|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
24 Dec 2004 12:54:39 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Pure *****.
Of course pantyboy of course. The BTY's haven't killed any Iraqi
civilians 'cos the monkey has said so.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
25 Dec 2004 05:54:02 AM |
|
|
WH"
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Pure *****.
Of course pantyboy of course. The BTY's >haven't killed any Iraqi civilians
'cos the >monkey has said so.
WH
The Terrorists and Baathists have killed 100 times the amount of innocent Iraqi
civilians that the US/UK have, and they have done it intentionally, whereas
those killed by coalition forces have been accidental.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
25 Dec 2004 11:54:33 AM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
WH"
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Pure *****.
Of course pantyboy of course. The BTY's >haven't killed any Iraqi
civilians
'cos the >monkey has said so.
WH
The Terrorists and Baathists have killed 100 times the amount of
innocent Iraqi
civilians that the US/UK have, and they have done it intentionally,
whereas
those killed by coalition forces have been accidental.
Tony
The majority of people killed by the insurgents have been collaborators
pantyboy. People who side with the idiot yanks. Although I'm aware that
o'reilly, hannity and worldNUTdaily don't mention that. The rest of
them...the real innocent people killed...they are what you idiot yanks
refer to as "collateral damage" with the deepest of respect of course!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 04:58:52 AM |
|
|
WH"
wrote:
The majority of people killed by the >insurgents have been collaborators
In other words those who want freedom and democracy should be killed.
Nice going Mr. Terrorist, you have been thoroughly exposed for what I knew you
were, an oppressor of freedom, a supporter of Terrorism, of those who behead
innocent people.
You're a piece of *****.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 10:38:12 AM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
WH"
wrote:
The majority of people killed by the >insurgents have been
collaborators
In other words those who want freedom and democracy should be killed.
Nice going Mr. Terrorist, you have been thoroughly exposed for what I
knew you
were, an oppressor of freedom, a supporter of Terrorism, of those who
behead
innocent people.
You're a piece of *****.
Tony
What? LOL! Your monkey's baboons have invaded a soverign country
pantyboy. How's that for freedom and democracy? All of this *****
started AFTER the baboons went in. This is the result of the BTY
invasion.
The piece of ***** would be you pantyboy. Turning a blind eye to the
causes of the problems because it doesn't suit your warmongering point
of view.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 10:48:40 AM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104079092.014543.128830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Turning a blind eye to the
causes of the problems because it doesn't suit your warmongering point
of view.
With all due respect, it seems to me that Sweden has become a nation of
professional pacifists that seem to believe that if you leave evil alone it
will
leave you alone.
Where's Gustavus Adolphus Vasa when you need him?
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 10:57:43 AM |
|
|
The CO"
wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104079092.014543.128830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Turning a blind eye to the
causes of the problems because it doesn't suit your warmongering point
of view.
With all due respect, it seems to me that >Sweden has become a nation of
professional pacifists that seem to >believe that if you leave evil alone it
will leave you alone.
That's the view of Liberals the world over, they think if we can just be nicey
nice, everyone will be nicey nice back to us.
But don't confuse Chris with being a pacifist. Chris is an IRA member with
links to Islamic groups, he believes in killing anyone who stands up for a
strong America and a strong West.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 11:14:29 AM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104079092.014543.128830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Turning a blind eye to the
causes of the problems because it doesn't suit your warmongering
point
of view.
With all due respect, it seems to me that Sweden has become a nation
of
professional pacifists that seem to believe that if you leave evil
alone it
will
leave you alone.
Where's Gustavus Adolphus Vasa when you need him?
The CO
There's a hell of a difference between diplomacy and sending in the
troops, guns ablazing CO. The strategy of the Swedish, and Europe in
general, is to use dialog to solve problems. Threats and troops don't
help anyone.
When's the last time you heard of people flying aeroplanes into Swedish
buildings?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
26 Dec 2004 09:57:09 PM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104081269.238420.285600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There's a hell of a difference between diplomacy and sending in the
troops, guns ablazing CO.
Mmmm, Clausewicz defined war as an extension of diplomacy, ie a means
to apply policy when diplomacy fails. It just depends how important the
policy
in question is. Should war be a last resort? Yes. Should it be something
that is
never used? No, at least not in the present world climate.
The strategy of the Swedish, and Europe in
general, is to use dialog to solve problems.
Which is perfectly ok provided dialogue *solves* the problems.
Unfortunately
in the case of Iraq it wasn't. He hit on the notion early on that as long
as you
can keep talking and negotiating he could avoid anything more serious
without
really giving up or conceding anything significant, or at worst saying one
thing and
doing another. A British PM once thought he could deal with another
dictator and
the result was merely to allow him more time to build up his arms.
Saddam was quite successfully doing essentially the same thing. He had a
sense of dynasty
and was probably prepared to let his sons finish what he started, reasoning
that the attempts
to enforce inspections etc and keep the oil embargo in place would
eventually falter and he
could resume business as usual, might have taken another 10 years or so, but
the UN would
likely have gotten tired of it and given in eventually. There is no doubt
that he (or his sons,
who were as bad or arguably worse than him) would have tried again to roll
up the middle
east, perhaps succeeding this time around.
Sweden missed out on WW2 because it chose neutrality, however had Hitler
succeeded
in defeating the UK and Russia it seems highly unlikely he would have
tolerated an enclave
of that size in the heart of his Festung Europa, in other words your
neutrality would have
been short lived. That said, it would have likely been suicidal for Sweden
to do otherwise
as Hitler would have taken serious exception and probably rolled up Sweden
along with
the rest of the Baltic states had it not been firmly neutral from day one.
So it was probably
a question of strict neutrality or being conquered.
Had Hitler succeeded however I think that it would have been a short lived
neutrality.
Threats and troops don't
help anyone.
Actually I really do disagree with the last comment. That's akin to saying
that
'violence doesn't solve anything'. I would respectfully submit that naked
force has helped solve (or just plain solved) more issues than any other in
the history of
the human race. WW2 being a case in point. If you want something from your
own
history, how about Breitenfeld? Do you think the Holy Roman Empire and the
Inquisition
were open to negotiation? They negotiated with the likes of Wallenstein and
Tilly and their
tercios. Had Gustavus Adolphus not stood his ground at Breitenfeld with
naked force, they
would have enforced the Inquisitioin and the Edicts of Restitution on
Germany and the Baltic states with
no regard for any 'diplomatic solution'. So on September 17th 1631, when
diplomacy was not
a workable solution, it was resolved by threats and troops. Emperor
Ferdinand was so worried that
the Lion of the North was no longer caged up he considered fleeing ahead of
him.
Now I'm not suggesting that naked force is the first solution of choice, but
sometimes it's the only
way that will work. The result is often messy (as with Iraq) you can
conquer a country in a week
but it can take years to restore it to some semblance of normalcy and Iraq
will be no different.
How long did it take for Germany to recover from WW2, even with the
assistance of all the
Marshall Plan? Years. And Iraq will take some time to resolve, with the
religious confrontation
in the country being a major part of the problem. Can it be solved? I
think it can, though it might
well ultimately mean a division of the country to accomodate the various
factions that have been
living in an artificially bound nation. Similar problems led to the breakup
of Yugoslavia into the
separate Serbia and Croatia, as only the iron heel of communism kept them
from each others throats.
That division dates back a long time as well, General Count Tilly used
Croatian cavalry in his army
and they were renowned for both their skill and their brutality, they took
no prisoners - none that lived
long or pleasantly anyway. Gustavus Adolphus used Finnish light cavalry
(who were similarly inclined)
as a counter.
When's the last time you heard of people flying aeroplanes into Swedish
buildings?
Again, no disrespect, but this is because you have chosen neutrality, and
therefore, for all practical
purposes, irrelevance. You are irrelevant to the conflict between the
Islamic extremists and the western
world whilst bigger, more satisfactory targets exist. Remember that the
Islamic Jihad predates the Crusades
(that the Islamic extremists ***** about constantly) by several centuries
and that Charles Martel only halted their
advance by defeating an Islamic army from then Muslim controlled Spain at
the Battle of Tours in 732CE.
Had he not done so, Islam might have taken France and probably gone on to
take all or most of Europe.
The present conflict is the thin edge of the same wedge, and unless it is
contained in the Middle East it will
have a good chance of engulfing the world again.
Should Islamic extremism prosper and begin to spread, your armed neutrality
may not be enough.
Sweden and other Baltic states are starting to have signficant immigrations
of Muslims
and France has a bigger issue in that they effectively have enclaves and
needed to pass laws about Muslim
headgear in state schools, which the extremists attempted to have changed by
virtue of hostage taking.
I strongly suspect that despite French assurances that no ransom was paid,
they got *something* for returning
the French journos with their heads still on. The question is what did
they get?
Put it another way, since Sept 11, 2001, what other AQ inspired acts have
taken place on US territory, despite the
multitude of threats and promises of blood in the streets etc from AQ?
None. This is at least partly because they have
been focussing on attacking troops in Iraq. Is it better to have them
taking on a military organisation that is at least armed
and prepared to defend themselves or leave them to their own ends which
would bring the warfare to the western homelands again? Better to let them
fight over there no?
If it's any comfort, we mostly enjoy the same degree of irrelevance.
Our population (20,000,000) compared to your almost 9,000,000 occupies only
about 10% of the land mass and we don't have the military muscle that the
size of
the land suggests.
But our political leaders made the decision to support the US invasion of
Iraq and the fact
the government was returned with an increased majority at a recent election
suggests that
most people here believe it was the best thing to do.
It's far too late to just walk away now, that would be worse than doing
nothing would have been,
so we will have to stay until the fat lady sings, which could well be some
years.
Ask in 10 years if it was the right thing and I might be able to answer with
some certainty, but at the
moment I think the rightness of it will depend largely on the eventual
outcome.
Yes and now you are saying, 'Ah, so you think the end justifies the means?'
no, not invariably, but
on this occasion it seems to be heading in that direction and it seems
certain to me that there was
no other means that had any chance of working, short of waiting til Saddam
(or one of his sons) decided
they had what they needed to conquer the Middle East. He tried once and
failed, no matter what else you
might think of him, he wasn't going to try again until he was sure he could
win.
And yes, that would have meant nukes or bio or chem agents. I suspect that
much of the chem and bio agent
research and material went to Syria, but we may never know. Could Syria be
next? Perhaps, though I think
that they may be smarter than Saddam and decide the only way to win is not
to play. Quaddafi certainly showed
he was not your average ME dictator by deciding not to play anymore and his
nation is now reaping the benefit
of an almost normal relationship with the US and the west in general. Good
decision. Now *that's* an example
that threats and troops DO solve problems, there is no doubt the invasion of
Iraq inspired Quaddafi to deal himself
out, and a certain F111 strike in retaliation for the Pan-Am bombing
probably helped a bit.
He would have been thinking that he might have been next, or at least high
on the list......
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
27 Dec 2004 11:47:31 AM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104081269.238420.285600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There's a hell of a difference between diplomacy and sending in the
troops, guns ablazing CO.
Mmmm, Clausewicz defined war as an extension of diplomacy, ie a means
to apply policy when diplomacy fails. It just depends how important
the
policy
in question is. Should war be a last resort? Yes. Should it be
something
that is
never used? No, at least not in the present world climate.
Agreed...that does not mean that war can be used to control the natural
resources of another country! i.e OIL! It DOE's mean that the fighters
in Iraq have the right to attampt to get rid of the invaders.
The strategy of the Swedish, and Europe in
general, is to use dialog to solve problems.
Which is perfectly ok provided dialogue *solves* the problems.
Unfortunately
in the case of Iraq it wasn't. He hit on the notion early on that as
long
as you
can keep talking and negotiating he could avoid anything more serious
without
really giving up or conceding anything significant, or at worst
saying one
thing and
doing another.
Come on CO, you know as well as I do that you have just defined
diplomacy. They all do it. Even the yanks. It's one thing to condemn
Saddam, and no one in their right mind would defend him but <<=3D=3Dand
that's a big BUT, one country on it's own cannot decide to go a
warring...specifically to control the natural resources of the weaker
nation. This war is only about controlling the oil.
A British PM once thought he could deal with another
dictator and
the result was merely to allow him more time to build up his arms.
Saddam was quite successfully doing essentially the same thing. He
had a
sense of dynasty
and was probably prepared to let his sons finish what he started,
reasoning
that the attempts
to enforce inspections etc and keep the oil embargo in place would
eventually falter and he
could resume business as usual, might have taken another 10 years or
so, but
the UN would
likely have gotten tired of it and given in eventually. There is no
doubt
that he (or his sons,
who were as bad or arguably worse than him) would have tried again to
roll
up the middle
east, perhaps succeeding this time around.
OK you have your opinion and I respect that. But I have to say, who
gave the seppo's the right to decide who should and who shouldn't be
invaded? Who told them that they have the right, (breaking all
internatioal laws), to attack any country they see fit to? This is not
the first time. They've done it before. Not only have they attacked on
a whim, but they've also organised coups and such to get rid of govt.s
that were popularly elected...Indonesia and Chile spring to mind.
Sweden missed out on WW2 because it chose neutrality, however had
Hitler
succeeded
in defeating the UK and Russia it seems highly unlikely he would have
tolerated an enclave
of that size in the heart of his Festung Europa, in other words your
neutrality would have
been short lived. That said, it would have likely been suicidal for
Sweden
to do otherwise
as Hitler would have taken serious exception and probably rolled up
Sweden
along with
the rest of the Baltic states had it not been firmly neutral from day
one.
So it was probably
a question of strict neutrality or being conquered.
Had Hitler succeeded however I think that it would have been a short
lived
neutrality.
I'm not a Swede I just live here. But you shall know that like Ireland
who were also neutral, thousands volunteered in other armies to fight
the nazi's. In Ireland's case they volunteered in the British army and
in Sweden's case it was the Danish and Norweigen armies. Not that the
Swedish govt. helped...no they didn't, they now today are still making
it up with the Jews for letting the nazis take norweigan Jews to the
concentration camps using the rail system in Sweden.
Threats and troops don't
help anyone.
Actually I really do disagree with the last comment. That's akin to
saying
that
'violence doesn't solve anything'.
That's exactly what I meant. I grew up in a war torn country. I happen
to know that violence doesn't help anyone. All it does is cause more
violence. That's a truth that is said again and again and again but
people who are not in the midst of it don't seem to be able to
understand it. When it's "way over there" it's easy to say that it'll
help.
I would respectfully submit that naked
force has helped solve (or just plain solved) more issues than any
other in
the history of
the human race. WW2 being a case in point.
WW2 and yanks attacking for oil are not the same thing CO. There is
absolutely no comparison there. Hitler had his objectives and everyone
knew of them. Hussein attacked Kuwait at the beginning of the ninety's
just to ***** the world off as far as I'm concerned...i.e. he took back
what was Iraq's in the first place until it was divided...by
foreigners.
If you want something from your
own
history, how about Breitenfeld? Do you think the Holy Roman Empire
and the
Inquisition
were open to negotiation? They negotiated with the likes of
Wallenstein and
Tilly and their
tercios. Had Gustavus Adolphus not stood his ground at Breitenfeld
with
naked force, they
would have enforced the Inquisitioin and the Edicts of Restitution on
Germany and the Baltic states with
no regard for any 'diplomatic solution'. So on September 17th 1631,
when
diplomacy was not
a workable solution, it was resolved by threats and troops. Emperor
Ferdinand was so worried that
the Lion of the North was no longer caged up he considered fleeing
ahead of
him.
Aren't encyclopedias great CO? Anyway...my history is Michael Collins
and Brian Boro and not Gustav Vasa and his lot. And anyway...this is
the twenty first century. We've evolved as a species since the
sixteenth century...at least I thought we had. Obviously the Americans
are still living in the early 20th century and the wild west where you
shot first and asked questions later.
Now I'm not suggesting that naked force is the first solution of
choice, but
sometimes it's the only
way that will work. The result is often messy (as with Iraq) you can
conquer a country in a week
but it can take years to restore it to some semblance of normalcy and
Iraq
will be no different.
Wait wait wait...what are you talking about? "You can conquer a
country" you said. That's exactly my point...no you can't. You can't
just go and conquer a country. That's why we have the UN and other
international organisations. Iraq was not a threat to anyone at all.
That is the point. The seppo's did not have any reason to conquer
Iraq...well apart from greed. They helped him to gain power for *****
sakes. They encouraged him to start a war with Iran in order to avoid
the Islamic revolution in Iran spreading to the oil well beside
Iran...Saudi. If they were at war then they hadn't much time to think
about spreading the revolution had they? They supplied the arms for war
to both sides so as they'de continue killing each other. They sold the
WMD's to him that they later used as an excuse to attack. You
see...Saddam was not a despot in the eyes of the yanks until he decided
not to do as they say.
How long did it take for Germany to recover from WW2, even with the
assistance of all the Marshall Plan? Years. And Iraq will take some
time >to resolve, with the religious confrontation in the country being
a major >part of the problem.
No! Germany and Iraq cannot be compared. This was unnecessary. Germany
was. This is greed on the part of the seppo's. When Saddam sat in the
yankie's lap then he was OK he could kill who he liked. It's only after
he hopped out of those laps that he became a threat and a despot. It's
always the same with the yanks. As far as the different religios
beliefs are concerned...thay did fine under Saddam! Whatever happens
there will be a civil war...and the cause of it? The fuckin' yanks!
They'll support, fund and arm whichever side they think will be better
for them...until that side tells them to *****-off. Then that side will
be the same as Saddam and it'll all start again.
Can it be solved? I think it can, though it might well ultimately
mean a >division of the country to accomodate the various factions that
have been
living in an artificially bound nation.
Isin't it easy for you to say that? "Oh well let's divide the country
and it'll all be well". Divided by a foreign force. There'll never be
peace in Iraq because of what the seppo's did.
Similar problems led to the breakup
of Yugoslavia into the
separate Serbia and Croatia, as only the iron heel of communism kept
them
from each others throats.
That division dates back a long time as well, General Count Tilly
used
Croatian cavalry in his army
and they were renowned for both their skill and their brutality, they
took
no prisoners - none that lived
long or pleasantly anyway. Gustavus Adolphus used Finnish light
cavalry
(who were similarly inclined)
as a counter.
That encyclopedia again CO. And I'm well aware of what happened in
Jugoslavia and the reasons behind it. That's why I say that the fuckin'
idiot yanks should have kept themselves out of Iraq and let them sort
it out themselves. Oops but then they can't control who gets power and
ultimately control of the oil.
When's the last time you heard of people flying aeroplanes into
Swedish
buildings?
Again, no disrespect, but this is because you have chosen neutrality,
and
therefore, for all practical
purposes, irrelevance.
Irrelevance...to the yanks yes 'cos they get no support from Sweden.
But not to the other side of the coin. Very relevant. Neutrality means
being able to stand in the middle of the war mongering yanks and the
Islamic jihadists. You do understand that don't you?
You are irrelevant to the conflict between the Islamic extremists and
the >western world whilst bigger, more satisfactory targets exist.
LOL! No...you have it wrong. We here are able to think and talk.
Resorting to violence to solve problems is kinda "wild west" you know.
Attacking to rob even if it's oil is kinda a crime you know. Mugging
it's called here. You attack someone who looks weaker than you and rob
them. Yankies did that to Iraq...they killed 20,000 innocent people so
far in the process but hell...who cares, they are after all only
Iraqi's.
Remember that the
Islamic Jihad predates the Crusades
(that the Islamic extremists ***** about constantly) by several
centuries
and that Charles Martel only halted their
advance by defeating an Islamic army from then Muslim controlled
Spain at
the Battle of Tours in 732CE.
Had he not done so, Islam might have taken France and probably gone
on to
take all or most of Europe.
The present conflict is the thin edge of the same wedge, and unless
it is
contained in the Middle East it will
have a good chance of engulfing the world again.
Sorry but I have to say rubbish to this. Might...might not...if my
granny had've had balls she'de have been my granda. I put your last
paragraph in that category.
Should Islamic extremism prosper and begin to spread, your armed
neutrality
may not be enough.
Sweden and other Baltic states are starting to have signficant
immigrations
of Muslims
and France has a bigger issue in that they effectively have enclaves
and
needed to pass laws about Muslim
headgear in state schools, which the extremists attempted to have
changed by
virtue of hostage taking.
1=2E So we've joined the Baltic states have we? And there was I thinking
I was in Scandanavia.
2=2E The other religions too had a lot to say about headgear. It was only
the Muslims who made the media.
I strongly suspect that despite French assurances that no ransom was
paid,
they got *something* for returning
the French journos with their heads still on. The question is what
did
they get?
And who cares? As you said, the guys still have their heads on. That's
what's important.
Put it another way, since Sept 11, 2001, what other AQ inspired acts
have
taken place on US territory, despite the
multitude of threats and promises of blood in the streets etc from
AQ?
None.
The "threats" were made up by the monkey's administration to keep the
seppo's at bay. I don't believe you hadn't sussed that out CO.
This is at least partly because they have been focussing on attacking
troops in Iraq.
Oh well maybe you didn't suss it out. Now you've suddenly gone over to
al-queda. The Iraqi's, are killing yanks not al-queda. The yanks
invaded their country. If the yanks invaded your country what would you
do? Throw flowers at their feet...I doubt it. The al-queda connection
is just a convenient justification for the invasion.
Is it better to have them
taking on a military organisation that is at least armed
and prepared to defend themselves or leave them to their own ends
which
would bring the warfare to the western homelands again? Better to
let them
fight over there no?
Why would Iraq fighting within itself bring "the warfare to the western
homelands again"? "Better to let them fight over there no?" makes them,
the Iraqi's, sound like a liability or something. What do you mean? We,
the west, have our way of thinking, let them have theirs. We shouldn't
force our ways down their throats. That's what the yanks say they're
doing. In our name. But really they only want to control the oil.
If it's any comfort, we mostly enjoy the same degree of irrelevance.
Our population (20,000,000) compared to your almost 9,000,000
occupies only
about 10% of the land mass and we don't have the military muscle that
the
size of the land suggests.
It's no comfort no.
But our political leaders made the decision to support the US
invasion of
Iraq and the fact the government was returned with an increased
majority at > a recent election suggests that most people here believe
it was the best >thing to do.
Unless like in the UK there is no alternative of course? I think that
popular opinion in Aussie, (you are in Australia aren't you?), is
against this dirty war. But I could be wrong...it has happened :-)
It's far too late to just walk away now, that would be worse than
doing
nothing would have been, so we will have to stay until the fat lady
sings, >which could well be some years.
Should never have gone in...isin't that the point?
Ask in 10 years if it was the right thing and I might be able to
answer with
some certainty, but at the moment I think the rightness of it will
depend >largely on the eventual outcome.
I don't actually remember asking you anything CO. But seeing as we've
come this far I'll tell you what will happen. The seppo's will appoint,
democratically of course, a new dictator who is friendly towards tham.
Then they'll leave, in about ten years, leaving behind either a brutal
dictator or a civil war. Then after years of internal fighting and
hundreds of thousands of deaths they'll, (seppo's), go back to help in
discussions between the different parties of the conflict. Then
there'll be a "peace" of sorts and the yanks will say..."heh we stopped
the civil war aren't we just great and so humane". What they won't say
is that they were the cause of it from day one!
Yes and now you are saying, 'Ah, so you think the end justifies the
means?'
no, not invariably, but on this occasion it seems to be heading in
that >direction and it seems certain to me that there was no other
means that had >any chance of working, short of waiting til Saddam=B4(or
one of his sons) >decided they had what they needed to conquer the
Middle East. He tried once >and failed, no matter what else you might
think of him, he wasn't going to >try again until he was sure he could
win.
He invaded Kuwait to ***** the yanks and the world off. Claiming,
rightly, that it was part of Iraq.
And yes, that would have meant nukes or bio or chem agents. I
suspect that
much of the chem and bio agent research and material went to Syria,
but we >may never know.
Oh you suspect that do you?
Could Syria be next? Perhaps, though I think that they may be smarter
than >Saddam and decide the only way to win is not to play. =B4Quaddafi
certainly >showed he was not your average ME dictator by deciding not
to play anymore >and his nation is now reaping the benefitof an almost
normal relationship >with the US and the west in general.
Syria, Libya and Iraq became dictatorships AFTER they stopped sucking
yankie ***** CO. During the time they did they were totally OK!
Good decision. Now *that's* an example that threats and troops DO
solve >problems, there is no doubt the invasion of Iraq inspired
Quaddafi to deal >himselfout, and a certain F111 strike in retaliation
for the Pan-Am bombing >probably helped a bit.He would have been
thinking that he might have been >next, or at least high on the
list......
So he felt that he'de better suck yankie ***** as that was best for his
country. That's the only reason. Because of yankie aggression.
Anyway...who says that the seppo's can have all the WMD's they want but
in the hands of anyone else they are a threat? They'll sell them to
"terrorists" I hear. Well which country in the world has had more
contact and given more support to "terrorists" than any other...yes
yankieland. Although then the terrorists are called freedom fighters.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
28 Dec 2004 06:49:44 AM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104169651.523416.285550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Agreed...that does not mean that war can be used to control the natural
resources of another country! i.e OIL!
Hmmm, that depends on who's doing the invading and why.
Many, even most wars, have been fought over resources since
the beginning of history, and probably before that. That could be
any kind of resource from water to a population centre (which provides
a tax/labour base). The Japanese entered WW2 intending to make a
quick grab for the natural resources of SE Asia, the so called 'South East
Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' because they had bugger all at home.
They wanted the resources of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya for
their extensive rubber and petroleum resources. They took that step
because of a US sponsored embargo on petroleum and rubber imports
because of their invasion of China. (Which the League of Nations proved
incapable of doing much about - dooming it to failure - a process that the
UN is in great danger of following)
In the specific case of Iraq, in my opinion it wasn't a question of the US
having
control of the oil, (the US has stated specifically that it belongs to Iraq
and has
not taken on bbl it hasn't paid for) but who *doesn't* control it, in this
case a
megalomaniac dictator with aspirations to conquer the middle east.
It DOE's mean that the fighters
in Iraq have the right to attampt to get rid of the invaders.
Except that the core of those fighters are not those who represent the
wishes of
the majority of Iraqis (who they are busily killing in suicide bomb attacks)
but a mix
of two main groups.
1) Baath party loyalists that lost everything they had acquired under
Saddam.
2) Islamic fundamentalists who see Iraq as merely a convenient place to
kill infidels.
Particularly American infidels....
The fundies are both supported and inspired by Al Qaeda and are getting
significant
support from Iran, which is supporting the Shiite groups.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that all Iraqis are happy or even tolerant
of the US
occupation, but if the US pulled out now they would still be blowing each
other up
for years. This is largely because the country itself in divided
internally, partly on
religious lines (which Saddam ruthlessly suppressed - Iraq was always a
secular
government - one of the few good things about the Saddam regime) but now
that
he is gone the sectarian violence is back with a vengeance and with Iran
stirring the
pot this is going to be messy.
Come on CO, you know as well as I do that you have just defined
diplomacy. They all do it. Even the yanks.
Certainly, that's *exactly* what I'm saying. Diplomacy *includes* military
action
as an extreme measure. Your definition of diplomacy appears to *exclude*
such
action, ie you are trying to state that your kind of diplomacy can solve all
the problems
without ever resorting to military action. History suggests otherwise.
It's one thing to condemn
Saddam, and no one in their right mind would defend him
No, I've not seen any post of yours that suggests you think he
was good for anything but a bullet in the head.
but <<==and
that's a big BUT, one country on it's own cannot decide to go a
warring...specifically to control the natural resources of the weaker
nation. This war is only about controlling the oil.
Saddam did. The reason Kuwait was attractive to him was the oil. He wanted
to
control it. The stated reason for the invasion of Kuwait was that the
Kuwaiti's were
supposedly drilling obliquely into Iraqi territory. He intended to annex
Kuwait into
Iraq and control its oil giving him a huge increase in income that he
intended to spend
on his weapons programs. Make no mistake, this man intended to take
control of the
entire region, at gunpoint, and set himself up as overall ruler.
OK you have your opinion and I respect that.
And I yours. I don't know your background and your experiences and it's
probably fair to say that our experiences shape our opinions somewhat.
But I have to say, who
gave the seppo's the right to decide who should and who shouldn't be
invaded? Who told them that they have the right, (breaking all
internatioal laws), to attack any country they see fit to?
On this occasion, one could argue that they were enforcing the UN resolution
that
the UN (which has become close to being an irrelevant organisation these
days)
was steadfastly refusing to enforce.
This is not the first time. They've done it before. Not only have they
attacked on
a whim, but they've also organised coups and such to get rid of govt.s
that were popularly elected...Indonesia and Chile spring to mind.
Don't disagree and sometimes that was a bad decision. In the case of
Indonesia
they did us and everyone a favour quite frankly. If you had lived on
Suhartos doorstep
all your life you would know why. He was also an expansionist and I've
*seen* Indonesian
schoolbooks of the era that showed the entire chain of islands including
what is now Papua
AND the northern half (down to roughly the Tropic of Capricorn) described as
rightfully
belonging to Indonesia.
Chile I'm not sure about. I think they backed the wrong horse there and the
yanks have a
definite tendency to support corrupt 'democratic' regimes when the
alternative was a
communist or at least extreme left wing regime. This has cost them dearly,
Vietnam is
a case in point, the 'democracy' of the South was rotten to the core, but
preferable (in
the opinion of US policy) to the communist takeover.
I'm not a Swede I just live here. But you shall know that like Ireland
who were also neutral, thousands volunteered in other armies to fight
the nazi's.
Certainly, but it also hosted a lot of German sympathisers and during the
uprising
of 1916, they were expecting materiel support from Germany which was
actually
never forthcoming. A lot of Irish have no love for the Brits and I can't
say I blame
them for that, given the historical persecution and absentee landlords etc.
Heck, the
very word 'Boycott' was invented in Ireland.
Michael Collins, later leader of the movement that created the Irish
Republic was
the aide-de-campe to James Connolly during the Easter Monday uprising.
In Ireland's case they volunteered in the British army and
in Sweden's case it was the Danish and Norweigen armies. Not that the
Swedish govt. helped...no they didn't, they now today are still making
it up with the Jews for letting the nazis take norweigan Jews to the
concentration camps using the rail system in Sweden.
Yes, with 20/20 hindsight one could say it was a, uh, less than courageous
decision.
That's exactly what I meant. I grew up in a war torn country. I happen
to know that violence doesn't help anyone. All it does is cause more
violence.
Germany and Japan might disagree. So might Russia.
If you are talking about Northern Ireland (amongst other places)
I'd agree, violence there hasn't solved the problem. But it can
and does solve a lot of them. I'm no warmongering advocate of
might makes right, and diplomacy (in your sense of it) should be
the major tool, but sometimes it won't work because of intransigence
or hidden agendas on one or both sides and that will inevitably lead
to a military intevention. In the specific case of Iraq, I don't believe
any amount of negotiation would have gotten rid of Saddam or had
him modify his intentions, though he might have had to use less obvious
methods, his intent and the end result would have always been a war
of conquest in the region.
That's a truth that is said again and again and again but
people who are not in the midst of it don't seem to be able to
understand it. When it's "way over there" it's easy to say that it'll
help.
Somewhat agree. My only exception to that statement is that it's
not *invariably* true.
WW2 and yanks attacking for oil are not the same thing CO. There is
absolutely no comparison there. Hitler had his objectives and everyone
knew of them.
So did Saddam, one of the differences is that instead of waiting for him to
attack when *he* was ready, it was decided to intervene before then.
Now it's quite certain that the US only acts in its own interests and that
doubtless included removing control of the oil wealth of Iraq from the
dictator who was actively using the cash flow from those resources to
fund a massive military buildup and probably NBC technology.
Hussein attacked Kuwait at the beginning of the ninety's
just to ***** the world off as far as I'm concerned...i.e. he took back
what was Iraq's in the first place until it was divided...by
foreigners.
With respect, that's an overly simplistic and perhaps somewhat nieve
point of view. He wanted the oil. Or more correctly the money from
the oil and the prestige for 'reuniting' Kuwait with Iraq. In some respects
it was a litmus test of the response of both the US and the UN and it's
probably fair to say that he was expecting a rather less vehement response
considering the support from the US during the Iran-Iraq hostilities.
As to it being part of Iraq before it was separated by foreigners, there
is some truth in that, though Iraq was not Iraq as such at the time, the
whole region (including Kuwait) was Mesopotamia. Kuwait had been
a sovereign state for some time, it was a pathetic excuse, nothing more.
Aren't encyclopedias great CO?
I wouldn't think so, they only give brief factual descriptions of events,
rarely the
causative factors or consequences. I don't own one, nor do I use Britannica
or any of the online ones. I'm a student of history, which is quite a
different
colour of horse....
Anyway...my history is Michael Collins
Guiding light of the revolution against British rule that lead to a treaty
and the formation of the Irish Republic (Eire).
Assassinated in 1922.
and Brian Boro
High King of Ireland, reigned 1002-1014.
Poor bugger. His troops won the battle of Clontarf, led by his
son Murchad actually, as Brian was over 70 at the time, but some of
the defeated army stumbled across his tent, overpowered his
personal guards and killed him.
and not Gustav Vasa and his lot.
Ok.
And anyway...this is
the twenty first century. We've evolved as a species since the
sixteenth century...at least I thought we had.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Human base instincts have not changed
one bit since prehistory. We've learned to control them better perhaps.
But scratch the surface and we are still the same bipedal animals that
brought you the razing of Carthage, the sacking of Athens, Magdeburg and the
Holocaust.
Maybe in a million years or so.....
Obviously the Americans
are still living in the early 20th century and the wild west where you
shot first and asked questions later.
Incline to agree. The US invariably acts in its own interests and will
back it up with firepower if they think it's worth it.
Wait wait wait...what are you talking about? "You can conquer a
country" you said. That's exactly my point...no you can't. You can't
just go and conquer a country.
Sure you can. It's been happening forever and it will keep happening
as long as we have nations that have something other nations want,
and can't get by negotiation. That can include wanting a nation to
be free of a nutcase dictator or hand over a global terrorist leader.
That's why we have the UN and other
international organisations.
What you are really saying (I think) is that you *shouldn't* do so unless
the circumstances justify it. This is what the UN is supposed to be for,
however it's also the reason it's becoming a paper tiger. The various UN
members (especially those on the security council - which is built around
the
Allies of WW2) have such divergent interests that it's nearly impossible to
get them to agree on when to have lunch, much less what's on the menu.
If the UN is to have any sort of future and positive effect on the world it
is badly in need of reformation as they seem to have adopted a major hands
off policy. Look at East Timor, it took almost a year before a 'blue beret'
UN operation could be organised, by which time the violent pro Indonesian
minority would have wreaked havoc, heck they did enough damage in the
short time before Australia sent troops. They take too long to do anything
about a problem and often they end up doing nothing except issuing a
resolution
with nothing hanging on it. Or they make a resolution with consequences for
failing to fall into line (as with Iraq) and fail to follow through.
Iraq was not a threat to anyone at all.
That is the point.
Must disagree, I feel quite strongly that Saddam was intending to gain
control over
as much of the ME as he could manage and that he was prepared to let his
sons finish
the job if it took too long. You shouldn't underestimate the man, like a
certain Caesar
before him, he was ambitious. He was trying to start a dynasty and at least
one of his
sons was capable of taking over from dear old dad.
The seppo's did not have any reason to conquer
Iraq...well apart from greed.
They helped him to gain power for *****
sakes.
No, I don't believe so, he basically assassinated his way into power and
kept hold of
it by continuing to purge any opposition, even from within the Baath Party.
I'm not well up on that period of Iraqi history, feel free to enlighten me
if you
can point to facts that support that statement. I'm not incapable of having
my
opinion changed.
They encouraged him to start a war with Iran in order to avoid
the Islamic revolution in Iran spreading to the oil well beside
Iran...Saudi. If they were at war then they hadn't much time to think
about spreading the revolution had they?
They certainly supported Iraq in that war. Absolutely agree.
They supplied the arms for war
to both sides so as they'de continue killing each other.
Aside from the Iran Contra deal not to Iran that I know of.
Again, please point to facts that support that statement and I
will listen.
They sold the
WMD's to him that they later used as an excuse to attack.
I don't believe that's so. Please be specific about what they supposedly
supplied Saddam with that were WMD?
You see...Saddam was not a despot in the eyes of the yanks until he
decided
not to do as they say.
Mmmm, I think it might be better stated that they accepted him as long as he
was *their* despot wouldn't you say? :^)
No! Germany and Iraq cannot be compared.
Yes, they can, I'm not talking about the neccessity, simply the fact that
having got to this point, it will be a long time getting the aftermath
sorted.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
This was unnecessary.
At this point in time, perhaps, but I think it certain it would have been
necessary at
some point in the future. I believe I understand your viewpoint better now.
Germany was.
It was clearer then perhaps. One of things that has changed is that
conflicts
between nations are rarely declared wars in the conventional sense these
days.
This is greed on the part of the seppo's.
Mmmm, not greed, it's costing a fortune in both lives and money,
if you were to say self interest I'd agree..
When Saddam sat in the
yankie's lap then he was OK he could kill who he liked.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
They tolerated him yes.
It's only after he hopped out of those laps that he became a threat and a
despot.
Mmmmm, no he was always a despot, he became a threat when he got ideas of
taking
over the Middle East and that firmed up when he invaded Kuwait.
It's always the same with the yanks.
The one thing you can depend on is that they support their allies, even
if they don't like them. And sometimes they make the wrong choices.
As far as the different religios
beliefs are concerned...thay did fine under Saddam!
Mmmm, no he actively persecuted the minority Shiites. Though that was more
for
political reasons than religious. Saddam was Muslim only as a political
expedient.
Whatever happens
there will be a civil war
Possibly. That is by no means certain in my opinion.
...and the cause of it? The fuckin' yanks!
Mmmm, assuming there is a civil war, at worst they simply hastened
the inevitable. Only Saddams despotism kept them apart until now.
Particularly where the Kurds are involved.
They'll support, fund and arm whichever side they think will be better
for them...until that side tells them to *****-off. Then that side will
be the same as Saddam and it'll all start again.
I'm sorry but I think that's an unwarranted assumption. We'll have to wait
and see.
Isin't it easy for you to say that? "Oh well let's divide the country
and it'll all be well".
Actually, I didn't say all would be well.
Divided by a foreign force.
Actually I was thinking that once an elected government is
in place, they might well do it themselves. Not to the point of
separate states, but some autonomous regions within Iraq.
Again, I should have been clearer in my explanation.
There'll never be
peace in Iraq because of what the seppo's did.
Saddam was a murdering arsehole and the world is a better place
without him running the show. That created a power struggle and
it may be a while before that is resolved. Short of allowing Saddam
to pass his dynasty on to his sons (who I could argue were worse) it
was really a question of when that power vaccuum would be created
rather than if.
That encyclopedia again CO.
Just remember that those that ignore history are doomed to repeat its
mistakes. :^)
And I'm well aware of what happened in
Jugoslavia and the reasons behind it.
Ok.
That's why I say that the fuckin'
idiot yanks should have kept themselves out of Iraq and let them sort
it out themselves.
Unfortunately as long as Saddam ran the show there would have been
no 'sorting out' by the Iraqis. He would have passed the mantle to his
son and it would have gone on another generation or more. At some point
it would have to be thrashed out but it couldn't happen with him or his son
in control. Now it can.
Oops but then they can't control who gets power and
ultimately control of the oil.
Incorrect. They have simply ensured that Saddam didn't. The Iraqis
own it and control it. You might remember that the US is not that dependent
on Iraqi oil, the major consumers of that are in Europe.
Why do you think France and Germany were so keen to leave him in place?
They had all kinds of deals going on behind the scenes, Total-Elf were in it
up to their pointy little ears.
Irrelevance...to the yanks yes 'cos they get no support from Sweden.
With or without Swedish support, it makes no difference. That's what I
mean by irrelevance.
But not to the other side of the coin. Very relevant. Neutrality means
being able to stand in the middle of the war mongering yanks and the
Islamic jihadists. You do understand that don't you?
I respect the concept of neutrality, however the Jihadis will not, except as
an interim measure. At the end of the day, you are Muslim, or infidel, in
which case you have two choices, convert or die.
LOL! No...you have it wrong. We here are able to think and talk.
So are we. :^)
Resorting to violence to solve problems is kinda "wild west" you know.
:^) Somewhat agree.....
Attacking to rob even if it's oil is kinda a crime you know.
Except they have stolen the oil. It still belongs to Iraq. All that really
happened
was that Saddam lost control of it in favour of (ultimately) an elected
government.
Will they favour the US? Probably, but will that amount to free oil? No.
Any way you shake that, it still comes down to the yanks not owning the oil
unless they buy it same as everyone else. First off the election has to go
through
and a representative government be elected. If that happens then the
goverment
has legitimacy (and I fully agree that any US appointed interim govt can
never be
considered truly representative of the wishes of the Iraqis). Why do you
think the
militants are trying to disrupt the process? Because an appointed
government gives
some credence to their claims of US occupation and control, a freely elected
government
makes them nothing more than the lunatic fringe. So naturally they would
like to see
the US forced to leave without the election taking place, so that they can
try a similar
stunt to Saddam and his gunpoint politics.
Mugging it's called here. You attack someone who looks weaker than you and
rob
them. Yankies did that to Iraq.
Except they haven't stolen anything. Except the dictator himself. Heck,
they even
gave him back...
..they killed 20,000 innocent people
I understood it to be rather less, about half that and that includes all
military casualties.
So a portion of them were not 'innocent'.
What is the source for that number and is it collaborated?
Don't like the idea of innocent deaths but it happens in all wars.
so far in the process but hell...who cares, they are after all only
Iraqi's.
And some animals are more equal than others? I won't fall into that one.
Sorry but I have to say rubbish to this. Might...might not...if my
granny had've had balls she'de have been my granda. I put your last
paragraph in that category.
You're entitled to your opinon of course. But I still think some European
nations will have problems in the future due to the increasing Muslim
population.
What happens if they become a majority and decide they want Shariah?
Couldn't happen you say? France is having some problems already.
1. So we've joined the Baltic states have we? And there was I thinking
I was in Scandanavia.
LOL. Ok, Scandinavia then, however Sweden is a Baltic state, that wet
stuff in Stockholm harbour is part of it.
2. The other religions too had a lot to say about headgear. It was only
the Muslims who made the media.
Yes, they got more press, but they also made the biggest deal about it.
The headgear is not that important on it's own, it's just a litmus test.
And who cares? As you said, the guys still have their heads on. That's
what's important.
Incline to agree, but negotiating with terroists is like paying Danegeld,
the Danes keep coming back for more....
The "threats" were made up by the monkey's administration to keep the
seppo's at bay. I don't believe you hadn't sussed that out CO.
Don't think Al Jazeera shares that opinion. The US have no need to make
up threats by AQ. They would love to have another Sept 11, but they
seem to lack the means at the moment. Sept 11 was their master stroke,
and it would have destroyed the enconomy of any lesser nation.
I don't think they have nukes, nor will they be able to obtain them,
if they could have, they would have used them long ago.
Oh well maybe you didn't suss it out. Now you've suddenly gone over to
al-queda. The Iraqi's, are killing yanks not al-queda.
There are a lot of AQ supported and inspired fighters and a lot of them
don't give a rats how many Iraqis die in their attacks, as long as they can
kill infidels. If they are American infidels so much the better and it now
seems
that Iran is actively supporting the insurgency as well.
The yanks
invaded their country. If the yanks invaded your country what would you
do? Throw flowers at their feet...I doubt it. The al-queda connection
is just a convenient justification for the invasion.
Actually the invasion is a convenient means for AQ supporters to get at
Americans.
Why would Iraq fighting within itself bring "the warfare to the western
homelands again"? "Better to let them fight over there no?" makes them,
the Iraqi's, sound like a liability or something. What do you mean?
No, not at all. They are an asset, or will be if they are finally allowed
to
choose their own leadership, without AQ and Iran trying to create another
Islamic state instead of a secular one. Make no mistake, both those
entities
want a civil war, on religious lines, with a Shariah based Iranian style
Islamic
republic after the dust settles. This would be a disaster almost as bad as
leaving
Saddam in power.
We, the west, have our way of thinking, let them have theirs.
In principle, don't disagree, but the likes of Iran and AQ and the like have
a desire
for a global Ummah so they fully intend to export their way to the west, at
gunpoint.
We shouldn't force our ways down their throats.
I see your point, but I can't help but think that we are simply giving them
what they
were already supposed to have, a democratic government, except that a despot
stole
it out from under them.
That's what the yanks say they're
doing. In our name. But really they only want to control the oil.
Again, I say that they just wanted to make sure Saddam didn't benefit from
it.
It's no comfort no.
None to me either, ah well.
Unless like in the UK there is no alternative of course?
There is. But they took a hammering at the polls.
I think that
popular opinion in Aussie, (you are in Australia aren't you?),
Yes, certainly.
is against this dirty war. But I could be wrong...it has happened :-)
Opinion has shifted somewhat. The current opinion is that now that we are
there,
we need to stay and finish the job. The nation was split about 50/50 on
whether we
should have gotten involved at the time of the war, but it's now firmly of
the opinion
that having gone this far, we need to make sure the effort and the lives
were not lost for nothing.
Should never have gone in...isin't that the point?
50 50 on that, but the reality is we are there now.
I don't actually remember asking you anything CO. But seeing as we've
come this far I'll tell you what will happen. The seppo's will appoint,
democratically of course, a new dictator who is friendly towards tham.
Actually I seriously doubt that. There would be far too much international
attention to rig an election. The biggest threat to it is the insurgents
who
desperately want the US appointed interim government to stay so that
they can claim just that.
Then they'll leave, in about ten years, leaving behind either a brutal
dictator or a civil war. Then after years of internal fighting and
hundreds of thousands of deaths they'll, (seppo's), go back to help in
discussions between the different parties of the conflict. Then
there'll be a "peace" of sorts and the yanks will say..."heh we stopped
the civil war aren't we just great and so humane". What they won't say
is that they were the cause of it from day one!
Well, you have your opinion. I'm afraid I don't share it. I guess we'll
have
to wait and see.
He invaded Kuwait to ***** the yanks and the world off.
No, he simply underestimated the reaction of the world and his
former buddies....
Claiming, rightly, that it was part of Iraq.
That was merely an excuse. About as valid as China still claiming Taiwan
is just a 'rebel province' instead of an independent nation.
Oh you suspect that do you?
Yes actually.
Oh, I don' t think there were immense stockpiles or nukes hidden anywhere
but I do believe clandestine R&D was being done, on a small scale to keep
it hidden, with an intent to get serious about it when the spotlight was
off.
Syria, Libya and Iraq became dictatorships AFTER they stopped sucking
yankie ***** CO. During the time they did they were totally OK!
Mmmm, again, they were always that, but they were tolerated.
So he felt that he'de better suck yankie ***** as that was best for his
country. That's the only reason. Because of yankie aggression.
If that's how you choose to see, as good a description as any.
Anyway...who says that the seppo's can have all the WMD's they want but
in the hands of anyone else they are a threat?
Russia, Ukraine, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan all have nukes.
North Korea says it does. Iran is working on it.
I think the genie is about out of the bottle as far as nations are
concerned.
The combination of nukes and delivery systems is a list that is much
shorter.
They'll sell them to"terrorists" I hear.
North Korea sure as hell would. Pakistan seems to have been
helping out Iran. Iran would hand them to AQ in a heartbeat if
they had them and thought they could get away with it.
Iran might see another revolution before then though, the younger people
aren't that thrilled with their Islamic Paradise and I think the days of the
Ayatollahs might be numbered.
Well which country in the world has had more
contact and given more support to "terrorists" than any other...yes
yankieland. Although then the terrorists are called freedom fighters.
Freedom fighters or terrorists? Depends which side you are on, and who
wins.
Winners write history books, or we would be reading about the depraved
French
Terrorists that resisted the enlightenment of the Thousand Year Reich
instead of
about the courage of the French Resistance.......
We seem to almost agree on some things, but not others, fair enough, hey
I think we might have set a record on A.P.N. we managed to have a
disagreement
over the US/Iraq war without launching into personal abuse and insults.
Hope that's a precedent for more of the same......
Cheers
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
28 Dec 2004 09:44:05 PM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:33d332F3tfdn4U1@individual.net...
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
..they killed 20,000 innocent people
I understood it to be rather less, about half that and that includes all
military casualties.
You're both way off.
Iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of US bombings after invasion
stands at over 100,000 people
(*As of Oct 2004 when the study by the Center for International Emergency
Disaster and Refugee Studies of Johns Hopkins University was completed and
published by The Lancet).
Full report here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9448/full/llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1
(subscription required)
Here's a summary:
================
Background: In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK,
invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6
months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.
Methods: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about
household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those
households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent
deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with
the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months
after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
Findings: The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2)
higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.
Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of
Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold
(1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than
expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and
far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of
death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular
accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence
was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in
15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most
individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58
times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.
Interpretation: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000
excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from
coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that
collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of
extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to
changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.
===============
Stat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
29 Dec 2004 12:33:51 AM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dKpAd.22210$nV.693583@news20.bellglobal.com...
Iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of US bombings after invasion
stands at over 100,000 people
(*As of Oct 2004 when the study by the Center for International Emergency
Disaster and Refugee Studies of Johns Hopkins University was completed and
published by The Lancet).
Full report here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9448/full/llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1
(subscription required)
At face value, interesting and supportive of your claim..
however....
Methods: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about
household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002.
Given the size of Iraq that's a very small representative sample and I'd be
highly
surprised if it gave an accurate or even semi accurate result.
To be statistically valid you would need a much larger sample spread over
areas where their was no or minimal military action as well as areas that
were
hard hit.
The fog of war is thick at any time and thickest where casualty figures
(particularly
civilian casualty figures) are concerned.
I'm going to check some other sources and see if they can be validated,
because
many other sources are giving much lower numbers.
Thanks
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
29 Dec 2004 01:29:08 AM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:33f1e4F3v3kaiU1@individual.net...
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dKpAd.22210$nV.693583@news20.bellglobal.com...
Iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of US bombings after invasion
stands at over 100,000 people
(*As of Oct 2004 when the study by the Center for International Emergency
Disaster and Refugee Studies of Johns Hopkins University was completed
and
published by The Lancet).
Full report here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9448/full/llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1
(subscription required)
At face value, interesting and supportive of your claim..
however....
Methods: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about
household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002.
Given the size of Iraq that's a very small representative sample and I'd
be
highly
surprised if it gave an accurate or even semi accurate result.
To be statistically valid you would need a much larger sample spread over
areas where their was no or minimal military action as well as areas that
were
hard hit.
The fog of war is thick at any time and thickest where casualty figures
(particularly
civilian casualty figures) are concerned.
I'm going to check some other sources and see if they can be validated,
because
many other sources are giving much lower numbers.
Thanks
Please do that. Not that knowing the exact numbers really matters. Or as you
say is obtainable in the "fog of war". Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers and the general situation in Iraq - at
least as perceivable through the "fog". I invite you to read this excerpt. I
don't have much to add to it, but be interested by your comments.
---------
Chomsky: Well, let's look at how they did it. The highest probability
estimate was around 100,000. The immediate reaction has been well, maybe
it's much lower. Yeah, maybe it's much lower - maybe it's much higher. In
fact they did it very conservatively. They excluded Fallujah because that
would have raised the estimate, the extrapolated estimate, they included the
Kurdish areas, no fighting there, which would reduce the extrapolated
estimate, and in general they did a careful and rather conservative
analysis.
But it's either been ignored or the silly claim has been made that, well
it's only an estimate, so maybe it's too high - true, it's only an estimate,
so maybe it's too low. In fact that's the way every study is done of
estimated casualties or health studies and so on. But whatever it is,
whether it's 50,000 or 150,000, or whatever the number might be, it's
obviously a major atrocity.
And in fact, it's not exactly correct that the media haven't reported the
war crimes. They often report them and celebrate them. So take for example
the invasion of Fallujah, which is one of the - it's a major war crime, it's
very similar to the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years earlier, a city
of approximately the same size, bombed to rubble, people driven out.
Alam: They herded all the males, I think, they didn't let them escape the
corridor.
Chomsky: Which incidentally is very much like Srebrenica - which is
universally condemned as genocide -- Srebrenica was an enclave, lightly
protected by UN forces, which was being used as a base for attacking nearby
Serb villages. It was known that there's going to be retaliation. When there
was a retaliation, it was vicious. They trucked out all the women and
children, they kept the men inside, and apparently slaughtered them. The
estimates are thousands of people slaughtered.
Well, with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it
bombed them out. There was about a month of bombing, bombed out of the city,
if they could get out somehow, a couple hundred thousand people fled, or
somehow got out, and as you say men were kept in and we don't know what
happened after that, we don't estimate [the casualties for which we are
responsible].
But what was dramatic about Fallujah was that it was not kept secret. So you
could see on the front page of the New York Times, a big picture of the
first major.step in the offensive, namely the capture of the Fallujah
general hospital. And there's a picture of people lying on the ground,
soldier guarding them, and then there's a story that tells that patients and
doctors were taken from - patients were taken from their beds, patients and
doctors were forced to lie on the floor and manacled, under guard, and the
picture described it.
-- The president of the United States is subject to death penalty under US
law for that crime - alone. I mean that's a grave breach of the Geneva
Conventions, Geneva Conventions say explicitly and unambiguously that
hospitals must be protected, hospitals and medical staff and patients must
be protected by all combatants in any conflict. You couldn't have a more
grave breach of the Geneva Conventions than that.
There's a War Crimes Act in the United States passed by a Republican
Congress in 1996, which says that grave breaches of the Geneva Convention
are subject to the death penalty. And that doesn't mean the soldier that
committed them, that means the commanders. They weren't thinking about the
United States of course, but take it literally, that's what it means.
And then they went onto explain why they carried out this war crime in the
general hospital. New York Times explained calmly that it was done because
the US command described the Fallujah general hospital as a propaganda
outlet for the guerrillas because they were reporting casualties. I -- don't
know if the Nazis produced things like that. Of course the Times said it was
"inflated" casualties - how do we know it was inflated?
Alam: We don't even count'em.
Chomsky: Well our Dear Leader said it was inflated, so that means that since
we're like North Korea, it has to be inflated. But suppose it was. I mean
the idea of carrying out a major war crime, explicit, because the hospital
was a propaganda weapon by distributing casualty figures, I mean you really
have to work to find an analog to that.
And then it went on, destroying the whole city. Finally they end up saying
well the Marines are going to face a serious challenge of regaining the
confidence of the people of Fallujah after having destroyed their city.
Yeah, it's going to be a pretty serious challenge. It's also described how
they're going to do it - by instituting a police state.
---------
Cheers,
Stat.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
01 Jan 2005 08:55:43 AM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers and >the general situation in Iraq -
Oh Noam Chomsky? LOL!!!
He's just one of the biggest left wing haters of Amerivcan around, yeah that's
all.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
01 Jan 2005 10:45:48 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101095543.00289.00002382@mb-m17.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers and >the general situation in Iraq -
Oh Noam Chomsky? LOL!!!
He's just one of the biggest left wing haters of Amerivcan around, yeah
that's
all.
You're obviously misinformed.
Chomsky is probably the greatest intellectual alive. He is a linguistics
professor at M.I.T. with an incredibly vast knowledge in politics and
sociology. He has completely revolutionized the field of linguistics. A kind
of a Newton of linguistics. He's written a mind bugling number of books and
articles on politics, and been an activist for a good 40 years. His art in
politics is the application of scientific methods of information gathering
and logical assembly. Read any one of his thousands of articles or books,
and I guarantee you will walk away with a piece of new information every
time.
I know there are a couple of ultra orthodox groups in Washington led by
Lynne Cheney who have tried to silence Chomsky and other university
professors by threatening their jobs and labeling them anti-American, etc.
Don't be fooled by them Tony. Every American should be very proud of
Chomsky. He'll go down on the same page of history books as Darwin, Newton,
Edison, Einstein and al.. How are you going to feel then for writing him off
as "one of the biggest left wing haters of Amerivcan around"?
Stat.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
02 Jan 2005 08:12:00 AM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101095543.00289.00002382@mb-m17.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers >>>and >the general situation in Iraq -
Oh Noam Chomsky? LOL!!!
He's just one of the biggest left wing >>haters of Amerivcan around, yeah
that's all.
You're obviously misinformed.
No, I know exactly what Chomsky is.
Chomsky is probably the greatest >intellectual alive.
In your Liberal opinion.
Read any one of his thousands of articles >or books, and I guarantee you will
walk >away with a piece of new information >every time.
Wrong. What I have read from him is usually nothing more than Anti-American
propaganda.
I know there are a couple of ultra orthodox groups in Washington led by
Lynne Cheney who have tried to silence Chomsky and other university
professors by threatening their jobs and labeling them anti-American, etc.
He is Anti-American.
Don't be fooled by them Tony. Every >American should be very proud of
Chomsky.
*****, Chomsky is a Communist and hater of America.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
02 Jan 2005 09:56:28 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050102091200.06175.00001933@mb-m27.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101095543.00289.00002382@mb-m17.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >monsieurstat@gmail.com
wrote:
Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers >>>and >the general situation in
Iraq -
Oh Noam Chomsky? LOL!!!
He's just one of the biggest left wing >>haters of Amerivcan around,
yeah
that's all.
You're obviously misinformed.
No, I know exactly what Chomsky is.
Chomsky is probably the greatest >intellectual alive.
In your Liberal opinion.
And many others, including the New York Times book reveiw who qualifies him
as:
"Arguably the most important intellectual alive"
Read any one of his thousands of articles >or books, and I guarantee you
will
walk >away with a piece of new information >every time.
Wrong. What I have read from him is usually nothing more than
Anti-American
propaganda.
I know there are a couple of ultra orthodox groups in Washington led by
Lynne Cheney who have tried to silence Chomsky and other university
professors by threatening their jobs and labeling them anti-American, etc.
He is Anti-American.
LOL - it cracks me up everytime I hear that.
Chomsky has been labeled many things, including anti-American and
anti-Semitic - even if he is an American Jew himself.
Here's what he has to say about these labels:
[Reporter]: What do you say to those who call you anti-Semitic?
[Chomsky] Depend who they are. If they're people like the -- with a nice
Jewish education like I had, I tell them to read the Bible, where the
concept is invented. It was used by King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the
Bible that calls the prophet Elijah -- Elijah was what we would nowadays
call a dissident intellectual, like most of the prophets were, giving
geo-political analysis, calling for moral behavior. He calls for Elijah, he
said why you are a hater of Israel? What does that mean? You are criticizing
me. I'm the king. I'm Israel. And therefore you're a hater of Israel. And
that's what the concept means. If you identify the country, the people, the
culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's
anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and *anti-American to
criticize the American policy*, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents
criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian
assumptions not to laugh at this. If an Italian criticized Berlusconi and he
was called anti-Italian, the people would crack up with laughter, because
there's some kind of democratic culture. The fact we don't crack up with
ridicule, that notion is anti-American or anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, it
tells us something about ourselves.
Don't be fooled by them Tony. Every >American should be very proud of
Chomsky.
*****, Chomsky is a Communist and hater of America.
No he has explicitly said he is not a communist. He only opposes fascism -
which is a form of social organization involving a powerful State linked to
corporate systems, an organized society in corporate structures --
overwhelming rule by State, but with private enterprise given tremendous
advantages and freedom. Sounds familiar? Opposing fascism doesn't
automatically make you a communist.
Stat.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TaDa Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
02 Jan 2005 03:43:25 PM |
|
|
keep on truckin!
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TaDa Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: The dead |
01 Jan 2005 01:24:40 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: The dead
From: "MonsieurStat"
Date: 1/1/2005 8:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <ctABd.69911$Tn1.2170349@news20.bellglobal.com>
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101095543.00289.00002382@mb-m17.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
Noam Chomsky, in an interview
recently talks about these numbers and >the general situation in Iraq -
Oh Noam Chomsky? LOL!!!
He's just one of the biggest left wing haters of Amerivcan around, yeah
that's
all.
You're obviously misinformed.
Chomsky is probably the greatest intellectual alive. He is a linguistics
professor at M.I.T. with an incredibly vast knowledge in politics and
sociology. He has completely revolutionized the field of linguistics. A kind
of a Newton of linguistics. He's written a mind bugling number of books and
articles on politics, and been an activist for a good 40 years. His art in
politics is the application of scientific methods of information gathering
and logical assembly. Read any one of his thousands of articles or books,
and I guarantee you will walk away with a piece of new information every
time.
I know there are a couple of ultra orthodox groups in Washington led by
Lynne Cheney who have tried to silence Chomsky and other university
professors by threatening their jobs and labeling them anti-American, etc.
Don't be fooled by them Tony. Every American should be very proud of
Chomsky. He'll go down on the same page of history books as Darwin, Newton,
Edison, Einstein and al.. How are you going to feel then for writing him off
as "one of the biggest left wing haters of Amerivcan around"?
Stat.
Tony
I predict he will be Man of the Year -2005
on the cover of Time (and The Rolling Stone).
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
CHaRleS Turley
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
