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   » Hypocrisy

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hypocrisy
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just wondering why is it that people don't see that only reason for the French, Russian, German and Chinese not going to war with Iraq was because of Oil. These governments couldn't care less for the Iraqi people or anyone else.

In 1995 they wanted to lift the sanctions so they could make more oil deals and sell more weapons to Saddam. Now I don't like sanctions I know they hurt really bad kill many innocent people but if they were lifted there certainly would have been a double Genocide the Shiites to the south and the Kurds to the north.

The world is not black and white. In this case a use of force to remove Saddam would surely "HAVE THE LEAST CASULTIES". The SOJOURNERS Christians for justice (www.sojo.net) made a six step plan to remove Saddam. The first step they subjected to indict Saddam in a Military tribunal. They said "The Tribunals can Destroy criminal Regimes" like in Rwanda and Yugoslavia" I'd Like to remind you all that 800,000 died in Rwanda before the world noticed and over a million in Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia the Americans finally used force without a UN resolution. Because the UN seems to be unable to do it's Job. The Americans probably saved many lives.

Bush was stupid he managed to sell to his own nation that security was the issue but the rest of the world didn't by it. People don't care until the Violence gets exported beyond their borders. "The only time the French want to help is when the Germans are in Paris sipping coffee"
They also go into West Africa make huge messes without any UN resolutions. They don't care about any one they probably the most greedy, capitalistic and Imperialistic government there is.(I don't make Generalizations I don't hate any one I talk about Governments and Regimes that are bad not people).

I wonder why Britain wants to go to war perhaps Tony Blair might have the Moral High ground he has nothing to lose by opposing the war. Perhaps Mr. Blair really wants to help the people of Iraq.

It's also funny to me that none of the 3 major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty or Doctor without Borders) Has outright opposed the war. They all say that in case of war certain measures must be implemented to protect civilians but they don't out right oppose. Meantime the have huge files of the crimes against humanity that the Iraqi government has done. What message should we learn from this?

Now obviously there are many Dictatorships that oppose the war for freer of being next but hopefully after the war with Iraq there won't be no more wars like this. Hopefully we can send the Message that we won't tolerate intolerance, that we won't tolerate inhumane dictators.


Yes wars Kill, Sanctions Kill even more, But Dictators Kill the most.

Sojo

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One last thing

It's time to Liberate the Iraqi people and all other Oppressed people ther are millions even Billions around the world.

Sanctions just kill more and sitting around and praying doesn't help "God helps those who help themselves" I don't believe it's our Job to Judge people. But we must help people and protect people from harm sometimes we have to use force against a few people in order to save a lot Saddly Peace and Freedom come with a price


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I was just wondering why is it that people don't see that only reason for the French, Russian, German and Chinese not going to war with Iraq was because of Oil. These governments couldn't care less for the Iraqi people or anyone else.

I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the French and Russian position is not motivated by self-interest. Ironicaly though supporters of the war find it convenient to attack the French and Russian position on the basis that it is motivated by 'self-interest' but move into a state of catergorical denial when such 'self-interest' is suggested as a motivation for the Bush and Blair camp.

Themes such as liberté, égalité, and fraternité ring in their prose like the sound of wind chimes lost in a howling wind of self-interest, greed and arrogance.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

seemes like you only read the first sentnce why don't you read the rest of what I wrote and then comment, We have enough self-righteous politicians

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I did read it. I guess I could add that we have already had 'a war to end all wars,' once this century and after the armistice was signed in 1918, peace reigned supreme in Europe. Que no?

I see this: you attacks the opponents of the war for basing their decisions in self-interest and then suggest that Tony Blair is taking a moral stand.

My original post will stand.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 05:59 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The armistice humliated the germans and was one of the direct causes of world war 2.

This was one of the times the Americans truly did have the Moral high ground and suggested to rebuild germany unlike the French and I must admit the british too in this case who wanted the Germans to pay for the damages they had done.

You see things are much more complicated then people see. I wish people would open thier minds. I'm not for war but I'am for Freedom peace and Libiration saddly so few people know what it means and so few people understand thier is a heavy price to be paid.

I don't understand people that are willing to tolerate people who are not willing to tolerate them. People like Saddam that doesn't even care for his own people. If only there was a real alternative for getting rid of Saddam with out war then believe me I'd be out there protesting with all the people against this war but saddly there is none. Jim Carter said it best "Some times war is a necicary evil"

WHat about Rwanda and Yugoslavia how can you justifiy the inaction of the world there. I suppose who have no problem with genocide as long as it's not on your hands. Such as sad world of ignorance we live in. What is better what is more acceptable having 10's of thousands die once in a war or having a couple million die over a couple years at the hands evil regime. I don't know if you study philosophy or not but there is somehting called a harms benefit analysis in philosophy. My analysis tells me it is of up most importance to librate Iraq and remove Saddam from power and that war will be the only way to do it saddly.

Try and convince me there was another way I'd love to believe they we could defeat evil with love and peace. But I know it's something we take for granted I know that if a had to hold a Gun I wouldn't be free. I know because I was soldier for a while. I know thanks to our soldiers our police and Judical system I can sleep at night and I don't have to walk around with a gun but what about the people of Iraq who will protect them from Saddam?

By the way there is plenty of proof that these countries have self interested motive for not going to war and I have no problem admitting there no proof that Iraq has weopons of Mass destruction and that the connection with Alqada is BS. but there is plenty of proof of the crimese he has done to his own people and to his neighbours that should be enough to justify the use of force to remove him and his regime as it should be anywhere in the world if there is no other viable solution like I said if and in this case there is none.

If you need more proof that the reason to go to war is not about oil. Saudia arabia would gladly compensate and has more then enough oil to compensate for the loss of production from Iraq and they'd gladly do it and at a good price too because as long as they can supply us oil there is no econmical reason to use alterantive resouces and the rich there keeping getting richer the world gets more poluoted and we jsut shot oursleves in the leg and thier laughing.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 06:35 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I guess you could approach these questions from a number of perspectives.

For instance, I am glad that you brought up the role of the Treaty of Versaille, very few people make the direct connection between the humiliation of Germany and the rise of facism there. Yet, we should ask oursleves are the present sanctions against Iraq, not more or less the same thing? Is not the 'oil for food' more or less the same kind of debilitating treaty designed to exact war raparations. Make no mistake about it, millions of dollars have been extracted from this program to pay reparations both to Kuwaiti's but also the US (costs for the original war.)

So, can we say that history tells us that humilitaing people does not always cow them into submissision, but can lead to the rise of unknown forces. Make no mistake the Kaiser's Germany and Hitlers facists are completely two different things, but are we, by enforcing sanctions and now a policy of regieme change, possibly allowing for the rise of facist Isalmic fundamentalism in the wake of the latest assault on Iraq?

Where will Iraqis turn when they finally say, neither Saddam nor Bush?

I think it is actually this concern above all that directs the Russian French and Chinese opposition to the war. I think it has little to do with their economic concerns. I think the rift is an example not of a moral dispute of whether or not the 'neo-colonial' order should be maintained but over the manner of how it is maintained.

Russian and China already have huge problems with Muslim uprisings in their peripheral territories, while Germany and France both have huge Arab and Muslim populations. Should the war spin beyond the control of Bush and Blair there is significant potential for serious social unrest, not just in the Mid East but also on the continent, should France and Germany participate. Please, remember that France's Algerian war also met with resistance, not only in Algeria but also in France from Algerian and Muslim nationals.

I think the general consensus is that Saddam and Tariq Aziz are 'players,' and more than willing to play ball with Europeans, not just by providing oil, but also as he is a long time opponent of Islamic forces in the region. In the end I believe French and German opposition springs the from folkloric wisdom embodied in the phrase: 'better the devil you know, than the devil you don't,' not some higher moral code.

Oil plays a role, but I think that the European powers and the US can all agree that continued exploitation of Iraqi oil is necessary, and that Iraq's importance stems from the fact that it has the second largest oil supply and the cheapest extraction rate in the world (less than 70 cents a barrel) but disagree on how that exploitation should continue. I think the issue of which oil concerns actually profit the most from it is of relatively little importance, and someting that could be negotiated through normal channels, however what is in question of HOW order will be maintained.

The French believe Saddam will play ball and keep the Islamic fundamentalists in check as he always has, while Blair and Bush seem convinced that it is neccessary to produce a show of force directly to keep any 'untoward' Arab or Muslim ambitions under control.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 06:53 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First I agreed with you sanctions are bad. Thats why I support war because the other option to lift the sanctions and keep Saddam in check would cause a double Genocide as I said before. The French and Russians have been trying to do so and have broke agreements since 95 I wouldn't be surprised either if there were americans that did the same. There is much proof for this and many other investments in Iraq that make a pretty good case for many people not to go to war. The war is going to cost money and nobody is going to make alot of money by winning because somebody is going to have to pick up the tab not only for the war but for the aid and rebuilding of Iraq unless we want to piss them off and have another Germany on our hands.

As far as keeping the world in check and the balance of power in the mid-east this is why some Israeli's oppose going to war with Iraq and believe it or not 50% for of Israeli's for a varity of reasons oppose the war with Iraq. Anyways I'm sure the Americans and many Israeli's would love the war bettween Iran and Iraq to go on forever until the officially destroyed eachother and like I said most of the world could care less. Is that Morally just isn't that another good reason to get rid of Saddam before he dams all his people and the Iranians to hell too?

Your strengthing my arguments not weaking. Please I'm begging for real alternative way of getting rid of Saddam with out war.

If people really wanted to avoid war they'd come up with alternatives but none have come up with any real concrete alternatives. I've thought about this and reaserched this and haven't come up with any. So for now until someone can show me I'm going to have to assume there is none.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 08:39 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about NOT going to war?

In any case, on the oil issue: BP and Shell join official talks over potential reconstruction work in Iraq

quote:
The news heightened speculation that the two firms are keen to return to Iraq if a new regime takes over. Both were forced to quit the country in 1972 when the Iraqi oil industry was nationalised. But the rebuilding of the country’s infrastructure was top of the agenda, with construction and engineering firms Amec and Costain involved in the talks.


I know, I know its all about democracy etc.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 10:17 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
you didn't answer the question how will not going to war bring a regime change?

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 12:27 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we should pass a resolution through the UN that every country needs a regime change every 10 years as a minimum. By non compliance the offending regime will be brought before the ICC. Or maybe we could we could figure out some high tech solution. Such as infecting every new regime with a virus that would require an antidote within ten years. And ofcourse the UN would be the only one to have the code to the antidote. In other words every regime would selfdestruct unless the world community resques it.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 12:52 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And how about a real answer Bubbles?

Or is there I concider myself to be an open minded person. Heck I'm even ready to admit Bush is completely wrong and going to war for the wrong reasons but I can't find a good excuse not to use force to get rid of Saddam.

G-d PLEASE SOMEBODY GIVE ME ONE??? GIVE ME AN ALTERNATIVE???


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 01:02 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you didn't answer the question how will not going to war bring a regime change?

You don't understand the US is not interested in only in regieme change. Regieme change has always been within their grasp. It was within their grasp in 1991, when they encouraged Iraqis to rise up and then let the Republican Guard butcher the rebels in Basra.

No they are not 'just' interested in regieme change. They are interested in regieme change conccurrent with an occupation. The occupation is necessary so that they can maintian control of the political situation on the ground. This way they can decide who rules Iraq.

I would not call this democracy for the Iraqi people.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 01:23 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
OK. Here is another one. Probably not what you want to hear, but unfortunately I do not have the means to declare war on Sadam, even if I had wanted too. Maybe he is an idle type, offer him the position of the head of the UN, it would be hard for him to resist the challange to show to the world that he is not such bad guy afterall. Do a Waldheim in reverse on him. Rumpeldump suggested that one bullet would do the trick. He, none at all would be even better.

You have been a soldier you say. Try training an animal that is bigger and stronger then you and turn it into a friend. There is no easy way to do that. It takes skill, which Bush does not seem to have. Mind you I am not suggesting that I have them, but there are some that are very good at it. Cretien(?)


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 01:34 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

So doing nothing is better?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 01:43 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Bubbles if we just be nice to him we'll be nice back?

The US could have gottem rid of Saddam if the UN didn't stop them and I geuss everyones right better the enemy you know then the one you don't know.

Cretien can't even tame Bush and you expect him to tame Saddam?

Anyways you should know there is such thing as rules of engagment most soldiers at least officers who serve in armies of Democratic nations are taught to think. I wish we didn't need armies in the world but it's too late for going back.

Please be a little more realistic here Bubbles I love the input but I'm sure you can do better then that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 02:11 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice

Just being hice to someone does not make a friend.

I agree that I have not been offering practical solutions towards this problem. But to me it seems that this impending war is not a solution either. If anything it could lay the foundation for many more conflicts with many more victims.

As a former soldier how do you asses the reasons, justifications and risks of this impending war?


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 03:52 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So doing nothing is better?

I do not believe an invasion will be 'doing' anything, at best, and at worst will be exacibating the problems of the people of Iraq.

I suggest you take a look at some previous examples of democracy building, US style:Afghans ready for long awaited elections, Karazi front-runner.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 04:05 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is an example of the problems:

quote:
During a rare public parade by the Al-Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Iran-based Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), the group's number two said his well-disciplined army would quickly move to secure areas captured from the Iraqi regime in the hours following a US assault.

...and this...

quote:
"If the Turkish military enter (northern Iraq), I prefer Saddam's regime than Turkish intervention. The Turkish military is even more hostile than Saddam Hussein."

...and this...

quote:
The editor of the mass-circulation Al-Madinah daily, Khalid M. Batarafi, says most Saudis believe that "an attack on Iraq is only the first step in a Zionist-Christian campaign to redraw the Middle East so that it becomes a place that completely serves their interest".

Ultimately, their are no simple solutions for the problems of Iraq. I doubt it will exist as a country after the war.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Democracy building American style so they screwed up a couple times at least they tried and anyways no one said it was going to be an easy picknick.

And anways I think Germany and Japan are fine democracy's.

The only reason I repeat the only reason I support this war is for the sake of the Iraqi people that is the only just cause. It's responsblity and all of ours to make sure this war is not about personal interests. There is also the question of weapons Mass Destruction but thats a different story.

To imply it's ome Ideological christian-Zionist Crusade is a real bad thing to say. The only people that are on a holy crusade are sadly quite a large group of Fanatic Muslims.

Now we all know there is no conection bet 9/11 and Saddam but it sure shook alot of people up. Saddly not enough. I expected it but never on such a large scale. if we keep ignoring problems in other countries eventually they will become are problems.

Once again you have no answers the least you could do is think harder try G-d knows I try G-d knows I wish there was another way. War really is the final solution but sometimes it is neccessary. Freedom is not something that is absoulte and everyone has a right to be free everywhere.

And the only re-drawing that should be is getting rid of Dictators. The majority of them have commited crimes against humanity much larger then any the americans did in the last 50 years. They have always been and always will be as long as we let them responsible for way more death.

The truth is it doesn't matter which Dictatorship you start personaly I think Iran has the most potentinal for turnig into a democracy there have been many attempts to uprise but every time there is an uprising the world sits back and watches as thousands get slaughtered.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 01:21 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice

I am not sure if one can compare Germany and Japan to the Iraq situation. The USA is not likely overly concerned about the Iraqi people, it is purely self interest of the USA administration that is motivating this war. Our other discussion partner made that clear. Mind you I have a hard time figuring out why Bush wants to proceed. What his motives are.

Oil seems like one motive, the Middle East has a lot of it and the USA needs a lot of it to maintain their lifestyle. But it seems that there could have been a lot of other ways of securing a dependable supply, but that would probably not have been in Bush's personal best interest, being a product of the oil industry.

Fear for the proliferation of WMD could be another motive. But it seems irrational to fight the spread of WMD's when oneself is the biggest producer and user of them. It will just make 95%, the rest of the world, want them too as security for themselfs.

Spreading democracy in the Middle East will not have much appeal because the only democracy there is also the biggest bully. Buldozing peoples lives as needed. Does the USA want to further that perception?

Maybe all this is, is a turf war, where Bush wants to show Bin Laden and like minded that the USA does not like to be messed around with. In which case the Iraqy people are inconsequential.

I guess the coming days and years will reveal what the real motive is for this waste of humanity. I keep hoping that Bush is just trying to bluff Sadam into compliance, and that in reality there are only a bunch of hollywood actors with a whole lot of props in the dessert having a ball. Maybe April one would see the opening performance.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was afraid you'd say something like that but Stick your foot where your mouth is the ONLY democracy there is the biggest bully??? The only reason for you to say such thing is because you hate americans face it and Israel is guilty by association. Your just Jelous of the states and the arabs are Jelous of Israel perhaps if they stopped being Jelous and stopped fighting all the time perhaps they could get somewhere

You have no idea then what the meaning of Freedom is. Maybe it's because you never lived in freedom or it's because you've never had you freedom Jeporadized. They have no Idea because they never lived in Freedom. so obviously they don't want a war.

The Arabs have more rights in Israel then in any other Arab country. Perhaps nearly 2000 have died in the last 2 years probably a Majority terrorist.

I still think Israel should unilaterly withdraw. For it's own security sake and perhaps open a road to peace but if you think all of a sudden the terorrisim will end and the suffering in the west bank and Gaza will end your dead wrong and anyways it sickens to here people even compare the the situation in Iraq to Israel.

Here is some bullying for you
800,000 Pakistanis killed by Pakistan in 8 months in 1971, 20,000 Syrians killed in a week by Syria in 1982, 1.5 million Afghans killed by the Taliban in 5 years, 200,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam in 1988, 5,000 Palestinians killed by Jordan in one month in 1970, 300,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Kuwait in 1991--dwarfs anything done by Israel where 3,000 Palestinians were killed in eight years of intifada. I can bring you even more. Tell me why doesn't Israel blow up the whole Gaza strip and west bank doesn't it have WMD?

And let me remind you that soldiers that have used exessive force have been prosecuted maybe not as harshly as they should have but it' better then a revolving door policy or excution of 1500 colaborators with out a trial.

Anyways I do support a unilateral withdrawly imediatley from the disputed teritories but thats for the sake of Israels scurity and perhaps opening a door for peace but I don't believe there will be any less attempts to attack Israel.

I don't support Bush I do think he is going to war for the wrong reasons but I don't think that the war is unjustified or imoral.

The only reason for them not to accept Democracy is because they don't know what it is. I'm not telling them to change there religion or beliefs. They never had the freedom to choose. Democracy is freedom. Freedom has boundries. Believe me I'm sure the Germans and Japanies are grateful for the type of life they can live today as compared with 50 almost 60 years ago. I'm sure the Iraqi's will be happy too if we can make it turn it out that way but it will never happen as long as the world ignores and refuses to take responsiblity.

Like said we need to tame the beast (Bush) but all you want to do is locked it up and hope it goes away. The same for Iraq.

I wish people would stop seeing the world in black and white the people on the left and on the right. I feel I'm a left leaning person myself but that doesn't mean I just lay down and do nothing that doesn't mean I think people should let themselves be walked over.

I don't believe in tolerating the those who are unwilling to tolerate me.

I may disagree with you but I will fight for your right to say what believe.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Saddly it also seem that this war is going to start soon with out the support of the UN.

I just pray that the casulties will be low and that it will be over fast.

Hopefully Iraq will be rebuilt to a prosperous nation. Then I'll be able to say I told you so.

and I hope the americans don't find WMD. You don't have to say told you so.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 03:18 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice


You cannot bully dead people.

Democracy is not equal to freedom, a common misconception.


About Israel, personaly I like to avoid the subject, because there are so many social tabooes attached to it. But it is pretty save to say that it is an abnormality to have something like 40 to 60 percent of the population in a democracy living in a few detention camps. I cannot think of another democracy that does that.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 16 March 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But it is pretty save to say that it is an abnormality to have something like 40 to 60 percent of the population in a democracy living in a few detention camps. I cannot think of another democracy that does that.

They are not 'detention camps'; they are 'refugee camps', and most have been in existence since 1948. The Palestinians had the opportunity to move out of them for over half a century, but that was not in the interests of the regimes in the surrounding countries. They could have easily afforded to resettle Palestinians before now, but they chose to leave them where they are, to be used as tools against the State of Israel. The same goes for the so-called 'liberation' groups, who waste billions of dollars on a futile and ruinous campaign to wipe out the State of Israel.

To be fair, many Palestinians chose to stay in the camps, in order to be near their homeland, against the day when they would be able to return. The fact remains, though, that other Arab groups (governments and terrorists) have a vested interest in keeping them in poverty, and in subjugation by their own leadership.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 16 March 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and I hope the americans don't find WMD. You don't have to say told you so.

Of course they will find WMD. They would look pretty stupid if they didn't. You don't think they are above planting a cache and staging a dramatic discovery a' la the War On Drugs, do you? Nah, they wouldn't do that.

It is touching to see so many hawks suddenly taking an interest in human rights. Where this interest was when these same people were making the deals with these dictators is an avenue best left unexplored, eh?

quote:
The Americans probably saved many lives.

Probably? Probably?!? That's a iron-clad moral case if I ever heard one. Good fucking Christ.

quote:
You have no idea then what the meaning of Freedom is.

Then enlighten us, oh thomas jefferson of the BB. What is Freedom (cue angellic singing, images of soaring eagles, sunrise over the statue of liberty, etc.)?

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Jingles ]


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 06:16 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To Jingles

Everything is an american for some people jewish conspiracy right??? but you know how dangerous it is to go there so I don't know why you even start

Do you real want to go and do the accounting for the aid that they have supplied to other countries do you real want to think about how many lives the saved in Yoguslovia? and many other places around the world. They could have probably saved alot more in somolia but who can blame them for leaving not only were they hit hard there but everybody always loves to critcize especially when your a super power.

You know what Jingles your right not probably defenitly

To Bubbles

So too kill people would be better?
Anyways hey it's like everybody says Palistine is not a part of Israel. Now I don't know how the goverment got mixed up in the stupid settelment issue that was a stupid mistake and now they are paying for it but it wasn't like they didn't offer Gaza to Eygpt when they offered the Sinai.Or the west bank to Jordan. Eygpt and Jordan didn't want like I showed you before how hard the Jordian's tried to get rid of the Palistinians. Heck who can blame them for not wanting the west bank.

France, England, Germany and many other Eurpean countries screwing around in Africa should answer your questions about demoracies and detention camps.

I was going to say Russia but they weren't a democracy till 13 years ago.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 March 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I was just wondering why is it that people don't see that only reason for the French, Russian, German and Chinese not going to war with Iraq was because of Oil. These governments couldn't care less for the Iraqi people or anyone else.

Even if they are, that's fine with me. The American government wants to wage war because of oil. The governments you mention want to stop war because of oil. Same motivation, but one country wants to bomb the crap out of Iraq and the others don't. Difficult choice, I know, but I think I'll go for the people who don't want to kill.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 16 March 2003 06:26 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jewish conspiracy?? WTF? Who said anything about a Jewish conspiracy?

quote:
They could have probably saved alot more in somolia but who can blame them for leaving not only were they hit hard there but everybody always loves to critcize especially when your a super power.

Dude, Blackhawk Down was a movie. It was a highly fictionalized account of the actual event.
But let us further explore your thesis: America abandoned Somalia because the fighting was too hard and nobody liked them.

Good thing that won't happen in Iraq.

quote:
I just pray that the casulties will be low and that it will be over fast.

Yeah, praying will do them a lot of good. Prayer and Probably make a great case for going to war.

BTW, you still haven't told us about this wonderful Freedom you were going on about.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 07:08 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To Jingles

Never saw Black Hawk down. The americans also coward out of Lebanon and I'm sure the Lebanease just love the Syrian's in Lebanon better!!! Talk about ocupation and putting people into detention camps

Your right praying won't help but the UN caring about people could.

Sorry I forgot to mention freedom. I'll tell you this it's not having a dictator dictate your life and it's not being able to do what ever you want and not caring about whats happeining in outher countries.

Jingles it was you that said the americans would plant WMD to make it look as if Saddam really had them. I never said you said anything about Jewish concpiracy's but have you seent he news lattely and some senators stupid comments in the states.

To Michelle

Your choice is to chose double Genocide I geuss thats better right?? Go for Saddam he's not a killer

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 March 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you think that because I don't want war that it means I like Hussein, you need to go back to Logic 101.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 09:15 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was using Rhetoric in order to get you to think. It's obvious war is bad and seems as everyone has thought about that well but not many think about what will happen by doing nothing and just leaving Saddam there or they have but have not come up with a good way to remove him.

In anycase I truly believe that the body count will be higher on the Iraqi side by leaving Saddam in power.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 09:30 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I should hope you were using rhetoric to get people to think. On another tack, assuming that others don't think is pretty arrogant. No?

To get back to your original thread subject: You are suggesting, with good evidence and a little logic that France, Russian and China are acting in their self interest when opposing the war.

No one disagrees.

What is being presented to you in a parrallel argument using the same kind of evidence and logic can lead you to the conlusion that the US and Britian are acting on the basis of similar self interest.

In addition to this what I am saying is the world oil markets have been organized relatively peacefully over the last 20 years through the stock market and other means. During that time countries like the US, France, Britain, Germany and recently the Russians have all peacfully agreed as to how oil resources are expoilted. Why the sudden fall out? I am asking you to consider the posibility that all parties previously acted in their own self-interest and co-operatively decided on how those resources were managed, but now they disagree.

I am saying that the real dispute is not about whether the oil reosurces should be exploited jointly by all powers, with profits going to all of the usuual concerns, US, French, British, Dutch, etc, but over how that exploitation is managed.

In my view France et al, believe that Hussien can be dealt with, while the US and Britian feel that he can not. What is missing from all of their equations is any concern for democracy or the fundemantal human rights of Iraqis.

You will see, there will be no democracy in Iraq, and no peace, possibly no 'post-war' at all.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 09:47 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry I was just asking the questions that I think to few people are dealing with I'm not suggesting I'm smarter or better then anyone else.

The expolotation wether peacful or not only harmed the people region. I would love their to be laws about driving cars. If I were mayor of toronto I would prohibit the use of Gasonline cars in the city. Make huge parking lots on the outskirts and make public transportation free.

Anyways you just proved none of these goverments care about wether their is a democracy or not but thats all I care about and I don't think it's possible to have a democracy with out forcefully changing the regime. Please I'm waiting for a better option.

I feel it's our job instead of protesting against the war to insure that human are protected before, during and after the war.

I think that the Iraqi's will be far better off if the world takes reponsiblity and helps build a democracy. Does that sound greedy or just nieve?

I'm not arogant or ignorant heck I already said a couple times Bush has got the wrong idea. I say that the situation is not black and white but we have a couple shades of grey to choose from.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 March 2003 09:52 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
schizm

Detention camp or refugee camp call them whatever you like. After so many years who cares about the name, we all know the purpose they serve.

You talk about the reasons why they, the Palestinians, have not moved to the neighboring countries. To not be hypocritical you should also ask yourself why the Israelies (immigrants to Palistine lands) have not moved back to where they came from. That would be a bit more balanced. Or not? Not that I want to suggest that as a solution, it is a dillema that your solution is faced with.


Justice

Ofcourse I do not condone the murder of humans. My point was that you cannot undo a past murder by more murder.

Also I suggest you do a bit of reading between the lines. And do a bit of critical thinking about what you read in the press. If you think it is OK to take a few thousand innocent casualties in this upcoming war in order to save an unknown number of casualties later on. What is to prevent Sadam from using the same rational with respect to his casualties? He could claim that he was doing it for the greater good of mankind just as Bush rationalizes away his upcoming victims.

Cheers! Thanks for defending myright to freedom of expression, likewise.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 11:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The difference is maybe both Bush and Saddam don't give a Dam about amount of lives lost. Saddam we know for sure with Bush it maybe quite likely but Bush can still be impeached Saddam can not.

The number is not real that unkonwn I'm pretty sure Saddam left to his own devices will commit a double genocide it's quite certain. With Bush and this war it's much less certain. So I'm going to bet on that until somebody comes up with a peaceful solooution to getting rid of Saddam.

To suggest either Palistinans being transfered or Israelie's is equally a crime against humanity. That was Hittler first intention to getting rid of Jews and look what happened.

The Jews have been pushed around from there homeland and from many other places for thousands of years I do not wish upon the jews nor anyone else. If the Jews have to return to russia then it's only fair that all the canadians an americans return to where theyy came from a leave the indians in peace. The majority of wich is Britian or Ireland back to france if your from Quebec and Spain or Portugal if your south america. And how about althose austrailians and new zelanders.

As well I should point out that in the late 1800's there was a majority of Jews in Palastine Israel what ever you want to call it and the Palistinians started immigrating more and more when the Jews came and the majority weren't forced out the Jews paid for a lot of the land.

Common get real people to countries for 2 people

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 March 2003 12:24 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As well I should point out that in the late 1800's there was a majority of Jews in Palastine Israel what ever you want to call it and the Palistinians started immigrating more and more when the Jews came and the majority weren't forced out the Jews paid for a lot of the land.

You seem like a nice guy but this is completely false. In 1890 no more that 10% of the population of the Palestine Mandate was Jewish. They owned 5% of the land. It was increased European immigration that changed the figures around.

I don't know how this kind of misinformation gets spread around, but you seem to have been exposed to a lot of it. I would treat anything told to you by the source who gave you those figures with the greatest circumspection. These figures are from the Jewish Virtual Library, a web site I can assure you is not rabidly pro-Arab.

Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank & Gaza

1890 (according to this source): Muslims -- 431,800; Jews -- 42,900; Chrisitans -- 57,400.

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 17 March 2003 12:47 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
can't argue with the numbers but there is something you must pay attention too and that the fact that palistine before 1922 inclulded all of todays jordan

I promise to try and find you the specifics on west of the Jordan river.

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 17 March 2003 12:48 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a popular myth that there is no such thing as a Palestinian and the Arabs who left in 1948 were mostly people who'd moved to Palestine in the preceding thirty years or so because of the prosperity caused by Jewish immigration. A rather self-serving myth perpetrated by Zionists who would like people to believe that Palestine was a "land without a people for a people without a land". While undoubtedly there was some Arab migration to Palestine in the early 20th century there was a much higher degree of Jewish migration.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 17 March 2003 12:56 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
that doesn't mean there were less Jews there.

Anyways I don't like argunig about who has claim I think there needs to be a compromise. I'm against moving anybody and I'm against having anybody rule over anybody.

I'm only for people rulling themselves. That means democracy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 March 2003 01:56 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, and 2.5 Palestinians are ruled by a government that none of them are allowed to vote for.

Also, I can assure you that those numbers DO NOT include Jordan.

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 March 2003 02:44 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now back to the original thread topic, this is not about Israel remember it is about democracy as a reason for war, among other things.

quote:
A classified policy document leaked to the Los Angles Times last week not only doubts the possibility of introducing democracy to the Middle East by 'domino effect' but considers Iraq to be the least likely crucible of reform because of its ethnic and religious divisions. That is why now, when we're perhaps just a few days from war and maybe only weeks from peace, the State department and CIA have still had no meaningful contact with the elected leadership of the Iraqi National Congress, a body which draws from all sects and ethnic groups.

From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 17 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
It is almost funny to see Washington suggest the democratisation of the Middle East when they themselfs set in motion a war that seems to be oposed by the vast majority of world opinion. What is so democratic about that? Seems more a case of ligitimizing another dozen of upcoming Bushy tailed Sadams.

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Bubbles ]


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 17 March 2003 06:04 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the americans realized the mistakes they made and have learned from them. Sure it isnt going to be easy to make democracy but I give them credit for trying in Afganistan it's far from perfect but the situation is improving all the time.

The americans also know better then anyone else that humliating a people is bad it was them who suggested to rebuild Germany after world war one.
Sure now your going to say but the sanctions in Iraq are humliating but are you goning to just lift them and let Saddam build up is arsenal and continue killing his people.

Saddly many people in the UN haven't learned and think they can sit by and hope for the best. The world doesn't work that way.

I think the French really screwed up I think we could have almost resolved the situation with out war. Saddam was finally begining to disarm thanks to this Good Cop, Bad Cop act but the French blew it they didn't even want to consider another resloution so the british with drew the offer.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 17 March 2003 06:06 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and I pray they won't have to suffer for much longer and understand what it is like to be stuck bettween a rock and hard place.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 17 March 2003 10:35 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice

If you have some time check out this interview with Gore Vidal. It points out some of the problems we are faced with.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal03142003.html

[ 17 March 2003: Message edited by: Bubbles ]


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 18 March 2003 04:08 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, I understand your idealism. I have been trying to explore the possiblity that even though Bush & co's motives are bad, that some good could come of all this nonetheless (given that the war is inevitable anyway, I was trying to hope for something). The fact is, though, that this scenario is so slim as to be non-existent.

You can't just see a problem and dive into the first solution that presents itself. "We've got to do something about this dictator! Well, we're sending in the army! Yah, someone's doing something!". It's not that simple. You're playing with people's lives here. An invasion will send ripples of violence throughout the middle east and who knows where it will stop. Many civilians will be killed and then various opposing groups in Iraq will battle for supremacy while the US army claims more lives trying to control them all. Waves of terrorism will sweep through the globe (mostly in Arab nations). It's very much like the ATF who recklessly stormed Waco and ended up killing everyone they meant to save.

You ask for a better solution. Well, first I'll tell you that this invasion is not a solution, so the word "better" doesn't apply. On a list of solutions, it will not appear. It will not liberate Iraq and will cause far more suffering than it will alleviate. It will acheive none of its goals except the death of Saddam, which by itself means nothing. Any other dictator would be happy to run a regime just as brutal.

But here's what I would do. Streamline the sanctions so that they only weaken Saddam and his military complex but don't hurt civilians (it has been said that the current sanctions seem tailor-made to acheive the opposite effect, which I believe they were). Keep the no-fly zones and send in aid workers within these regions to build heavy-duty infrastructure. I mean big time, with the same commitment and funding that Bush is putting into an invasion (can you imagine?). Create a functioning society right under Saddam's nose. He would be the pauper while the people would thrive. Beyond that, you wouldn't have to do much. Within a year, he would be gone. Give the people the capacity, and let them solve their own problem. It's the only possible solution. You can't impose democracy. It has to come from the people or it won't work.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 March 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice Idea but still it won't happen as long as Saddam is there. There is no chance for this once Saddam is has been removved I support you a hundred percent. If you don't do this many more people especially in Iraq will die.

Streamline the sanctions to hurt Saddam I wish but the French and everyone but the US seem to want to lift sanctions so they can strenghther Saddam and sell him more weapons

I think I mentioned they don't have a perfect record but I think they've learned more from war then anyone else. Had the French and British Listned to the americans after world war 1 world war 2 could have been avoided anyways Germany and Japan are examples of 2 dictatorships that were transformed in to beautiful productive societies after a war.

Afganistan has along way to go but it's on it's way had the american not learned from thier mistake the taliban would have still been opressing the poor people of Afganistan.

And it's the Eurpeans who have messed up africa yet it seems as if the americans have been left with the Tab of cleaning it up. So whats better making a mess and then running away and ignoring or aknowledge the problem and try to fix it?

[ 18 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 18 March 2003 07:11 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes wars Kill, Sanctions Kill even more, But Dictators Kill the most
What about the Bush Dynasty? They kill too!

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 18 March 2003 07:25 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So whats better making a mess and then running away and ignoring or aknowledge the problem and try to fix it?

First, and I don't mean to nit pick, dude, but punctuation, please! My brain gets tired reading so many run-ons (this is not a flame).

Second, the best way to clean up a mess is to avoid making them in the first place. However, the U.S. continues to sacrifice long-term security and the chance to build a better world in favour of short-term strategic and economic gains. That means propping up murdereous dictators like Hussein (or Pakistan's Musharef) when they need them. Problem is, once these guys slip the leash and start acting contrary to American interests, the U.S. ends up killing still more people in a bid to clean up the shit pile they created. But as long as the world fails to censure the U.S. for it's actions, it will continue to support corrupt and evil dictatorships, simply because they know they have the firepower (and now, precident) to remove them at their leisure. And so the farce continues...

[ 18 March 2003: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 March 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's clear not as much as the Hussein and other noble dictators that we may know. Oh and not even as much as the french infact the french are possibly worse the Hussein.

And fine so we'll just sit tight and watch as this region gets destroyed slowly but surely.

[ 18 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 18 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 March 2003 07:28 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Getting ready for the next war, are we already.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 18 March 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think it's clear not as much as the Hussein and other noble dictators that we may know. Oh and not even as much as the french infact the french are possibly worse the Hussein.
And fine so we'll just sit tight and watch as this region gets destroyed slowly but surely.

Huh?
Invade France?
Destroy the region?
What?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 March 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd never attack a democracy I mean with militart force the turth is if you look at history democracies never attack eachother.

I wouldn't be surprised if some day soon the french get attack by an Algerian and start there and hey it's not like the French aren't at war in the Ivory Coast don't have to wait it's already happened


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 18 March 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one's defending the French. In fact, they're every little bit the imperialist power-hogs that the Yanks are, only in miniature. And while they also have a formidable military, they don't have near the capacity to threaten global stability that the U.S. does.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 March 2003 08:01 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The threat??? I don't see a threat in the US if Bush was really being reckless there is more then enough systemes in place to kick him out of his seat same with french goverment too but you know in Dictatorships it doesn't work like that.

Anyways because of the french lack of power all they can do is make messes and not clean it up. Thank God for the US. West Africa is so messed up saddly that not even the US could fix it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 19 March 2003 06:24 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads, I think this war is the beginning of a new kind of cold war between the US and Europe+Asia. While the world is still dependent on oil, US control of the Arab Gulf and now Iraq, gives it an even more hegemonic position in the world.
Muslim discontent is a problem, but at this point in time, I think the Islamic world is in too much shit to pose as a real threat to imperialism,...yet.

I agree with you, Justice. I am 100% for removing Saddaam and dismantling the Ba'th party. Unfortunatly, what the US has in mind after Saddaam is most likely not the freedom the people of Iraq want.

I think the only we disagree on is trust in the US. You trust the US will create democracy. I trust the US will act in its own interest and install an undemocratic US-friendly regime.
Democracy will mean Shia Arabs will have more power. It means some kind of Islamic state, which would nationalise natural resourses. It means independence, and more autonomy for Kurds. All these things are contrary to American interests.
I don't think the US is stupid enough to allow any freedom for anyone but itself in Iraq.

(Also, Israel is not a democracy. Palestinians in its occupied territory are denied citizenship and refugees whose homes are inside Israel are denied the right to return.
Israel has ethnically cleansed its territory of 800,000 Palestinians when it was created. If you are really against population transfer you'de support the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. To say you are for human rights and against Palestinian return is real hypocrisy.)


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 March 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry your wrong. Israel did not ethnically cleans 800,000 palistinians thats one of the biggest lies ever told. first of all it was more like 500,000 to 700,000 The numbers don't really matter.

What really happened was the nieghbouring Arab countries asked the Palistinians to move out so the could wipe out the Jews and force them to the sea. So many ran some stayed.

The Arabs lost the war and did not succeed in destroying israel. To say it's israels fault that there ar refugees in Lebanon or Jordan or any other Arab country is Hypocricy. Those countries don't give them any rights and use this as an excuse to protect the refugees right of return so they can destroy israel.

Everybody here is agreeing palistine is not part of Israel so I don't see whats the problem there either? They were given money to build schools and Hospitals and infrastcuture is it Israel fault The PA uses it for waepons and luxry items? Instead of building up a country. That when they do give money to a school it's often to schools that teach hate. Is it israeles fault?

The 1 million Arabs in Israel have more rights then Arabs in any othe Arab country. Then any other Arab country. The right of return is just another tactic for destroying israel.

I think israel has proven many times it's for human rights. Yes it has made mistakes and the people responsible will be held accountable.

Before everybody starts talking about Israel especially the Arabs they should clean up there own human rights violations.

I do admit every Human has rights and they should be protected at almost all costs. But people are forgetting they have responsiblities too.

[ 19 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 19 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arab countries asked hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes...so they just up and ran so they can go back to their homes and "destroy" Israel. wow! I give up. your whole post is just too funny.

[ 19 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 March 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What really happened was the nieghbouring Arab countries asked the Palistinians to move out so the could wipe out the Jews and force them to the sea. So many ran some stayed.

This has never been substantiated.

In less polite language:

quote:
This claim is a cheap lie.... It is furthermore an utterly discredited lie, and one that Israeli officialdom no longer cares to repeat. Israeli and Jewish historians have exposed it time and again: Every Arab broadcasting station in the region, in 1947 as well as 1948, was monitored and recorded and transcribed by the BBC, and every Arab newspaper has been scoured, and not one instance of such "incitement," in direct speech or reported speech, has ever come to light. The late historian and diplomat Erskine Childers issued an open challenge on the point as far back as the 1950s that was never taken up and never will be.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 March 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Myths and Facts

Check all of the 73 references and then tell me this has never been establishe.

You'll never get any where until you can be honest with yourself. It's me your lying too the worest thing is to lie to yourself

[ 19 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 19 March 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, from your link I understand the only reason Israel can't recognize Palestinian's fundamental human right to return to their homes is because Palestinians are a "fifth-column", dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 March 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No I don't believe the Palistinians are dedicated to the destruction of Israel but those who keep that way instead of taking responsiblity and helping improve there conditions are using them as a tool to destroy Israel.

If it was about human rights then they would have them in the countries they are in now. Israel has accomadted many of Refugees in it's years of existance and made them functioning parts of society. This happens everywhere in the world where refugees run too. Just not in Middle eastern countrys this obviously doesn't inculde Israel.

[ 19 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 20 March 2003 02:57 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So its OK to deny people their homes so long as your neighbours are no better.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 March 2003 07:56 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your not asking the right question.


Is Israel the only country that has responsiblity for human rights
The question is do the Jews have a right to a home?

Is Israel the only country that has responsiblity for human rights?

And why is the focus on Israel when every one else is a million times worse?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 March 2003 08:07 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I tuned out on this thread with its many long run-on sentences and posts. Happened to see this thing "Have Jews got the right to a home?"

Jews have a right to a home wherever they live, in New York City, Buenos Aires, Palestine or Paris. Anti-semitism, like all forms of racism, must be fought. Everywhere.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 March 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Laggatta I wish the world would work that way but take a look at history it never happened. Everytime jews tried to be a functioning part of society they always got booted out and beaten doesn't matter what they did "they were always an evil threat"

Proof that everybody needs a home land a real home land. Thats why I also support a palistinan home land but there has to be a compromise. The Jews execpted the UN resoltion in 1947 the Arabs didn't and the mess evolved from there.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 21 March 2003 10:24 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your not asking the right question.
So, you admit its alright for Israel to commit crimes against humanity.

You actually justify atrocities so long as you ask the "right" questions and not others. (Who remembers the Armenians, eh?)

This is the most disgusting thing I've read on this discussion forum.

Justice, you either have a very different value system than mine, or you don't understand English very well. Whatever it is there's no use responding to you anymore.

[ 21 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 March 2003 10:51 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say Israel doesn't have a responsiblity and I don't justify it's crimes.

Thats the difference in Israel they don't and palistine and the rest of the world we have to be apologetic to sucide bombers we have to tolerate those who won't tolerate us.

It's always you don't support sucide bombers but there is always a but, but the occupation, but they desprate they have no otherway.

What I was trying to say is that responsiblity falls on all sides and on many people. I feel israel has proven many times it has tried to take reponsiblity it the system still isn't perfect but the palistinians have to have responsiblity too. All the Israelies want, Is someone they can trust to round thier own terorrists.

Believe me Israel doesn't want to have to waste it's time and money on chasing terorrist and going in to tricky places where not only do the soldiers have the potential of getting hurt but also civilians. The terorrist make it very hard. I geuss you know better ways of combatting gueralla urban warefare. I suggest actually the army backing out and putting up a fence.

The real way to end this mess would be to combat hate but I don't see too many schools in palistine that teach this kind of ciriculum.

Israel is not blame for the refugee problem and it's not to blame for the crimes of other Muslim countries which I know many people love to do. like I mentioned earlier in 1948 the Arab neighbours wanted to destroy Israel so they suggested there cousins leave so they could do it with our harming their cousins. Could Israel fix it hmmm I don't know. But probably if they had rights in the countries they are in this won't be problem. Which leads me to believe that the countries like lebanon that rfugees are in do this purposaly so they have an excuse to destroy israel.

Not only do the Jews have to fight racisim when they are in other countrie but the palistinains have to fight it in Arab countries. We both have similar problems. And do you think the Jews will ever be able to go back to thier homes in Morrco, Iran or syria etc...hmmm?

[ 21 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 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