|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2003 10:32:32 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Well, I think I'm just about done. This place is one of the destinations on the net that I came to get away from these types of "debates", and in fact from war in general. I'd much rather forget about all that stuff while I'm here.
Back to the photos! |
Remember that you can set your preferences to omit the RANT threads from the list on the front page. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 10:42:04 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I agree that the argument that this is a war for oil is grossly over-simplistic. It is also carefully timed to distract the American public from the shambles President Bush has made of the world's economy. It's also carefully timed to give President Bush a popularity surge going into the next general election. It is about not being able to find Osama bin Laden and needing to find an enemy the administration can say they caught. The fact that both the President and Vice President have many friends with deep financial interests is just icing on the cake. |
Cartoon caption (couple on deck chairs):
Oh Kenny, if I'd known you were going to get away with it, I'd never have sold the furniture!"
Mr. Cheney will likely "benefit" from this when he gets a multi-million dollar "consulting" job after he retires, serves on a few boards, gives a few six-figure speeches to "business leaders" on how to be successful, stuff like that.
Of course, if those things fall through I guess he'll just have to squeak by on his multiple government pensions and soon-to-be tax-free dividends...
Message edited by author 2003-03-26 22:43:09. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:05:28 PM · #128 |
wow
i posted that nice quote from ex-Pres Clinton above, and nobody had a single comment about it
aside from the possibility that no one saw it, i 'll venture 2 other possibilities for that observation:
1) everyone deemed the quote irrelavent, or
2) it spoke for itself, requiring no comment
well, option 1 certainly couldn't apply --- sooooo ...
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:11:21 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by achiral:
there are americans dying in iraq and all these people want to talk about is how stupid america is, how it's only for oil, how they hate bush. they could care less about americans dying, and i'm sure after reading some of the posts that it probably makes some of them smile to hear of us casualties. |
There are Americans, Britons, Australians and Iraqis dying in Iraq right now. Each death saddens me, which is why I would prefer to believe that the war was justified, and that it wouldn't lead to any more war. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:30:02 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
wow
i posted that nice quote from ex-Pres Clinton above, and nobody had a single comment about it
aside from the possibility that no one saw it, i 'll venture 2 other possibilities for that observation:
1) everyone deemed the quote irrelavent, or
2) it spoke for itself, requiring no comment
well, option 1 certainly couldn't apply --- sooooo ... |
I read it. There are some significant differences between Clinton and Bush, however. Clinton didn't EVER suggest that the US should militarily change the regime in Iraq. He didn't launch any pre-emptive attacks that I know of. He made it one of his missions in life to mediate over the peace process in Israel/Palestine, and his name will always be inextricably linked to the Oslo peace process... a noble venture that ended 6 weeks away from a successful agreement when Bush and Sharon both came to power (if you believe the official negotiators who were at the last peace talks in Taba). He also mediated over peace talks between North and South Korea that led to things like the reunions between family members who were separated when Korea was divided, and both countries' athletes marching together at the Olympics in Sydney.
There is such a huge difference between the Clinton doctrine and the Bush doctrine that you really cannot use Clinton's words to support Bush. Clinton himself would never forgive you for it. Clinton did a lot of atrocious things himself that I don't agree with, but his weltanschauung was entirely different. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:45:42 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
wow
i posted that nice quote from ex-Pres Clinton above, and nobody had a single comment about it
aside from the possibility that no one saw it, i 'll venture 2 other possibilities for that observation:
1) everyone deemed the quote irrelavent, or
2) it spoke for itself, requiring no comment
well, option 1 certainly couldn't apply --- sooooo ... |
I read it. There are some significant differences between Clinton and Bush, however. Clinton didn't EVER suggest that the US should militarily change the regime in Iraq. He didn't launch any pre-emptive attacks that I know of. He made it one of his missions in life to mediate over the peace process in Israel/Palestine, and his name will always be inextricably linked to the Oslo peace process... a noble venture that ended 6 weeks away from a successful agreement when Bush and Sharon both came to power (if you believe the official negotiators who were at the last peace talks in Taba). He also mediated over peace talks between North and South Korea that led to things like the reunions between family members who were separated when Korea was divided, and both countries' athletes marching together at the Olympics in Sydney.
There is such a huge difference between the Clinton doctrine and the Bush doctrine that you really cannot use Clinton's words to support Bush. Clinton himself would never forgive you for it. Clinton did a lot of atrocious things himself that I don't agree with, but his weltanschauung was entirely different. |
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:52:46 PM · #132 |
Last night there was a story on TV here that disturbed me. It was about the Iraqi Shi'ites, who are 60% of the population of Iraq. It centred around an interview with their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Hakim, who is exiled in Iran. Here are some excerpts from the interview (the whole transcript is here):
Ayatollah Hakim is the leader of the Iraqi Shi'ites. Hakim opposed Saddam's Baath socialist regime and called for an Islamic state. He was imprisoned and managed to escape to Iran where he's been based for 23 years. Since then, he has survived seven attempts on his life orchestrated by the Iraqi dictator, and five of his brothers have been executed by Iraqi agents.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): I was arrested and then imprisoned. I was given a life sentence in Iraq without having seen a judge or a lawyer or even going through the simplest court procedure. I spent 18 months in jail where I was subjected to various types of torture during the period of interrogation and throughout my incarceration. Then there were mass liquidations in Iraq of my dearest friends and brethren. The regime had enacted a law which sentenced to execution anyone making the call to Islam, even though Iraq is a Muslim country. They made the law retrospective, applying it to those no longer making the call to Islam. The law resulted in the deaths of about 50,000 persons in Iraq, including dear friends who were my colleagues.
Hakim has real power as the representative of the 12 million Iraqi Shi'ites. He's looking forward to returning and resuming leadership of his people.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): Naturally, I love Iraq because it is my country. It is also a country with many sacred places which we revere and hold sacred and which I hope to be able to visit. For the past 23 years I’ve been prevented from visiting them and visiting my country and prevented from meeting up with my relatives, my clan, my friends, the holy menâ€Â¦ all these things. Also, my birthplace, where I studied. All these things strongly evoke one’s emotions and feelings around these issues, which represent one’s whole identity and existence.
Hakim is supported by the mullahs here in Iran, and that's why the Americans mistrust him. They're afraid the Shi'ite leader wants to set up an Iran-style theocracy. Despite once calling for an Islamic state in Iraq, Hakim now says he has a different vision of his country's future - democracy.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): At this particular moment in time, with tyranny and despotism dominant in Iraq, I saw it as my religious, ethical and political duty to undertake the comprehensive task of changing this dictatorial, sectarian and racist regime now ruling Iraq into a regime based on the opinions of the Iraqi people.
But the Ayatollah doesn't support America's war to remove Saddam Hussein. Hakim says he will fight any American military administration set up in post-war Iraq. He says this would be an occupation of his country.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): Our forces, as you know, are popular forces. They're from the core of the Iraqi people. We expect the Iraqi people as a whole to resist in this situation or else it will be considered a religious war. Seen as such, it would have serious ramifications.
These are not idle threats. This is the Badr Brigade, Ayatollah Hakim's army of about 15,000 well-trained and equipped soldiers. They are based in and backed by Iran. To stake his claim on post-war Iraq, Ayatollah Hakim has moved 5,000 of these troops into Iraqi Kurdistan and also into positions in southern Iraq. The Americans have denounced the moves but Hakim says it's his right to put his soldiers anywhere on Iraqi soil.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): Kurdistan is Iraqi land and we̢۪ve been there for 13 years. It̢۪s not a recent thing.
There's a long history of mistrust between the Americans and the Iraqi Shi'ites. In the 1980s, America supported Saddam against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war - one of the bloodiest and longest conflicts of the 20th century. Iraqi Karim Waez fought with the Iranians against Saddam. On the front line, he was one of 100,000 people gassed by chemicals that America helped supply.
American policy was reversed during the Gulf War of 1991 when Washington actually encouraged the Shi'ites to rise up and liberate themselves from Saddam Hussein. An Islamic republic was declared, with Ayatollah Hakim as its leader.
ALL CHANT: With our souls and our blood, we'll protect you, O Hakim!
But the Shi'ites were massacred by Saddam after the Americans failed to support them. Here in Karbala, the Shi'ites had taken refuge in the holiest site in the Shi'ite world. Saddam did the unthinkable. He bombed the shrine, killing hundreds.
George Bush may be telling the world about democracy, but Iraqi Shi'ite leaders say the President is not practising what he preaches. They say America has totally sidelined them in its plans for post-war Iraq.
SHEIKH HAMMOUDI (Translation): The American Administration, in general... deals with the Iraqi issue in a manner which attempts to sideline the elements or factions or groups which represent the Iraqi people. It deals with them in meetings or through correspondence but when it comes to the field and the real action and the issue of running the country and so on, the American administration sidelines these elements. In fact, sidelining them gives a negative impression, indicating that it will not work closely with the representatives of the Iraqi people.
Ayatollah Hakim warns that if an American administration stays more than a few months, they may be inviting terrorist attacks.
AYATOLLAH HAKIM (Translation): Sensitivities will be aroused. It will also fling the door wide open to the forces which can be termed extremist and which might react by carrying out acts of a violent nature. This will result in actions and reactions and eventually lead to a state of insecurity. And whatever his experience in Iraq's affairs a military governor will be unable to control the security situation in Iraq, which will naturally tend to chaos and anarchy and might result in acts of vengeance because they won̢۪t be able to control the situation. All these things harm them greatly and also harm us as Iraqis and the whole region.
The war for the Americans might be easy to win, but keeping the peace is going to be a lot harder. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 11:58:12 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by achiral:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998. |
The key words here are "support efforts" and "promote". Most people around the world would agree with this bill, because its aim was to help the IRAQI PEOPLE to change THEIR OWN regime. The NATO campaign in Kosovo, for example, helped the Serbian people to overthrow Milosevich by themselves. No one did it for them. And if you read my previous post, there are good reasons for this. If the Iraq people were ever actually supported in overthrowing Saddam themselves, the solution would be a lot better for them than a military occupation by the US. However, it has always been seen by the western powers as a bad idea simply because the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites. This is a superficial reason for not wanting self-determination in Iraq, and it has gotten us where we are today. |
|
|
|
03/27/2003 02:28:20 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by lisae:
He didn't launch any pre-emptive attacks that I know of. |
here's a link to the entire speech --- TIME Magazine Online
Here's another tidbit from that speech - the first words out of his mouth were ...
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
damn - that sounds just like what we're hearing now --- why is it less true today than it was then - just because of who's in the White House?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2003 04:52:00 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
damn - that sounds just like what we're hearing now --- why is it less true today than it was then - just because of who's in the White House? |
I answered this before. It wasn't regime change.
Maybe you think that attacking some factories and suspected weapons sites after YEARS of weapons inspections is the same as going into Iraq with ground troops with the aim of taking out the Iraqi leadership and installing a handpicked military administration after a few weeks of weapons inspections that didn't actually find anything.
Not many people would agree with you. |
|
|
|
03/27/2003 05:16:44 AM · #136 |
The Clinton administration were no saints in Iraq, and they were criticised very heavily. It was Madeline Albright who famously said that the deaths of Iraqi children under the economic sanctions were "the price we have to pay". Under Clinton, NATO flew constant bombing runs over areas of Iraq that caused a lot of civilian casualties, something the western media hardly reported. His missile strikes apparently destroyed a milk factory, among other things. Clinton was dealing with the same pressures Bush is now - having to contain Saddam but not being able to support the Iraqi people in overthrowing him because no one in the west wanted the Shi'ite controlled nation that would replace him.
But there is still a huge difference between containment and regime change. Both policies leave a lot to answer for. For a good analysis of the problems with US approaches to Iraq since the Gulf War, read John Pilger's webiste here. Although Pilger is very sensationalistic, he includes material on his website that challenges some of his claims in the articles section (with rebuttals) so I don't find it one-sided. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:05:37 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:05:37 AM EDT.
|
