News Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Mercator]

The fact that there is a fierce resistance for over two years now, which cannot be controllled by 130.000 foreign soldiers, means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population. which means that Iraq is not liberated, as Americans claim, but occupied. Acting against the will of the local population means this invasion is NOT justified.

 

[Hurkyl]

means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population.

Must it?


In any case, a large part is not necessarily most, or even anywhere near a majority of the local population.

 

[Mercator]

Must it?


In any case, a large part is not necessarily most, or even anywhere near a majority of the local population.

Can you give me an example of a country that was REALLY liberated, that put up such a fierce resistance for two years?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

i couldn't agree more that oil plays a major role in this conflict. the answer to this is to develop alternative energy technology to the point of practicality. until this happens, however, the sad reality is that losing the world's major source of oil would cripple everyone (not just the US) and so it would be naive to assume that security of that resource being threatened would not be taken seriously.

I am not naive, which is precisely why I continue to insist that as long as capitalism remains (a system based on greed and lack of caring for one's fellow human beings and the environment in general) we will live in continuously escalating crisis situations - more conflicts, environmental degradation to the point of no return, etc. Just like Orwell predicted in '1984' - he was just a few years off in his predictions, but it's certainly happening now. Actually, I'm wrong there - it's been '1984' for ages, but it's getting really bad now. One thing that has definitely changed over the past three years is that Big Brother is well and truly here now.

it is not just capitalists that use oil. communists manage to use plenty of oil as well. all of civilization depends on oil, infact.

 

[Muaddib]

Not really, many of the insurgents, which are made of Islamic extremists, go to Iraq from many countries around the world, even from countries such as France, England, Iran (of course) Lybia, etc, etc.

It was but a month ago I think, that real Iraqis, took up arms and attacked a bunch of insurgents that were preparing to attack some local stores.

Also, if you take a look at the headlines, insurgents are killing more iraqi civilians than they are killing Iraqi police, Iraqi military and even coalition forces. If insurgents were mostly Iraqis, why are they killing so many of their own people?

The fact that there is a fierce resistance for over two years now, which cannot be controllled by 130.000 foreign soldiers, means at the very least that it is supported by a large part of the population. which means that Iraq is not liberated, as Americans claim, but occupied. Acting against the will of the local population means this invasion is NOT justified.

 

[Muaddib]

We had a good discussion about this in http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167329. Basically i think the jews benefit the most.

Humm, i wonder why your name resembles so closely mine.

BTW, i think your statement is racist.

 

[Muaddib]

So if tomorrow I succeed in having myself invited to a party of the German embassy in Paris, and go and blow up, say a few weeks later, the Pentagon, this is a reason for a war on Germany ??

On that piece of evidence alone no...but how many other pieces of evidence did I present in here, and why did you not mention those too? i just mentioned some of the evidence for the coalition having gone to war with Iraq, there is quite a lot more evidence.

it is not just one piece of evidence that made the case for the war. About the stocpiles of wmd, there are still a lot of unawsered questions. Saddam and his regime had more than enough time to hide and transfer those stocpiles of wmd. Part of the agreement that Saddam was supposed to adhere to said that he must destroy every document, equipment and military weapons that were used for wmd, and he didn't.

There were tons of documents which were found in Iraq and dealt with how to restart wmd programs, several Iraqi scientists were told to bury and hide centrifuges and other technologies needed to enrich uranium, for a time after the western world stopped searching for Iraq's wmd programs.

There were entire missiles which are used only to carry chemicals which were found in Iraq, there were rockets for missiles which were banned from Iraq and were in possesion of Iraq at least a year before the war started, and were later found in scrapyards around the world.

There were discrepancies in the quantities of HMX that Iraq was supposed to have, and they were supposed to report exactly the quantities in their possesion. HMX is used for construction and also for the detonation of atomic weapons.

 

[Mercator]

On that piece of evidence alone no...but how many other pieces of evidence did I present in here, and why did you not mention those too? i just mentioned some of the evidence for the coalition having gone to war with Iraq, there is quite a lot more evidence.

it is not just one piece of evidence that made the case for the war. About the stocpiles of wmd, there are still a lot of unawsered questions. Saddam and his regime had more than enough time to hide and transfer those stocpiles of wmd. Part of the agreement that Saddam was supposed to adhere to said that he must destroy every document, equipment and military weapons that were used for wmd, and he didn't.

There were tons of documents which were found in Iraq and dealt with how to restart wmd programs, several Iraqi scientists were told to bury and hide centrifuges and other technologies needed to enrich uranium, for a time after the western world stopped searching for Iraq's wmd programs.

There were entire missiles which are used only to carry chemicals which were found in Iraq, there were rockets for missiles which were banned from Iraq and were in possesion of Iraq at least a year before the war started, and were later found in scrapyards around the world.

There were discrepancies in the quantities of HMX that Iraq was supposed to have, and they were supposed to report exactly the quantities in their possesion. HMX is used for construction and also for the detonation of atomic weapons.

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

The decision not to use them was probably wise. When losing seems inevitable, why dig the hole deeper? It would be harder to maintain sympathy from the rest of the world if they are using the very weapons they have been accused of making.

There is also the small matter that Saddam used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war and also on a minority of his own population, the Kurds. This was one of the reasons that the Bush administration thought they could safely assume the "moral high ground" since Saddam was clearly not a nice person; however, they failed to realize just how many people's hearts would bleed for the tyrannt. Whether the US supported him or not in the past does not change this, there were many alliances made and betrayed after the cold war. You could also argue that supporting Saddam was a mistake, just as was the US support for Castro, Aristide, and Noriega. All would later be disposed (well, except Castro, but they sure tried).

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

 

[Mercator]

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

I would hold you responsible for your mistake. And since we are not talking about mosnters , but human beings, I would let the law decide what to do with the monster. Would you prefer to play God?

 

[alexandra]

it is not just capitalists that use oil. communists manage to use plenty of oil as well. all of civilization depends on oil, infact.

It is true that all forms of society need to use energy resources, but these energy resources need not be oil. I am not proposing that we revert back to some pre-capitalist primitive form of society. The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources. As long as these powerful interests prevail, we will not make the necessary progress to shift to other, more sustainable, sources of energy. Furthermore, capitalism is based on an ideology of greed - profits come first ("the bottom line", and all that). As the damaging, non-renewable energy resources become scarcer, the powerful corporations controlling their resources will charge more and more for them - they see big bucks in the near future, big bucks they will not forego for any 'softie, liberal' reason like saving the environment. This is the danger I see in capitalism and why I think it so important that people question the system of capitalism itself.

 

[alexandra]

If I helped created a monster, but now I want to kill that monster, would you stop me just out of spite and sacrifice what is best for the community?

Which community, q? How can you make such a statement if you live safely on another continent and none of this carnage personally affects you? It is innocent Iraqi people who are dying - isn't it a bit presumptious to say that this is ok and best for their 'community'? In any case, what is happening in Iraq at the moment is a situation has been set up for civil war (and, in fact, US administrators have recently admitted that they are talking to some insurgency group leaders to try to get them 'onside' - so they are deliberately setting up a civil war scenario). Civil war surely cannot be 'good for the community'? One thing it is good for, though, is foreign control: the old 'divide and rule' principle.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources.

If that is true, then why didn't the Soviet union create clean energy? They had around 50 years to do so, yet didn't, despite the lack of capitalist pressure since they were getting their own oil for themselves domestically and from Chechnya, Africa and the Middle East. Certainly they were as technologically advanced (or nearly so) as the US.

Or is the more-likely-yet-less-conspiratorial answer that the scientific and engineering know-how is still currently being developed, and does not yet exist (but will be soon according to scientists working on nuclear fusion)?

(and, in fact, US administrators have recently admitted that they are talking to some insurgency group leaders to try to get them 'onside' - so they are deliberately setting up a civil war scenario).

I don't know where you get your news from, but common sense dictates that the worst thing that could happen to the US in iraq right now would be a civil war. Why would they be trying to create one? That makes no sense.

If the US military were not presently in Iraq, then that could possibly make sense - infact, in the past war was encouraged between Iraq and Iran. But given that the US military is present there, losing your entire force in a civil war wouldn't make much sense would it?

Or put this way: if the US is after Iraq's oil, it doesn't make much sense to lose that objective in a civil-war scenario, does it?

 

[Muaddib]

Jeez.. And he forgot to use all these when the enemy attacked. What a stupid guy this Saddam must be. How could the CIA ever put their trust in HIM?

He, or actually some of those under his command, did use some of those banned weaponry they were not supposed to have against the coalition. Saddam knew that even with the small amount of wmd he had, he could not destroy the coalition forces. All he could do was try to make the world believe he did not have them, by hiding the stockpiles of wmd, and wait for the coalition to leave. He could have thought that when no stockpiles of wmd were found, he would be let go, and then once the coalition left Iraq, he could restart his wmd programs.

BTW, it was actually the previous president of Iraq, Al Bakr who gave Saddam (his cousin) power in the Ba'ath party as vice president, and as the president grew older, Saddam , by himself, kept consolidating his power until he made Al Bakr resign as president... it was not the CIA who did this.

 

[Muaddib]

It is true that all forms of society need to use energy resources, but these energy resources need not be oil. I am not proposing that we revert back to some pre-capitalist primitive form of society. The way I understand the situation is that the only reason we are still using oil and other environmentally damaging and non-renewable sources of energy is because there are very powerful vested interests (capitalists) who are making huge profits from these energy sources.
......
This is the danger I see in capitalism and why I think it so important that people question the system of capitalism itself.

You do not understand the situation then. The communist system, or the people's revolution... have also been using oil for a very long time, and they are still using it...while their own people suffer more than anyone in most capitalistic systems. i know this because half of my family is suffering under a communist regime, and i was in one until i was 7 almost 8 years old.

All societies nowadays depend on oil for pretty much everything. We need oil to transport and process food. We need oil to make derivatives like plastic, which are used to save lives, and for a whole miriad of technologies needed for today's societies to function.

There is a whole lot more danger in communism, or "the people's revolution"...than in capitalism. I brought up communism into this topic because I can see where you are going.

A lot of young people, and even old people who have never seen what communism does to the people and a country, nowadays are falling once more for the communist propaganda, blaming all the problems in the world because of capitalism...which is not true.

 

[Mercator]

BTW, it was actually the previous president of Iraq, Al Bakr who gave Saddam (his cousin) power in the Ba'ath party as vice president, and as the president grew older, Saddam , by himself, kept consolidating his power until he made Al Bakr resign as president... it was not the CIA who did this.

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was
assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But,
however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup
in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such
anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of
nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the
US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run,
US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist
Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was
Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed
assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a
CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath
Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in
Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA
then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of
communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these
supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass
murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Source: Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms and the
CIA, 1979, pp. 160-164.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed
assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a
CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath
Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in
Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA
then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of
communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these
supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass
murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Source: Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms and the .

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

 

[2CentsWorth]

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

What is shown in the quote of your post is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of US foreign policy. Our foreign policy is what needs to be addressed, not this one case regarding Saddam. Why don't people see this -- Why do they make the argument you make instead?

There were two chances to remove Saddam. The first was when we received warnings from operatives in Iraq at the time Saddam was growing in power. The second was the Gulf War under Bush Sr. These mistakes do not justify making an even larger mistake. What logic is this?

Also, what this shows is that the US engages in illegal activity of various kinds, and if this is to be the case, why not continue with assassination attempts rather than taking American soldiers to war with great loss of life?

In any event, be consistent in your reasoning. If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world. These continued arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Mercator]

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

This was only a refute of your statement that the CIA had nothing to do with it. Your response reveals a lot: you are not entitled to decide about other countries' govenments. Period.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world.

I agree, regime change would be justified in other parts of the world.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

you are not entitled to decide about other countries' govenments. Period.

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing? The one time that we need to do something for our own national security, you would think that we are the Nazis re-incarnated ourselves, wouldn't you?

http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_kos.html

With a failed UN mission, the credibility of NATO waning, and facing a retreat of UN peacekeepers, President Clinton took the lead in August 1995 and launched a limited bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb positions. This, coupled with a Croatian offensive against the Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, forced Karadzic and Mladic to agree to peace negotiations commencing in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995.

Reality check: what did Europe do while these people were slaughtered? Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

 

[Art]

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

And I thought it was because Japan bombed Pearl Harbour that America finally entered the war. I hadn't realized it was a purely altruistic move to help the europeans and the Chinese.

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing?

It would seem that it is the present US government that the world requires protection from!

The one time that we need to do something for our own national security, you would think that we are the Nazis re-incarnated ourselves, wouldn't you?

The US had worldwide support for it's attack on Afghanistan because we accepted the legitimacy of the attack against the Taliban who were providing a safe haven for OBL and refusing to hand him over. The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

Reality check: what did Europe do while these people were slaughtered? Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

 

[Rev Prez]

What is shown in the quote of your post is the hypocrisy and inconsistency...

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are terms thrown around when there's no more hope for reasonable discussion. I suggest you back away and take a breath.

Our foreign policy is what needs to be addressed, not this one case regarding Saddam. Why don't people see this -- Why do they make the argument you make instead?

Because you have no argument; that is to say that you have these two propositions:

1) The US is hypocritical.
2) US foreign policy should be such and such.

Even if we ignore that the first claim is supported by the worst sort of conspiracy mongering, the most annoying thing is you never bother to rationally connect it to the second claim. It's an irritatingly common flaw in the reasoning of antiwar types.

If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world. These continued arguments are ridiculous.

Which does nothing to connect "it is a hypocritical mistake to remove Saddam" with "US foreign policy should be such and such."

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are terms thrown around when there's no more hope for reasonable discussion. I suggest you back away and take a breath.
Rev Prez

Funny, I thought the term usually bandied around to obfuscate serious discussion was the term 'anti-american'

 

[alexandra]

Because you have no argument; that is to say that you have these two propositions:

1) The US is hypocritical.
2) US foreign policy should be such and such.

Even if we ignore that the first claim is supported by the worst sort of conspiracy mongering, the most annoying thing is you never bother to rationally connect it to the second claim. It's an irritatingly common flaw in the reasoning of antiwar types.



Which does nothing to connect "it is a hypocritical mistake to remove Saddam" with "US foreign policy should be such and such."

Rev Prez

It is not that people who disagree with you have no argument, Rev - it is that because of ideological differences you will not acknowledge the validity of their arguments. To me, the argument that "the US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical" makes perfect sense, and connects completely with the second statement. Here is the connection: "The US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical because while the administration sometimes supports and allies itself with dictators, at other times it summarily deposes them from power by invading their countries/assassinating them, etc". There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

But this is not what's happening. While you and I disagree completely ideologically, I agree with your argument in this case. From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

Here is why I agree with you, Rev Prez (and the reasons are of crucial importance): the US administration's foreign policy is not at all hypocritical because it treats other governments as either allies or foes depending on the changing needs of the powerful ruling class in the US... so, when it suits the interests of the incredibly rich and powerful elite of the US (whose interests the politicians of both the major parties represent), foreign policy changes from 'support' to 'attack'. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. But one has to see and state the reasons for the lack of hypocricy clearly. In sum, the US administration's foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by the needs of the ruling class.

 

[Rev Prez]

Funny, I thought the term usually bandied around to obfuscate serious discussion was the term 'anti-american'

Which unsurprisingly is a term used to refer to people who have nothing more substantial to say than "America is hypocritical."

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

It is not that people who disagree with you have no argument, Rev - it is that because of ideological differences you will not acknowledge the validity of their arguments.

Which, is of course, nonsense. Brookings and TAP have plenty of people who put out informed, reasonable arguments.

To me, the argument that "the US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical" makes perfect sense, and connects completely with the second statement.

And, once again, you won't tell us how.

There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

For the sake of argument and exploring quetzalcoatl9's point, I conceded that US foreign policy is hypocritical. I'm asking you to show how "US foreign policy should be such and such" follows. You refuse to do so.

But this is not what's happening. While you and I disagree completely ideologically, I agree with your argument in this case. From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

It doesn't matter what my view is on American hypocrisy; to be honest, I don't really care how you, Art, 2CentsWorth or anyone else feel on the matter. I doubt few serious people except those behind the C-SPAN camerias are at all interested in such a sad a boring, sad debate. On the other hand, I do want to know how 2CentsWorth gets from A to B. Hell, it'd be nice if he'd bother to tell us what B is in the first place; all I know is it's "such and such."

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

Which unsurprisingly is a term used to refer to people who have nothing more substantial to say than "America is hypocritical."

Rev Prez

Not fair, Rev - have you read my post above, where I explain why the statement 'America is hypocritical' is actually substantial rather than 'not substantial', as you claim? (Sorry about butting into your discussion briefly, Art )

 

[Rev Prez]

Not fair, Rev -

It's entirely fair. I'm not trying to bash you at length for an amateurish treatment of long discredited political and economic theory. All I want to address is 2CentsWorth's response to quetzalcoatl9's point on rectifying mistakes. It would help if he actually prescribed policy, and I welcome any clarification from somebody with his political leanings.

...have you read my post above, where I explain why the statement 'America is hypocritical' is actually substantial rather than 'not substantial', as you claim? (Sorry about butting into your discussion briefly, Art )

You mean your diluted rehash of Marxist theory? I'm not interested, but I'm sure you can find someone in this thread or elsewhere to take it up.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

And, once again, you won't tell us how.

For the sake of argument and exploring quetzalcoatl9's point, I conceded that US foreign policy is hypocritical. I'm asking you to show how "US foreign policy should be such and such" follows. You refuse to do so.

Don't do this, Rev. You are deliberately omitting bits of what I write - I DID explain how. Here it is again:

Here is the connection: "The US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical because while the administration sometimes supports and allies itself with dictators, at other times it summarily deposes them from power by invading their countries/assassinating them, etc". There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

Again, I would insist that you take my whole argument into account rather than leaving out vital bits of it in your responses. This is not the way to argue logically: you cannot just ignore the points made by your adversary.

It doesn't matter what my view is on American hypocrisy; to be honest, I don't really care how you, Art, 2CentsWorth or anyone else feel on the matter. I doubt few serious people except those behind the C-SPAN camerias are at all interested in such a sad a boring, sad debate. On the other hand, I do want to know how 2CentsWorth gets from A to B. Hell, it'd be nice if he'd bother to tell us what B is in the first place; all I know is it's "such and such."

Rev Prez

Well, one could argue that everything discussed in these forums is nothing more than just "a boring, sad debate". I can guarantee you wouldn't have this view, though, if your life was in danger and you lived (say) in Iraq. It would be more than just "a boring, sad debate" then, wouldn't it? Can you not even begin to put yourself in another's shoes for a second?