OT: George Bush and Iraq

Sorry Gro but again you are in danger of displaying the level of ignorance that is so commonplace amongst people on these boards (myself included sometimes).

There was no intention whatsoever to bomb innocent Iraqis during GW1. Innocent civilians died and regrettably so however the UN was correct in the action it took, or perhaps you feel that Saddam should have been allowed to roam free in the Middle East taking over countries at will and murdering those who didnt conform to his ideals?

Can you actually describe one single situation in the Gulf War where the Allies deliberately killed innocent people as your post suggests?

-glas-

 

ah, u spoke my mind out

 

You`re right. I`m sry if I ever said all (although I dont actually have a TV). There are both kinds - there is the newspaper with big title "The evidence for link between Saddam and bin Laden monsters finally established" (citing by memory) - reread it carefully about the lexics used. but there is even newspaper called "Socialist worker" (it is full of non-sense They are talking even about revolution. lol)

nevermind

I was surprised by the number of anti-war posters everywhere. And after all we filed 2 000 000 in London (according to organizers, 750 000+ according to police)

 

cc, sry - I was replying in the time of reading
if i saw devil is here I wouldnt have spoken about yugoslavia at all

 

I`m talking about the incoming war. In all rhetorics they say - "we want to remove Saddam, he is insane, he is threatening the world peace".

If in GW1 (so there are already GW1 and GW2? , interesting when exactly they started to call the Great war WW1?) they wanted to remove him, they would have done so (but then seems even the american president was so blind about the great threat Saddam is to the world ).

I`m not really informed why he attacked Kuwait (I doubt anybody here has a hint on this. or maybe Babek?) - I`ve read somewhere tho that Kuwait is inhabited by the same people that are ruling in Iraq and it was separated by the brittish entirely artificially as theyve done almost everywhere on their former colonies.

And it is not really necessary to KILL civilians - nowadays this would be noticed quickly by the medias - it is enough to ruin the economy and the infrastructure of their country. Try living a few days without electricty and water and you will see. Although this wont work in Iraq of course.

 

One of the most heartening things i have noticed in recent weeks is that it is not so much a tidal wave of opinion against the war, but more simply the case that people are at last coming to their senses and are realising for themselves just how shitty this situation is.

Up until a few weeks ago many people seen the anti-war stance as the fashionable one, without actually knowing why they were against it. In recent days/weeks however, even the most ignorant people i know seem to be a bit more learned about the whole situation.

-glas-

 

The reason for the Gulf War (or GW1 or whatever) obviously differs depending on who is telling the story.

I assume the Allies point of view was simply that Iraq wanted Kuwait's reserves in order to bolster the Iraqi economy and allow Saddam to develop his WMDs.

The Iraqi point of view however (and correct me if im wrong) was that Kuwait had artificially driven down the oil price over a period of time by over-production. This was hurting the Iraqi economy severely at the time (apparently to the tune of a few billion dollars a year) so, after Kuwait would not heed the warnings given to it by Iraq to stop its over-producing, Iraq invaded them as a last ditch attempt to make them stop.

This, btw, is Tariq Aziz's (Iraqi foreign minister) side of the story.

One other point. The reason Saddam was not removed at the time of the Gulf War was because the UN mandate was to remove the invading forces from Kuwait, there was nothing about removing the Iraqi leadership from power. Again tho, the answer to that will differ dependent on who you ask. The Iraqis will no doubt claim that the 'infidels' failed because it was the will of Allah or something

-glas-

 

and which one is more credible for you?

well, I think it was because in those times world wasnt yet that much used to the idea of wars for removing leaders... (CIA operations - yes...)

Think how ridiculous would Bush`s arguments for war sound just 15 years ago. And if this war happens, *next time* noone will find it awkward.

 

After WW1 the allies (not Russia, which was changed to the USSR) built new countries out of the Ottoman Empire.

Two of these artificial products were Iraq and Kuwait. The allies made straight borders on a map - not calculating that they were mixing or deviding ethnical groups which lived there for centuries.

So Iraq has a mix of kurds, shiites and sunnits and its the same reason why the kurds were suddenly living in different countries.
Also ethnical same people were deivided in iraqui and kuwaiti territory.

First both Kuwait and Iraq were british colonies. Then Iraq became a soviet satellite and was built to a major power in the region. The counterpart was the US-satellite Iran.
Meanwhile Kuwait developed itself to an extreme rich mini-country.

Then the islamic revolution came in Iran and Iraq started the war against the Islamic Republic.
But Iran was not so weak as expected and instead of a blitzsieg Saddam had to face that the iranians were taking the initiative and kicked the arab troops out of iranian territory.
He offered a cease fire - but Khomeini refused, knowing that he would win against (what he said) the heretic of Bagdad.

An important fact is that in Iraq are the most holy places of the shiites and Khomeini wanted to create a second islamic republic there.

With massive help of the superpowers Iraq got enough weapons to hold the line.

And the arab states gave Iraq money to buy these weapons. One of the countries which lend Iraq the most money was Kuwait.

After 8 Years the iraquis had an excellent equipped army, but a ruined economy. Also their oil territories in the south were destroyed by the warfare with Iran.

Another problem was that despite the cease fire Iran - which had a large population - put large forces along the iraqui border.
So Iraq couldnt demobilize its troops which increased their economic problems.

Also the Kuwaiti Installations just behind the border were all working fine and getting the oil out of the oilfields which lied between iraq and kuwait.

So Kuwait seemed to be a logical target for Iraq to end some problems.

With the annexion of Kuwait the credits they have got from them vould be annulated. Also they could get the intact oil installations and use the "reunification" as a propaganda succes ofter the desaster against Iran.

So Saddam invaded Kuwait.

 

Hmmm im not sure. Based on the facts, shouldnt over-production have something to do with OPEC? Perhaps Iraq is/was not a part of them and could not get the help desired. I also seem to remember at that time the price of petrol in this country was at the lowest it has been for a long time (was 40-50p per litre, now up to 80p pe litre) so there may be some truth in what Aziz says.

Babek's explanation is more in kilter with the reasons given by the US. I doubt there was as simple an explanation as what the Iraqis state so I would have to go with the theory he wanted control of the oil to advance his weapons research and prop up the ailing Iraqi economy. It would also have been a boost to the country after the costly war with the Iranians.

-glas-

 

Got this today in an email. He definitely has a point

This is what my biggest worry is. We got in to these countries walking over the top of people and we will breed more terrorists who, with the current technological advances, will be even more dangerous than the ones we have now.

-glas-

 

cc glas,, that is the point..

US policy of last decades was to interfere into other countries inner matters in the name of US safety not respecting indepence and sovereign of people of these countries
and now... all US citizens are wondering why ppl from all over the world hate them and even becoming terrorist and fighting USA; and they don't see this point - they think that these terrorist are real freaks and only way to deal with this problem is to wipe them out all - but they can't see that this will only make whole problem worse (mainly because of media which keep telling them how US policy is right)
So them (US citizens) keep supporting politics like G. W. Bush, who is consequently doing such policy.

it is cursed circle


btw nice letter

 

wait a minute! where did babek say

"to advance his weapons research and prop up the ailing Iraqi economy"?

i think he said merely "prop up the ailing Iraqi economy"?

You see my point about propaganda above? Its about forming disposition. At home the idea for war must fight its way through to public acceptance, while here its the idea for no-war that has to fight (and I`m glad it does quite successfully).

****

Great joke!

Many more points in it tho.
BTW the "got in to these countries walking over the top of people and we will breed more terrorists" came to me in the moment I realized what I see on CNN is not some new hollywood movie...

Mr. Bush (and the people behind him) either still cant deduce it, or more likely, he would be happy if terrorism continues and increases, because thus the US society will become more nd more fervent in its support of the militarization of US and further involvement all around the world in "preventive measures" + the restricting of its own liberties in the name of security (e.g. the spying on everyones email by FBI)

Wouldnt you love to have the whole nation backing you in all your boldest political enterprises, yet hail you as a hero, and yet readily give up obstacles you`d otherwise need years of intrigues and combinations to beat down?

Very similar to the establishment of most dictatorships (although I cant imgine in USA could go that far ) - there is great threat (or misery, etc.) so people are willing to submit their hopes to a saviour and their liberties because of "necessity" and "unity".

 

Sorry Gro, I should have been a bit clearer. What i meant was that Babek's explanation of what happened was more aligned to the reasons suggested by the Allies, compared to the reasons given by the Iraqis. Advancing weapons research would have been at the forefront of the Allies reasons to stop Saddam getting his hands on the riches that awaited him in Kuwait. I didnt intend that to reflect Babek's p.o.v on the reasons for the war

Wow thats a bold statement

I do, to a certain extent, believe it tho. Continued terrorist attacks, or at least the threat of them, allows Dubya to continue with his defense spending spree. However, realising there could be a connection between the 2 and actually claiming the connection is intentional might be stretching things a bit too far. It would be tantamount to suggesting that the US administration views its citizens as expendible items that they are willing to sacrifice to further their aims of the war on terror.

Someone made a point to me recently, that in the 'civilised' world people are viewed as individuals with freedom to express, whereas in places like the Middle East, people are simply a small cog in the big wheel that is their society. IMO this type of society would be more likely to display this type of attitude. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest some of these 'big wheels' feel they have too many 'small cogs'.....removing some of them from the system would be beneficial to them.

Okay now im rabbling, I will shut up (see what happens when you have a 'liquid lunch' on Fridays )

-glas-

 

So you admit that the politics of the "Allies" is to keep Iraq poor and its people dying, so Saddam couldnt eventually use some of the money from a rebuilded economy to buy weapons?

Well, I think anyone in an Iraqi`s position will gladly become international terrorist.

Oh, and despite they`ve done that for the last 10 years, now they claim Iraq has got weapons far more threatening than it had before.

well, I think, before 11.IX noone ever took seriously the warnings of CIA that the war could be moved to USA`s territory and so affect in any way the true americans.

But after that - it is just too convenient for the government. Yes, they are taking all kinds of measures against loss of lives, but
one thing is certain - USA did not change its policy to the course that would cut the sources (motivation) of terrorism. Rather the opposite.

Think: What is Bushes argumentation for the war? Such approach would have got almost nil support among americans if they havent become so paranoic in last 2 years.

Population paranoics has always been of use to statesmen (although it is always dangerous to play with fire) - take for example Austria-Hungary and the fear court deliberately instilled among its subjects in order to keep the empire in one piece through the late XIX.

This is inevitable for any polititian, corporation officer, economist or statistician. It happens when you start to deal with numbers and percents instead of real people. The higher you are watching from - the worse.

yeah, freedom to express complicates the calculations a bit - you have to stratify the society in groups for each alternative, and there is always some 0.1% who dont fall in any group - you simply drop them as irrelevant.

Dunno, most oriental religions (and traditional religion inevitably affects the nation psychology, vice versa too) are quite mystical and sort of every creation is unique and there for its own glory. The philosophy is more sort of sit all day and only look around and awe at the things God has delivered, and try to empty yourself from action and from thought in order to come in harmony with them and eventually connect with God.

The mechanistic approach is more akin to the western civilization.

But on the other hand when people believed they`re just small cogs in the big wheel didnt those societies made the greatest achievements among all other? See XIXcent Germany, Nazi Germany, XXcent Japan, modern China...

 

Errrrm nope. What i said (and what i meant ) was that imo (different from admitting something i dont know....how am i meant to know what the politics of the Allies is more than any other mere mortal?) the West simply did not want Saddam to get his hands on the oil fields as this would have financed any weapons programs he may have been planning. Do you feel that Iraq would use any wealth it could come by to look after its people, bearing in mind the history of Saddam and the fact that, even in the past 10 years, he has been still spending what little money they have on developing weapons? I would even go so far as to say that since the Gulf War, Iraq has had the buffer of the UN for security, preventing any major attacks taking place on it. Even more of a reason for him to try to look after his people than develop weapons (of any kind, not just WMDs).

Exactly! I noticed with interest this week in USA, the first black female American is seeking election for presidency in the Democrat party. Her nomination is riding on the viewpoint that America has wasted all the goodwill shown to the US since 9/11 because of the stance Bush has taken over the Iraq situation. Wtg her!

To a certain extent I have to agree with you. However I dont believe that a democratic Government as a whole would adopt this stance. Undoubtedly there are individuals within Governments who view their compatriots in such a way, but because of the modern system of Government they could not do anything to directly influence this kind of thinking over everyone else in that Government. Even in today's Western world, socialism still prevails

I have to disagree with you here. In middle eastern states where religion still dominates the daily lives of the people, and even more so in places like China etc, people have a sense of duty to the State. They worship with total commitment, toe the party line and, apart from the few, accept what they have and only think of the greater good (even tho that greater good could, in someone else's eyes, be the greater evil).

In the West however, people are not as strictly religious, they have much more freedom of movement, thought and speech and they continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. People can do what they want when they want and, in most cases, as long as you harm no one else you can do what you like. There is too many of the small cogs in the West who are loose cannons for the 'big wheel' to operate effectively

-glas-

 

certainly in the military and economics ministries everyone thinks this way. its the nature of their work.

When things get "mass" its bad. Then individual is averaged without all those other individuals who turn up all so similar. And democracy is in some way "mass government".

AFAIK the worship toward state is part of their millennium old philosophy in China.

I really cant guess how much is the sense of duty to the state in the different countries in mideast.

I wasnt talking to the current society in the west - it has moved beyond nationalism after WWII (with the exception of France I think). But the ideas of nationalism were born there and in the past most european countries had small cogs. Otherwise nor WWII nor WWI nor Napoleonic wars nor Brittish colonization wouldve been possible.

BTW I wonder if this is connected with the protestantism. After the initial centuries of fundamentalism, the simple fact that it allowed everyone to interprete the Bible on his own (in Catholics its the Popes who declared what things mean, in Orthodox - the Church as one body - and the idea of more than one truth was really something unimaginable in Europe until XVcent) - so then eventually they had to develop tolerancy to one another.

No, thats too much speculating!

 

I think its more recent than the introduction of protestantism although I can see why you make the connection. However by that token you could use any form of revolutionary movement from days gone by as a yardstick for the general decline in moral standards in the West.

Personally, I feel it is pure and simple commercialism. It is the one thing that the West is consumed with and the East (to a certain extent) is untouched by.

If you can link commercialism to protestantism, i'll be impressed

-glas-

 

Don't read this

Bombing Mr. Johnson

I'm Losing My Patience With My Neighbors, Mr. Bush
By Terry Jones

CounterPunch

 

The teeny weeny little detail that G.W. and any others that support action against Iraq based on future terrorist attacks forget is that terrorists don't need WMD to kill lots of ppl.

They have proved that time and time again. 9-11 was probably the best example of how a simple plan can have very devastating effects.

The simple point of the matter is that if goverments would mind their own business and not piss anyone off, they would not have to worry about terrorists. Typical example...in Australia we have never had too many worries about terrorists, until 11/9/02 that is. Our little Prime Minister had to be the big man and send our troops to help the U.S. wage war on terror, and what happens?

Sudddenly our country is on a terror alert. Time goes by and public support for the war on terror drops, with calls to bring our troops home etc. The U.S. says it is time to do something about Saddam Hussein ( because they haven't been able to get Osama Bin Laden), and our little Prime Minister says we will support that.

The Australian public say "hold on, this is not our war, why should we get involved?" Public support for the war on terror drops to an all time low and what happens?

88 Australians die in a bomb blast in Bali. Now, me being a very suspicious person, find it strange that at a time when support for a U.S. lead attack on anything has dropped so low and ppl are saying it has nothing to do with us, a terrorist attack kills so many of us so close to home.

Coincidence? You make up your own mind. The timing was interesting for another reason as well....1 year, 1 month, and 1 day after the 9/11 attacks.

Regards, Oz