The UN, US and Iraq IV

and iffin they dont believe my god is bigger than their god, well, we can nuke them into christianity.

0 Replies

LOL Dys.............

0 Replies

"Sure looks as though The Current Administration still has plenty to do to reverse the depredations visited on the national security infrastructure, military and intelligence alike, visited upon them by The Immediate Preceeding Administration."

Aw gee, Timber. Betcha say that to all the presidents...

0 Replies

And now, another dubious deal from the Bush administration... designated (by the adminstration) Al Qaeda funders are under contract to.... ta da.... the US government:

Quote:

One reason the Bush Administration gave for going to war in Iraq was Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorists. So it is ironic that one of the partners in a big Iraqi firm being used by US contractors in Iraq is also a founding partner in an organization that's been identified as helping fund Al Qaeda. So far, however, neither the government nor the contractors have shown much concern.

Sadoon Al-Bunnia is one of three principals in one of Iraq's oldest companies, the Al-Bunnia Trading Company. The Iraqi firm has become a major subcontractor for US firms working under US government contracts in Iraq. But, as documents obtained by The Nation from the Lugano office of the Swiss Federal Commercial Registry show, Sadoon Al-Bunnia is also a founding partner of a Swiss-registered firm called the Malaysian Swiss Gulf and African Chamber (MIGA), which the US government and the United Nations Security Council have designated as funders of Al Qaeda....

For full article, see:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031110&s=rozen

0 Replies

Now that many of us have seen the gruesome pictures of how Saddam treated his people - cutting off their heads, hands, and legs, and dropping them off from roofs, has anybody changed their minds about the justification for the preemptive attack on Iraq?

NOTE: Had to change the singular to plaural.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Now that many of us has seen the gruesome pictures of how Saddam treated his people - cutting off their heads, hands, and legs, and dropping them off from roofs, has anybody changed their minds about the justification for the preemptive attack on Iraq?

I've heard this argument from others, and its a misleading one. There are tortures, rapes and other horrible human rights violations in a number of places (Congo, Columbia, etc). Just because we see it, justifies an invasion of that country?

My point is that there should definitely be something done about it, but not unilaterally by one country (yeah, UK was with us, and a smattering of soldiers from other allies, but you know what I'm talking about).

Simple "shock value" should not be used to manipulate an argument. The same technique can (and probably is) be used by those in the middle east in denouncing the sanctions held against Iraq (sick children who would not have died if it were not for the restrictions against materials entering into the country, the effects of depleated uranium on the populace, and so forth).

No one here is saying that Saddam was a good person. The argument is against the rational used for an all out war that decimates a country and contributes to the destabalization of an entire region. Just my 2 Cents

0 Replies

Heywood wrote:

Just my

Yeah, that's about the ratio ... The Left's 2 Cents

worth of polemical screed vs The Right's 230 or so lives and $87 Billion so far.

Anywho ... don't let my attitude put ya off none, Heywood; a hearty wecome to A2K. Just lemme know if there's anything I can do ta help ya with the bells and whistles here. Those color-formated words down at the bottom of my posts are links to lots of handy info. Poke around all ya want, and don't worry; ya can't break anything. Enjoy.

0 Replies

So by the "logic" of the right, we should invade any country to depose any government which is guilty of human rights violations . . . hmmm, China? Oh, no way, they'd kick ass . . . Korea? No dice, dude, Joe Ching really does have weapons of mass destruction . . . what about Sudan, with the slave trade and a policy of persecuting Christians? Oh hey, they don't have any oil do they . . .

The reek of hypocricy is overpowering the reek of my cigarettes . . .

0 Replies

And one might think, given the primacy of the Israel/Palestine issue in all of this, that the administration might have said (and figured out!) what this Israeli general has shared...

Quote:

Israel's army chief has exposed deep divisions between the military and Ariel Sharon by branding the government's hardline treatment of Palestinian civilians counter-productive and saying that the policy intensifies hatred and strengthens the "terror organisations".
Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon also told Israeli journalists in an off-the-record briefing that the army was opposed to the route of the "security fence" through the West Bank. The government also contributed to the fall of the former Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, by offering only "stingy" support for his attempts to end the conflict, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1074804,00.html

0 Replies

Heywood is right. We don't have the omniscience or the military might to clean up nations that do this type of thing. Besides, if removing Saddam and giving the country back to the Iraqis was the true goal they would be allowing Iraqis to do the rebuilding instead of keeping it in the hands of Bush cronies for inflated prices.

0 Replies

Temp, about time you decided to come out against the war. It takes a man to admit a mistake ..... I can forgive the money .... but it will take a while to get over the kids that died , gave their blood for oil.

Quote:

Yeah, that's about the ratio ... The Left's worth of polemical screed vs The Right's 230 or so lives and $87 Billion so far.

0 Replies

Features
Iraq's real WMD crime
By Lawrence Smallman

Thursday 30 October 2003, 9:55 Makka Time, 6:55 GMT

Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years - that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer

There are weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq and they were used this year. Iraqi children continue to find them every day.

They have ruined the lives of just under 300,000 people during the last decade - and numbers will increase.

The reason is simple. Two hundred tonnes of radioactive material were fired by invading US forces into buildings, homes, streets and gardens all over Baghdad.

The material in question is depleted uranium (DU). Left over after natural uranium has been enriched, DU is 1.7 times denser than lead - effective in penetrating armoured objects such as tanks.

After a DU-coated shell strikes, it goes straight through before exploding into a burning vapour which turns to dust.

"Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years - that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism," says Dr Ahmad Hardan.

Source

0 Replies

Ya really gotta love when peoples fears are based on half-truths about half-lives.

depleted uranium is no more dangerous than lead .... less radioactive than human flesh (depleted means the radioactives have been taken out ...)

one thing you want to know about half life .. the shorter the half life, the more radioactive the substance so.. with a half life of 4.4 BILLION years means not much radioactivity at all...

0 Replies

No McG, we're always the bad guy, get it?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Ya really gotta love when peoples fears are based on half-truths about half-lives.

depleted uranium is no more dangerous than lead .... less radioactive than human flesh (depleted means the radioactives have been taken out ...)

one thing you want to know about half life .. the shorter the half life, the more radioactive the substance so.. with a half life of 4.4 BILLION years means not much radioactivity at all...

I know I know .... you sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal every morning.

How bout you read the article. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Temp, about time you decided to come out against the war. It takes a man to admit a mistake ..... I can forgive the money .... but it will take a while to get over the kids that died , gave their blood for oil.

Quote:
Yeah, that's about the ratio ... The Left's worth of polemical screed vs The Right's 230 or so lives and $87 Billion so far.

But at least the dead kids don't have to suffer under Saddam any more. Because the US and it's lapdogs came and "freed" them. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Ya really gotta love when peoples fears are based on half-truths about half-lives.

depleted uranium is no more dangerous than lead .... less radioactive than human flesh (depleted means the radioactives have been taken out ...)

one thing you want to know about half life .. the shorter the half life, the more radioactive the substance so.. with a half life of 4.4 BILLION years means not much radioactivity at all...

I know I know .... you sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal every morning.

How bout you read the article.

Yeah. I did read the article. I have read many articles that blame DU for things. I am sure Aljazeera is a great believer in truth in reporting, keeping an unbiased opinion on all the events that happen in the Middle East. Rolling Eyes

How about you do some HONEST research on DU. You will find that the DU is as dangerous as lead had we used lead instead. The danger comes from heavy metal poisoning, not some radiation that DU emits. It's nothing more than over-blown sensationalist reporting.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Now that many of us have seen the gruesome pictures of how Saddam treated his people - cutting off their heads, hands, and legs, and dropping them off from roofs, has anybody changed their minds about the justification for the preemptive attack on Iraq?

NOTE: Had to change the singular to plaural.

No.

Is the US going to go and get rid of the rest of the world's dictators?

Not unless they've got oil.

0 Replies

What you seem to not realize is that US foriegn policy is very complex. #1 is the idea that the US should look out for it's own interests first. Some countries can be dealt with economically (like N. Korea) and some militarily (like Iraq).

The US has a VERY large stick that we walk the Earth with. Every nation in the world feels it's weight and must decide on there own which end of the stick they want to be on.

So, some nations have evil regimes running things, you can bet your bottom dollar that our government knows about it and is doing something about it. Even if it's not on Commondreams.com or in The Gaurdian every day.

So, while it may not be evident, rest assured that the US government, regardless of who is in charge is looking out for what's best for the US. Some people just don't like the means by which the US acheives it's goals.

0 Replies

Quote:

So, some nations have evil regimes running things, you can bet your bottom dollar that our government knows about it and is doing something about it.

McG....that is the most naive post I think I've ever read.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know