babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Containment of Iraq

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Containment of Iraq
Alienrocker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2026

posted 05 February 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
Everyone knows the Iraqis are hiding their weapons. The issue is what to do about it. US forces got the inspectors in. The world trembles at the thought of war, so why not contain Iraq for the next twenty years?

Since the US is viewed with suspicion and resentment by much of the world, I think we should withdraw all our forces around the world and let other nations, such as Canada and France for example, contain Iraq for us all, and enforce all UN resolutions. That way, other nations can enhance their military forces while we can reduce ours.

The United States should not bear any of the burdens of enforcement and containment. We have done our part spending billions just to get the inspectors in.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Alienrocker ]


From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hallelujah!

This is what I've been saying for months. I find all this cat and mouse games to be quite a bore. I entirely reject the premise that war is required because Iraq may not have complied with UN resolutions foisted on the body by the dictates of the Bush Administration. As Jeffrey Simpson pointed out yesterday (I posted the column on another thread), containment is working. I will concede that the the threat of force puts teeth into the policy. But it does not follow that war is neceesary to sustain the policy. If containment was sufficient for the Cold War, it's certainly sufficient for Iraq.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 05 February 2003 04:36 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Everyone knows the Iraqis are hiding their weapons.
You begin with an outrageous generalisation. Who is everyone? I certainly don't know if the Iraqis are hiding their weapons or whether they have any worth hiding. What do you think the inspections are all about? As for Washington's assumptions which you have no doubt been thoroughly indoctrinated in, they are still as of today only assumptions lacking evidence and confirmation.
quote:
containment is working
does that include the sanctions..? Are they working? Who for? Certainly not the million who have died from them.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 05 February 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah really? Most of the world leaders ( not to mention millions of protestors worldwide ) are clearly not convinced that Iraq even has weapons, let alone hiding them.
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alienrocker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2026

posted 05 February 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
Hello darkhorse - Of course I have been indoctrinated! Our police state has ensured that all US citizens march in lockstep to government policy. Thank goodness Ottawa has no such power over its freethinking people! That's why rabble.ca is turned on surreptitiously all over our captive nation, shadowed in darkness, despite our fear of the knock on the door, desperate for the truth from outside our nightmare world.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Alienrocker ]


From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 05 February 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
desperate for the truth from outside our nightmare world
For the majority of americans who live within the bubble of mainstream propaganda, that description is fairly accurate. I send you my sympathies. However, if you are being sarcastic, why did you begin with that ludicrous blanket statement about 'everybody knowing' in the first place?

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alienrocker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2026

posted 05 February 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
darkhorse - I didn't like your "no doubt indoctrinated". Why are you so aggressive, if not insulting? I think you can personally set the burden of proof so high that only you will be unconvinced at some point.

The main idea here is that if you look at the inspector report and Colin Powell's report (and you believe what they say), the pattern shows the Iraqis are lying, and if you look at the Iraqi rebuttal (and believe them), then they are innocent. You can believe whom you choose, but for what reasons?

There are also those who maintain there are no Iraqi weapons simply because they don't want there to be a war and hope that saying so makes it so.

I think it makes more sense to admit all evidence points to Iraqi dissembling and therefore containment is the only option to war. I think the US has done enough and now the rest of the world can deal with the problem. We have already spent too much.

You have evidently been indoctrinated to treat other posters on this board with arrogance.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Alienrocker ]


From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 05 February 2003 05:20 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now what was that quote about "stones" and "glass houses" again?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 05 February 2003 05:20 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You begin with an outrageous generalisation. Who is everyone? I certainly don't know if the Iraqis are hiding their weapons or whether they have any worth hiding. What do you think the inspections are all about? As for Washington's assumptions which you have no doubt been thoroughly indoctrinated in, they are still as of today only assumptions lacking evidence and confirmation.

The purpose of the inspections varies depending on who you talk with, there is no one agreed up answer.

  • For some people, such as President Bush, they are a process whereby Iraq can prove to the world that they are disarming. In that view, the inspections are merely a tool and all of the responsibility is placed with Iraq.
  • The view of countries like France is that the inspections are a process to determine whether or not Iraq has WMDs
  • My view is that the inspections are a process which the world can use to prove that Iraq has WMDs. In this view, the burden of proof is placed on the inspectors and passive compliance on Iraq’s part is acceptable.

    Iraq and the US/UK/Israel/etc. (seen as a group) are make competing assertions, namely that "Iraq (does not) have WMDs." The US and UK are positive that Iraq has WMDs because of information gathered from their intelligence units. If the UK, US, etc. are not lying then Iraq has WMDs. If it turns out that Iraq does not have WMDs then the US, UK, etc. engaged in a massive lie. I do not believe that they are lying through their teeth – do you?

    Partly because I was born and raised in a western country and partly because it's a matter of a coalition of countries independently collecting evidence versus a single country making assertions, I agree with the claim of the US Central Intelligence Agency in their document Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs and United Kingdom in their report Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government when they make specific allegations about Iraq's WMD capabilities.


    From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
  • darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 05 February 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    You have evidently been indoctrinated to treat other posters on this board with arrogance.

    It is much more arrogant to speak for 'everyone', as you did at the start. Voice your views but don't assume you speak for everyone.
    As to determining who is 'lying' I personally believe the Powell report is an assemblage of lies. Because the evidence is insubstantial and highly speculative, and because Washington has a definite agenda it is pushing for.
    quote:
    I think it makes more sense to admit all evidence points to Iraqi dissembling
    The previous weapons inspection team UNSCOM, determined Iraq to be 95% WMD free. The current inspectors have presented no evidence of WMD in the country. At this point it would be close to suicide for Iraq to hide weapons and get caught. They do not want war. They do not need 'containment', especially if it involves continuation of the sanctions that are strangling civilian society. I think the inspectors should be allowed to do their jobs without harassments and time -limits from the U.S.

    [ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Alienrocker
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2026

    posted 05 February 2003 05:59 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
    It is my view that everyone who has heard the inspector and Powell reports may conclude that Iraq is lying about their WMD - otherwise, the inspectors and Powell are lying. The question is, what to do about it?

    There are those who believe there are permissible gradations of cooperation. Clearly, France, Russia, etc. can say, well, yes, Iraq has been lying, but now they have the opportunity to be helpful by 2/14, and maybe beyond as well - if the UN can be satisfied with the level of Iraqi cooperation.

    It is not Iraq who must be satisfied with its level of cooperaton. It is the UN who must be pleased.

    An uncooperative indictee does itself no favors in court.


    From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 05 February 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    It would certainly be easier for the Iraqi regime to co-operate more fully if there were no massive troop build up on its borders, if the world's deadliest superpower were not constantly threatening force and dismissing the UN process, and if the Resolution were complied with by all signatory countries, not just Iraq. By that I mean the U.S. has itself been violating 1441 by bombing southern Iraq and enforcing the illegal no-fly zones. 1441 calls for all member-states to respect Iraq's territoral sovereignity, which the U.S clearly does not. So who is really hindering the UN process?

    [ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Alienrocker
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2026

    posted 05 February 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
    No inspectors could have returned after 1998 if Iraq were not threatened with force - why should Iraq let them back, if only words were issued by the UN?

    I think US troops should be removed from Iraq and elsewhere and Canadian, French and other forces should take our place in providing UN enforcement power around the world.

    Unfortunately, we wouldn't be addressing the Iraq issue right now and trying to enforce UN resolutions right now if it weren't for US intiative.

    It is an unpleasant situation. Pretending the problems Iraq poses will go away if we leave them alone will not help us. Looking for Iraq's WMD like a game of hide and seek is ridiculous. We got played already.

    As for no-fly zones violating Iraqi sovereignty and territory, they are enforcing previous resolutions related to oppression of northern and southern ethnic groups. The actual enforcement mode was not specified in the resolution, but the UN doesn't seem to mind. Perhaps it is not a violation of the sovereignty and territory of Iraq under these conditions.

    [ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Alienrocker ]


    From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 05 February 2003 07:44 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    Pretending the problems Iraq poses will go away if we leave them alone will not help us. Looking for Iraq's WMD like a game of hide and seek is ridiculous.
    Iraq hardly poses a threat to anyone. No neighboring country in the region has expressed concern in the last five years. As to posing a threat to the U.S., that's a joke. They simply don't have the delivery systems or the death-wish to do so.

    So Iraq's hypothetical WMD's is not the issue. That Iraq encompasses the world's second largest oil reserves is much more the issue and should be spoken about openly. If the U.S really cared about enforcing SC Resolutions, they would do something about Israel which is in violation of 64 of them, and has more Nuclear WMD's than any European country excepting the U.K and France.

    As to the No-Fly Zones, they are not authorized, nor does any relevent SC Resolution such as 688 authorize 'force'. It is clear then that the No-fly zones are illegal. If they were legitimate, the U.S. would happily seize upon Iraq's anti-air-craft fire in the zones, as a decisive excuse for war.

    [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    sheep
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2119

    posted 06 February 2003 10:05 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    If the U.S really cared about enforcing SC Resolutions, they would do something about Israel which is in violation of 64 of them, and has more Nuclear WMD's than any European country.

    You mean Israel's hypothetical nuclear WMDs. Israel has never admitted to possessing them. Show us your proof darkhorse. You come on here demanding proof of Iraq's weapons, yet with no evidence whatsoever you assume Israel has more nukes than any European country. So where's YOUR proof? Put your money where your mouth is.


    From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 06 February 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    Israel's nuclear weapons program dates back to the late 1950s and the construction of the nuclear facility at Dimona, in the Negev. Here, with French and later South African assistance, the Israelis embarked upon a nuclear weapons program that, according to U.S. Intelligence estimates, is thought to have yielded between 75 and 130 devices. Some reports indicate that Israel instituted a nuclear alert during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and again in 1991 during the Gulf conflict. Information about the Israeli weapons program is somewhat conjectural. The Israeli government does not admit to possessing nuclear weapons and is not a member of the NPT. Dimona remains a closed site not subject to international inspections or safeguards. There exists no official mention of how nuclear weapons fit into Israeli strategic thinking, and their role in the Israeli Defense Force's doctrine is therefore a matter of guesswork. Center for Defense Information, Washington.
    Then there's the BBC:
    quote:
    New satellite photographs published on the internet indicate that Israel could have made enough plutonium for up to 200 nuclear weapons, US scientists say.

    The photographs of the secret Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona in the Negev desert appear on the website of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

    Israel is now the only state with nuclear weapons that does not admit to having such weapons. It has always refused to allow international inspection of the Dimona facility, and is among the few states that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. BBC News Page


    [ 06 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    sheep
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2119

    posted 06 February 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    Information about the Israeli weapons program is somewhat conjectural.

    A report from a thinktank in Washington DC? That den of lies and duplicity? Obviously biased. You'll have to do better than that.


    From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    WingNut
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 1292

    posted 06 February 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    So, assuming Israel does have nuclear weapons sheep. do you support disarming them?
    From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
    sheep
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2119

    posted 06 February 2003 11:12 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Yes. But let's see some "proof" they have them first.

    [ 06 February 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]


    From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 06 February 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    At a 13 July 1998 press conference in Jordan, former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres publicly admitted for the first time that Israel possessed nuclear weapon capabilities. Peres stated that Israel "built a nuclear option not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." Source

    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    sheep
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2119

    posted 06 February 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Oh he's just a former Prime Minister. He doesn't speak officially for Israel. Obviously he was just trying to throw a scare into his Arab enemies. Besides, you expect me to take the word of a mass murderer like that at face value? Nice try.
    From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Markbo
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 124

    posted 06 February 2003 11:18 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Question: if the only repercussion for builting WMD is containment, why would Iraq cooperate???
    From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
    mandrake
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3127

    posted 06 February 2003 11:20 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    The world trembles at the thought of war, so why not contain Iraq for the next twenty years?

    You mean in the same way that Al Quida and the Taliban have been contained?


    From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Boinker
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 664

    posted 06 February 2003 10:28 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    I agree with this proposal entirely and it would make perfect sense for the Bush administration to do this if they sought to deflect the rath of the wackos from US Imperialism and have it directed at the United Nations and all nations of the world rather than just the most powerful one. But this does not really seem the motivation at all. It seems to me that the people planning and conducting this war couldn't care less about reprisals against the US citizenry.

    In Foreign Affairs magazine, generally a conservative neoliberal journal, columnists, while supporting the general thrust of the war on ideological grounds, tend to balk a bit at the realities that are presenting themselves.

    For example, weapons grade anthrax, manufactured in the United States and possibly in the possession of the Iraqis, could kill millions if it were crop dusted over a city like LA. This terrifying possibility is not brought up by left wing,wing nut pacifists but by staid right wing apologists.
    SNAKE FIGHT

    What the mass media is not doing is reporting on the restraint and calculated decision not to escalate matters on the part of Hussein and his followers by not using these weapons, or giving them to terrorists since 1991.This guy may be a murderous tyrant but he is no fool. He knows the US has supported many as bad or worse than himself. They do this because they know these guys respect force above all else and this is something the military industrial copmplex provides in unlimited amounts.

    What seems to me to be happening in the media is that anyone who says that the Bush administration is fascistic and power mad, simply on the evidence of their practice, is being ignored completely.

    Canada is against unilateral action and against war as a means of foreign policy. "Containment" makes sense. Even the 91 war was in some sense justifiable as a UN police action against a rogue state.

    But this current war against Iraq is insane. It will not solve any of the problems around the world that the US is seeking to suppress but will fire world-wide resistance to US Imperialism.

    The US will be seen as a fundamentally corrupt and power mad oligarchy by even those who aren't members of Rabble's babble.

    Terror has a figurehead in George Bush and symbol of all that is wrong with the US. A country that claims to peaceful and egalitarian, a democracy, but which allows priviledge and wealth to control and motivate global aspirations. In the US the oil lobby seems to be running the show and has little regard for anyone who seeks to foil their plans.

    Can America, the people, the democracy, back off? Why don't they call for a referendum on the war on Iraq? Why doesn't the UN sponsor it? Why doesn't the UN just send out 200,000,000 flyers to US voters and ask them if they think what is the best way to resolve the problems in the middle east. They could all vote on-line.

    Why doesn't Canada do it? We have the technical capacity.

    What would the US say to such an approach?

    And what would Republican war mongers says if the vast majority of Americans said no?

    Of course the polls now show something different but unilateral war is not overwhelmingly favoured, I think it is only slightly more than 50%.

    A peace poll, a real one, is what we need.

    Something like:

    "Do you favour a peaceful solution to the situation in the Middle East?"

    "Do you think a United Nations peace keeping force in Palestine would reduce the violence?"

    "Do you think sanctions against Iraq should be dropped and different methods of dealing with human rights abuses there should be implemented?"


    Do you really think the majority of ordinary Americans would violently oppose these approaches?

    I don't.

    And moreover, I think it is a sad commentary on "democracy" that the "Will of People" is no longer heard on these very important questions.

    [ 06 February 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]

    [ 06 February 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]


    From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    josh
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2938

    posted 07 February 2003 09:55 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Containment IS working:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/opinion/07KRIS.html


    From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Boinker
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 664

    posted 07 February 2003 07:42 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    The problem as I see it, is that currency speculation is so evil to the well being of this planet and its people that putting off a real challenge to it by putting efforts into championing and campaigning for the Tobin Tax is NOT a progressive change.


    The point is that currency and money have an independent life of their own when structurally they are simply supposed to represent real wealth.

    Capitalism gives it this independent life by making it not social relations the means by which society does things.

    The idea here then is to put the enormous use money has as an aide to our social life in the service of humankind and life.


    Just think about the absurd morality that justifies spending billions on aramaments without batting an eye, things that have no value in themselves, that destroy value and cause catastrophe, but cannot justify a 10th of this money in healthcare and education.

    Tobin taxes might reverse that sociopathic and psychotic logic.


    From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Can-Am
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3678

    posted 07 February 2003 07:47 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    Just think about the absurd morality that justifies spending billions on aramaments without batting an eye

    Don't spend too much time relfecting upon the fact that this is the planet Earth, full of actual human beings, and not Heaven full of Angels. Your brain will get sore.


    From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 07 February 2003 07:50 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    We could do more for our national security by spending the money on education, or by financing a major campaign to promote hybrid cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and taking other steps toward energy independence.

    Finally, something sensible. But we'd need to replace the current Administration which is run by the oil lobby.

    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 08 February 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    And for your undying entertainment, Lowtax in the form of "Zack Parsons" writes an editorial on the possible implications of the War on Blasting the Hell out of Iraq, or something.

    quote:
    There are maybe a dozen Americans right now who aren't in their innermost thoughts salivating at the soon-to-be-live war in Iraq. What exciting name will our government give this great patriotic crusade for freedom and democracy? What will CNN call their war coverage? Showdown in the Gulf? Crisis in the Gulf? War in the Gulf?

    Edited to add the news archive link on Something Awful.

    [ 13 February 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Can-Am
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3678

    posted 08 February 2003 08:53 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Oooh boy, DrConway, are you a long way from home. SomethingAwful.com is run by the PortalOfEvil crew--radically anti-Arab, rabidly pro-militarist, extremely clever parodists.

    I think you might want to stick to sources a little friendlier to the Left (these guys are about as anti-Leftist as you can get).

    Other PortalOfEvil sites are seanbaby.com and the truly offensive fatchicksinpartyhats.com

    I guess you missed the links off of SomethingAwful to such sites as "Pakimon", a rabidly racist attack on Muslims.

    [ 08 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


    From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
    Smith
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3192

    posted 08 February 2003 09:05 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

    From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
    pogge
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2440

    posted 08 February 2003 11:29 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Apparently someone else has an idea. From the Toronto Star:

    quote:
    Disarm, occupy Iraq: France, Germany

    BERLIN (AP) - Germany and France are working on a broad disarmament plan for Iraq designed to avoid war, including the deployment of UN soldiers throughout the country, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors, a German magazine reported today.

    (snip)

    The plan would have international peacekeepers "in effect take control of the country for years," declare all of Iraq a no-fly zone and lead to agreements with Iraq's neighbours to crack down on smuggled exports of Iraqi oil as part of strengthened economic sanctions, Der Spiegel said.



    From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 09 February 2003 12:06 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Can-Am: For a "moderate" you sure seem willing to pigeonhole other people.

    I don't care where I find my amusement. If some right-wing website has a funny-as-hell parody of the "reasons for war", I'll laugh my ass off at it.

    "Portalofevil" people? According to the WHOIS results, they're not owned by the same person.

    -----

    Registrant:
    Rich Kyanka (SOMETHINGAWFUL-DOM)
    Something Awful Inc.
    Seattle, WA 98109-0448
    US

    Domain Name: SOMETHINGAWFUL.COM

    -----

    Registrant:
    Domain Manager

    Registered through: POE Hosting (http://www.poehosting.com)
    Domain Name: SEANBABY.COM

    -----

    Registrant:
    Portal Of Evil (FATCHICKSINPARTYHATS-DOM)
    2206 Superior Via #502
    Cleveland, OH 44113
    US

    Domain Name: FATCHICKSINPARTYHATS.COM

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
    Baby, Sean (SBX575)
    seanbaby@SEANBABY.COM
    PMB# 125
    Beaverton, OR 97005-1393
    US
    216-696-1336

    -----

    I have also checked with my IRC sources, and, frankly, I can tell you you're full of it. Lowtax isn't even in the Portal of Evil.

    So I can now safely inform you that my estimation of your knowledge of Internet and Web related things has dropped considerably.

    You didn't think I'd check up on you, did I?

    And besides, Lowtax is fucking hilarious anyway.


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    darkhorse
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3508

    posted 09 February 2003 01:57 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    BERLIN (AP) - Germany and France are working on a broad disarmament plan for Iraq designed to avoid war, including the deployment of UN soldiers throughout the country, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors, a German magazine reported today.
    This is a far better alternative to the U.S. approach. Above all it would save and protect the people of Iraq. And Saddam might even go along with it. It would blow U.S. plans for hegemony over the oil reserves, while enhancing relations between France, Germany and Iraq. That could soon mean OPEC will switch to the Euro, and a sharp decline in U.S. economic power. Now they can take their war and shove it. If they still push for war in the face of a viable peaceful alternative, their motives will be transparent to the world.

    From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
    swallow
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2659

    posted 09 February 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    It sounds like an excellent alternative. It also sounds like it's based on the UN administrations in Kosovo, Cambodia and East Timor & hopefully would take some lessons from them. Effectively under this plan Iraq would be under trusteeship and lose the substance of its national sovereignty temparily. This is all fine, as long as there are Iraqis who woujld cooperate & acquiesce in trusteeship. But those who hold national sovereignty as a high principle will be awfully upset. So the plan will probably only fly if substantial sectors of Iraqi society accept it as a better alternative than war. And it will only fly in the north if the Kurds are allowed to keep such self-government as they currently have.
    From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Michelle
    Moderator
    Babbler # 560

    posted 09 February 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Moving this to the Middle East forum.
    From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    josh
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2938

    posted 18 February 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Containment--stay the course:

    http://tinyurl.com/60mu


    From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Rodney
    recent-rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3801

    posted 25 February 2003 12:30 AM      Profile for Rodney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    It is hard to believe anything that any politician says today. They must be trained to present themselves to the voters in such a way that they will be elected, not to say what they truely have in mind for us once they are in power. Their main concern is to please the corporations that have contributed millions of dollars to get them elected and make sure they will be as generous next election. Money is power, always has been, always will be. The average citizen is just a tool to be manipulated by the governments and media of the world, in varying degrees from country to country, and we are just pawns loosing more of our rights and independence every day. "1984" is not far off.
    Rodney

    From: Medicine Hat AB Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

    All times are Pacific Time  

       Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
    Hop To:

    Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

    Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca