Iraq and then I ran

American troops are already in and holding territory in Iraq. Engineers of US Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 74 have begun extending runways at three northern Iraqi airports for C-130 transport landings with troops and equipment.

fodders said:

"They are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable Rights"
Don't even try to tell me God only meant that to apply to Americans or I will hunt you down and kill you. :P
And your "Straw man"? Set up a straw man?, Meaning to attribute a position to someone that he doesn't hold and then to refute it in order to make it seem as if one has won the argument. Bollox

You dare to challenge me :P

You should have posted this, from the same declaration.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Either way I would counter with

The Constitution of the United States of America

Opening
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In other words, the Declaration of Independence was a letter to the Empire. After the hangover from that party, two years later they formulated the Constitution of the US of A. It is that what Bush must uphold.

Straw man - I was talking about my first post, not yours!

I was checking out the news and I read something on "human shields" heading over to potential bombing areas in Iraq. It seems to be spearheaded by British folks and they're picking up volunteers on the way. So far it's been a big turnout, it seems, considering the requirements of their cause. How'll the US & co deal with this?

*EDIT* Fucking shit.

It's mainly led by Ken O'Keefe an AMERICAN

Phoenix said:

You dare to challenge me :P

You should have posted this, from the same declaration.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Either way I would counter with

The Constitution of the United States of America

Opening
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In other words, the Declaration of Independence was a letter to the Empire. After the hangover from that party, two years later they formulated the Constitution of the US of A. It is that what Bush must uphold.

Straw man - I was talking about my first post, not yours!

I stand by my view that ALL men are equal but America now considers non Americans LESS equal. BUT, "under God" assumes God is American, which of course he cannot be, although in the recent poll in America, asked to name the top 100 greatest Americans, in at #13 in a tie with Bill Clinton, was JESUS, so perhaps most Americans DO consider God , or Jesus, to be American :P But seeing as no Americans existed when Jesus was alive I doubt it.

I don't think that the hypocricy, or the problem here can be pinned down to "America" (the USA.) Since that is an oversimplification and kind of goes along with the game this hypocricy is part of. It's more to do with certain factions and capitals in one way or another represented by or centered around the Bush administration which use ideals and ideas which they do not espouse to obtain their benefits, and not necessarily the 300,000,000 "americans." This is what makes others, who in the end will probably gain very little or nothing from this (if they aren't outright losing something in the process), to support this campaign. Normally I can't put together exactly why someone would be so eager for this invasion, unless his dad has stocks in some oil company, or his uncle is a general or something, then maybe one could begin to understand why they would even care.

Hypocrisy exists everywhere, not just in America. And everywhere, people tend to make it seem that they are oh-so just in their actions.

Hypocrisy = politics

All hypocracies unite! For great justice!

myk said:

I don't think that the hypocricy, [...]

Look, this dude can't even spell hypocrisy. Don't listen to him!

Humans are by nature hypocritical. The trick is to be the best-armed hypocrite...

pritch said:

Humans are by nature hypocritical. The trick is to be the best-armed hypocrite...

Yeah, I always work as fucking hard I can to avoid being hypocritical, but then it happens that I engage in a complex discussion where I lose myself in complicated explanations.

The risk of contradicting oneself in these discussions is fucking big.

gatewatcher said:

Yeah, probaly. I mean, the russians did, and look at the soviet union now.

Yeah why dont you look at russia right now. Theyre being dragged right back into the third world through CAPITALIST reforms and being forced to work for international corporations. The old commisars are still running the show, but wearing suits instead of military uniforms

BEsides, Russia has never seen a socialist revolution, theyve seen a *state* capitalist revolution (marxist-lenninist)

Saddam Housein is running a capitalist empire, and by free-market ayn rand standards hes doing a GOOD JOB!

in other news: HOLY SHIT

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours
By Andrew West and agencies

January 26 2003

The Sun-Herald




The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

The plan has emerged just as American diplomats at the United Nations hinted that the US Administration might be willing to give UN weapons inspectors another month to complete their task.

Chief inspector Hans Blix is due to report back to the UN on Tuesday.

President George Bush has been displaying increasing impatience with the pace of inspections and is eager to start the bombing. But according to UN sources he has resigned himself to the fact that the US lacks enough votes on the Security Council to wage a military campaign.

Mr Bush's belligerence yesterday found a match in comments by Uday Hussein. In a rare public appearance, the son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein said the consequences of American attack on his country would make the September 11, 2001, terrorist strike look like a picnic.

He warned: "If they come, September 11, which they are crying over and see as a big thing, will be a real picnic for them, God willing.

"They will be hurt and pay a price they will never imagine. They can get much more from Iraq without resorting to the logic of force and war."

According to the architect of "Shock and Awe", military strategist Harlan Ullman, the plan would rely on an extensive array of precision-guided weapons.

"We want them to quit, not to fight," Ullman said, "so that you have this simultaneous effect - rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima - not taking days or weeks but minutes."

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

"You're sitting in Baghdad and, all of a sudden, you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out," Mr Ullman said. "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power and water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

The American war plans will cause even greater angst in Europe, where the French and Russian governments, reflecting wider international fears, are threatening to veto any US rush to military action.

French President Jacques Chirac and Russia's Vladimir Putin have agreed "their positions [on a US strike] are very close", a French spokeswoman said. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, and either could veto any UN approval of an American attack.

Mr Putin has also co-opted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder into supporting a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq. Germany is now the major power in Europe and the Chancellor's reluctance, if not outright refusal, to endorse a unilateral US strike would be a major setback to the Bush Administration.

The dossier by Dr Blix, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei, is expected to report that Iraqi co-operation with inspectors has been "satisfactory" and they could find no "smoking gun", no evidence that could be used a pretext for war.

But the pair will also say Iraq could offer even greater co-operation in the search for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or materials that could be used in their construction, within its borders.

But America's increasingly aggressive stance is isolating opinion around the world. Late on Friday, his Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld drove a wedge further into US-European relations when he dismissed Germany and France as representing "old Europe".

He comments drew a sharp rebuke from the foreign ministers of both countries.

If the US wants UN approval for any strike it will have to wring votes out of the 15 Security Council members. At the moment, it can count only on the solid support of Britain, the likely support of Spain and Bulgaria, and the possible support of Guinea and Cameroon.

China, France, Russia, Germany and Syria were most opposed and likely to influence Angola, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.

Wobbo said:

Yeah why dont you look at russia right now. Theyre being dragged right back into the third world through CAPITALIST reforms and being forced to work for international corporations. The old commisars are still running the show, but wearing suits instead of military uniforms

It's obvious then that these "suits" needed to be removed. That didn't happen, because they took advantage of the same people that put them into power last time. The russians got screwed over by socialism and wanted a piece of capatalism and democracy. They tore down a wall, and went home after that apparently. They should have rid themselves of the former leaders. Oh well.

Saddam Housein is running a capitalist empire, and by free-market ayn rand standards hes doing a GOOD JOB!

I fail to see how he is in any way involved with free-market capatilism. Could you perhaps elaborate on that statement?

Iraq is a socialist/communist state in every way except name. Property ownership is at the whim of the regime. Property can be summarily siezed any time the government wants to. No recourse.

Conditions in Iraq are similar to the USSR under Stalin.

He mentioned a socialist revolution, and you guys jump to Stalin and the USSR during the cold war as a definition. Not to mention taking the evolution of the USSR in a bubble. Congrats! I just had to mention such a hilarious occurance, don't mind me, I wouldn't get involved in a discussion of this magnitude. Let's go watch CNN and see if we can get a glimpse of the fireworks, it's New Years, isn't it?

stphrz said:

Conditions in Iraq are similar to the USSR under Stalin.

Conditions in Iraq are dictated by the 10 years of UN sanctions, not internally.

gatewatcher said:

It's obvious then that these "suits" needed to be removed. That didn't happen, because they took advantage of the same people that put them into power last time. The russians got screwed over by socialism and wanted a piece of capatalism and democracy. They tore down a wall, and went home after that apparently. They should have rid themselves of the former leaders. Oh well.

I fail to see how he is in any way involved with free-market capatilism. Could you perhaps elaborate on that statement?

The leaders are the same ones APPOINTED by the western powers imposing the "new" economy on them. Even if their were new "entrepeneurs" it would be the same story as everywhere else in the third world : work for international corporations or starve. Thats how capitalism funcions outside of the massive state protection you should be thankful to live in (which goes against every "free market" doctrine you can think of).

Saddam allows oil companies free-reign to exploit the environment and iraqui people to make their profits, in fact the ONLY time he intervens against them is his ban on selling oil to America (a protest over our support for Isreal). That a LOT less market intervention then you saw from.. say ... ROnald REagan, or any us president

How come I dont see you calling the Republican or DEmocratic Pary COmmunists for economic sanctions against Haiti or Cuba or Iraq? After all, arent we stopping th e"free trade" from argriculture to starving children?

Furthermore if Saddam Housein is "the same as the USSR" or whatever for protecting his oil industries, then BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND REPUBLICAN WOULD MAKE STALIN PROUD! WE impose more market protection on OUR steel and oil industries than Nazi Germany or Japan did. We are anti-market extremists when its not in our favor.

Wobbo, you can expect an answer soon... probably based on some theory drawn from a Rambo movie, though.

Rant

From Wobbo's news flash

French President Jacques Chirac and Russia's Vladimir Putin have agreed "their positions [on a US strike] are very close", a French spokeswoman said. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, and either could veto any UN approval of an American attack.

Mr Putin has also co-opted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder into supporting a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq. Germany is now the major power in Europe and the Chancellor's reluctance, if not outright refusal, to endorse a unilateral US strike would be a major setback to the Bush Administration.

So here we have it. Schroeder is supporting a diplomatic solution. Since 1990 they tried a diplomatic solution. What exactly would a solution be? Does anyone seriously think Hussein will disarm diplomatically?

Russia and France threatening to veto an armed attack. Can anyone explain why they are against an attack? Has Hussein changed from when he invaded Kuwait? If yes, what has changed?

To the moral preachers

Some wild statistics about Iraq
Today there are 6000-7000 deaths of children every month as a consequence of the sanctions.
http://nosanctions.com/ahamid.htm

The question here is what is sanctioned? What do those children die off? If this number would be fact, 84000 children would die annually. This would be 1% of the population. If Hussein does not care about his children, should we? If we care about those children, how will we care about them? By letting Hussein take care of them?

The US claims 72000 dead children in 2000. Is the US under sanctions? Not to my knowledge. How did those children die? They died from being sick, to being children and having accidents, to child abuse and murder.
You can confirm this here
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Have you heard about?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030127/4/do0r1.html
Yep green peace is in it now too.

What has the environment to do with a war? I quote
"This peaceful action is part of a global campaign to prevent a war that will kill hundreds of thousands of people and increase the chances of weapons of mass destruction being used. We want to stop this relentless rush towards a war which is basically placing a higher price on oil than blood."

Now if they are so concerned about hundreds of thousand of people's lives why not stop Hussein's intention on re-arming? Where were those hillbillies during Kuwait? Did they go to Hussein and lament about him blowing up oil wells making day night in a small country? No? How come? Let me guess they could not use it to complain about the greedy USA. Also, what makes green peace think Hussein is a peaceful buddy? If the nation of Iraq surrenders no one will get killed. Now why can the entire nation not surrender? Yes, because of one man. Finally why not go to Hussein and ask him to surrender? He would save 84000 children, his children? Hussein would be a hero? No? Why not?

I am not blind to Bush, but neither am I to Hussein. Where Bush does what he is voted in for, Hussein does what Hussein wants.

rant

enda :)

fodders said:

Conditions in Iraq are dictated by the 10 years of UN sanctions, not internally.

Bullshit. The sanctions could have been lifted years ago if Saddam had done the right things (ie putting a bullet in his head). I was talking about his security apparatus and general leadership style. He is quite the student of Stalin FYI.

In spite of the American claim that the sanctions are only intended to prevent the Iraqi rearmament, the list of items vetoed by the sanctions committee show the falsehood of this claim. The punitive sanctions have denied Iraq the opportunity for post-war reconstruction. There has been very little improvement in the post-war polluted and hazardous environment. In 1994 an assessment mission to Iraq organised by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies discovered that repairs to the Iraqi infrastructure were being hindered by the lack of spare parts and replacement systems.

Phoenix said:

I am not blind to Bush, but neither am I to Hussein. Where Bush does what he is voted in for, Hussein does what Hussein wants.

I don't remember any kind of war being on Bush's platform.

the_Danarchist said:

I don't remember any kind of war being on Bush's platform.

Bush, during the campaign, focused more on the dangers of nuclear proliferation than on the removal of Saddam Hussein. In a December 1999 debate among GOP presidential contenders, Bush backtracked when he said he'd "take 'em out" if Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Asked by the moderator whether he had said "take him out," Bush replied, "Take out the weapons of mass destruction."

fodders said:

In spite of the American claim that the sanctions are only intended to prevent the Iraqi rearmament, the list of items vetoed by the sanctions committee show the falsehood of this claim. The punitive sanctions have denied Iraq the opportunity for post-war reconstruction. There has been very little improvement in the post-war polluted and hazardous environment. In 1994 an assessment mission to Iraq organised by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies discovered that repairs to the Iraqi infrastructure were being hindered by the lack of spare parts and replacement systems.

Didn't stop Saddam from rebuilding his secret police apparatus. It's bigger and more powerful now then it was at the start of the gulf war. Didn't stop Saddam from implementing new and better ways to terrorize the Iraqi population into submission. Didn't stop Saddam from providing himself and his lackeys all the material comforts money could buy. Didn't stop Saddam from spending billions to at least partially rebuild his armed forces. Didn't stop Saddam from... (you see a pattern here?)

The point being, if the sanctions did not prevent Saddam from doing all the above mentioned things, they would not have hindered his improving the lot of the people under his rule. Saddam chose to use the resources he still had and could still get to benefit Saddam. It's just a question of selfish and fucked up priorities.

Cool, America will save us all from the evil selfish man.

I already said it wasn't worth a war to do that :P

I hate politics. Those asshat politicians can rot in jail for all I care.

stphrz said:

Didn't stop Saddam from rebuilding his secret police apparatus. It's bigger and more powerful now then it was at the start of the gulf war.[/b]

Rebuilding? Do you mean the republican guard? The Gulf war was to evict him from Kuwait, it succeeded, there was never any intention of refusing him to govern his own country.

Didn't stop Saddam from implementing new and better ways to terrorize the Iraqi population into submission.

Into submission? He is the elected leader of his country, until you decide to attack China, Russia ,Columbia,Turkey Israel and any other country that has as bad, (some have much worse, and some are supported by America), why single out Iraq?

Didn't stop Saddam from providing himself and his lackeys all the material comforts money could buy.

*cough* Bush Cheney Rice , you see a pattern here?


Didn't stop Saddam from spending billions to at least partially rebuild his armed forces.

And how many billions does America spend on weapons of mass destruction?

Didn't stop Saddam from... (you see a pattern here?)

I see a pattern of hypocricy

[b]The point being, if the sanctions did not prevent Saddam from doing all the above mentioned things, they would not have hindered his improving the lot of the people under his rule. Saddam chose to use the resources he still had and could still get to benefit Saddam. It's just a question of selfish and fucked up priorities.

*cough*America's selfish and fucked up priorities.

Fod, you missed the point of my post entirely.

I have repeatedly stated it's not worth it to go to war. You can pontificate all you want about American hypocrisy but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam Hussein is a horror the world would be better off without.

And as for Saddam being the elected leader of his country. Ha ha. You silly old man :)

Offical Iraqi Election Ballot