OT: George Bush and Iraq

Res1441 requires Iraq to cooperate fully. 100%. Being reluctant with handing out certain information is no full cooperation. It's in the interest of Iraq to do so, what does he have to lose? I really hope there will be more time and those issues get clearified. But it's a dangerous sign that Iraq even now seems to have problems with full cooperation.

And about a further above post of you: You think that Iraq does live up to geneva convention, human rights and stuff? You are aware of the broadcasts in Iraqi TV in 1991 with some special guests from the west? I assure you, Saddam is already far beyond of not only failing to obey "geneva convention". Any dictatorship has long left any path of the human rights idea, for its existance alone.

heartc

 

No - i didnt. It was an accusation made by one of the official speakers that Iraq and Saddam are hiding many AlQaida terrorists in the north-iraq.
This was later repeated in other medias - like the magazine FOCUS or SPIEGEL I have read last week.

No foreigner can live on kurdish controlled territory without being identified by them after a very short time. Although the kurdish territory is now within the borders of Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq - the clan-territories still exist.

They dont lynch any stranger - even if he looks like Santa Claus (which would be a very scary person I think ).
But they would know about their presence and because the kurds have no sympathies for AlQaidas and are also so thankful for the USA-protection its very unlikely that "many AlQaida terrorists" could hide in north iraq.
Not a single of these "many" terrorists were captured.

So the simple truth is that they sont exist there and it was only another propaganda gag to blame Saddam.

Hmmm... Why you dont try to prove what of my statements are wrong instead of getting some voodoo-feelings about the question if I am manipulating the truth with lies or specific informations?

1st : None of the conflicts you described was solved.
The result of the WW2 was only the base for the cold war which destroyed complete generations of people in the world - especially in the satellite states which were used by the superpowers for their policy.
Even Afghanistan was such a place where the superpowers played their cold wargame.

Kuwait is today a despotic country - none of the propaganda that a democracy or true democratic elements would be established in
Kuwait when Saddam is kicked out became reality.

And the "Burka-staff" as you say is a very good example about the catastrophical situation.

The blue burka is a special veil which is even not demanded for the women to wear in extreme conservative islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.

Its a torture for the women to wear such a thing - because of the special material it becomes after a short time very hot and the visibility and mobility is also very reduced.
The Taliban/pashtuni clans ordered that the women had to wear these veils.
The puppetregime around Karsai in Kabul has revoked this order - but even in Kabul the women are forced to wear them.
That is a simple indicator how much in Afghanistan has changed - compared with the Taliban-rule.

Bad example.
We are speaking about an ethnical group of the same heritage and culture which is divided in internal sub-clans and not about different nations with their own and different cultures.
It would be easier to make peace in Germany in the middle of the 30 year-war than in the kurdish territory today.

Please read again what I have written.
I said that after Saddam is elimniated the kurdish alliance will broke apart and the clan will fight each other.

Are you not willing or not able to see what is happening in Afghanistan today ? There also the alliance broke apart and today the whole country is again punished by the wars of the different clans. Even the puppet regime of Karsai in Kabul had lost three ministers because of these civil-war-like fightings.

It is my opinion that any hope that the kurdish clans will not fight each other is extremely naive and bring a dangerous element in the question how to make peace in Iraq.

Sorry - but this is ridiculous.

You are accusing me (directly or indirectly) that I am anti-american because I critizise the policy of the actual US-government but you expect the iranians to feel not insulted when Bush jr. defines the Iran as a member of the axis of evil ?

I dont no a single iranian who didnt felt insulted and threatened after this dumb speach of Bush jr.

I agree with you that the german policy is wrong by saying No - without having seen the results of the reports.
But I strongly agree with the french policy which is much more intelligent than those of the extrem points of the scala represented by Bush jr and Schroeder.

Sure - now tell me one neighbor of iraq (with a border) which would cooperate with Iraq in such an attack.
Jordan ?
Syria ?
Turkey or Iran? - ups wrong missile direction...

And what would be the reaction of such a Scud-strike ?

Every neighbor of Iraq is far superior equipped than Saddam. Israel - especially under the rule of mad-Sharon - would simply nuke Iraq away. The turkish and iranian military would also have no problem to destroy Iraq - especially after such an attack.

Saddam is an a******* but he is not so stupid to commit suicide by sending Scuds.

No - face the simple fact, that the neighbors of Iraq dont consider Iraq as a nation which would attack them.

The arabs were never united in the last century - and that the reason why they will not have successes as a unite group.

The UN has failed already in Afghanistan - so why you think it would be better in Iraq ?

Then about the civilian losses.

You said that Saddam is the only one who is responsible for the death of iraqi civilians because he dont use the money for buying for example medicine for them - although the UN allows him.

Generally I agree with you, but the embargo IS killing innocents.

Just one simple example, softening this theory:
There is a disease called Kala-Azar, inflicted by Leishmania donovani, which could be treated easily by a special medicine. Without this medicine the patients - mostly children - have to die in a relative short time.
Exactly this medicine is on the forbidden-list for imports to Iraq.
If you doubt this - check the "Deutsches Aerztemagazin" of the last month where there has been a large article about this.

Only a balance of power could prevent chaos and allow a slow but steady change within the societies.
There are many countries in the Middle East who already have an enormous destruction potential - including chemical (and I also assume biological) weapons.
How do you want to take all these weapons away from them to avoid a cold war which already exists ?
Not to mention so nice nuclear powers like India or Pakistan...

Your hope is based on wrong assumptions. Again: Just look at Afghanistan. The people got rid of the taliban dictatorship.
And what do we have ?
Democracy ?
Democratic tendencies ?
More rights for women ?
An end of the civil war ?
No warlords?
No war crimes done by the clans ?

So again: How you get the optimism that Iraq with the more complicated population-mix than Afghanistan will have a better fate ?

Wear a Burka for 1 hour and you will see the point of my argumentation.

Sure.

I would prefer every cold war instead of a hot war...

 

Ahem, give me a break on that. You actually say that the problem called Nazi-Germany was not solved due to war? And the result of WW2 was ONLY the base for the cold war? Well, I can see *some* more results of that war and I wonder why you ignore them. Well, you have to, or your argumentation that war cannot solve problems doesn't work out.
I'd say that problem WAS solved by war. Ask the survivors of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka etc what they think about how their "problem" was solved, just for an example. Also the problem of dictatorship in Germany was solved by that war. And I appreciate that very much and I'm sure so do you. I think we got a little discrepancy about the definition of "to solve". If a war must lead to immediate world peace not to fail the term "to solve", and if even the war against Germany you don't consider as solution for a problem, I now can clearly understand why any war in history is not a solution for you. In this case, it makes absolutely no sense to discuss further on the topic of Iraq, 1991 Gulf War or whatever.

This is paradox. If "different nations with their own and different cultures" which were traditional enemies over hundreds of years can life peacefully together nowadays, why is it impossible for an "ethnical group of the same heritage and culture which is diveded in internal sub-clans" to do so at least as well?

Today in Afghanistan did happen the following: There was a gunfight between allied troops and members of some clans in the south of Afghanistan, with 18 clan members ending up dead and no casualties on the other side. Not "cool", don't get me wrong, but I would say that this is an indication of interest to controll Afghanistan, and does rather not indicate surrender in front of the problems Afghanistan has, like you indicated in an above posting.
I'll just quote that from CNN video text (it's a short summarize though, while in the news the name of the clan and leader was also named):

No, I do not. But you set it in connection with an Iranian "opposition", if we are liberal enough to call it so. So, the people which are convinced about the goals of that opposition (more rights etc like you said), they shouldn't be too much insulted when Bush criticises the regime currently ruling Iran. But of course, any such rude words from outside against a country, additionally with no free press, usually tends to weaken any internal oppositional movements. I said I think it was dumb. I just wondered if some people in Iran, supporting the opposition there, might have gotten the message of Bush as it was meant.

While I tend to agree with the UK policy.

I think they were united when it required them to do so in times of war against Israel.

There are only two options to happen in the near future: Either Iraq does fully cooperate with the UN, which would then also increase the pressure on the UN to think about specific points in the sanctions again. This is really something one could go for with good points then.
The other option: Iraq does not cooperate fully, which would led to an US attack, with or without the UN. With this being the case, sanctions would be lifted and anyone will get any medicine.

One of the results of the balance of power in the cold war was not a change within the societies, but the opposite. It ended with bankcrupcy of one of the two, not due to change within the societies. When there were signs of changes, they were surpressed (Hungary e.g.)

As I said, better one less of them AND we simply differ in our view of a future Iraq after a possible war.

The war is over since only 3/4 year now, with much more hiding places for rebel groups than there would be in Iraq.

Regards
heartc

 

If you only define the Nazi problem as the only problem of WW2 then it was solved. But many others which started before and remained after WW2 were not solved and the result were tenthousands of casualties, because these problems were NOT solved.
Surely the homosexuals, jews, communists, gypsies and whoever was put by the Nazi terrorist into the KZ´s were glad to be rescued from hell - but you will not get the chance to ask for example the ethnic minorities in the USSR who were killed by stalinistic cleansing.

So their problems were not solved (as long as you dont count their death as a fair solution.).

Also you should consider that WW2 and Hitler were only a logical conxsequence of the unsolved problems of WW1.
The harssh treaty of Versailles made radicals like Hitler possible.

And to march back into history the WW1 is a result of unsolved problems of the French-German-War of 1870/71 where the base for the Versailles-treaty of 1918 was layed by Bismarck.

Now lets change the direction and go back to future.

After WW2 the whole world was - because the elementary problems wer eNOT solved - between two mighty superpowers.
Both abused their satellites for wars against each other.
Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, many african and middle east wars, the israeli-arab conflicts - all were results of unsolved problems of wars done before and all these conflicts caused the next problems in the future.

So: No war in our history solved any problems.

Just have a look which group was eliminated. They were warriors of the Hekmatiar-clan. This clan is operating from West Afghanistan and are pro-iranian. The fact that they were present in southeast Afghanistan which is the territory of the pro-pakistani pashtuni-clans is - despite the fact that they have been killed - very disturbing.

But in the last weeks there were reports that Hekmatiar would take initiative to take territories in the southeast from the pashtuni clans.

So the killing of a bunch of Hekmatiars warriors is only showing that the clanwars are getting more intense - and not that the situation is getting more under control.

Although Bush jr. has a remarkable way of simple speaches I must say that if he really meant "Hey iranian - we dont want to threaten you - only your bad bad government." by saying "Iran is part of the axis of evil." he uses a very complicated code to decipher.

And also consider the following: The liberal person of the iranian opposition is the actual president Khatami. The religious leader is Ajatollah Khamenei. Officially both form the government. So if Bush jr. is threatening the iranian government he automaticly attacks the main person of the iranian opposition.

Complicated - right ?

There is a UK policy ?????

No - they maybe were officially allies but they had in every phase of all the wars a deep mistrust to each other.
One of the reasons why the failed so miserably.

So you agree that the import-forbidden list includes special medicine - which even Saddam could not get if he really want.
This policy is killing innocent children - which is also not acceptable.

 

(Devil's advocate mode ON)
Why is it dangerous when a country breaks resolutions? Did you hear this story? The International Tribunal in The Hague, NL, was formed by the UN to convict people that performed crimes against humanity. The UN came up with a RESOLUTION that forces all UN-members allow their citizens to stand trial if necessary.
Shortly after this resolution was passed, G.W. Bush said : "We will not allow our citizens to stand trial in the Netherlands. We are a sovereign nation and will not bow to international pressure. If our citizens are incarcerated for trial at the International Tribunal, we will perform a military operation to release them."
SO: Because the USA are a "sovereign nation" they will not comply. Worse still, they will use military force against an ALLY (!!!!!!!) to prevent this from happening!

This is also the reason Iraq broke "their" UN-resolution. So the USA can use the "we can do whatever we want because we are a sovereign nation"-line, but Iraq can't? Hypocrisy, I'd say.
And the USA and Iraq are not alone: there are numerous other countries that failed to meet with UN-resolutions or other international treaties, like Israel (UN-treaty regarding Palestinia and Lebanon), The Netherlands (EU and NATO-treaties), Great Britain (UN and EU), China (Geneva-convention, non-proliferation treaty, UN-resolutions), North Korea (same as china)...... It's just a set of rules and those can be bent at need.

And even IF Saddam Hussein stockpiled (or still does stockpile) WMD's: what makes HIS WMD's more dangerous then (for instance) Russian/American/Chinese/Argentinian/British/French/North-Korean/Israeli/Pakistani/Indian or Ukranian WMD's? All the above countries have NBC-capabilites and (equally important) the means to deliver them. What good is a bottle of Bot-Tox if you have no airburst missiles? And believe me: if the Iraqi's had long-range missiles, those would've been found by Blix. Unlike the Scud-family of tactical missiles, it's not easy to hide a WMD-capable long-range missile. Scud's themselves cannot be used. or more correctly: Scuds *COULD* be used, but Iraq has no Scuds. They may have some "Al-Abeid" and "Al-Hussein" missiles left, but these are not Scuds! They have been derived from Scud-C missiles but have a max. payload of 150 kg instead of the Scud-C's 500 kg. 150 kg, that is not enough to deliver a nerve-agent, bio-agent or tactical nuke.

(Devil's advocate mode OFF)

Yup, I am aware of those broadcasts. I know Saddam has broken the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. But he is not the only one! That's the point I made above.... Of course, breaking rules cannot be permitted. But I am trying to show you that Iraq isn't the threat it was, nor are they the only country to pull "pranks" like this. I think the USA should spend their time and money on more important things, like their economy.

 

damed if ya do damed if ya don't

What would you do if you were Saddam Hussein ? If ya bend over for the UN the Yanks will say you could do more And bomb ya anyway...if ya don't bend over and take it like a man the Yanks will bomb ya anyway..

If it was me i would shoot the UN inspecters and be bombed for a good reason...

I'm told the Yanks want to use nuks (wmd)on a country the are trying to get to give up their wepons of mass distruction....Talk about double standards..... The sooner they shoot Bush the better i say...

 

I share Babek´s point of view , anyway the war will come.
even when Iraq do more then need to show a good will, the point of no return for this war is far behind the USA.

Since some month i really think this Bush is one of the most dangerus man´s in the world ,
saddam is a bad guy of course , i dont trust thenm nor bush .

 

That is the thing that annoys me most about all of this. Regardless of whether the proof is found or not, i feel the USA has already pencilled in a date to begin their attack (imo it will be 15/2 after the inspectors submit their 2nd report).

I dont agree, however, that even if Iraq bent over backwards they would still be attacked. Had they cooperated fully with Hans Blix and his team, i think Mr Blix is impartial enough that he would recognise this fact and would take in to consideration in his report to the UN. Added to that, i also feel that if their report was favourable to Iraq, the USA wouldnt have a leg to stand on as far as the rest of the world is concerned, even the UK would not back action that would be so clearly unjustified.

-glas-

 

Well, Glas.... We will never know, but even I (not an anti-American or anti-Iraqi at all, as you should know) am beginning to feel some doubt about the way this "investigation" has gone/is going.

I sometimes think the UN already decided they'd flip Saddam Hussein the bird before the inspectors even started their research.

As for the found warheads and (possibly) other materials: it has been known for a long time that Saddam Hussein did have WMD's at some point in time. 200.000 gassed Iranians and 40.000 gassed Kurds can't be wrong, right? It's hardly suprising that they found SOME residual materials. And come on, 12 (empty) warheads for short-range unguided artillery rockets? If I were to equip my army with chemical weapons, I'd build a lot more of those things!!!!

I wonder what would happen if the inspectors found an rusty old barrel with Thiodiglycol in a dried up lake, some three miles from an ink-factory. Would that be used as proof as well?
(Thiodiglycol is used for two things: making ink and making mustard-gas)

 

[...]

Huh? Make up your line pls...
And yes, I consider the "problem" Nazi Germany layed on the World as THE problem of WW2.

Well, as I said above, it seems you put a very high standard for a war meeting your definition of "solving a problem". A standard which is unreal to achieve, because it would be world peace. So, it's easy going for you to say a war cannot solve problems.

I wouldn't say that it is exactly a logical and therefore unavoidable consequence of an unfair treaty that something of the scale of Hitler's regime occurs. This is a dangerous attitude I think. Germany even began to regain respect from the former enemies in the twenties, joining the Völkerbund etc. I agree that of course Versailles treaty was good ground for the Nazis to build uppon in the 30s, but still, it was the Nazi regime alone acting as it did and no one else is to blame for the actions Nazi Germany took towards WW2.

I didn't say it's getting more under control, but it's a sign of high interest to control if they go after them. And I believe that with allies' superior firepower and with determination there is a high chance of actual controlling. That's why I always find statements so funny when mostly anti-americans are blaming the west for fighting enemies in an "unfair" way by superior firepower. They think war is a sports game or what?

There are multiple speeches where Bush targetted the regimes of those countries alone, but of course that makes limited sense to the people in those countries, given the "information" they get from those very regimes.

Yes, and I'd say nice "opposition" it is...

Yes, and thank god US policy is turning more in UK policy direction and not vise versa, like most critics did foresee. However, one has to acknowledge that Colin Powell, after res1441 was finished, already said that it would not be an "automatic trigger" to war, as this was not included in that resolution. Instead he said there will be further considering of the problem with the UN, which is exactly what's happening now.

And they'll never learn after all this? I wouldn't rely on that if I were in charge in Israel.

Yes, and this is very unacceptable. Still, I have hope for the future on those issues regardless what way it turns out, and, if there is no war, THIS is really a thing Germany e.g. could go after then if Schroeder wants to do at least SOMETHING constructive and is really so much worried about the people of Iraq.

Regards
heartc

 

@sebbo:

The problem is not serious cases like 12 chemical warheads have to be found until Iraq "remembers" them and "is looking for more" and false information about the amount of anthrax etc alone, but the way Iraq addresses the UN inspections until now. I trust Blix more than your calculations and view on Iraqi cooperation.
And Saddam's way of acting I considered dangerous FOR PEACE, because it will lead to war for sure if he doesn't reconsider SOON. He had already 11 years' time.

heartc

 

FRODO HAS FAILED!

 

And more movies...

 

Or there is this one......

 

hi heartc,

i don't understand, which thought let you come to the conclusion:
'I'd say that problem [nazi-germany] WAS solved by war' ?

you mean by that the physical appearance of faschism, self-named '3. reich', has been deleted?
if you think, faschism can be stopped by winning a war and and declare the end of faschism, you are wrong.
the process has to be made by reflection, abstraction and so trying to find the basics - even if not involved...
that is prior to all! only by that one can learn by history and see the way, a mentality constitutes itself. violence doesn't solve anything.

i believe, that violence is part of all of us. the release of instinctive behaviour needs an input to get over causalistic thinking. to handle this, one has to know his instinctive levels, which also means to accept instincts. yet it can't be an excuse, when instincts overcome.
in a society are lots of members who should keep their minds open...
i don't think anyone (or group) has the right to start violence to avoid another one starting violence. nobody has the right to use violence to make another one accept his way of living, just because he thinks, it is the better way.
and even if there were situations of unavoidable violence, it can only be acceptable, never excusable or reasonable!

in any way, war can never be more than the poor result of having no solution! who says, that war will solve something, hasn't even started thinking...

 

"Please remember, there is no last word in diplomacy." -- Admiral Yamamoto, 'Tora, Tora, Tora.'

I don't particularly like using quotes from movie scripts, but I think this one was well-written.

I am in complete agreement with Babek and also with Ledada. I just want to say that

(heartc) is a rather limited (and convenient) outlook on history. I think this flaw is one of multiple major cracks in heartc's perspective which attempt to seriously undermine objective outlooks on the situation at hand.

However, I'll be content to step aside for the time being and let Babek handle the response, since he is obviously in a superior position to offer an objective, in-depth analysis.

But a nice "touchè" [hope the accent on the e is inserted properly] to Devill and most of the editorial contributors. It's the simple truth in simple form.

Regards,
Jochen

 

You know, I can afford for my-self to understand than each of us will die some day, so I don't give a fuck how it will happen. Will USA start 3rd World War today or just 2-3 "oil wars" later. Who cares? I don't, cause I can change nothing.

My previous post were just a sarcasmic joke on the situation that you wrote above. And definitely everyone of us will have his own point of view and will stay on it. Especially in case that almost no one knows truth.


PS: I'm not a fathalyst.
tpak--

 

I mean it as I said it. So, in your words, the physical appearance.
Now let's consider "reflection and abstraction".

First, from within a faschist regime: Faschism usually goes hand in hand with dictatorship, or comes very close to it, because in faschism the state is the No.1 priority, not the individual. Or in other words: The individual is required to act not for his own goodness, but to improve the position and situation of the state (of course this is the theoretic, pure faschism). Another characteristic of the faschist state is that it's very paranoid. Any true opposition which would reduce the options or weaken the position of the regime is considered a threat to the state itself. By consequence, the regime is using everything available to strengthen its position, including military, police, media and education. So, now what do you think are the chances to start and continue a process of reflection and abstraction which is targetted against faschism itself from within a faschist state? I'd say the chances are zero in most cases, and when faschism was deleted from within (which does require such a process to have been completed successfully), it usually was done so by a civil war between the "rebels" and the faschist means. So, it was done by violence. Or the faschist state was occupied by a non faschist state and after this a process of reflection and abstraction could begin, or better say, was forced as it had to happen.

So, either way, without violence, no change. You cannot fight the physical appearence of faschism by theory, but by acting.

Neither the police?

Well, sounds great...

Yes, having no solution in diplomacy.

As seen above, who says, that war won't solve anything, hasn't even started thinking. And your separation of physical and theoretic faschism seemed to indicate that you agree that the physical one was eleminated by violence. As I showed, the disappearence of physical faschism is a requirement to let the theoretic one also disappear.

Regards
heartc

 

I'd say that there is a last word in diplomacy. It's the last word spoken before other means than diplomacy are taken.

Yes, well-written. But that's it. I know what it's meant to say and great it sounds, but it means shit. However, thinking about it, especially in connection with the country that person is from (no offense) he may actually be right. There wasn't the last word spoken as the first wave of attackers cleared the carrier deck .

And I just want to say that (Jochen's) quoting of especially THAT part of my posting ("THE problem of WWII" was meant to indicate that this was the major problem) and connect it with a comment about my "limited" outlook, is a rather apologizing view on german history. Anyway, you guys are very theoretic, but by this you leave reality far behind. Everything you say is build around a "NO!" to war. Therefore you have to prove that violence cannot solve any problems. As this is not true as I showed numerous times, you have to either abstract reality, by saying war cannot eleminate an idea (which I never asumed), or add to the number of goals, prior wars have achieved, to an unrealistic figure and level that will be never achieved, neither by war, nor by diplomacy.

His analysis may be in-depth, but it's far from being objective, as any attempt is made to act in the above described way. He could also use his in-depth knowledge about the ethnics in Iraq to think about ways for a positive change, but he only uses it to draw future dark. If he's right and a positive change is really not possible, I'd say this is a very poor exame for the Arabs in general, as he says those ethnic troubles are wide-spread over the arab world. I must say that after reading babeks analysis my hope on the abilities and moderness of the Arabs has actually decreased, as it seems they haven't yet reached present, where you shouldn't give a damn shit about what ethnic group someone is in.

Regards
heartc

 

BTW, I will try to end this one now from my side as I think everything has been said and we begin to repeat ourselves. Soon we can just quote our previous postings to keep this going. So, I will try not to respond to a further posting.

Regards
heartc