Don't worry about this

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=3953



Close your eyes and repeat after me: "Nevermind that, the important thing is that this was an 'illegal war' and 'Bush is evil'."

thats so sad

Saddam had to go.........

sure the country isnt in a great state at the moment but things will get better in due time.......

trapper, you are a complete cock if you think like that.

Sure Sadaam is an evil guy and did horrible stuff.

How many times do 'we' have to say we agree with you.

That is not our argument with the invasion of Iraq.
It is the way the US is handling it's forgien policies and ways of doing things we have a problem with.

Sad as this is, and it most definitely IS sad, if Bush Snr had properly supported the Kurdish uprising in 1991 then perhaps this may not have happened.

Bush Snr was more interested in appeasing Turkey and keeping Saddam in power, than he was in allowing an ethic group of over 20 million people (re)claim them own homeland (Kurdistan).

Are the Kurds gonna get their freedom this time?!? Something tells me not going by how many thousands of Turkish soldiers are on the border, and the complete disinterest that the US has shown to the right of Kurds over the years...

TonyCavallo your position of 'I hate Saddam and want him gone, but I will condemn anyone who actually attempts to do just that' is nothing short of morally bankrupt

Trapper the US did absolutely nothing to stop Slobodan Milosevic starting up concentration camps and starving to death as well as executing thousands of muslims and any one he saw fit to kill.

There are numerous examples of atrocities around the world in recent times, particularly in Africa but atrocities by themselves are not usually enough to get the Un or a sufficientlystrong Western country involved.

How about the Us giving Indonesia the green light to invade East timor in 1974 and the 100 of thousands of deaths that resulted.

No body seemed to give a shit about what the Khmer Rouge were doing either.

Saddam did some terrible things but that wasn't the reason the coalition used to invade the country. This is an example from well over ten years ago and the Us are partly to blame for encouraging t uprisings and then failing to give any real support. Maybe if they find enough examples of his atrocities they might be able to better justify their actions.

and your continued pro-US line at any cost, which includes your anti Saddam rhetoric shows you too Trapper to be morally bankrupt

and before anyone jumps up and down about my stance - I too am morally bankrupt

There we go, group hug?

what do you mean?

I personally don't know what could have been done to get rid of Saddam - I admit taht.

However, cutting off your balls to spite your face (what the US did) is crazy

how many times trapper do 'we' have to explain that if the US had gone to war with the intention of regime change, and the plan of liberating the iraqis and kurds and everyone else, they would have had my complete support.

HOWEVER, they didn't do this. they went to war under the guise of shakey bullshit 'evidence' and lies. THAT, sir, is why i don't respect or trust the americans.

The Kurds don't have to be independent in order to be free. Just look at NZ. Does each ethnic group here have to be recognised as an independent state in order to be free?

Also, complete disinterest? Why do you think the northern no-fly zone was set up for?

I might be misinterpreting your statement here styln, but if that's the case, why do you place so much emphasis on the legality of the Iraq war, when you acknowledge yourself that the UN is indecisive and slow to act (if at all)?

No they don't. However they do need a "sympathetic" governement in order to "feel" free. This obviously was never gonna occur under Saddam. Also the actual area of Kurdistan is more than just northern Iraq; unfortunately for the Kurds it also includes areas in Turkey and Iran.



Oh I dunno; maybe something to do with guilt by the West post-1991? Maybe because it made it easier for the US/UK to enforce the economic sanctions against Iraq? Maybe for surveillance reasons?[/quote]

Saddam was/is something of a monster no doubt.

however the reasons which Bush and co originally used to justify this war were things like WMD links to Alquada(sp). it was only as we got closer to the deadline that they decided to more heavily emphasize the plight of the iraqi people.

If America had been more honest about it's reasons,
ie Saddam is a unmanageable dictator who has huge oil reserves and is also not a very nice guy to the majority of his people. I personally would have been more sympathetic towards the war.

I've also noticed that the USA hasn't put it's neck out in any regions which don't have 'strategic importance'

I know this is somewhat messy but you can catch my drift.

phil a, I agree, those are at least some of the reasons why the US and Britain chose to enforce the no-fly zones.

But you have to acknowledge that at least one of those reasons was to protect the Kurds (in the North) and the Shia (in the South) against more mass killing.

The Kurds:

did anyone actually read this post from the other thread?




http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

Tony, that's bit of a curveball aint it? WTF does Churchill's comments about poison gas have to do with no-fly zones?

Trapper the thing is we want people all people to follow international law. Sure we all know saddam was a bad person, but why not do it to zimbabwe where mugabae maybe worse, why not N Korea, why not large areas of africa where they live in constant turmoil. There are just obviously ulterior motives and its not all about saddam and not all about saving the iraqi people, I think they more happy offshoots that they can market to the american public.

Sorry Tony, skimmed past the first line of your post. I'm pretty sure you know what analogy I wil give, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve...

mummet, If 'international law' was even remotely effective then you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't.

Your view basically comes down to 'there is a lot of bad shit in this world but since the UN is refusing to do anything about it then no one can' which of course is pretty retarded if you step back and think about it for a second.

can someone change the record already? I think its scratched :/

ROUND 23254

FIGHT!!!!

Exactly Trapper if people did listen and follow we wouldnt have problems but when the worlds super power that hassels everyone in the world about international law but at the same time breaks them itself its extremly hypocritical why should any other country follow it if the US wont. Perhaps countries such as Germany, US, UK, France russia etc hadnt sold saddam WMD then would we be having the war now?

I know its going round and round like a scratched record same argument over and over again but is it better to forget it all leave Iraq be forgotten and 20 years later when another dictators doing exactly what saddam did will we have the same arguments again.

mummet, the hyposicry works both ways. Why should countries like the US be forced to comply with those requirements when others get away with flagrant contempt?



So its wrong for the US to do something about it now and correct its earlier mistakes?



What if Iraq turns out to be a success? Will we still be having the same argument then?

Nuvolari my concerns with the Iraq war are related to the Us using wmd as a reason for invading Iraq when none have been found and there is a good likelihood that the Iraqi threat was exaggerated as well as intelligence not being up to scratch.

The US had their own reasons for invading Iraq including setting up a democracy in the country, regime change, being able to move Us soldiers out of Saudi Arabia and being in control of an oil rich nation. WMD was the vehicle which they used. The US have unearthed some terrible atrocities which we all knew happened some ten years ago and for which they are partly responsible. But do they really care? I think they do in so far as it now makes them look better in the eyes of the world. Perhaps it will help to justify their claims of liberating the country.

exactly nuvolari the hypocrasy is disgusting especially of the US as its the worlds super power it likes to think itself as the greatest democracy in the world but its only pretending to be. Saddam was a dictator never tried to be anything else bush pretends to follow democracy but doesnt.

The US baisicly should either ,but out of other peoples affairs and not pretend to follow international law or follow international law and then crticise other governments. Just as the US is the sole superpower it has a greater responsability especialy as it pretends to be the greatest and most free country in the world. As you said its the hypocrasy.

If the US wants to make up for its mistakes then why not work within international law, its following the same mistakes as it did before.

We will have to wait and see about iraq, but im judging form present conditions to previous examples and afghanistan is not a good example of US nation biulding.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!

trapper and nuvolari: why have you guys continually IGNORED this viewpoint??

I would have supported the war if the US had been honest in it's intentions. it CLEARLY was not. end of fucken story. why did they feel the need to fabricate the bullshit story that it can't back up to get the support of the UN, which it ultimately didn't, when it could have just lobbied for support for regime change and liberation? those to reasons were never the reasons why the US went in, and we are only seeing those as reason now, because they can't prove their original reasons were valid.

please think about this part of the issue.

And that’s the Catch-22 mummet, if people listened to and followed international law, then the worlds only super power wouldn't have to hassle anyone about it!!

exactly trapper, so if its a catch 22 its no win situation

Yep it’s catch-22.

Either America sits on its thumbs and does fuck all about the situation in an effort to be considered a good 'international citizen'.

Or they say fuck this, if you clowns can't get your arse into gear and actually do something then we fricken will!


Neither is the best answer, but at least one of them gets the shit sorted.

or option 3:

they go and help people, but they do it because it's the right thing to do, not because of economic reasons.

and still no-one comments on buffalo's statements...

I wa pro war and pro USA but what Buffalo said is true.

cactus_genie, If the American's invaded Iran tomorrow with the honest goal of liberating the Iranian people would you support them?

If not then stfu, because you don’t have a leg to stand on.


Also once the US does find some of Saddams WMD I will be looking forward to your post admitting that you now retrospectively support the war.

trapper: if the iranian peole, the average people, wanted to be liberated, and asked for international help, then YES i would be happy to support that, so you can stfu.

if they do find some WMD then i will take some of my comments back, however i still don't like the attitude of changing the reasons to suit the publics demands. that's just dishonest.

So for example; you think that the people in North Korea are happy with their dictator since they arent specifically ‘asking for international help’? Come on man, how fricken naive can you be?

Hahaha I love it; these people are fleeing their country in the hundreds of thousands and starving in the millions but they must like it there since they aren’t rising up and asking for ‘asking for international help’.

You brighten up my day man

maybe you should try and read what i mean, rather than pick out a few words and make up your own story.... the thing is, they probably should go help the north koreans...

cactus_genie, buffalo, mummet, et al.

I'm pretty sure you all know what analogies and examples I will give to counter your points (again) so I won't repeat them here.



I think that about says it all. There's nothing worse than fucking around.

glad i brighten your day, cos u do too! all your talk of how great the americans are that they have liberated the iraqis, but you joke of liberating anybody else! you are just as shallow as bush.

cactus_genie, But the North Korean people haven't askled for any help! It would be an 'illegal war of occupation'

Also where is the proof that they have nukes?? They are no threat to us!

that situation is a little different, and if u can't see that then you are a fool.

i would actually support the US going in a liberating those people, so long as that was the reason they went there.

it's all the dishonesty that is the issue here, not the situation. the US should have never tried to make the weak case for WMD in order to get world support for that invasion. if they had said that the reason they wanted to go to war was regime change for the good of the average people, then by all means, go forth and have your holy war.

I don't like being lied to, or treated like a foolish sheep. i would rather they were straight up. IT IS CLEAR THE US WAS NOT STRAIGHT UP with their reasons for invading iraq. if they had gone to the Security council saying they wanted to help the average person in iraq then that would be OK. how many times to i have to re-iterate my point?

A lot of these recent posts I find quite scary. Has anyone heard of the saying "war is NOT the answer". We live in 2003 FFS; not 1933!

Governments are governments; people are people. It is a f**kin very rare time/place when these 2 come together.

With all the talk about the lack of finding any WMD in Iraq; doesn't this validate the line that the inspectors were doing their job, & that the war on the pretext of "WMD" was immoral/illegal.

If the only solution to dealing with "rogue" nations is thru WAR then we're all trully f**ked!!!

I agree whith Phil A.


Also, why doesn't the US actually help out with getting rid of evil African dictators if it is so keen to bring liberation to people?

Oh, that's right - no oil.

Nice try Tony...

ain't it true though?

Why not do something more than supply a bunch of food aid?


Millions of people starving in Etheopia while the US spends billions on one goddamn plane.

It's fucking sick, man.

If only it were that easy Tony.

Don't digress thou we have already discussed this before (North Koreans being intentionaly starved by their ruler etc)

Mummet, i have seen you drag Zimbabwe into these formus before, but what you seem not to understand is that Zimbabwe is a member of the Commonwealth. Thus has certain alliances. It has also been taken on by Commonwealth commitie to sort out any issues.