Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

World Politics
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Politics : World Politics
Message Icon Topic: A Nation Rocked to Sleep Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Author Message
earth_as_one
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 17 December 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Quote earth_as_one Replybullet Posted: 22 December 2005 at 4:56am

So you didn't know whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs at the time of the invasion.  In other words you doubted Bush's justifications for war.

March 17, 2003 - Bush:  Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.h tml

The UN weapon inspectors also weren't sure either.  That's why they needed more time.  But they wre pretty sure Iraq was disarmed and that all remaining disarmament issues could be resolved peacefully within a few months when the US declared war:

March 7, 2003 - Blix:  Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month.  It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks?  While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant.  Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.  It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.  Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever.  However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

If you believed Hussein was the most pressing humanitarian problem back in 2003, you are misinformed:

Human Rights Watch: 

War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

...the Iraq war and the effort to justify it even in part in humanitarian terms risk giving humanitarian intervention a bad name... 

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Yes back in 2003 Iraq was a humanitarian problem.  Lifting economic sanctions against Iraq would have have gone a long way to improving the lives of Iraqis.

The Myth that all Iraq needs to do to lift sanctions is comply with weapons inspectors

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html

The fact that sanctions remained in place long after Iraq had been disarmed in violation of the original UN Resolution proves that the US abused its UNSC veto powers to punish ordinary Iraqis while Hussein ruled Iraq.

Before the US led invasion, Iraqis may have been oppressed but they weren't being slaughtered on the scale they have been slaughtered since the US led invasion.  According to the US state department, here is how bad the situation was during the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion:

  • 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
  • 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
  • 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
  • 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
  • 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
  • At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

Compare that death rate to what happened since the invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Deaths

December 22: Iraq Body Count

27569-31088 Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the US led invasion

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Back in 2003, there was a huge humanitarian disaster going on, but it wasn't in Iraq:

9 September 2003
Democratic Republic of Congo

Children at War

1. INTRODUCTION

Seven years of almost continuous war in the Democratic Republic of Congo ( DRC) have led to the death of over three million people since 1998 alone, most of them civilian men, women and children.(1) Tens of thousands of women have been raped. Countless acts of torture have been reported. Fleeing the conflict, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been driven from their home into neighbouring countries or other parts of the DRC. Many have died from malnutrition and lack of access to humanitarian assistance. Up to two million people have been internally displaced, including 400,000 children displaced from their homes.(2) This is not a war in which civilians have been the unfortunate victims of ‘collateral damage’, but one in which they have been unremittingly and remorselessly targeted. Death and intense suffering have become the daily fabric of Congolese lives. The conflict has also been marked by the widespread use of children as combatants by all parties. The DRC is currently one of the countries of the world with the largest number of child soldiers...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR620342003

So lets see.  Iraq is suffering from economic sanctions which could have been lifted because Iraq no longer possessed WMDs but weren't because of the US. Yes, just like the US Iraq executes people convicted of capital crimes.  I would agree that capital punishment is pretty uncivilized.  Meanwhile millions of people are dying in a genocidal civil war and you think Iraq is the world's greatest humanitarian problem?

Sorry K, but you are yet another example of why Americans re-elects war criminals.  Like 51% of your fellow citizens, your misperceptions are proof of an effective American government propaganda machine.  By the time sheeple like you realize that your government is the world's greatest threat to peace and threatens your civil liberties, it will be too late.

But I might be wrong
IP IP Logged
kenski70
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
Quote kenski70 Replybullet Posted: 22 December 2005 at 8:24pm

So you didn't know whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs at the time of the invasion.  In other words you doubted Bush's justifications for war.

Apparently you didn't read the post that close. I may have Not known about WMDs but the fact Saddam was a flat out bad guy anyway. makes it justified in my eyes. This guy was committing genocide (just like the Serbs).He needed to go.Long ago. The US may have supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war but that does not mean Its OK with the people of this country that Saddam was gassing people.Now the US did look the other way when Saddam used them on Iranians.Probably because Americans at the time HATED Iranians.Saddam went too far.and invading Kuwait ended and Support the US gave him. Another thing Bush got reelected because the man who ran against him made a HUGE mistake.After John Kerry returned from Vietnam.with a Silver Star I might add. He became an anti war protester.The spirit of the 60s is dead.We live in a time when war protesters are views as collaborators with the enemy.(The logic behind that being large demonstrations of American citizens televised world wide gives a moral boost to our enemies.They have the right to do it but they can kiss any chance of political success goodbye. the overwhelming majority of Americans support our troops whether we agree with the war or not.The logic being were there now regardless,victory it the only acceptable exit in the vast majority of Americans eyes.no exit until victory.

Sorry about that turn signal,I must have fallen asleep.
IP IP Logged
earth_as_one
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 17 December 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Quote earth_as_one Replybullet Posted: 23 December 2005 at 6:24am

Ahem, please prove Hussein was in the middle of committing genocide when the US invaded.

I never said you were against the war.  You said you didn't know if Iraq possessed WMDs at the time the US declared war.  That statement directly contradicts Bush's justification for war.  Read Bush's statement above.

I posted links above (including one from the US state department) which show that except for the execution of several thousands Iraqis convicted of capital crimes, Iraq was peaceful more or less in the decade leading up to the US led invasion.  The US is hardly in a postion to criticise Iraq's use of capital punishment. 

Eight countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. China, Pakistan and Yemen have raised the minimum age to 18 in law, and Iran is reportedly in the process of doing so. The USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003).

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

There was no genocide going on in Iraq.  On the other hand in 2003 millions were dying in a genocidal civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Who did the US invade?  The country with oil of course!

I also proved with links above that since the illegal US led invasion, Iraq has become a far more dangerous place.

Hussein worst wholesale killing days were in the context of a proxy war with Iran on behalf of the US during the 1980's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

The US didn't just look the other way when Iraq used chemical weapons against iran and innocent civilians.  It was actively helping Iraq use its US supplied CW technology more effectively:

Together, the U.S. and its surrogate waged a brutal, illegal war against Iran for eight years. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare) the Reagan-Bush Administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological stocks, including anthrax. Iraq was already was using chemical weapons-on an "almost daily basis," according to the Washington Post-when envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, an historic meeting that consolidated an active military partnership. The repression and brutality of Saddam's regime was not a secret when U.S. and Iraqi officials coordinated their military efforts. Not only did the U.S. supply planes, munitions and bombs, it supplied the satellite images that enabled Saddam to massacre thousands of Iranians. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and material to Baghdad. France also sent 200 AMX medium tanks, mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships.

What is the legal and moral difference between German industries that manufactured ovens for concentration camps in Europe and U.S. and European merchants of death who supplied Saddam Hussein with cluster bombs, nuclear materials, anthrax spores, helicopters, and the most heinous weapons directed against innocent Iranian people?

The vast, lucrative arms trade in the Middle East laid the ground work for Saddam's aggression. Without high-tech weapons from the U.S., Iraq's wars against Iran and Kuwait would never have taken place.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1223-11.htm

and

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.

Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.

"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

The next killing spree was the invasion of Kuwait.  Given the conflicting signals given by the US ambassador, he probably thought he had US support.

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Likely Hussein interpreted Glaspie's statements as US approval for Iraq's invasion plans of Kuwait.  He probably got the same kind of message from American ambassadors before he invaded Iran.  In one case in meant a green light for an invasion and in the other case it didn't.

After the failed Kuwait war, Hussein faced insurrections and rebellions which he crushed mercilessly.  Americans should be able to understand by now that fighting an insurrection can get nasty.

I'm not shedding any tears for Husein here.  He got what he deserved.  But my problem is with the effect of the war on Iraq's other 30 million citizens who have suffereed because Americas war criminals were unhappy their man Hussein stopped taking their orders.  The US has no legal right to determine who is fit to govern and who isn't.  That right is the domain of the UN security council.  Only the UNSC has the legal right to impose regime change but onnly when a government is a threat to other nations or is causing a large scale humanitarian disaster.  Iraq clearly never met either of those criteria.

Ironically the US does meet that criteria.  The US by refusing to allow the UNSC to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq when it no longer possessed WMDs in violation of the original UNSC resolution did cause a large scale humanitarian disaster in Iraq.  The US has become a rogue nation above international laws and conventions and is a threat to the peace and security of other nations.  If any country needs regime change, its the US.



Edited by earth_as_one
But I might be wrong
IP IP Logged
Whisper
Male Other
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 July 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4752
Quote Whisper Replybullet Posted: 23 December 2005 at 3:57pm

earth_as_one

Just love your generosity, spending so much time on a known case.

IP IP Logged
earth_as_one
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 17 December 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Quote earth_as_one Replybullet Posted: 23 December 2005 at 6:36pm

Glad you find me entertaining, W.

Sadly, what is known by the world remains unknown in the US.

But I might be wrong
IP IP Logged
kenski70
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
Quote kenski70 Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2005 at 10:55pm

I never said you were against the war.  You said you didn't know if Iraq possessed WMDs at the time the US declared war.  That statement directly contradicts Bush's justification for war.  Read Bush's statement above.

Bush's reason was HIS. my reason is MINE. Just because I see a different view point than him doesn't mean hes a hypocrite or a liar.I saw a legitimate reason on my own.

Sorry about that turn signal,I must have fallen asleep.
IP IP Logged
lorne
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 25 December 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32
Quote lorne Replybullet Posted: 27 December 2005 at 6:45am

All of you are obsessed with justifying the actions of yourselves and your tribes. You think you have all knowledge and wisdom, as though your viewpoint is the only one. You delve into the past to dust off trinkets and wax nostalgic about the past. What's done is done. Learn from your mistakes. Learn? But then how will you entertain your Nafs? Yes, Americans have Nafs too though they commonly call it the ego though in reality it is the False Ego created buy your Nafs.

So many of you bow down to whatever your cleric or minister tells you rather than actually meditate upon Allah's words and virtues. Think for yourselves, don't be afraid to let go of your fears and pettiness. Yes I am pointing a finger and know this flesh in which I dwell follows suit with teh rest of you far too many times for my liking.

The path to peace and enlightenment is not easy but it is worth it.

All of your nations are rocked to sleep by forces you cannot comprehend for you are too busy slamming your heads against your own limited thinking and shouting the wrongs of others. Those forces keep all of us fighting each other so that they remain hidden.

Enough for now....

http://nickbravo.blogspot.com
http://radicalnebraskan.com/forum/YaBB.pl
IP IP Logged
earth_as_one
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 17 December 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Quote earth_as_one Replybullet Posted: 28 December 2005 at 10:43am
Originally posted by kenski70

I never said you were against the war.  You said you didn't know if Iraq possessed WMDs at the time the US declared war.  That statement directly contradicts Bush's justification for war.  Read Bush's statement above.

Bush's reason was HIS. my reason is MINE. Just because I see a different view point than him doesn't mean hes a hypocrite or a liar.I saw a legitimate reason on my own.

Bush is a liar because he made statements like this which he knew were were factually untrue at the time he made them:

Bush:  Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Russia, China and France had publically expressed doubts and wanted the weapons inspections to find proof before they would support a UN Resolution supporting the use of force against Iraq. 

Russia's Views On the Crisis in Iraq

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm

France

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/16/60minutes/main5441 61.shtml

China

http://www.china-un.ch/eng/ljzg/zgwjzc/t85882.htm

Bush's statements are proveable lies.  Unlike Bush you were unsure whether Iraq possessed WMDs.  In other words, like China, France and Russia, you knew Bush was lying, but supported his drive for war anyway.  Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Here's another little gem of information:

Iraq - Joint statement by the People’s Republic of China, France and the Russian Federation

New York,November 8, 2002

Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. All Security Council members share this goal.

In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or by the Director General of IAEA. It will be then for the Council to take a position on the basis of that report.

Therefore, the resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations./.

Embassy of France in the United States - November 13, 2002


Edited by earth_as_one
But I might be wrong
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com