Iraq and...Annan

[Angus]

Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"

How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?

I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)

So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this

[Blooz]

We are in Iraq without UN approval and they are doing everything they can to see that we fail.


A young democracy has emerged in Iraq and when it succeeds the UN will not be able to take any credit.

[AquaShrimp]

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something.

Why should we have to send our friends and relatives to topple a dictator?  Its the responsibility of the Iraqi people to fight their own civil war, to set up their own democracy.  

Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them".

[JB88]

Originally posted by Angus
Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"

How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?

I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)

So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this

the world forgets stuff every day.

there are worse sections of violence and corruption in the world than ever existed in iraq.  that, it seems to me, is the very crux of the issue.  america wishes to place this banner of fairness and equity above these actions when they are not neccessarilly fair from the view points of others.

i dont think that you will find a great many people who are convinced that this action has anything to do with some great moralist endeavor, so we will be lucky if the ansillary effect is in fact a true vision of their own thoughts of democracy.  

i believe that it is territorial, and aboriginal.  that, in the sense that it is native to the area...so terribly historic.  that the events of thousands of years ago are still plagueing the whole of humanity should serve to others as a pointiant indication that it's most base philosophies cause and perpetuate massive amounts of violence.

when the middle east contributes again, it will be a glorious day.  if it can get to that point, well,  then we may have turned a bad card in pretty well on a bluff.

i ramble.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Angus
Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"

How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?

I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)

So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this

I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent.

You shouldn't forget that "the enemy being fought in Iraq" for most Iraqis means the US & UK, and perhaps worse still for your case, the methodology and motive parentheses (terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly) applies equally to that enemy, either directly or through the proxy government. Indeed the US Secretary of State said that the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children was a price that was "worth it" during the US & UK's own little genocide by proxy effort on Iraq via the UNSC.

It's also worth remembering that gassing Kurds, torture, and mass murder were all fine as far as the US & UK were concerned, and they continued to supply Saddam with WMDs throughout his worst excesses, and even covered for him over Hallabjah (where Saddam used US-supplied helicopters). They helped him after his invasion of a neighbouring country, supplying intelligence, WMDs, arms and money. It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah (taking some of Kuwait would have been fine, as the US ambassador to Iraq of the time implied, portraying the US as "taking no position on these affairs" to Saddam). And even after the second Gulf War of '91, the US & UK actively looked the other way when he started killing those in the uprising they had called for, allowing his gunships to enter no-fly zones and so on.

[Angus]

Iraq is getting focus while other things go by unnoticed, that is true.
But the focus has shifted from the original into the swamp this is today, that is my point.
Like how life was bad in Berlin in the summer of 1945 compared to 1939, especially to some.
So, the point was lost....somewhere.
And this:
"Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them"."

Yes. There has been a tendency of stopping such a posession though, - one fine point was WW2 in Norway. The thing about Hussein was that he actually did use the strongest stuff from his arsenal, and he was definately on the go to get some stronger.

So, today's status or Hussein? Berlin in ruins 1945 or Nazi conquered Europe?

[JB88]

i still refuse to believe that we can hold that moralistic stamp to this action.

it just isnt true.  were it so, it would indeed be something special.

this is as much about resources as anything else, (if there is anything else to the equation at all) and it should be viewed in terms of the political leanings of globalization if one is to get a clearer view of the issues at hand.

in so many ways we took the easy road.  easy being not having to step above our instinctive protean protectionist knee jerks and into the realm of real movement in the "war on terror" which is a wholly different form of war all together.

iraq is, was, and shall ever be a greivous error.  it has turned out post world war 2 idealism and our post korean/vietnamese experiences into useless metaphors for lessons who already know.

it has made us lazy and uninspired.  

i just keep thinking that we could have wasted all of that time, those lives and that energy on building a better form of energy, a better infrastructure, a better map to our societal goals...instead we took the easy route, which everyone knows is falicy.  the act of staying the same acts like easy, but its the hardest thing to do.

just as it's easy for the iraqis to blame the americans now, when it was really just them being to interested in the easy road.  the one where they didnt have to stand up to the beast for themselves.

[ByeBye]

Originally posted by -dead-
I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent.

You shouldn't forget that "the enemy being fought in Iraq" for most Iraqis means the US & UK, and perhaps worse still for your case, the methodology and motive parentheses (terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly) applies equally to that enemy, either directly or through the proxy government. Indeed the US Secretary of State said that the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children was a price that was "worth it" during the US & UK's own little genocide by proxy effort on Iraq via the UNSC.

It's also worth remembering that gassing Kurds, torture, and mass murder were all fine as far as the US & UK were concerned, and they continued to supply Saddam with WMDs throughout his worst excesses, and even covered for him over Hallabjah (where Saddam used US-supplied helicopters). They helped him after his invasion of a neighbouring country, supplying intelligence, WMDs, arms and money. It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah (taking some of Kuwait would have been fine, as the US ambassador to Iraq of the time implied, portraying the US as "taking no position on these affairs" to Saddam). And even after the second Gulf War of '91, the US & UK actively looked the other way when he started killing those in the uprising they had called for, allowing his gunships to enter no-fly zones and so on.

Of course, the UN and the rest of the world never did anything to help anyone in Iraq.

[Angus]

Dead:
"the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children ".
Were under the Regime of Saddam.
1. They amount for more than the casualties of all sides after the war.
2. Saddam was still on a shopping spree.

And 3. I don't belive anyone wanted that arse to have a nuke.

[Angus]

As for this:
"I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent."

And at what scale and executed mostly by whom?
Oh, the dead are actually mostly victims of Saddams old merry crew and islamic extremists in various groups. Ethnic cleansings? yes, between the groops again, just in penny-packets instead of big-sale.
And the WMD's. Well, it would have been more comfortable for the U.S. to find some, but (thanks god) there weren't any, - YET.
As for the Oil theory, this:
"It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah "
It's actually surprizing how little of the US oil comes from the middle east.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Angus
How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.

He'll be leaving shortly...  with a nice life time pension (in the millions)for working at the UN paid for by 'us' the working people...

[Hornet33]

What I find most disturbing about the entire political arena right now, is how everyone (at least it seems that way) has forgotten the history of the middle east.

The problems for the United States in that part of the world started right after WWII when the big oil strike was made. We propped us governements not on their morality but on what they could do for us. In 53 IIRC we propped up the Shah in Iran and that lasted some 25 years there abouts. He was ruthless to his people but we looked the other way because we were getting what we wanted. During this same time we helped the UN with the formation of the state of Israel. Many other little things went on during this time period as well. Hind sight being 20/20 maybe we screwed the pooch on some things back then but the reality is that we are here now.

Skip forward to today and we have the situation in Iraq. Tons of people are calling Iraq a mistake, and that we shouldn't have gone in.

Whatever....doesn't matter now, we are there and the situation has changed. Now what is the current situation?? To many people in the US the only thing they see is this: 3000 dead GI's, 20,000+ wounded GI's, no WMD's, fighting a war for big oil companies, 500,000+ Iraqi civilians killed.

Now while all that may be true, lets look at the bigger picture. Forget about the past and why we are there and who's to blame, doesn't matter, look at the picture right now and what may lay in the future.

Iran, the largest power broker in the area is fueling the insurgents in Iraq. It's a fact, everyone knows it, and they haven't denied it. The only logical reason for them to do this is so that in the future they can take over Iraq. Many people in the US say, who cares?? Well we should. Iran is NO friend of the US. Never will be. It's a fact so deal with it.

Now if the US were to pull out of Iraq several things will happen. Maybe not right away but within 5-10 years. Iran will take over Iraq. The governments will merge into a new government rulled  and controlled by the Mullahs in Tehran. That one country would then control almost 1/2 of the oil in the persian gulf and have the largest population and military in the region. Once Iran has consolidated their gains in Iraq they WILL move against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and all the other small gulf states. Who would be able to stop them at that point?

OK if this were to happen what would the rest of the world do? What could we do? Short answer...nothing. With a governmnet such as Irans in control of a huge portion of the worlds oil supply they could cripple any economy on the planet in short order if they so choose to. Now there is the crowd out there that will say, we should invest in allternative forms of energy so we don't have to rely on oil. Nice theory but not very realistic here in the real world.

Now lets take a look at Israel. If everything were to happen like I described above, what is Isreal going to do? Well they will pump up their military more than it already is. They'll have to. Once the US has left Iraq and the rest of the region, they will be alone and isolated. Now if Iran and Iraq merge and then start to take over the other gulf states Israel is going to be looking for enemies everywhere because they will be surrounded. The US will have NO credibility with Israel. It will only take one major attack into Israel, which will happen, and they WILL go nuclear.

If Isreal were to toss a nuke into Iran or Iraq what do you think will happen to us here in the US? We become instant targets for retaliation. Why?? Because we gave Israel the nukes.

Too many people in this country think getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do. Well I have to disagree with those people. These are the same people that are quick to place blame on Bush, like to talk about all the lies that were told, and constantly live in the past. None of that matters anymore. We are there and we need to stay or we will be in a world of hurt in the next 10 years.

You may think I'm crazy and full of BS. That's fine but remember this thread 10 years after we leave Iraq and then tell me if I was wrong.

[lazs2]

It's the friggin UN fer chrisakes... have you ever seen the countries they have on their human rights council?

Bolton was the best representitive we ever had to the UN... now the democrats will apoint some butt smoooocher to the un.

lazs

[Angus]

AFAIK Israel made their own nukes.
Anyway, Hornet, you had some nice points. I don't think the USA packing would be a wise move. The baddies will declare victory. You will have a new regime melting the two former foes together. And you will have dead bodies at an increasing rate.
The screw-up of the western nations is IMHO mostly:
1. Not finishing the business in 1991. ( A very good example is WWI, - after a military victory without conquest, there comes a bad deal which fuels anger and the famous : "We didn't lose the war"
2. Not following up the needed logistics after the military victory in the second war.
I think that it was largely underestimated that Saddam's lads actually knew they would lose a land war (Surprize!) and were more prepared than it was realized to build up a war of resistance. It was underestimated how they would work with the press (look at the casualties, mostly Iraqi people are being blown up by other Iraqis and the USA is the bad guy, - I bet it's on their doctrine to have something on the news EVERY DAY). Remember, early in the war, when Basra was out of water and supplies, civilianz crazy because ships could not dock and unload, - why?- yeah, the Iraqis mined the harbour and it took some 3 days to sweep it!
It's all logistics and a sense of realism IMHO. And it's about time too look at the sides, - the USA is getting crapped over for what those arses are doing. The problem needs to be solved, and it's not through press&political-fed submission.

[lukster]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something.

Why should we have to send our friends and relatives to topple a dictator?  Its the responsibility of the Iraqi people to fight their own civil war, to set up their own democracy.  

Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them".

Many said the same about Hitler.

Seems that many Europeans and Asians have forgotten that the messes they made in their lands not so long ago makes Iraq seem like Disneyland in comparison.