Guest SANDMAN Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Some questions to ponder over. > 1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have? > > A: 6% > > 2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? > > A: 50% > > 3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? > > A: Saudi Arabia > > 4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves? > > A: Iraq > > 5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? > > A: $900+ billion > > 6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? > > A: 50% > > 7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life > to everyone in the > world, according the UN? > > A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to > fund our retaliatory attack > on Afghanistan). > > 8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? > > A: 86 million > > 9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? > > A: Since the early 1980's. > > 10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own? > > A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along > with Britain and > private corporations. > > 11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against > Iran? > > A: No > > 12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town > of Halabja in 1988? > > A: 5,000 > > 13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time? > > A:0 > > 14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? > > A: 17million. > > 15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist > attack? > > A: No > > 16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? > > A: 35,000 > > 17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western > forces during the Gulf War ? > > A: 0 > > 18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with > ploughs mounted on the > front? > > A: 6,000 > > 19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after > the Gulf War? > > A: 40 tons > > 20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq > between 1991 and 1994? > > A: 700% > > 21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed > in 1991? A: 80% > > 22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything > other than deterrence and self > defense? > > A: No > > 23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years > ago? > > A: No > > 24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an > attack on Iraq in > 2002/3? > > A: 10,000 > > 25. Q: What percentage of these will be children? > > A:Over 50% > > 26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? > > A: 11years > > 27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and > September 1999? > > A: No > > 28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December > 1998 and September > 1999? > > A: 20 million > > 29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict > sanctions on Iraq's > imports and exports? > > A: 12 years > > 30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? > > A: 38 > > 31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 > births)? > > A: 131 (that's an increase of345%) > > 32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result > of UN sanctions? > > A: 1.5 million > > 33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions > since 1997? > > A: 750,000 > > 34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? > > A:No > > 35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? > > A:300 > > 36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems? > > A:5 > > 37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? > > A: Yes > > 38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a> > level unprecedented in > modern history." > > A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief. > > 39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of > mass destruction did the > UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? > > A: 90% > > 40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in ? > > A:Yes > > 41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? > > A: Over 65 > > 42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and > 1990? > > A: 30+ > > 44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? > > A: 8 > > 45. Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? > > A: 0 > > 46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got? > > A: over 10,000 > > 47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? > > A: the US > > 48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? > > A: Over 400 > > 50. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things > that matter"? A: Dr. > Martin Luther King, Jr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Now on the news is claiming that an uprising is underway in Iraq so what does that now tell people? I am not posting my views and this is just a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest benzo Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Now on the news is claiming that an uprising is underway in Iraq so what does that now tell people? Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially in war time. Propoganda is a very powerful tool. Who knows what is really going on in Iraq. Benzo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunslinger Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 I wouldnt believe a lot of what is said and shown through the medium of popular media. Especially at war time. Much of the media industry is under the control of government aides / supporters and therefore will on MOST OCCASIONS provide the public with Biased opinions and reports and will report facts which the government want the public to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Who knows what is really going on in Iraq. Benzo. Thank you Benzo Exactly none of us here do, thats why this topic makes me laugh it's just going round and round in circles and not getting anywhere except Pi****g each other off. For all concerned let everyone agree to dissagree ;) Where did you all get you information from?? Err the media? :) say no more believe what you want and keep this site politics free. PS Gunslinger you say the same as Benzo but you also posted a quote earlier, where did you get that from? the media by any chance? Peace or war to everyone, what ever makes you happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 I'd like to point out the difference between a "reason" and a "pretext" - a "reason" is WHY you're doing something, whereas a "pretext" is juat a handy excuse to justify something you intended to do anyway. Bush's administration contains most of the members of a "think-tank" which proposed invding Iraq back in the 1990's, and ALSO proposed a new and dangerous concept of "pre-emptive attack". Now they're in government, and have the power to put their plans into action. The "reasons" they give for invading Iraq seem to be mainly linked to events that were either ignored at the time (use of WMD's back in the 1980's) mere assertion (claims that Iraq is linked to Al Quada, that they intend to hand-out WMD's to terrorists - which they've NOT done in the last 12 years since Gulf War 1) and that the "Axis of good guys" is "simply enforcing the UN's will" (despite their inability to get the UN to endorse the invasion, and their declared intention to exclude the UN from rebuilding). Oddly, Saddam's nationalist Ba'ath party got its start opposing the relatively benevolent British control - The Iraqis had a revolution that threw out the interfering Brits, and killed off the pro-Brit King. Now the aim seems to be to wind the clock back to the 1950's, but THIS time with the USA telling Iraqis what their foreign policy will be, and locking up anyone who opposes it. In fact, a situation much like that in Egypt (which recieves the second largest helping of US aid - like all US aid, it's mostly guns - after Israel.) In Egypt they hold elections in which you can vote for any candidate... providing the US doesn't disapprove of them, in which case they get locked up in gaol. Democracy, civil rights and so on seem to mean one thing for the USA, and something quite different for everyone else. ONLY Americans seem to have "inalienable rights". The constitution, as it's currently applied, does NOT apply to foreign nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan.peterson Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 awarner: say no more believe what you want and keep this site politics free.- Having established a community based around what is basically only a piece of plastic, it is hardly damaging to have one or two threads on what is possibly more serious than the lack of SMS character counter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The two sides of this debate seem to have little common ground, yet both offer convincing arguements, hope this helps. 1. Even if it is about de oil, does this stop the overall effect on the Iraqi people of removing Saddam being a positive one? 2. Even if we did sell Iraq weapons, (possibly even WMDs), does this then stop the overall effect of removing these weapons of oppression from being a positive one for the daily lives of the Iraqi people. 3. Even though the real global peace process should start in Israel, is this a reason to deny the Iraqi people the chance to liberate themselves? Yes I agree whole-heartedly that the motives seem wrong. Geopolitics is never conducted by Saints- sadly it has to be done. BUT. Is that a reason to "Stop the war"? NO it is a reason to pursue this conflict to the end, then organise another march of millions to take up the cause of post war reconstruction for a just handling of oil revenues, a just resolution to the Palestine situation, and most importantly to demand from America that she uses her role as the global hegemon responsibly in the long term interests of more than just her voters. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The pro/anti war rift is more one of rhetoric and possibly priorities than one of actual disagreements about the facts of the matter. Global power on the scale that America wields is an ugly thing, but the anti war camp have to engage with the arguements rather than sit back and throw rhetoric and hyperbole from the sidelines a la Sandman. No one pretends the US are saints, but whilst the bigger picture is often proselytised, it is easy to lose sight of the smaller picture - the effect on the daily lives of the Iraqi people. - It is quite some arogance to deny them this chance of increased quality of life, and expectations just because the motives are not pure enough. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cepheus1 Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Well said dan.peterson :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mashkhan Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Dan.Peterson, admit it, you were looking for an excuse to drop in "proselytised" ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan.peterson Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Hell yeah, (although still trying to work out how to say it at the moment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madu Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 HILARIOUS!!!! http://winstars.free.fr/english/bush.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madu Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives September 10, 2002 QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war. 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"? 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 " 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? " During WW2, use by Hitler of Sarin or a more advanced nerve agent on the D-Day beaches could have turned the tide. But he DIDN'T. The reason is simple - we'd "leaked" the misinformation that we had vast stockpiles of the same weapons, and were ready willing and able to retaliate by dropping the gas on German towns. Due to an already-existing misunderstanding (Imperial Chemicals (Canada) Ltd has researched nerve agents in the 1930's, decided they were unsuitable as pesticides, and resulatingly stopped publishing their research papers (OR doing research!) at the same time as the Germans realised the wapons potential, and stopped publishing because the information was classified "secret") Hitler beleved the threat. "Being able to retaliate" isn't required. All you need is that the enemy BELIEVES you're able to retaliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madu Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 http://winstars.free.fr/english/nion.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sarah_SPV Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Definitely against war, not all war, but definitely this one. What was the big rush to deploy troops when the inspectors were making steady progress? I remember reading somewhere that Congress made a big joke out of Hans Blix and a lot of them regarded him as too 'soft' to take on his role. Before the war started, he seemed to be the only one making any sense. Iraq is a big country, over twice the size of the UK. Of course they needed more time to inspect the factories and plants, but Bush would not listen as he already knew what the agenda was. Yes, Saddam and his regime should be removed, but given more time and the support of the Security Council perhaps there was an alternative to war and the death of innocent people. Personally, I don't believe the reasons given to us for why we are at war. Bush & Blair LTD do not care about the Iraqi people and they certainly don't care if Saddam uses chemical weapons on them. I'd be surprised if he even has any just like I'd be surprised if it was really Bin Laden who had anything to do with 911 - oops did I really say that? :wink: I do believe however, that now we are engaged in war we should support the men and women that are endangering, and have already given their lives for this unnecessary exercise. http://www.michaelmoore.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 oh, this is a classic quote..... There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works! Ah, so you admit that the avarage american doesnt give a damn what happens outside his own coutry, something we suspected for a long time, hell, even the news is screwed up, local news = news in that town, possibly state at the most... world news = news in the rest of america, not a mention about the rest of the world :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 You're far more on the mark than you realise, midnight. Ever heard of the US sporting events that they call "World Series"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 oh damn, yeh, forgot about that hehehe :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chic0 Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 On a serious note though Q: When does Saddam Hussein have his dinner? A: When Tariq Aziz Sorry for the bad humour, but i just had to :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan.peterson Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Yes, Saddam and his regime should be removed, but given more time and the support of the Security Council perhaps there was an alternative to war and the death of innocent people. -Sarah, just interested to know what more time and more consensus on the Security Council would have done to the Iraqi regime? More time may have brought more international consensus, which is certainly important, but would it have removed Saddam? Most likely is that that time would have been spent in negotiations, and with negotiations come compromise: -One of the most odious compromise I can think of that could have happened is that Saddam would be given amnesty and indemnity internationally, in return for volutarily leaving the country, and no doubt going loco down in Acapulco. -Similarly, had Saddam been more open to the inspectors, (Blix himself criticised them for this) had he allowed his scientists to speak to the inspectors and say "this is what we had here here and here, but now we just have this here and here”, no doubt the regime would have been allowed to stay, albeit in a weakerned form. -At this stage of the war, (in the hope that it all seems so far to be OK, and no horrendous civillian casulaties) it seems that war is the right result, but pursued for the wrong reasons. -Reconciling the conflict between the ideal scenario and the limited reality of the situation is inevitably a hard thing for all but those without any pretence to principles. ---------------------------- BTW.Just found this- quite interesting site, might be worth keeping an eye on. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 " -Sarah, just interested to know what more time and more consensus on the Security Council would have done to the Iraqi regime? More time may have brought more international consensus, which is certainly important, but would it have removed Saddam? Most likely is that that time would have been spent in negotiations, and with negotiations come compromise..." One of the less impressive aspects of US foreign policy is the demand for "instant gratification", plus a sad inability to think more than one move ahead. "Saddam's BAD... let's GET him" is an achieveable objective. Problem is... if the process of "getting Saddam" involves alienating most of the world, then when you've done the job and move on to the next one, you find that it's ten times harder. Foreign policy, like chess, isn't a game in which you deal with one move at a time - it's a game where he (or she) who thinks the most moves ahead usually wins. It's an area in which "brute force" counts for very little. Over the decades since WW2, the US has concentrated on self-admiration; they've done whatever they liked - because "who is gonna stop us?" and have, as a result, manged to p*ss in a lot of people's beer - and gained an unenviable reputation as the world's first hyper-hypocrites. There's been a deeply worrying undertone in US policy for years that equates somewhat to racism - a willingness to trade civilian casualties (provided they're NOT Americans) for decreased risk to US servicemen. The US claims to "love democracy" because they have it at home... while proping up some of the most ghastly regimes in the world. Saddam is berated as a monster for murdering c5,000 Kurds... yet the Indonesians kill civilians in their millions, and get HELPED to do so. Civilian casualties in SE Asia ran to over 2,000,000 people dureing the Viet Nam era. But that's OK - because propping up a succession of crooks and wannabe tyrants can be psuhed as "defending democracy". The ONE aspect of chess that DOES seem to have reached the American political psyche is "sacrificing pawns". The US (natch!) doesn't see itself as a pawn. That's a job for South American or Asian or Middle Eastern Peasants, whose conscripted contribution to "making the world a safer place for democracy" is to endure brutal dictatorships which act as a convenient buffer against whatever bogey the US is frightening itself with this year. The underlying CAUSE that necessitated the "War against terrorism" (at least necessitated it from a US viewpoint!) is the USA's deep worldwide unpopularity. The rush to "get Saddam" is likely , if anything, to have made the US even less popular than hitherto. Not immediately after the war... but when it's discovered that the new "liberated" Iraq is another clone of Egypt, where "democracy" is a bloodless battle between the peoples' choice of candiates... and the candidates that are approved by their US-supported rulers. The rulers ALWAYS win - because any serious competition is in gaol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 I see the propaganda is working though. Some are saying there aren't many civilian casaulties. Nope, you just aren't seeing them on the news. Why do you think the USA is so annoyed at the Iraqi TV showing images of dead civilians and soldiers? The collatlition's attempts to knock out the Iraqi TV is disgraceful, a downright kick in the face to "democracy" and "freedom". Freedom is not about censorship. OK, so perhaps Saddam is using it for propaganda, but has anyone seen CNN lately? Hello? If they knock out Iraqi's media, we will never know what happened. We'll never know how many are dead. History has proven that it's very easy to put a false spin on this kind of thing, the Cuban Missile Crisis is proof of that. Only in recent years has the truth came out, and it is vastly different to what the US regime said at the time. For the record, there have already been thousands of Iraqi deaths. Thousands. And they've barely started. In '91 it is estimated that there were 400,000 casualties, and that was repelling Iraq from Kuwait. Now it's an invasion of their homeland, it's gonna be much worse. They've not had any real street fighting yet, give it a week until the battle of Bagdad starts. It's going to be very messy. This war is going to turn into guerilla warfare that'll make Vietnam look like Disney world. You think Northern Irelands had a bad time from internal terrorism? Well, Iraq's going to have it in spades, for many years to come. There will always be anti-US/UK sentiment, especially amoung the children who's parents are being killed as I type this, in my nice little safe office. Half the problem is that American's have never seen war. The population there has never had to do a blackout. They've never sat up all night listening to bombs rain down around them, more terrified than anything you have ever experienced. They've never had to phone family and friends every day just to see if they are still alive. The perception of war on our media is very false. Hopefully the truth will out, but I'm not holding my breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Richie M Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 I just had to post here to get my Avatar in :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan.peterson Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Ron:One of the less impressive aspects of US foreign policy is the demand for "instant gratification", plus a sad inability to think more than one move ahead.Absolutely, considering the conflict fought at the moment with ex enemy's enemy Iraq, spurred by the actions of ex enemy's enemy Bin Laden, no further discussions are needed on how damaging short term US foreign policy has been over the last half of the twentieth century. But you misunderstand me, mainly I think because of my paragraph spacing Ron. The point I was making is that had- as Sarah suggested- the US spent more time negociating with Saddam, the compromises that may have been reached would have come at a price as well, whether Saddam's government staying on but with increased cooperation with the inspectors (and no doubt some deal on oil), or Saddam's regime staying on, but without him and his sons. Neither options would reassure me any less about the failing of international justice than the situation we are actually in. Fraiser: Re: Pictures of the dead on TV. You are incorrect. The furore is not about the dead, but about showing POWs on TV, and gratuitously showing dead Allied soldiers face up. I find their outcry is somewhat hypocritical and naive, but believe that as a matter of decency both side should refrain. Incidentally, I think you will find they are being directed not at Iraqi TV, but at Al-Jazeera, the station who actually broadcast them around the world. Re: knocking out Iraqi TV. Yes, against the Geneva Convention, but obviously a key strategy in loosening Saddam’s influence from the more distance peripheries of Iraq. Perhaps you would find it hard to justify your statement If they knock out Iraqi's media, we will never know what happened. Right... Re:Civilian casualties. For the record, there have already been thousands of Iraqi deaths As posted in my last post see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ They estimate 227-307, and checkout their methodology for more details. We are obviously going to have difficulties establishing this until after the war, but until then this counter seems one of the more reliable reporting aids. Forgive me Fraiser, if I do not take your unsubstanciated claims of thousands 'For the record'. Re: guerilla warfare that'll make Vietnam look like Disney world Well, Lets just hope not. I am not sure that Iraq has a binding anti-American faith or pro Saddam faith that would bind the country together at a popular level like communism did in Vietnam. Not quite sure what the problem is that you refer to in your last paragraph. Are you saying that popular understanding of what Baghdad would suffer these nights would have affected the governments actions? Does the UK qualify because of the war in the 1940s? - not sure. Finally, Fraiser you manage to follow 'If they knock out Iraqi's media, we will never know what happened.' with 'Hopefully the truth will out, but I'm not holding my breath...' hmmm... right. Maybe you are confusing truth with anti American hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 the compromises that may have been reached would have come at a price as wellWhat price for a human life lost in this war? Surely that's more? The furore is not about the dead, but about showing POWs on TV, and gratuitously showing dead Allied soldiers face up. Oh, like the ones in Camp X-Ray, Cuba? Who are being treated worse. Who are being tortured. Who are not limited by the Geneva convention, due to clever legal wrangling. I'm totally agreed on your point about hypocracy, I'm not arguing that "it's good" that they are showing the soldiers. Oh, and the media seems to have forgotten about the Iraq soldier POWs shown being searched and marched down roads on our TV three days before. Short memory I guess. Perhaps you would find it hard to justify your statement "If they knock out Iraqi's media, we will never know what happened."It's not as if this is new thing. The reports out of Iraq are tightly controlled by the collalition. War reporters were specially choosen for their views, and told that if they don't toe the party line, they get sent home. CNN reporter Kevin Sites was told to suspend his blog on the war. Everything you see on TV has been vetted by the editors of the networks, who have close business ties with the US administration. It's an information war. Surely you can spot the clever wording used in the reports? Not quite untruths, but being very flexible with the facts. For example, they suggest that Iraq is "ready to use WMD". Eh, no. They found some gas masks in a bunker. American troops carry MOPP chemical weapons gear, does that mean they plan on going nuclear? I just find it shocking that they berate the Iraqi's for using propaganda, and see the media as a valid target. Meanwhile, I swear I heard CNN say "War is peace" the other day... They estimate 227-307 I don't care about civilian casualties. A life is a life, whatever way you look at it. And yes, there are thousands of Iraqi troops dead. These people are just defending themselves from a foreign agresor. An enemy they have been brainwashed in hating. They are no different to the US soldiers who took up arms in Afganistan. They believe they have an enemy, and they want to destroy that enemy. What riles me is that there is such a big deal made about every collalition loss. your unsubstanciated claims of thousands 'For the record'.The source was BBC news, and that's just from one single tank battle. The only time I've heard them talk about Iraqi losses. pro Saddam faith that would bind the country together at a popular level like communism did in Vietnam Communism didn't have much to do with it really. They were attacking a foreign agressor. No different to the Americans who were angry about 9/11. No one wants a foreign army in their country, especially when that army has the human rights record the USA has. (Talking about historical fact, not the popular media image that they present to the world) Besides, all it would take is a couple hundred of disgrunted Iraqi's, and you'd have a situation very similar to Northern Ireland. Remember, there are thousands of kids who are about to loose their parents. There's a lot of hate and anger brewing. Does the UK qualify because of the war in the 1940s? - not sure. To a certain degree, yes. When we think of bombing, we think of the Blitz. I'm in Glasgow, and you can still see the signs from the damage done. New buildings in the middle of old etc. Plus, it's in our culture, who didn't read books like "The Machine Gunners" etc in school? When you say war to us, it means blackouts and hiding in bunkers. When you say war to an American, they can only relate to movies, which rarely show the consquences of the real thing. "Hopefully the truth will out, but I'm not holding my breath..." hmmm... right. Maybe you are confusing truth with anti American hyperbole. First off, I'm not anti-American. Everything that America used to stand for is great. It changed in the 1950s into some sort of scary nightmare. Check out this short clip, taken from Bowling for Columbine. That's what I hate. I've nothing against the US population, and the country itself. They have used their media facade to promote an image of "just" America, which doesn't relate in any way to the real world. Now that that's out of the way, can you see that the historical events in the past don't relate much to the common conceptions by most people. What makes you think this war is going to be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now