's a freaking lunatic FFS... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you belive that... If I may quote Blanche from Tenessee Williams' "A Streetcar named Desire":
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Say it's only a paper moon. Sailing over the cardboard sea- But it wouldn't be make-believe if you believed in me! It's a Barnum and Bailey world. Just as phony as it could be-But it wouldn't be make-believe if you believed in me!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then, you say the following:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sigh... ok, democracies formed via conflict <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, nearly every change of a government form is violent. But, what is more important, most of the changes were made from within the country itself, not from another one. The USA must not impose its "Pax America" on other souvereign states. The majority of the Arabs do not want a US-led democracy. You know, it somehowe reminds me of the past, the idea of spreading democracy all over the world. The crusades were justifyed by saying they were spreading christianity to the heretic arabs. The colonization of Africa were justifyed by saying they were spreading civilisation to the uncivilised blacks. You see the pattern?
Now getting a bit off topic: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This isn't 1945. Bush isn't Roosevelt, and I can't see a Marshall plan anywhere. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you know that 1/8 of the money from Marshall plan went directly to Europes oil companies? Before WW2, Europe's main enegry resource was coal, after WW2 the USA ensured that Europe became dependant on them...
btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I feel we're facing somewhat of an issue of blieve here:
You see a big importance on the impact of modern infrastructure and information distribution, which could make a fast democratic education possible, as well as restrain the US administration from getting its powerpolitical aims through by allowing 'the world' to watch. Correct so far?
We both do, and I find this slightly puzzling, agree that this is an assault, a war that's based on direct American, not Iraqian aggression.
I, and I don't consider myself part of any failed group, except for humanity, see the psychological issues connected to democracy, as they for example made the Republic of Weimar fail, because a population that's not prepared for the democratic influences it can take on a countries curse will conciously or unconciously give this power to an authoritarian power (Germany in its past WW2 days is a good example for this, as the first chancellor, Adenauer, practically reigned like a benevolent monarch), and see this fundamental issue combined with the critical situation in the Middle East lead to a downfall, not to mention that I question the actual willingness of the current US administration, which has put every democratic rule aside during the curse of the preperation of the war, to actually create an independent democratic Iraq, as opposed to a dependent puppet regime.
I asked for the examples because I thought you had specific countries in mind. If you're making a general point, I'd say we'd better put this in a seperate thread, where you'll be suprised to realize that a leftist pacifist like me will agree that conflict can lead to democratic structures - but.
I'll leave it at this little summary and go to bed for now. Good night.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^
I'm going to need some sources on that oil stat. Too important for your point and I've never heard any such stat before. As for your understanding of the Marshall Plan, you seem to be a bit confused. The US gave european governments money and aid and let them <b>decide</b> what to do with it - that was the whole revolutionary point about the Plan! We did not force you to start using oil, you chose to do so. But I'll still wait for your sources on what you pointed out.
As a german, you should know full well that often times (note my lack of use of an absolute) changes have to come from outside. Your own country is a modern example of that. My point though was not mainly about change having to come through foreign intervention - that was Nem's. My point is that democracy often comes through <b>conflict</b>, which is at odds with the Left's anti-war movement. And you agree. Glad your further slide over to my side is continuing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> .
And yes Nem, the Left has failed Iraq. See the salon.com article posted earlier, it explains it far better than I ever could. The Left's entire existence is supposedly based on freedom from oppresion and removal of dictatorial jackboots smashing civil and human rights. To allow Iraq (and the much of the mideast) to continue to operate as it does now is to condone that type of behavior. That does not make Bush right for wanting to protect American interests, but an enormous good is coming out of it, and making up for the US' own apathy to teh area for 70 years. Where were the Left's protests when Iraq gassed the Kurds? Invaded Iran? Invaded Kuwait? Nowhere - only the Left's inherent hatred of the US brings it out of the coffee houses and headshops. Utter hypocricy.
Sidenote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I, and I don't consider myself part of any failed group, except for humanity, see the psychological issues connected to democracy, as they for example made the Republic of Weimar fail, because a population that's not prepared for the democratic influences it can take on a countries curse will conciously or unconciously give this power to an authoritarian power (Germany in its past WW2 days is a good example for this, as the first chancellor, Adenauer, practically reigned like a benevolent monarch), and see this fundamental issue combined with the critical situation in the Middle East lead to a downfall, not to mention that I question the actual willingness of the current US administration, which has put every democratic rule aside during the curse of the preperation of the war, to actually create an independent democratic Iraq, as opposed to a dependent puppet regime<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes Nem, the Left has failed Iraq. See the salon.com article posted earlier, it explains it far better than I ever could. The Left's entire existence is supposedly based on freedom from oppresion and removal of dictatorial jackboots smashing civil and human rights. To allow Iraq (and the much of the mideast) to continue to operate as it does now is to condone that type of behavior. That does not make Bush right for wanting to protect American interests, but an enormous good is coming out of it, and making up for the US' own apathy to teh area for 70 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to take a closer look at that thread tomorrow. Sufficient to say at that point that statements about 'the Left' are as doomed to fail as stuff about 'the Americans'. There is no such thing as a leftist consent on pacifism, and there is no such thing as a pacifist consent on the borders of this sentiment. [edit]<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26547&st=30' target='_blank'>Voil?.</a>[/edit]
Fair enough. Re-check your quote, I added more vitriol. Night man! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
See what happens when I go to work and don't check this out? Ned and Nem go to town. I have to rush to make it to the Bruins game tonight, so I can't plow through your info just yet . . . but to reply to Dread's post,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I read about it in the newspaper. Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source? Here is something. and here Its hard to find independent sources, most are clearly anti-US or pro-US.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked both sources, and the stories did not say that there had been confirmed casualties-- it said that Iraq's foriegn minister was <i>saying</i> that there were numerous civilian casualties/injuries. BIG difference-- especially considering Iraq's habit of placing civilians in the line of fire or near military installations.
I mean, if anyone can compete with the US in the propaganda olympics, it's team Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I remembered wrong. Sorry my mistake, but thats actually even worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just correcting you, not attempting to absolve any blame. But it is pretty nice that there were no casualties, at any rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Concidering the armament of Iraq and that they have to fight this war desperately under-powered, I say that is a move _every_ country and human would do to protect their own homes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, my point was simply that this was one of their major victories, and it's a move they can only pull once. And I truly feel for the soldiers who try to legitimately surrender now, who may encounter suspicious, itchy trigger fingers.
As if the people of Iraq care about democracy. They are suffering under a cruel dictator and a draconian embargo. They want food and medicine, and will welcome anyone who gives them some. A right to vote is a luxury. If they get a right to vote, they'll vote for islamists. Will the USA accept such a "democratic" decision, or will they rather support an anti-islamist dictatorship like in Pakistan and Egypt? Saddam was more fit to keep the huge islamistic tendencies under control than any "democracy" ever will.
As for the theory that the whole arab world is just waiting for Saddam to disappear... well, that was yesterday. Now the young men are rallying behind Saddam's portait (a handsome one, from like 80 years ago...) like they were rallying behind Osama bin Laden's. I just saw pictures from an Iraqi embassy, where young men were volunteering in masses to fight and die for Saddam. Not because they suddenly like him (he'll abuse them as cannonfodder anyway), but because he is fighting a much larger threat: America, the "Great Satan".
As for the terrorist camps in the mountains near Kurdistan, that's old news. They've attacked the Kurds from time to time, but that doesn't link them with Saddam. Saddam fears the islamists at least as much as he fears the kurds, because they both threaten his power. I don't understand why people call Saddam lunatic or erratic; he's as reasonable as all paranoid dictators. A psychopath perhaps, but not a madman.
Ehhhhh, how exactly would a small camp of terrorists that attack Kurds have survived living in kurdistan all this time without Iraqi protection?
Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.
The final bit seems to say 'he's not crazy, he's just a psychopath!'. This might just be me, but whaaa? Murdering a million people, including your relatives whom you think are out to get you, definitely puts you up there in the erratic madman category.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye gods! Noch so ein Verrückter...[/edit]
----------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I miss something?
People of the Islamic faith are Muslims not Islamists that isint even a word. It makes me want to bang my head on my desk
Iraq will probably have to be split up Kurds(screw turkey), Shi'is and Sunni. you cuold have them all states and have a federal goverment i guess but i dunno <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> But who cares if they vote for Muslim leaders? Its not like the Koran says kill America in it or anything. Islam was the most tolerant religion in west.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They've attacked the Kurds from time to time, but that doesn't link them with Saddam. Saddam fears the islamists at least as much as he fears the kurds, because they both threaten his power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam plays favorites he pits groups against athore groups that is why the US will have to stay in Iraq for a while. Most importantly the US needs to protect the Kurds from Turkey and make sure nothing happens with the Armenians.
Back from the game-- though, my friends and I had an interesting conversation over dinner which touched upon a few things in this post.
Nem, you say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, sort of. The US gov't was afraid of them brandishing those weapons against their neighbors (ok, Israel), or <i>handing them off to terrorist groups in order to facilitate transparent attacks against common enemies</i>. So the fact that the have not been used on the battlefield is not yet indicative of anything. Additionally, it's been argued whether or not Saddam would use them-- because in effect, his use would be granting legitimacy to the Bush offensive. In one fell swoop, he'd shatter his cause and shine Bush's. I doubt you'd see them wielded <i>unless</i> Saddam knew his death/capture was imminent. From his perspective, the already wavering American public won't stomach many casualties-- and he can probably furnish those without stooping to bio/chem weapons-- after all, his troops are more or less expendable at this point.
Though, that whole scenario throws another monkey wrench into the apparatus-- if the US finds them, <i>do they report it</i>? On the one hand, it gives them some credibility back and makes the operation legit. On the other hand, if it's proven that Iraq has chemical weapons, what is to stop them from dumping their remaining munitions on advancing troops?
Comments
The majority of the american public do. thats what i was getting at.
Both, according to every poll made by every major news organization......
If you would trust them.....
-USA shot accidentically 2 Tomahawk missiles to Iran
Edit: 1 Tomahawk to Iran and 2 cruise missiles to Turkey, no casualties(Thanks for clearing this BathroomMonkey)
-USA shot UK plane down with Patriot missile
-Friday one chopper goes down, 8 british and 4 americans die
-Saturday 2 british choppers collide, 7 casualties
-American soldier throws grenades in to 3 allied command tents, 1 casualty, 13 wounded
-Allied claims to be coming as "liberators" instead of "counquerors", yet some US Marines managed to get flag of USA in to flagstaff in Iraq city, although they got it down after they realized what kind of mistake they made. It still shows what normal G.I Joe thinks of this war: "This is now our land"
-Dispite of heavy bombing, Saddam is still probably alive(or so allied believe)
-USA soldiers captured by Iraq, and as Iraq minister promises that Geneva convention will be respected, USA government denies showing films of captured soldiers. They don't want people to see "dangerous enemy propaganda" and become even more anti-war. Reminds me of Soviet Union, where reading enemys propaganda-posters would result in execution.
-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire
-Allied expected for thousands of surrenders, yet only couple of hundred have shown up
-Allied are now bombing Baghdads normal peoples living-quarters. That means, NO focused Iraq military action in there. Dunno, for fun?
-There has been a lot of fighting over "already secured" cities and areas. Guess they didn't just give up so easily
-Iraq actually stroke back(which allied never expected) and destroyed 10 tanks and about 20 other vehicles in middle-Iraq
Yep, war is going well.
I don't have time right-now to look for linkies, but if you have watched television, you'll probably know already most of these. I got all the information from newspaper(real ones, not tabloid), from TV-news and news-webpages.
I've watched a lot of news, and read a lot of different sources, and have yet to find any info on this. Please provide.
And Al-Thawra doesn't count.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the only one I've seen was the reporter killed by a car bomb, which I <i>don't</i> believe is part of the allied arsenal.
**Edit: Correction: Terry Lloyd and two companions were probably killed by friendly fire.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-USA shot accidentically 2 Tomahawk missiles to Iran<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I believe it was one Tomahawk in Iran and 2 cruise missles that landed in Turkey (no casualties in either)
As far as the accidents go, do you think the fact that you haven't heard of any accidents on the Iraqi side means that there haven't been any?
Additionally, one of the major Iraqi victories the other day came from an assault after a fake surrender. Sure, that move works . . . <i>once</i>.
I've watched a lot of news, and read a lot of different sources, and have yet to find any info on this. Please provide.
And Al-Thawra doesn't count. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read about it in the newspaper. Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source? <a href='http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_219187,0005.htm' target='_blank'>Here is something.</a> <a href='http://www.sabcnews.com/world/other/0,1009,55542,00.html' target='_blank'>and here</a>
Its hard to find independent sources, most are clearly anti-US or pro-US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Some reporters are lost, and are suspected to have died from allied fire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the only one I've seen was the reporter killed by a car bomb, which I <i>don't</i> believe is part of the allied arsenal.
** Forgot about Terry Lloyd . . . . reading up now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/23/print20030323_113816.html' target='_blank'>Hmmm</a> , I read about them probably been shot by allied from newspaper. Don't know where they pulled it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-USA shot accidentically 2 Tomahawk missiles to Iran<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I believe it was one Tomahawk in Iran and 2 cruise missles that landed in Turkey (no casualties in either)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I remembered wrong. Sorry my mistake, but thats actually even worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as the accidents go, do you think the fact that you haven't heard of any accidents on the Iraqi side means that there haven't been any?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I bet there has been a lot of accidents on Iraq side too, but since allied troops keep themselves very elite(like 1 US Marine matches 10 Iraq soldiers), I thought that kinds of accidents shouldn't happen to that kind of "highly trained" soldiers.
Edit: And the fact that you have managed to kill more your own troops than Iraq. I think its kind of sad for Allied and Iraq(don't take this the wrong way, I didn't mean it's sad they didn't kill more).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Additionally, one of the major Iraqi victories the other day came from an assault after a fake surrender. Sure, that move works . . . once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Concidering the armament of Iraq and that they have to fight this war desperately under-powered, I say that is a move _every_ country and human would do to protect their own homes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This rather unique war puts me in mind of a troop of level 0 marines against a troop of onos. I reckon more onos would get stuck and have to kill themselves (or acidentally gore each other in tournament mode) than would be actually brought down by enemy fire.
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> (hmmm, onos not to scale)</span>
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo-->
All you posted spoken with no military experience of any kind Dread(bring back the draft). What you don't have in your list is thousands of iraqi's captured and disarmed without casualties, 2/3rds of iraq under coalition control in 4 days, the majority of the incredibly light bagdahd civilian casualties (according to NPR, perhaps the most liberal of mainstream US news) caused by anti-aircraft fire returning to earth (not from US attack), the extremely low number of so-called friendly-fire casualties (go look at vietnam or WW2 stats if you want to see FF casualties that would sicken you) - if you consider that there are 2000 planes and helos in the air and over a period of a week one plane was shot down accidentally, that's a pretty amazing number.
As for some of your other stats, they are just incomplete or wrong. There have been thousands of iraqi POW's taken, and if you read further, thousands more that were captured and then released, as they were just slowing down the advance and posed no harm to anyone anymore. Fighting in secured areas is a natural consequence of occupying a city - even though it's under your control there might still be handfuls of resistance left. If a city in your country has criminals in it, do you consider it out of the control of the authorities? There is no evidence of iraqi's destroying any US tanks, you are repeating iraqi propoganda as news. If you haven't noticed, every single US unit has an attached report or reporters, and they would likely have gotten something as huge as that out. I could go on and on here, but posts like this show that failure of the left I keep harping on, so I'll stop for now.
The post reminds me of people who experience problems with their computer. It crashes 2 times so 'it's always crashing', even if it doesn't crash 99.99999% of the time. Ridiculous expectations and bad attitudes. Believe whatever you want though.
To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.
Isn't that a <i>good</i> thing?
The omnipresence of the military troubles me. Military jargon is everywhere, and news reporters exhibit a startling fascination with every disgusting detail of the war machinery, using its euphemisms as if they were normal words. They are losing their distance.
I'm afraid that these are attempts to make civilians think in terms of soldiers, to make them lose their disgust and fear of weapons. I don't want to adopt the cynicism inherent in this way of thinking, and the euphemisms it uses to cloud death and destruction. I should watch less CNN, but the martial pictures have a diabolical attraction that is hard to escape.
We have mandatory(mostly, you can still avoid it) military service in Finland, im 17 so I still have to wait one year <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Nem has to do with this? Is this for Nem or me?
Edit: And as I said, I read/saw it ALL in the news. What can man do if not trust news, which should give you objective and right information(I think it should be atleast mostly right information)?
As usual, Ned gets the benefit of my first punch.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Yes, Iraq supports terrorism. They give palestinian suicide bombers a $25,000 reward for their families everytime they blow up an israeli bus or shopping mall. That's just one example. They nerve and mustard-gassed 5000 iraqis and 25000 iranians to death that we know about, and who knows how many people who were merely scarred for life. That's another example. I can go on if you like?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, please do, because, as cynical as it might sound, the sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is common to pretty much all Mid-Eastern governments that try to keep their fundamentalist population calm. If this is enough to warrant a war, we'll see quite a few regimes crumble within the next year (And I'll slap whomever say 'Iraq is the first step' or something along those lines. Not even the US' economy can afford multiple wars in a row.)
I fail to see how the undoubtely terrible genocide commited by Hussein is a support of terrorism - it was his army doing this, after all.
Aside from this, please pay attention to my wording. I did not talk about 'links to terrorism', I reffered specifically to Al-Quaeda, which is proclaimed the firstmost aim of the 'War on Terror'. The truth is that Hussein is regarded an unsure ally by Al-Quaida and most other fundamentalist terrorists because he's considered an atheist (keep in mind that his regime bases itself on a 'socialist' party).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Yes, they most certainly have biological and chemical weapons. They have no capacity (anymore) to make nuclear weapons, but there are 30,000 nuclear warheads in the former soviet union, and plenty aren't accounted for. Considering your point about how he was supplied chemical weapons (by the US, britain, france, germany, and other countries - try not to be such a nationalist) dissolves your argument about him needing to make the weapons himselves in factories. As for us not being able to find them? It's a big country with a big city, and once you're underground, satelites and UN inspectors aren't going to find anything. It's a safe rule to assume that if a country develops/buys WoMD for 25 years straight and then they suddenly disappear overnight without fanfare that they just aren't being made on mainstreet anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then let's assume for a second that Hussein truly has WoMD. Why did he not use them? Why were the short-range rockets that were the first counter at Thursday conventionally armed? The man stands with his back against the wall. If not now, when would he use those highly destructive and demoralizing weapons we know he has no morallic dilemma to use?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Economics - all wars are, at their core, about economics. It's one of the few absolutes. To say that's not a good reason is to simply say that war is not a good thing - and there would few people to contradict you. But to dismiss a war about the safety of a mere 1/3 of the entire earth's oil supply under the control of a crazed dictator, who has threatened and invaded another 1/3rd of that supply is lunacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, he threatened and invaded this second third. Note the past tense. Recently, I couldn't see him threatening or invading anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People seem to think that oil is just used for their car and that if Americans just drove less it would not be ncessary. In reality, gasoline makes up only a tiny portion of oil usage in America (or worldwide) - the vast majority is used for plastics. Unless you are willing to stop using plastics, you are unwilling to give up your main dependence on oil. This means you can probably multiply by 100x the number of people who die in a hospital each year without sterile plastic medical supplies, for just one example. We can all live in the 1850's again...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, a big portion of the oil is not used for gasoline, although calling that part a 'tiny fraction' is a <i>slight</i> understatement, but apart from that, you're getting overly dramatical. Many plastics can nowadays be exchanged with non-oil based substitutes, for example.
The core issue is that the American economy, which features a traditionally strong oil lobby and traditionally lobby dependent administrations, has never been forced into oil-preserving methods and thus consumes unholyly big amounts of oil which just get more and more expensive with the continually rising oil prices. If an economy demands something, like cheap oil, it's almost impossible for a government, especially one which features members that have oil tankers named after them, to withstand that call.
The arising problem is that even obtaining those new sources will only buy a little more time, and that at a horribly high price. Sooner or later, the economies of this planet will have to be readjusted to become energy-preserving, instead of energy-consuming.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Politics - yes, Iraq is a good confluence of legitimate defensive and economic points that has the happy side-effect of allowing the creation of the only Arab democracy in the history of the human race.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold it right here.
You believe that an American government which has prime interests in the only build-up capital of the Iraq, that consists of exactely the same people who <i>armed</i> Hussein in the first place, and whoms own democratic legitimation is, to say the least, debated, to bring peace and democracy to a country that's historically only had one stable period, being the reign of its current dictator, about which other countries governments, namely the Turkish and Iranian regimes, already make occupant plans, which has <i>no</i> democratic tradition, not to mention leading figure, whatsoever, and happens to be inhabited by people who were raised to hate the possible short-to-long-time administrators (I'm <i>not</i> talking about Curds or exile Iraqians here. I'm talking about the people in Baghdad which are currently running into bunkers each night to stay safe from their liberators bombs.)?
This isn't 1945. Bush isn't Roosevelt, and I can't see a Marshall plan anywhere.
Would it be great to institutionalize a democratic system in the Iraq? Hell, yes! But in the current situation, and especially with the people who're in charge in charge, it's just unrealistic.
I'll keep the family pride issue, although in my opinion important to understand Bushs personal motivations, aside.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To paraphrase Nem in another post, I don't want to harp on people's educations here, but FFS go read a history book would you? You are uterrly uninformed, and making yourself look very foolish in my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Nem has to do with this? Is this for Nem or me?
Edit: And as I said, I read/saw it ALL in the news. What can man do if not trust news, which should give you objective and right information(I think it should be atleast mostly right information)?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe MonsE reffers to my post <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26884&st=15' target='_blank'>here (third post on the page)</a>. In short, you're asked to further educate yourself about the specific issue.
Isn't that a <i>good</i> thing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely not! Because you can have little understanding of the military without having been involved in it (like most things in life). It means you end up being dependent on a bunch of reporters who have ALSO not been in the military. And you also have little idea of what to believe, as your own experience is missing. Not meaning you as in personally, more like you as in 'non-veterans'. You are hamstringing yourself.
Moving on to Nem (/me rubs hands together in anticipation):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is common to pretty much all Mid-Eastern governments that try to keep their fundamentalist population calm. If this is enough to warrant a war, we'll see quite a few regimes crumble within the next year (And I'll slap whomever say 'Iraq is the first step' or something along those lines<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entire point is that it will not be as necessary once the world understands that countries which harbor and fund terrorists will be attacked. It's very interesting that all of the Leftists here have suddenly gotten very quiet on the subject of Iraqi terrorist links as soon as the al-islam camp was discovered and attacked, and its subsequent carbombing of an Aussie journalist and some kurdish border guards. I thought one of the big anti-war points was that iraq did not have ties to terrorism?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then let's assume for a second that Hussein truly has WoMD. Why did he not use them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go ask about 6000 kurds (that we know of) and 50,000 Iranians (many more we certainly don't know of) about how often Iraq has used WoMD. Oh wait, they're all dead from chemical weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Recently, I couldn't see him threatening or invading anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh. Ok, he only invaded Iran, fought Syria, shot at Israel, invaded Kuwait, and massed on the Saudi Border to attack it as well (until US troops showed up and skoshed that idea). So you're right, In 25 years, he has only been invading his neighbors for about 10 years total. Seems totally trustworthy to me. Germany did not invade France after WW1 for another 20 years, but there were certainly plenty of indicators along the way that people ignored...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The arising problem is that even obtaining those new sources will only buy a little more time, and that at a horribly high price. Sooner or later, the economies of this planet will have to be readjusted to become energy-preserving, instead of energy-consuming.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While true, it is not relevent to the present, only to the long-distant future. We cannot remove our dependence overnight.
As for democracy and civil rights, if we ran the place like a US prison it would still be 100 times better than how it is now. And I certainly doubt we will. I am of teh opinion that Iraq is heading for its first government by the people in its history, and that this is what really pisses off the failed Left: like <b>most</b> times throughout history, democracy will be created via conflict, and that does not jibe with the 'no war at any price' rhetoric. If you could convince them to crack open a book every once in a while, they would understand this.
Hopefully this came across as polite. I got a bit worked up here, obviously...
No problem. If I hadn't become used to it by now, I'd be a sobbing mess spending 90% of my time in fetal position <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point is that it will not be as necessary once the world understands that countries which harbor and fund terrorists will be attacked. It's very interesting that all of the Leftists here have suddenly gotten very quiet on the subject of Iraqi terrorist links as soon as the al-islam camp was discovered and attacked, and its subsequent carbombing of an Aussie journalist and some kurdish border guards. I thought one of the big anti-war points was that iraq did not have ties to terrorism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First and foremost: Could get a link to the al-islam issue? I haven't read a thing about this up till now.
Aside from that, the first step of the War on Terror was the hunt for those directely responsible for 9/11, and you'll have to agree with me that the US govt. tried to make it seem as if Hussein had had major influence in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Go ask about 6000 kurds (that we know of) and 50,000 Iranians (many more we certainly don't know of) about how often Iraq has used WoMD. Oh wait, they're all dead from chemical weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're getting cheap. I was obviously talking about the most recent events. The question that's debated is whether Hussein is <i>still</i> in possession of considerable amounts of WoMD. Nobody in here discusses the question whether he had mustard gas 12 years ago.
Same with your next argument - I'm not discussing so much whether Hussein wants to threaten other countries, but whether he can with the limitations imposed on him after the first Gulf War.
[edit]OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for democracy and civil rights, if we ran the place like a US prison it would still be 100 times better than how it is now. And I certainly doubt we will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure 'you' aren't planning on running the place like a prison, the question is whether you'll be able to run the place at all.
Even in your favorite example, post-WW2 Germany, it took several years to get the country to its first democratic elections, the situation won't be much better here. Now imagine a multiple years lasting American military administration, which will, don't kid yourself, be viewed as occupation, in a country that's at least surrounded by countries harboring terrorists and with neighbours all too keen on expanding their own territory a little.
Even without a government that's proved already that it values current militaric power higher than democratic dedication about its allies, this would be a walk through hell. I don't doubt the good intentions of the people currently risking their lives, but all they'll win is further conflict, which was the outcome of <i>most</i> conflicts, be that the French Revolution, the Russian February Revolution, the two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Boxer Uprising, or pretty much any other violent struggle for democracy that doesn't happen to be the Independence War.
As for the "and that this is what really pisses off the failed Left" comment, I'll assume that this is what you meant by "I got a bit worked up here, obviously...".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First and foremost: Could get a link to the al-islam issue? I haven't read a thing about this up till now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it surprising you didn't hear more about this on German news coverage (maybe the anti-war axe continues to grind in the europress? Or maybe you were just nappin' <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). See links below, and a quote from one of them if you don't feel like reading it all (although I recommend you do):
<a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/889223.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/889223.asp</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/otsc.irq.sites/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/...ites/index.html</a>
<a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/889646.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/889646.asp</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->KAGAN: As far as coalition forces are concerned, Kevin, do you have any information if there were any injuries or casualties in the coalition?
SITES: Well, at this point the Iraqis have not been firing back on this location. I think they are basically scrambling to assess what has happened to them right now. There hasn't been any firing on this side.
But in terms of coalition forces coming into this area, there are reports that actually moved on the wires [Sunday] night -- American soldiers may have come in transport planes near Sulaimaniya ... to assist the Pesh Murga in taking on a couple of fronts against the Iraqis here in Chamchamal and possibly also another front against the Ansar al-Islam. That's the fundamentalist group that Secretary of State Colin Powell says is the al Qaeda link to the Iraqi regime with Saddam Hussein. So they may go ahead on two fronts.
Now, those Ansar al-Islam strongholds had been hit by U.S. bombs for two nights in a row. So those positions are being softened up possibly for a Pesh Murga attack in the coming days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a whole camp of terrorists (protected by the Iraqi's from kurdish attack, as they exist on the edge of the 'kurdistan' enclave. They are supposed to have al-qaeda links, but I couldn't speak for that. They are certainly not above carbombing journalists and kurds though, which doesn't make them any friends of kurdistan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[edit]OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.[/edit]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will continue to point to the Kuwaiti example. He uses them, he doesn't use them, and there is no rhyme or reason to it. This does not lessen the risk, and my points above about command and control, or Saddam even being alive certainly are valid in my mind. I agree that no news is good news though, when it comes to Sarin or VX...
I might suggest not using Germany as an example of the failure of democracy after a conquest, as it is perhaps America's greatest legacy in europe on how well it worked out. Yes, it takes time. No, that does not mean it's impossible. You are living proof of that, as otherwise you'd be 4th generation hitler youth and we'd likely not be having this conversation... But name as many democracries as you like, and I can give evidence that they were formed via conflict to remove a bad government or regime. I was not speaking about the American Independence, I was speaking more about post WW2, post-cold war, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the fundamentalist group that Secretary of State Colin Powell says is the al Qaeda link to the Iraqi regime with Saddam Hussein.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This refers directely to the 'student-paper' affair. So, what we know from these informations is that Hussein apparently allows a terroristic group to train within his borders - a group with, as you said, <i>alleged</i> links to Al-Quaeda. Point taken on the general 'links to terrorism', though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I might suggest not using Germany as an example of the failure of democracy after a conquest, as it is perhaps America's greatest legacy in europe on how well it worked out. Yes, it takes time. No, that does not mean it's impossible. You are living proof of that, as otherwise you'd be 4th generation hitler youth and we'd likely not be having this conversation... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christ, stop dodging the point. Yes, it worked out, thank god, but don't act as if this was an easy process. I'm saying that your assumption of democratic elections within maybe a year, as you put it in another topic, are just illusionary - it took four years here, with a fully formed political scene that had survived in the exile. Nothing like this will happen in Iraq. People will have to be educated to democracy, and this means American administration for years <i>on end</i>, with the aforementioned government, which, as we agree, "sucks", in the background.
Democracy isn't some kind of positive political virus that spreads wherever the GIs set foot. It'll take a long time, and this time, 'you' do not have, because the also already mentioned rest of the Middle Eastern world won't give it to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But name as many democracries as you like, and I can give evidence that they were formed via conflict to remove a bad government or regime. I was not speaking about the American Independence, I was speaking more about post WW2, post-cold war, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously asked, which examples are you referring to?
Sigh... ok, democracies formed via conflict (I'm going to kill you for making do this list rather than you cracking open a book, Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) :
Japan - enforced democracy by US military occupation at end of WW2, removal of king and military junta as leaders
Phillipines - enforced democracy by US military occupation at end of S-A War, removal of spanish king and local governor
France - several stages, but ultimately democracy fully reinstalled by european-led army of Britain
Russian Federation - an attempted coup, followed by revolt of the people and army against the communist party
Roumania - spontaneous revolt of people and army against Czeachescau (sp?) totalitarian government
Mexico - armed revolt and american external influence against dictatorship and corruption in early 1900's
Sweden - democracy comes out of the longish 'War of the Hats' in the 1700's
Norway - democracy comes out of the napoleoinc wars in part due to the weird relationships and fighting of sweden, norway, and denmark
Germany - already covered
USA - already covered
Are you going to make me keep going - there are lots more but I am at work, you know...
Edit: almost forgot about all of those balkan countries like Serbia and such coming out from under the thumb of dictators like Milosevic and headed to democracy (as long as they can keep their Presidents from being assasinated by thugs). Armed conflict from both internal and external sources there. I'll add more as they occur to me. Or not. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I was trying to find any sort of info on the origins of parliament ( starting in 1300 or so? can't recall), but it's slim pickin's. You'd think the world's longest running legislative body would post some friggin' historical info... oh well
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 24 2003, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 24 2003, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Extra note on the 'why haven't iraqi's launched posion gas yet?' question you posed (and I failed to answer): We aren't even sure if Saddam is alive, and you know darned well he keeps a tight rein on those weapons, as they are a portion of his triumvarite of power (republican guard, secret police, chemical weapons). If he's dead, or simply can't talk to the commanders in the field, that might explain it. Why didn't he use chemical weapons when he invaded kuwait, when he most certainly had hundreds of tons of the stuff then? Who knows? He's a freaking lunatic FFS... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you belive that...
If I may quote Blanche from Tenessee Williams' "A Streetcar named Desire":
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Say it's only a paper moon. Sailing over the cardboard sea-
But it wouldn't be make-believe if you believed in me!
It's a Barnum and Bailey world. Just as phony as it could be-But it
wouldn't be make-believe if you believed in me!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then, you say the following:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Sigh... ok, democracies formed via conflict <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, nearly every change of a government form is violent. But, what is more important, most of the changes were made from within the country itself, not from another one. The USA must not impose its "Pax America" on other souvereign states. The majority of the Arabs do not want a US-led democracy.
You know, it somehowe reminds me of the past, the idea of spreading democracy all over the world. The crusades were justifyed by saying they were spreading christianity to the heretic arabs. The colonization of Africa were justifyed by saying they were spreading civilisation to the uncivilised blacks. You see the pattern?
Now getting a bit off topic:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This isn't 1945. Bush isn't Roosevelt, and I can't see a Marshall plan anywhere.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you know that 1/8 of the money from Marshall plan went directly to Europes oil companies? Before WW2, Europe's main enegry resource was coal, after WW2 the USA ensured that Europe became dependant on them...
btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You see a big importance on the impact of modern infrastructure and information distribution, which could make a fast democratic education possible, as well as restrain the US administration from getting its powerpolitical aims through by allowing 'the world' to watch. Correct so far?
We both do, and I find this slightly puzzling, agree that this is an assault, a war that's based on direct American, not Iraqian aggression.
I, and I don't consider myself part of any failed group, except for humanity, see the psychological issues connected to democracy, as they for example made the Republic of Weimar fail, because a population that's not prepared for the democratic influences it can take on a countries curse will conciously or unconciously give this power to an authoritarian power (Germany in its past WW2 days is a good example for this, as the first chancellor, Adenauer, practically reigned like a benevolent monarch), and see this fundamental issue combined with the critical situation in the Middle East lead to a downfall, not to mention that I question the actual willingness of the current US administration, which has put every democratic rule aside during the curse of the preperation of the war, to actually create an independent democratic Iraq, as opposed to a dependent puppet regime.
I asked for the examples because I thought you had specific countries in mind. If you're making a general point, I'd say we'd better put this in a seperate thread, where you'll be suprised to realize that a leftist pacifist like me will agree that conflict can lead to democratic structures - but.
I'll leave it at this little summary and go to bed for now. Good night.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye gods! Noch so ein Verr?ckter...[/edit]
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^
I'm going to need some sources on that oil stat. Too important for your point and I've never heard any such stat before. As for your understanding of the Marshall Plan, you seem to be a bit confused. The US gave european governments money and aid and let them <b>decide</b> what to do with it - that was the whole revolutionary point about the Plan! We did not force you to start using oil, you chose to do so. But I'll still wait for your sources on what you pointed out.
As a german, you should know full well that often times (note my lack of use of an absolute) changes have to come from outside. Your own country is a modern example of that. My point though was not mainly about change having to come through foreign intervention - that was Nem's. My point is that democracy often comes through <b>conflict</b>, which is at odds with the Left's anti-war movement. And you agree. Glad your further slide over to my side is continuing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> .
And yes Nem, the Left has failed Iraq. See the salon.com article posted earlier, it explains it far better than I ever could. The Left's entire existence is supposedly based on freedom from oppresion and removal of dictatorial jackboots smashing civil and human rights. To allow Iraq (and the much of the mideast) to continue to operate as it does now is to condone that type of behavior. That does not make Bush right for wanting to protect American interests, but an enormous good is coming out of it, and making up for the US' own apathy to teh area for 70 years. Where were the Left's protests when Iraq gassed the Kurds? Invaded Iran? Invaded Kuwait? Nowhere - only the Left's inherent hatred of the US brings it out of the coffee houses and headshops. Utter hypocricy.
Sidenote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I, and I don't consider myself part of any failed group, except for humanity, see the psychological issues connected to democracy, as they for example made the Republic of Weimar fail, because a population that's not prepared for the democratic influences it can take on a countries curse will conciously or unconciously give this power to an authoritarian power (Germany in its past WW2 days is a good example for this, as the first chancellor, Adenauer, practically reigned like a benevolent monarch), and see this fundamental issue combined with the critical situation in the Middle East lead to a downfall, not to mention that I question the actual willingness of the current US administration, which has put every democratic rule aside during the curse of the preperation of the war, to actually create an independent democratic Iraq, as opposed to a dependent puppet regime<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Longest run-on sentence EVAAARRR!!!
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes Nem, the Left has failed Iraq. See the salon.com article posted earlier, it explains it far better than I ever could. The Left's entire existence is supposedly based on freedom from oppresion and removal of dictatorial jackboots smashing civil and human rights. To allow Iraq (and the much of the mideast) to continue to operate as it does now is to condone that type of behavior. That does not make Bush right for wanting to protect American interests, but an enormous good is coming out of it, and making up for the US' own apathy to teh area for 70 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to take a closer look at that thread tomorrow. Sufficient to say at that point that statements about 'the Left' are as doomed to fail as stuff about 'the Americans'. There is no such thing as a leftist consent on pacifism, and there is no such thing as a pacifist consent on the borders of this sentiment.
[edit]<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26547&st=30' target='_blank'>Voil?.</a>[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I read about it in the newspaper. Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source? Here is something. and here
Its hard to find independent sources, most are clearly anti-US or pro-US.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked both sources, and the stories did not say that there had been confirmed casualties-- it said that Iraq's foriegn minister was <i>saying</i> that there were numerous civilian casualties/injuries. BIG difference-- especially considering Iraq's habit of placing civilians in the line of fire or near military installations.
I mean, if anyone can compete with the US in the propaganda olympics, it's team Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I remembered wrong. Sorry my mistake, but thats actually even worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just correcting you, not attempting to absolve any blame. But it is pretty nice that there were no casualties, at any rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Concidering the armament of Iraq and that they have to fight this war desperately under-powered, I say that is a move _every_ country and human would do to protect their own homes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, my point was simply that this was one of their major victories, and it's a move they can only pull once. And I truly feel for the soldiers who try to legitimately surrender now, who may encounter suspicious, itchy trigger fingers.
As for the theory that the whole arab world is just waiting for Saddam to disappear... well, that was yesterday. Now the young men are rallying behind Saddam's portait (a handsome one, from like 80 years ago...) like they were rallying behind Osama bin Laden's. I just saw pictures from an Iraqi embassy, where young men were volunteering in masses to fight and die for Saddam. Not because they suddenly like him (he'll abuse them as cannonfodder anyway), but because he is fighting a much larger threat: America, the "Great Satan".
As for the terrorist camps in the mountains near Kurdistan, that's old news. They've attacked the Kurds from time to time, but that doesn't link them with Saddam. Saddam fears the islamists at least as much as he fears the kurds, because they both threaten his power. I don't understand why people call Saddam lunatic or erratic; he's as reasonable as all paranoid dictators. A psychopath perhaps, but not a madman.
Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.
The final bit seems to say 'he's not crazy, he's just a psychopath!'. This might just be me, but whaaa? Murdering a million people, including your relatives whom you think are out to get you, definitely puts you up there in the erratic madman category.
Ye gods! Noch so ein Verrückter...[/edit]
----------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I miss something?
Iraq will probably have to be split up Kurds(screw turkey), Shi'is and Sunni. you cuold have them all states and have a federal goverment i guess but i dunno <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> But who cares if they vote for Muslim leaders? Its not like the Koran says kill America in it or anything. Islam was the most tolerant religion in west.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They've attacked the Kurds from time to time, but that doesn't link them with Saddam. Saddam fears the islamists at least as much as he fears the kurds, because they both threaten his power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam plays favorites he pits groups against athore groups that is why the US will have to stay in Iraq for a while. Most importantly the US needs to protect the Kurds from Turkey and make sure nothing happens with the Armenians.
Nem, you say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, your second post made that a little clearer, but still, you've got to admit that the complete lack of them on the battlefield is a contradiction in the White Houses stance, which was that those weapons were a direct and immediate threat. I guess we can all agree that we're pretty happy about this contradiction, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, sort of. The US gov't was afraid of them brandishing those weapons against their neighbors (ok, Israel), or <i>handing them off to terrorist groups in order to facilitate transparent attacks against common enemies</i>. So the fact that the have not been used on the battlefield is not yet indicative of anything. Additionally, it's been argued whether or not Saddam would use them-- because in effect, his use would be granting legitimacy to the Bush offensive. In one fell swoop, he'd shatter his cause and shine Bush's. I doubt you'd see them wielded <i>unless</i> Saddam knew his death/capture was imminent. From his perspective, the already wavering American public won't stomach many casualties-- and he can probably furnish those without stooping to bio/chem weapons-- after all, his troops are more or less expendable at this point.
Though, that whole scenario throws another monkey wrench into the apparatus-- if the US finds them, <i>do they report it</i>? On the one hand, it gives them some credibility back and makes the operation legit. On the other hand, if it's proven that Iraq has chemical weapons, what is to stop them from dumping their remaining munitions on advancing troops?
Quite a poker game they have going here . . .