curious... (US, war, and the kurds)

[sleeper_]

as the US uses the genocide of kurds in Iraq as another excuse to take out saddam, what does he plan to do with or for them after saddam is gone?

US in its foreign policy turned a blind eye to Saddam gassing its kurdish citizens and continued to do business with him. Not only that, they increased economic activity with Saddam. A bill to prevent genocide was proposed to provide a discourage Saddam to continue the genocide with economic sanctions; HOWEVER, it was considered to be bad for US business and that it really wouldn't discourage Saddam from continuing to do so.

After troops pulled out of iraq after desert storm near the end of february, george bush senior encouraged the kurds to rise up in revolt against saddam so they did so near the beginning of march. During a cease-fire agreement the US allowed the iraqi to move tanks against (which in the agreement they weren't allowed to do) the kurds and the uprising was crushed.

In essence, not only does the US gov't fail to help the kurds over and over again, they effectively help kill them. (think of turkey as well)

AFTER all this, the current US administration uses the excuse of helping the kurds as an argument for war *laff*

those of your who are pro war brainwashed *cough* brainwashed

the US had never intended to not go to war with iraq and thus the diplomatic avenues that you people say were pursued were merely a CHARADE. the US military would need time to mobilize the troops and had a time table for mobilization, during which time the US figured it would try to show diplomatic avenues being pursued. it was believed that the US would gain security council approval so that would make them look even more justified in going into iraq, but that failed obviously.

How natural it is for you to become upset at an injustice done to you while closing your eyes to the injustices you do to others.

get educated people and don't be afraid to look at the speck in your own eye; no one likes arrogance, hypocrisy, and conceit.

OPEN YOUR EYES!

 

[sleeper_]

oh. and to add to this, it was US bureacrats' intentions to go after iraq when the time was right, ever since desert storm ended. PNAC, project for the new american century, is quite the audacious doctrine. look it up.

 

[nmaino]

No one likes your post.

 

[boostisgood]

Well, i had origionaly written a long post here, but basically decided to just ay this:

Your opinion is fine, that is your right to have. If you do not like what is going on, that is also fine. Enjoy your freedom of speech, becuase if you were in Iraq, and the govt found you saying this, you, and your family would be dead by morning.

Mods please close this thread before a huge flame war is started.

 

[unwrittenLaw]

Hey..can I jump on the anti-American bandwagon?

 

[sleeper_]

LOL.. trivialize it if you will by calling it "bandwagon" oh please.
anti-american? if that's what it is, it just happens to be so; it's not causality here.

seriously, why don't you do some ACTUAL digging around and find out WHAT in the world is going on.

hrm.. notice how this war is about "liberating the iraqi's" and not getting rid of WMD and to increase US security. all that talk has seemed to fall to the wayside for the most part.

"no one likes my post" OF COURSE NOT, that was the WHOLE PURPOSE; no one likes looking at oneself and finding faults. DUH.

AND as i have mentioned, have you guys even BEGUN to look into this at all? seriously, look up "cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle" in google... look up the doctrine of "project for the new american century" how presumptuous of the american gov't.

also, think of the oil refineries and how they're barely working with parts on its last legs so to speak; they're not in great shape with them operating anywhere from 40-80% capacity after the economic sanctions and trade embargos.

hrm, and i'm beginning to suspect this has to a lot more to do with oil than one would think. WHO supplies most of oil to US? saudi arabia. WHO is known to finance terrorists and of what nationality is Bin Laden? saudi arabia. WHO cannot the US do anything about terrorism b/c it puts their national energy supply at risk? saudi arabia. WHO can the US do something about and secure some sort of oil supply from fromt he middle east? Iraq. WHO is the US invading? Iraq. PERHAPS once they secure a stable oil source from the middle east they will go after saudi arabia? who knows. WHO is going to get the fat contracts to rebuild iraq's oil refineries and bring them up to capacity? mostly US.

i'm sorry if this is INFLAMATORY, but that's not my fault, it's the US's and yours for not being informed in the first place and instead of getting upset at my post, why don't you read up a bit and find what i say is TRUE and get mad at your gov't. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[unwrittenLaw]

oh and to add to this:

1. You don't reside in the US so why does it's foreign policy and government bother you so much? Or do you just feel the need to lash out because you have nothing better to do?

2. Do you think the US is the only country that has made mistakes in the past? You speak of foreign policy like it is some simple process. The US has done more good than bad, and many people have died helping those less fortunate.

3. If you don't realize that you benefit from some of the mutual actions and relationships between the US and Canada, then you need to rethink your unconstructive criticism. I think your disposition is mainly based on anti-americanism and you would still find something to complain about regardless if there was a war in Iraq.

4. I am not pro war..war is a terrible thing, but the world is not a perfect place..and it is unrealistic to think that wars our always avoidable. You sound as if you are brainwashed by your own sheltered and distorted views.

5. How natural it is for you to b**** and complain but offer no solutions. You should take some of your own advice and stop being so arrogant...obviously you are due to the fact that you continue to produce posts that generalize and attack others as 'brainwashed' and uneducated.

I think you are the uneducated one....arrogance=conceit...do you always use 2 words to describe the same characteristic?

OPEN YOUR EYES..NO ONE LIKES A b****

 

[unwrittenLaw]

i'm sorry if this is INFLAMATORY, but that's not my fault, it's the US's and yours for not being informed in the first place.

So doing a few Google searches makes you informed...

You're right... you have the upper hand on information compared to the US Gov't.

'oh please'

You really enjoy bashing on Americans don't you...You don't see me talking down Canadians.

 

[sleeper_]

"lash out" hardly, it's called informing the unaware public.

their foreign policy affects ME b/c it's changing the world political scene and the US has set a NEW precedent in PRE-EMPTIVE striking and opening the doors for further action.

sure US isn't the ONLY country to make mistakes, that's a given, duh and perhaps they've done more good as you say. HOWEVER, it is quite clear as you do further digging around that the US gov't is clearly in the wrong.

it is NOT anti-americanism, i'm, for the most part, more informed that you or the next person. why don't you look up PNAC? that doesn't affect me? *laff*

war is unavoidable. sure it is, the US could've gone further with diplomacy EXCEPT THAT they had a time table for war and that is WRONG, that is why the french CLEARLY said they would accept no resolution of any kind that sets a timetable for war.

sheltered and distorted views? hahah i watch a whole range of news shows and they shed more and more light to the underlying factors of this invasion. WHO knows less? WHO lives in the US? again look in the mirror (us gov't history)

of course i'm infuriated b/c this affects the world and i am part of it. solutions? han blitz said within a couple of months they would've made significant headway wrt finding wmd, but NO US had a timetable.

arrogant? sure i am, BUT i am KNOWINGLY so, but not meaningly so. that doesn't change the fact that i'm more informed than you are. if i'm not then humour me, again, look up the following things:
-cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle
-project for the new american century
-1991 march kudish/shiite uprising
-rumsfeld, hussein, US, iraq, relations

look them up.

also, arrogance and conceit have different connotations. they aren't always direct substitutions for eachother.

 

[sleeper_]

i just happen to be canadian "bashing down" as you say on americans. i can't help it
"few google" searches.. *laff*
no, watch more shows that sheds light on the issue..
and what the gov't knows? sure they know.. and they know what kind of agenda they hope to achieve, PNAC (basically world wide manifest destiny).

 

[sleeper_]

again, i respect those americans that can see with eyes wider open what is going on vs those that blindly follow like sheep or even think they, but do not, see where they're being led.

 

[unwrittenLaw]

Obviously you don't remember a previous flamewar that you started...where I stated that I'm in the military. I think I know a bit more than you and your 'news shows'. Like much of the media isn't biased towards the US....you are an idiot and the fact that you admitted that you are arrogant makes you sound like a complete jack ass.

 

[sleeper_]

lol.. yes, you're the "military" ooo, you fight in the war first hand. ok, does that make you more aware of what is happening politically? intellectually? hardly. sure you will see first hand what its effects are, duh.
me sound like i'm a "jackass" b/c i admit that i'm partly being arrogant but not MEANINGLY so? at least i admit it, you on the other hand....

 

[sleeper_]

and if i was the mother and father of sons and daughters in the military I would object to the gov't being SO QUICK to put their lives at risk for what really isn't national security related. I have respect for the 'grunts' w/o a doubt, they do their job as they're told.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

There is more hypocrisy in a group of nations (France, Russia, et al) that so strongly oppose war on thier so-called moral grounds while these same nations sell weapons and circumvent the very sanctions they claim to uphold to illigetemately obtain oil. It has been repeatedly proven that both nations blatantly ignore the behest of the UN for thier own gain while supporting the mass murderer known as Saddam Hussein. Yet the US is chided as the renegade state.

Several nations boycott any participation in the war, yet they also demand a say in the postwar care of Iraq. Nations and governments that have staged protest against the war and refused support tend to quiet down or reconsider when the Bush administration makes any overture of financial aid packages. Every nation on this planet has hypocritical tendencies, thinks in thier own best interests, and generally takes advantage of US might when and as it directly benefits them.

The US often derided as a bully, an imperialist power. It makes you wonder how much foreign aid would have been doled out had the Soviet Union emerged as the dominant power after World War II. It makes one wonder how many more people would have been exterminated had the Russians "liberated" Europe from the Nazis rather than the Americans. It is a slogan, popular jargon and the in-thing to do when it comes to burning the Stars and Stripes, downing America publicly. People tell us to get out, to get lost. Yet when Kosovo was burning, we were begged to step in where the UN failed. When the French asked us to help in Vietnam, we stayed when they turned tail and abandoned it.

The United States has been the only nation to clean up the rest of the world's trash in the last century.

It is fine and well that the European Union bickers about the war. It is wonderful that the UN spends its time in session after wasted session, never deciding what to do about much of anything while countless innocents die in Africa, Serbia, Tibet, Afghanistan. Alliances are wonderful things. Alliances without power are nothing more than overblown debate clubs.

America is not perfect. Nor is any other nation on this Earth. But it is you sir, who are uninformed if you think for a second that any sort of "morality" other than French and Russian greed and self promotion funnels any true resentment against this war and it is you who are uninformed if you think we are the nation that acts mostly in terms of our own self interest.

Oh and yes, lets let Kim Jong, Saddam, Milosevic and the like live thier little lives and play thier little games. After all, Hitler was little more than a failed painter and barroom drunk in a poor country. Let's let them do as they please:

"My fellows, we have secured peace in our time" - Neville Chamberlain, british prime minister, speaking after handing Czechloslovakia to the Nazis, 1938

The primadonna pacifists in Hollywood and protesters on college campus need to get off thier naive and arrogant asses; yes, war is ugly, yes killing is equally ugly, and a sick price paid. But what price dare we risk upon the world if we have not the courage to do the unpopular, yet perhaps correct, thing?

 

[unwrittenLaw]

i have access to more information than you and your conspiracy theories and news shows...or your political/intellectual fallacies.

when military action is taken, it is for national security and protection of our people...for reasons you obviously can't understand.

what are u trying to prove with your posts? do u think that you are so special that your regurgitated posts are going to have any impact on anyone?

and yes i'm in the military "ooo"...these kind of statements are why i feel the need to post in response to ass holes like yourself..
do u have any idea how many people have died for your freedom?
But go ahead.. trivialize and patronize those who serve...

 

[sleeper_]

good thing you brought that up.. who's running the country? intellectuals. Who advances society? the intellectuals. WHO are the most dangerous? those intellectuals in power who abuse it.

sure france, russia, and other nations have their own, perhaps hypocritical, interest in protesting war; however, morally, for there to be no invasion is the morally right thing to do like it or not even with all the baggage it carries.

interesting, you use the word pacifists. Bush claims to be christian and yet the bible says in Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." I dun think setting a new precedent for the preemptive use of force is quite in line with christian beliefs.

yes, i dislike the notion of celebrities voicing their opinions b/c you can't help but get the sense that they feel that their opinions are more important than others b/c of their "star" power, but aside from that, there is nothing wrong for them to voice them and the baggage that they bring to presenting their views doesn't make them less right. Just as you dislike celebs perhaps "impose" their values on their fans, the rest of the world dislikes the US "imposing" their values upon them (PNAC).

nothing wrong with helping the post-war effort b/c obviously the US can't turn back time so other nations might as well do what good they can do.

hypocrisy is where the very nation that BUILDS the monster and fosters the monster and knowingly so and then later on uses that very monster as they see fit and when they are no longer of any use, attempts to dispose of that very monster. All the while trying to play down that any notion of their wrongdoing in the affairs. seirously what's the point in ENCOURAGING the kurds and the shiite to rise up in revolt and watch them get slaughtered "things will be different now" the US gov't says, well well, the evidence and history all point to the current US actions are politically motivated. like i said before, iraq was a target for war asa desert storm was over.

who was it that ultimately guides the UN? US, whose interests does it tend to represent? the US. so the sanctions if circumventing the us led UN sanctions against iraq, can be considered that they really didn't really agree with the sanctions in the first place.

renegade state, interesting that you chose that word. who's the power that goes w/o approval of the UN security council and invades a country? again, the most powerful country in the world has set a new precedent for preemptive military strikes (dangerous)

i don't take away from the US of the good that they do; HOWEVER, it doesn't give them an excuse to do wrong.

power being used to selfishly manipulate is wrong too.

why is it that the WHOLE world disagrees to an unprecedented scale to this war? sure some might voice their disagreement with stupid uneducated points; however, they were so quick to protest b/c deep down they know it's wrong what the US is doing.

the US couldve solved this problem by not having weakened the iraqi people and having supported them in their uprising against saddam, SIMPLE. what's wrong with this solution?

 

[dominoy2k1]

why is everything against the us? last time i checked the british had similar views...i dont know much about whats going on but i do know some....(scratch)

 

[twizyours]

why is it that the WHOLE world disagrees to an unprecedented scale to this war?

Then why does the whole world agree as well. You have some people in Iraq who want the U.S. to come and some to scared to speak. Also maybe that half of the people are scared to fight. Seriously war isnt pretty and by all means no one really wants to go, but sometimes things have to happen. Does every one want to punish their kids no, but sometimes it is needed. Does everyone want to invade Iraq no, but you have people who do not have the freedoms to speak like U.S., Canadians and so on. Maybe you should movwe their and live their for a while and see what it is like. Is the only reason we go their for no beneficial reason? I doubt it. Is it the main reason? I dont think so. When people need the U.S. for help they love us, but when they dont we get scrutinized. The U.S has been in wars to help other countries that we didnt need to be in, and many U.S soldiers lost their lives. That doesant matter though, because the U.S must have done something wrong or better yet maybe it was getting something out of it. Truthfully no I dont want to go to war but to see how Iraqians are being treated I feel it is needed. I feel the biggest mistake the U.S made was not finishing the first time.

Sleeper instead of coming on a message board why dont you do smething. Maybe go visite Iraq or maybe protest besides sitting in a nice warm house on a nice cosy chair, searching google for how bad the U.S. Try searching for the good things the U.S has done freedoms it gave all of us and the U.S soldiers that lost heir lives for it.

 

[sleeper_]

conspiracy theories? the EVIDENCE IS ALL THERE for your absorption, IF you're willing.

and don't patronize those who decide if you fight or not. Not everyone who does fight in the military is doing necessarily to serve the country too. Not every in the military joins specifically to fight for their country, they may have ulterior motives for joining (means for $ and/or education), but then all those who serve are quick to be glorified despite these motives. All i mean by the latter is that ALL of those in the military are not serving the military for unselfish reasons.

also, for national security, ok. so how does spawning new bin ladens increase US's security? and their fight against terrorism? i REALLY don't see how the connection can be made. If they are so adamant about their security, there are other targets to go after before iraq.

dominoy2k1:
"everyone" is against the US ADMINISTRATION, not the american citizens themselves. that's what people are mistaking when they say i "hate" americans. try to get a balance of news coverage around the world regarding the US invasion. catch some debate shows here and there.

this preemptive strike basically gives the US excuse to use military force preemptively where they see so called "terrorist threat". was iraq REALLY posing an IMMANENT threat to the US that called for military action? sorry, i'm sure you know as well as i do that there are other targets far before iraq to have taken action against (militarily or not).