NATO & Iraq

[Batz]

Suddam is a baathists, btw the way do you know who came up with the Baath philosphy?

Salah al-Din Bitar
(Studies first at Damascus University then at the Sorbonne University in Paris, France.)

Zaki Arsuzi
(educated at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, France),

Michel Aflaq
(Greek Orthodox, educated at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, France)

established what they call Movement of Arab Renaissance, in Arabic Ba'th. In 1947 they are central in the formation of the Arab Ba'th Party.

Seems a product of Nationlism, Arabic "hot headedness" and French education. (this was clearly an attempt to stir the pot and give the french bashers a new angle of attack)

The Arab Baath party is a political movement that drives its program from an "Arab adaptation" of European ultra nationalist ideology mixed with a bad dose of interpretation of Arab Muslim history. The result is terror, wars, and racist and chauvinist policies in dealing with non-Arab ethnic groups living within the Arab World. Unfortunately, Iraq, that great cosmopolitan society ended up with a political party with such an ideology on the reign of power. Hence, every non-Arab ethnic group of Iraq had its share of attempts to deny, suppress, extinct through forceful Arabisation, or simply physical extinction if all of the above failed. Kurds, Chaldeans/Assyrians, Turkoman, Yezedis all shared in one way or another those Baathi policies of Arab nationalism. While other ethnic groups were able to put a sustained resistance towards such policies, our Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac people reaction as an ethnic group and, especially that of the Chaldean community, was one that can be characterized as benevolent at best. Saying that, the followers of the Church of the East did react by establishing several political movements, and some even gave martyrs on that path.

Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party. political party and movement influential among Arab communities in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq. The Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party’s economic dogma: “Unity [Arab], Freedom [from colonialism], and Socialism” are still the watchwords. From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination. Moral and cultural deterioration, it was felt, had so weakened the Arabs that Western supremacy spread throughout the Middle East. Arabs needed a regeneration of the common heritage of people in the region to drive off debilitating external influences.

Articulated as the principle of Arab nationalism, the Baath movement was one of several political groups that drew legitimacy from an essentially reactive ideology. Nevertheless, Baathist ideology spread slowly by educating followers to its intellectual attractions. The three major proponents of early Baathist thought, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, and Michel Aflaq, were middle-class educators whose political thought had been influenced by Western education. During the 1930s Arsuzi, Salah, and Aflaq expounded their vision of Arab nationalism to small audiences in Syria. By the early 1940s Salah and Aflaq had taken the initiative to extend the movement’s operations in Damascus by organizing demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali al-Kailani’s government in Iraq against the British presence there. By 1945 the word baath (Arabic for “resurrection” or “renaissance”) had been applied to what was then officially a party rather than a movement. The official founding of the party may be dated from its first party congress in Damascus on April 7, 1947, when a constitution was approved and an executive committee established. However, significant expansion beyond Syria’s borders took place only after the war of 1948, when lack of Arab unity was widely perceived as responsible for the loss of Palestine to the new state of Israel. The Iraqi branch of the Baath party was established in 1954 after the merger of the Baath with Akram al-Hurani’s Arab Socialist Party in 1952, to form the Arab Baath Socialist Party. In February 1963 the Baath Party came to power in Iraq and one month later, in March 8, it came to power in Syria after the March Revolution. Inter-party disagreements were one of the major factors that led to the Correction Movement led by Hafez al-Assad, the movement ended years of conflict within the party. A new constitution, approved in 1973, stated that the Baath Party is “leading party in the state and society”. In 1972, the Baath also became the leader of the 7 Syrian parties forming the National Progressive Front NPF. The national committee of the Baath is the effectively the decision making body in Syria. Number of members in Syria exceeds million.

Anyway back on topic, prior to Suddams tough stance with the US he was loathed amoung most fundamentalist. While Osama may wish to see Suddam overthrown and Iraq turned into a fundamentalist state it doesnt change the fact that for quite a few in the arab world Suddam is seen as "taking no toejam" from the US. His "reputation" with in the Arab and muslim world was enhanced by the Gulf war. While I shoud have said "Arab leader" (not that he leads all Arabs) not "Muslim leader" my position is essentially correct. Also there are clear indications that al-Qa'ida has been in "contact" with Iraq. I am sure that if al-Qa'ida thought they could get wmd from Iraq they wouldnt hesistate to take them.

Those who oppose action in Iraq have a pretty solid arguement that if the current regime falls we could quite possibly see a fundamentalist regime take its place. One that would have even closer ties to terrorists. Not to mention the probrable "civil war" that will occur if the shi'ites and kurds decide they would rather govern themselves.

Hitler was hardly a Christian but he still had many a Christian follower.

Back to Analogies you make too many assumptions with yours to be credible. What is factually known is that the US gave arms to Iraq, to what extent is debated. Theres far more evidence that show Euros (France and Germany) sold plenty of "stuff" that could be directly linked to wmd. Now its to hard to go into "duel use" technology for arguements sake.

My analogy just considers "weapons" in general. The fact we gave "weapons" to a potential ally is no different then what we do with other allies. Conspiracy theories aside.

[Dowding]

The US gave chemical-weapon precursors that they deemed 'dual use' despite the fact that the CIA was reporting almost daily use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. They also gave bio-cultures to the same regime. Dozens of helicopters were given to Iraq which many US analysts believe were used to attack the Kurds with chemical weapons.

It's true that just about everyone (Britain, France and Germany mainly) was dealing with Iraq in terms of arms and other 'materiel' - but to deny that the US was involved is flying in the face of hard fact. Fact that has been established by Senate review.

[Naso]

Originally posted by bounder
I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.

In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.

Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.

Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.

Very nice analogy.
And realistic, too

[Batz]

US gave chemical-weapon precursors

is different then the wording used in bounder's analogy.

Where did I deny anything? I believe I said there is no use arguing over "duel use" technology. It is to easy for ones bias' to overwhelm their logic.

[Dowding]

It was a general comment, Batz, not partuicularly aimed at anyone.

My opinion? The export of dual use precursors to countries that are daily using the same precursers to mix up nasty chemical potions to be doused on civilians and soldiers alike, and expecting them to be nice with them is at best naive. To me, it is just not credible.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by bounder

I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.

In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.

Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.

Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.


Analogies are not really useful.

No, they are not really useful, especially not when you mess up the details for whatever reason. The correct analogy (using your analogy as base= would be this:

I give someone a bottle of poison that is illegal to use. I'm allowed to have it, but he is probably not. And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.

He uses the poison against his in-laws and a few other people.
That is illegal. Im starting to get concerned.

Then he invades his neighbour because he wants to own his house, and he wants all of his neighbours expensive stuff. I get even more concerned since I remember the poison I gave him.  

Anyway, everyone in the whole block agrees that he should return the house and all the stuff to the rightful owner. He refuses and threatens anyone who interfears with his affairs with the poison. Im starting to realize it was a really bad idea to give him the poison in the first place. I have alot of the same poison at home, but Im not a threat to my neighbourhood, in fact Im the one who is protecting the entire block from a gang of butchering thugs that live in the next town.

So the whole neighbourhood gathers in a possee and we kick him out of the house he stole. Before he leaves the house he sets it on fire. I want to go over to his house and capture him and take back the poison, but the rest of the neighbourhood says that we should get the poison from him using non violent methods. They say he should not be allowed to go to the grocery store until he has returned the poison. I reluctantly agree.

Alas, Charles, and Helmut, two of the neighbours helps him with the grocery shopping. So does Ivan and Chiang. He says that he has returned all the poison, but I know that he hasnt.

One day, a mad murderer moves into a house in the neighbourhood. The mad murderer spends all his days telling everyone that he wants to kill me and rape my children. The mad murderer becomes friends with the guy with the poison. I know that if the guy with the poison gives some of it to the mad murderer, the murderer will try to use the poison on me an my family. I call the cops.

Charles and Helmut and Ivan and Chiang put up roadblocks so that the cops cannot come to our neighbourhood. Then they say that they will make sure the poison is removed, I should relax and trust them.

Meanwhile I can see how the guy is making more poison using my poison as base. I can also see how the mad murderer is training poison delivery techniques in his back yard.

Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and the mad murderer.



----------
Pay more attention to the details if you want to make analogies in the future. Right now you are just making stuff up/ignoring pesky facts as it suits you. You wont be taken seriously if you continue doing that.

[Dowding]

No Hortlund, you've got it wrong. It should be:

I gave someone some chemicals that can be mixed to make a very potent poison. I've seen him use this poison on a daily basis against a neighbour I don't really like, so I decide to give him the precursors anyway. Legality of ownership doesn't come into it - I've got them, so why not let him?

Everything is fine and dandy. We're getting along like an oil well on fire, and the neighbour I don't like stops bothering my friend so much, mainly because of the poison he made from my chemicals which I sold him. My other friends are supporting him too. One of them has sold him a few sections of high grade steel piping which he says he's going to use to irrigate a few vegetables he has. It's all going swimmingly. I know he's now using the poison on his in-laws, but I don't really care, because it's a long way from my house and the guy is my friend.

[Duedel]

> I give someone a bottle of poison that is illegal to use. I'm allowed to have it, but he is probably not. And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.

UR GUILTY!

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
....I'm allowed to have it...

This is one of the main hypocrisies that disturb me.

Allowed by the will of God?

Anyway, with Hortlund's and Dowding's comments, the analogy is becoming more and more near to reality.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Duedel
>  And he wants this poison to scare his enemies with.

 

Bwahahaha.

[Dowding]

Monk - that quote was from Hortlund's justification for why America gave him the means to develop chemical weapons, not why Saddam wants them now (although strangely, that statement can be applied to why the US et al want to take them off of him, yet Hortlund uses it as justification for why the US gave him the weapons in the first place).

[Monk]

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but was the US the only country giving Iraq the Technology to produce Chemical Weapons?

[Dowding]

Nope, everyone was doing it. And that's been added to our little story board.

[Monk]

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but was the US the only country giving Iraq the Technology to produce Chemical Weapons?

Rgr......I stand corrected.

[Naso]

We are on the road to obtain a best-seller book:

"Bomb iraq - quick guide"

Subtitle:

"an easy read for the average joe, fritz, jean, ivan, john and mario"



$$$$$ !!!!!