U.S. Now Bombing Somalia Looking For Terrorists [Archive]

FranG

11 Jan 2007, 04:55 AM

U.S. is bombing so called "Al Queda" terror sites in Somalia according to a government source. The war mongering just doesn't seem to stop. Here's the link to the article by Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-01-10T111620Z_01_L09770013_RTRUKOC_0_US-SOMALIA-CONFLICT.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2). The U.S. said they haven't been repeatedly bombing Somalia but only did it that one time on Monday (Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10275163.htm)).

The U.S. is a dangerous country, much more dangerous than Nazi Germany was. Terrorism is the U.S. communism (Germany's imaginary villain) It's like the mob is running the government, except these clowns are worse than the mob. At least the mob had a code of ethics and morals that they lived by. These outlaws in Washington don't play by those rules.

garak

11 Jan 2007, 04:57 AM

ben from below

11 Jan 2007, 06:02 AM

I'm not sure about the 'more dangerous than Nazi Germany' part, but yeah, the Bush administration is a bunch of goddamn sick fucks. hopefully with a democratic congress we can get some good ol' fashioned gridlock and the government will do zilch for the next two years

FranG

11 Jan 2007, 06:20 AM

For once, I think I pretty much agree.

:blush: Finally :D

I'm not sure about the 'more dangerous than Nazi Germany' part, but yeah, the Bush administration is a bunch of goddamn sick fucks. hopefully with a democratic congress we can get some good ol' fashioned gridlock and the government will do zilch for the next two years

But it ain't just the Bush admin. That's the spin they want us to swallow. It's good cop bad cop that they play with us. Bush is the bad cop, and the Democrats are supposed to be the saviors. But actions speak louder than words. Watch the Democrats fund the troops that Bush is sending to Iraq. They're gonna say some shit like:

"although we disagree with the President's (the bad cop) reckless policy in Iraq, we will not deny our troops the necessary tools it needs to fight this war for our freedom. Not providing our soldiers with the necessary tools of war makes them literal sitting ducks and vulnerable to the enemy. We (Democrats) will not allow that to happen under our watch. We can only hope that the President heed the advice of his military advisors and employ a moreeffective strategy in Iraq so that we can scale back troops and get our men and women back home."

Watch and see. It's all game. It happens like this all the time. They say the right shit for the cameras, but they show their true colors in the legislative room where the public isn't watching. Also, remember the Democrats said they would not impeach Bush even though there is plenty of things to impeach him on. But they didn't because an investigation of President would have led back to their slimy asses and the role they played in the President's missions of conquest.

PenguinHunter

11 Jan 2007, 06:24 AM

I was going to post this too but I thought to myself, "I'll just be stating the obvious. . ."

Anyway, as terrible as it is, it's an interesting move from the US. I had expected that they would just continue to stay out of Somalia (directly) and let Ethiopia do the dirty work of routing the religious government - no doubt in return for something. You can be pretty sure the strikes were against former Somali governement outposts and not "terrorists" but it seems like a strange one-off move to make. Of course the Somali reports of more strikes are probably true. . .

It may have been intended as just a show of force in the hopes of curbing ambitions of a counter offensive against the Ethiopian military. But again, that sort of martyrs the Somali government in the face of Western imperialism which will likely attract immigrant militants to the cause. Surely they must have considered that. . . but why the strikes. . . unless the Americans are actually continuing to secretly strike the booted government's hideouts, it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense from any perspective. Do the American public even really care what is going on in Somalia? I kind of doubt it.

FranG

11 Jan 2007, 06:32 AM

Can anybody say "wagging the dog?" Get ready for a military strike on Persia (Iran) by either the U.S. or its puppetmaster Israel (most likely it'll be Israel but no matter who strikes, they'll both back each other no questions asked. And their buddy nation Britain will join in too no questions asked).

Carebear

11 Jan 2007, 06:54 AM

Do the American public even really care what is going on in Somalia? I kind of doubt it.

Oceania has allways been at war with Somalia.

PS: I liked your good cop, bad cop theory, FranG. Reminds me of the "We're a little bit country, we're a little bit rock and roll" episode of South Park.

FranG

11 Jan 2007, 07:07 AM

No place like Oceania. :)

aether

11 Jan 2007, 07:13 AM

I guess I should start paying attention since I did study Int'l Relations at school.

Hmmm, downplayed the Iran threat, I'll have to read more.:reading:

...puppetmaster Israel...

I've heard people say this, why is that so? I thought the USA was the puppetmaster.

C.J.Woolf

12 Jan 2007, 03:14 AM

But it ain't just the Bush admin. That's the spin they want us to swallow. It's good cop bad cop that they play with us. Bush is the bad cop, and the Democrats are supposed to be the saviors. But actions speak louder than words. Watch the Democrats fund the troops that Bush is sending to Iraq.
I wouldn't be so hard on the Democrats. The Republicans have them so thoroughly whipped they don't dare risk looking "soft on defense". Fuck, why don't they puff out their chests and say, "Who got us into Vietnam? WE DID! Who almost pushed the nuclear button over Cuba? WE DID!" Such short memories Americans have.

Also, it's damn hard to get out of a war of occupation when you can't win and the enemy can't kick you out.

I've heard people say this, why is that so? I thought the USA was the puppetmaster.
Most of the neocons are very pro-Israel and are effectively Israeli agents of influence. They really thought invading Iraq would benefit Israel. (/me slaps head.)

And Somalia? The commitment of just a little air power is downright sensible for this administration. Death from above is more America's thing.

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 07:11 AM

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 02:15 PM

The U.S. is a dangerous country, much more dangerous than Nazi Germany was. Terrorism is the U.S. communism (Germany's imaginary villain) It's like the mob is running the government, except these clowns are worse than the mob. At least the mob had a code of ethics and morals that they lived by. These outlaws in Washington don't play by those rules.

So what would you suggest the US and world do about terrorism then?

Psy-goat

12 Jan 2007, 02:37 PM

So what would you suggest the US and world do about terrorism then?

Stop being terrorists!

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 04:55 PM

^^^^
Thank you Psy-goat.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 05:27 PM

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 05:46 PM

So a military group (Al Qaeda) purposely targets and attacks civilian targets on US soil which it knows is inhabited entirely by civilians with no direct military connection, and the US military is engaging in terrorism by seeking to capture and kill members of this military group? I don't see how this could be called terrorism. One could argue that the US action is unjustified, but I don't see a basis for calling it terrorism. Maybe you have broadened the definition of terrorism beyond the classical definition?

Did you see my comment about they missing their target. And where's Osama? Did they get him in an air strike yet? The big bad U.S. with all it's technology can't even track a mofo down and kill/capture him. The U.S. with all it's money can't convince someone to turn people/targets in for a generous reward? Shit the Iraq War is damn near at a half a trillion dollars. That's money out of your pocket that could have spent on whatever. All that shit that you wanted for Christmas, or to give your kids and wife, the new business you may have wanted to start, whatever, could have been achieved with all the money they jagged (wasted) over there. Not to mention the additional oil prices you've been paying as a result.

Also, the War on Terror is a fraud. It's like the War on Drugs. You think that's working? We spent damn-near a trillion dollars on that in the last 30 years. Again more money that you coulda have spent on whatever. Yet I can still go on any street corner and buy crack, heroin, smack, pcp, whatever.

Another fraud, finding a cure for AIDS. We spend billions of dollars on that a year? You satisfied with the AIDS progress? Still no cure right? Still gotta watch who we stick our dick in right (we should be watching who's sticking their's in our ass)? Again more of your money that coulda been spent on whatever.

And that's just a few scams. So where did all the money go? I work for a governmental agency. Most people don't realize that salaries and benefits usually comprise at least 3/4 of a department's budget. That means the money is going in people's pocket bro. It's a game, a racket (they don't just call it that by accident), their playing tennis with us, smacking us back and forth with relevant info, then saying oh wait here's the right info, oh wait this is it, etc.

Answer me this, how the hell can you stop terrorism? That's like having a War on Stealing, a War on Slander, A War on THOUGHT. Some of you INTPs need to turn up the juice on that Ne function and watch for that sleight of hand.

MacGuffin

12 Jan 2007, 06:09 PM

Did you see my comment about they missing their target. And where's Osama? Did they get him in an air strike yet? The big bad U.S. with all it's technology can't even track a mofo down and kill/capture him. The U.S. with all it's money can't convince someone to turn people/targets in for a generous reward? Shit the Iraq War is damn near at a half a trillion dollars. That's money out of your pocket that could have spent on whatever. All that shit that you wanted for Christmas, or to give your kids and wife, the new business you may have wanted to start, whatever, could have been achieved with all the money they jagged (wasted) over there. Not to mention the additional oil prices you've been paying as a result.

Also, the War on Terror is a fraud. It's like the War on Drugs. You think that's working? We spent damn-near a trillion dollars on that in the last 30 years. Again more money that you coulda have spent on whatever. Yet I can still go on any street corner and buy crack, heroin, smack, pcp, whatever.

Another fraud, finding a cure for AIDS. We spend billions of dollars on that a year? You satisfied with the AIDS progress? Still no cure right? Still gotta watch who we stick our dick in right (we should be watching who's sticking their's in our ass)? Again more of your money that coulda been spent on whatever.

And that's just a few scams. So where did all the money go? I work for a governmental agency. Most people don't realize that salaries and benefits usually comprise at least 3/4 of a department's budget. That means the money is going in people's pocket bro. It's a game, a racket (they don't just call it that by accident), their playing tennis with us, smacking us back and forth with relevant info, then saying oh wait here's the right info, oh wait this is it, etc.

Answer me this, how the hell can you stop terrorism? That's like having a War on Stealing, a War on Slander, A War on THOUGHT. Some of you INTPs need to turn up the juice on that Ne function and watch for that sleight of hand.
You totally avoided his question(s) and went on a rant. Turn on that Ti.

Autumn

12 Jan 2007, 06:21 PM

To quote myself:

I don't believe in democracy anymore (at least not in the current form of it). I have absolutely no control about what's going on. Only thing I'm allowed is to choose between [terrible] and [very bad] (leaders, delegates, parties call it what you want) every four years. Someday they might very well decide to engage a war and nobody will ask my opinion on that.

I curse my bad english for not being able to contribute this thread in depth. I disagree with the pointlessness of the researches based on the hope for a cure for AIDS (even if it may turn out to be impossible to exist, scientists may learn a lot about the immune system through the process). But I find the "war on ..." examples very neat. War on terrorism is such a lame excuse for conquer.

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 06:32 PM

You totally avoided his question(s) and went on a rant. Turn on that Ti.

Just for you :)

So a military group (Al Qaeda) purposely targets and attacks civilian targets on US soil which it knows is inhabited entirely by civilians with no direct military connection, and the US military is engaging in terrorism by seeking to capture and kill members of this military group? I don't see how this could be called terrorism. One could argue that the US action is unjustified, but I don't see a basis for calling it terrorism. Maybe you have broadened the definition of terrorism beyond the classical definition?

Definition of terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Definition of terror:

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear

Definition of fear:

3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm <fear the worst>

Definition of coercion:

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat

Definition of torture:

2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Shock and Awe Caimpaign:

Definition of shock:

1 a : to strike with surprise, terror, horror, or disgust

Definition of awe:

1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime

Definition of authority:

3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT

Definition of campaign:

1 : a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war

So is the U.S. a terrorist? Do we strike intense fear in the Muslims, the terrorists, the rest of the world? Are we restraining acts of "the terrorists" by force? Did we really shock and awe them? Herein lies the answer.

immortalmack

12 Jan 2007, 06:54 PM

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 07:10 PM

In this world of "Get in where you fit in" it doesnt matter what you call it. If you as a country have an energy problem and you have the political and military means to do it, then by alll means do it. The ends justify the means.It's the way the world has been operating all this time. Things are no different now.When the media gets involved everybody becomes confused because the media is fed info just like they feed it to us. You call it war on terror, someone else will call it counter-terrorism, it's all Western Imperialsim.Both sides are justified.Al Queada is justified in fighting imperialsm and the US is justifed in the sense of energy concerns and future shift in the balance of power.

Very true. All I'm saying is call it like it is. Don't lie and say we're fighting for freedom and all that shit. People don't like to face reality so they are given what they want, altered realities. The easiest way to get something is to take it and that's all the U.S. is doing. I wish that could be said instead of all the doublespeak.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 07:18 PM

The UN defines terrorism as any action which is:

...intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The US military has not engaged in any terrorism that I've heard of.

Did you see my comment about they missing their target. And where's Osama? Did they get him in an air strike yet? The big bad U.S. with all it's technology can't even track a mofo down and kill/capture him. The U.S. with all it's money can't convince someone to turn people/targets in for a generous reward?

I agree--people and technology aren't perfect. Al Qaeda is waging a guerrilla war, and that gives them a big advantage. The Afghan Mujahadeen didn't want to destroy the USSR. They just wanted them to leave Afghanistan. The US supported this, and it worked. It is easier for a guerrilla force to acheive their objectives because their objectives are much more acheivable.

Shit the Iraq War is damn near at a half a trillion dollars. That's money out of your pocket that could have spent on whatever. All that shit that you wanted for Christmas, or to give your kids and wife, the new business you may have wanted to start, whatever, could have been achieved with all the money they jagged (wasted) over there. Not to mention the additional oil prices you've been paying as a result.

Ha! You and I weren't going to get any of that money anyway. <_<

Answer me this, how the hell can you stop terrorism? That's like having a War on Stealing, a War on Slander, A War on THOUGHT. Some of you INTPs need to turn up the juice on that Ne function and watch for that sleight of hand.

The same way you stop global expansion of communism. If we had just ignored Soviet military and nuclear weapons expansion, we wouldn't be having any type of discussion remotely critical of the government right now, or we'd be cleaning reindeer crap off of some Soviet general's boots with our toothbrushes in Siberia real soon. And that's if they were nice and integrated the USA into the USSR instead of just wiping us off the map.

Al Qaeda doesn't want to destroy us, they just want us to pacify and withdraw. Should we have stayed out of WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor? We would have had to confront the Nazi's eventually. If we had waited 10 years until they were strong enough to actually try to invade the US, we would've faced an army with the force and resources of two continents and more advanced weaponry--perhaps nuclear.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 07:22 PM

You call it war on terror, someone else will call it counter-terrorism, it's all Western Imperialsim.Both sides are justified.Al Queada is justified in fighting imperialsm and the US is justifed in the sense of energy concerns and future shift in the balance of power.

But is Al Qaeda justified in purposely targeting civilians to to achieve their objective?

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 07:31 PM

I'm still waiting to see the evidence that Al Queda caused 9/11. The 19 Arabs with box cutters is a conspiracy theory. Also, we funded Communism. That's a problem we created (well not specifically the U.S. but the power elite within the U.S.) And we funded Hitler too, another problem we created. PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION. You create a problem, there is a reaction to problem, then you come in and provide solution to the problem you created. Where I come from we call that "game."

Also, fuck the civilians in Iraq right? We killed damn near a million of them, women and kids. And our government never furnished any evidence of Al Queda involvement in 9/11. Never connected Osama to Iraq either. No WMDs. All our smart bombs miss their targets? Yeah right. Meanwhile the oil companies get to restrict supply and keep the oil prices high because of the conflict. So oil companies and military contractors benefit directly from all this. Oil companies and military companies lobby Congress. What incentive is there to change. It's Game 101.

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 07:32 PM

earwax

12 Jan 2007, 07:34 PM

Watch the Democrats fund the troops that Bush is sending to Iraq.
It's too late. He already has the funding. It's part of the defense budget...

immortalmack

12 Jan 2007, 07:34 PM

But is Al Qaeda justified in purposely targeting civilians to to achieve their objective?

Guerillas have a established ideaology of operation just like western statecraft (Mao Zedong vs Machevelli). If causing the US to walk sofly among a civilian population, while the guerillas pick them off, gets the job done, then do. No one remembers the excuses and conditions of the past they only remember the victors.Al Qaeda would be justified if/when the US withdraws and they remain a fuctioning organization able to influence lives. Much like Vietnam, nobody remembers how the vietcong faught and the lives that were lost, all we know is that Vietnam is still a country in existence today.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 07:41 PM

If causing the US to walk sofly among a civilian population, while the guerillas pick them off, gets the job done, then do.
...
Al Qaeda would be justified if/when the US withdraws and they remain a fuctioning organization able to influence lives.

Then you support the use of terrorism to achieve an objective. Why do you choose to live in the US, a country who considers terrorism a national and international crime?

PenguinHunter

12 Jan 2007, 07:57 PM

The UN defines terrorism as any action which is:

"...intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

The US military has not engaged in any terrorism that I've heard of.

The 90s UN sanctions on Iraq are near perfectly aligned with this definition. No point in just blaming the US - most Western governments still carry out actions that fall under the definition of terrorism. All sanctions have this intention. Harm the population until this forces a change of government. Or at least that is the best possible outcome. Normally they are just used as a kind of blacklist and ultimately serve no purpose.

The US military may claim not to intentionally harm Iraqi civilians but it's a tough argument to make when they happily enforce punitive measures on entire cities because all the inhabitants are "resisting."

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 08:22 PM

The 90s UN sanctions on Iraq are near perfectly aligned with this definition. No point in just blaming the US - most Western governments still carry out actions that fall under the definition of terrorism. All sanctions have this intention. Harm the population until this forces a change of government. Or at least that is the best possible outcome. Normally they are just used as a kind of blacklist and ultimately serve no purpose.

The US military may claim not to intentionally harm Iraqi civilians but it's a tough argument to make when they happily enforce punitive measures on entire cities because all the inhabitants are "resisting."

Are you talking about the sanctions imposed on Iraq after they invaded and pillaged their neighbor Kuwait, or the ones to keep them from obtaining chemicals to build weapons so that they can do it more efficiently next time?

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 08:25 PM

But is Al Qaeda justified in purposely targeting civilians to to achieve their objective?

That's like the police raiding the house of a cop killer and shooting his whole family. That's what the U.S. is doing.

But is Al Qaeda justified in purposely targeting civilians to to achieve their objective?

PenguinHunter

12 Jan 2007, 08:28 PM

Are you talking about the sanctions imposed on Iraq after they invaded and pillaged their neighbor Kuwait, or the ones to keep them from obtaining chemicals to build weapons so that they can do it more efficiently next time?

What the Iraqi government did or did not do is not relevant to my point.

I'll explain it more simply.

Recall your cited definition of terrorism:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

The US/UN severely punish civilians to influence their government's decisions and actions. This is terrorism.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 08:43 PM

What the Iraqi government did or did not do is not relevant to my point.

I'll explain it more simply.

Recall your cited definition of terrorism:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

The US/UN severely punish civilians to influence their government's decisions and actions. This is terrorism.

So withholding materials used in the manufacture of chemical weapons endangered the civilians?

Even the sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait allowed Iraq to receive food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies. What happens to the people when the economy goes downhill due to restricted imports is the fault of their government. The sanctions weren't intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians. They were intended to avoid the inevitable civilian deaths which occur as the result of war, which was the next option when sanctions didn't work.

immortalmack

12 Jan 2007, 08:57 PM

Then you support the use of terrorism to achieve an objective. Why do you choose to live in the US, a country who considers terrorism a national and international crime?

I voted for W,knew what we were getting into,understood the logic of the choice and yes I'm right of center in my politics. But just as I recommend the US doing whatever needs to be done for the interest of the country, I expect no less from guerillas who understand the game of imperialism to fight with all of their might to not be dominated by the US. Don't give me that patriot speech. Lest just call things what they are. From the 15-20th century it was words like "civilize", "christianize", "canibals", "savages" and the whole game was about colonizing African countries and stealing their resources for european and US markets. Today we use words like "terrorist", "insurgents", "axis of evil", "Democracy". Thats bullshit for a dumb populace that believes everything the media puts out.The US wants to dominate the region for it's oil and oh yeah capitalsim needs new markets to survive. Much like a drug addict shooting the dopeman to keep his habit supplied.
Were INTP we can think of both sides of the coin.What would you do if the russians took over your city, pit people against one another, brought in trained killers (equivalent to the Hessians vs G. Washington and colonial militia) and told you they were liberating you?

PenguinHunter

12 Jan 2007, 09:05 PM

So withholding materials used in the manufacture of chemical weapons endangered the civilians?

Even the sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait allowed Iraq to receive food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies. What happens to the people when the economy goes downhill due to restricted imports is the fault of their government. The sanctions weren't intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians. They were intended to avoid the inevitable civilian deaths which occur as the result of war, which was the next option when sanctions didn't work.

One of the many points is that sanctions don't work.

Obviously the government was not going to simply give in to international pressure. Similarly the Iraqi population did not have the strength required to topple a regime like Saddam's. It fell on the UN and US government to recognize this. Either they failed to do so or did not care about the Iraqi human cost and felt that weakening the economy should be their primary goal - the first explanation is highly improbable. Wikipedia quote-off:

President George H. W. Bush stated: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power". . . In as much as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000 Iraqi children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions (In case you haven't read the entry)

You are dancing around my main point still. I don't want you to justify an act of terrorism; I want you to admit that the Western governments (including the US and UN) still commit acts of terrorism. One of these acts of terrorism were the Iraqi sanctions. The purpose of the sanctions was to harm the civilian population enough to make them feel a need to overthrow the government. By your cited definition this is an act of terrorism.

If you have further argument then explain, with reference to your cited definition, why the imposition of sanctions by the US and the UN on Iraq was NOT an act of terrorism.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 09:07 PM

I voted for W,knew what we were getting into,understood the logic of the choice and yes I'm right of center in my politics. But just as I recommend the US doing whatever needs to be done for the interest of the country, I expect no less from guerillas who understand the game of imperialism to fight with all of their might to not be dominated by the US. Don't give me that patriot speech. Lest just call things what they are. From the 15-20th century it was words like "civilize", "christianize", "canibals", "savages" and the whole game was about colonizing African countries and stealing their resources for european and US markets. Today we use words like "terrorist", "insurgents", "axis of evil", "Democracy". Thats bullshit for a dumb populace that believes everything the media puts out.The US wants to dominate the region for it's oil and oh yeah capitalsim needs new markets to survive. Much like a drug addict shooting the dopeman to keep his habit supplied.
Were INTP we can think of both sides of the coin.What would you do if the russians took over your city, pit people against one another, brought in trained killers (equivalent to the Hessians vs G. Washington and colonial militia) and told you they were liberating you?

This Imperialism "dominated by the US" conspiracy theory ignores the fact that we left things alone in the Middle East until Iraq invaded Kuwait and Al Qaeda attacked New York.

immortalmack

12 Jan 2007, 09:17 PM

This Imperialism "dominated by the US" conspiracy theory ignores the fact that we left things alone in the Middle East until Iraq invaded Kuwait and Al Qaeda attacked New York.
Do you remeber that during the clinton years we were flying sorties everyday in Iraq using ,at first explosives, then after a while 2000 lb concrete bombs saying that his sam targeting radar was locking on our planes so we had to defend our selves. Is it ironic that 3 years later we fight a war and we have complete air superiority?

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 09:30 PM

One of the many points is that sanctions don't work.

I agree, they often don't.

You are dancing around my main point still. I don't want you to justify an act of terrorism; I want you to admit that the Western governments (including the US and UN) still commit acts of terrorism. One of these acts of terrorism were the Iraqi sanctions. The purpose of the sanctions was to harm the civilian population enough to make them feel a need to overthrow the government. By your cited definition this is an act of terrorism.

If you have further argument then explain, with reference to your cited definition, why the imposition of sanctions by the US and the UN on Iraq was NOT an act of terrorism.

I know and understand exactly what your main point is, and you've communicated it very clearly. I disagree with your main point. The sanctions are not terrorism because "making life uncomfortable" is not the same as "causing serious bodily harm or death." Also, because the sanctions didn't restrict food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies (whatever those are), they didn't cause serious bodily harm or death.

JAVO

12 Jan 2007, 09:34 PM

Do you remeber that during the clinton years we were flying sorties everyday in Iraq using ,at first explosives, then after a while 2000 lb concrete bombs saying that his sam targeting radar was locking on our planes so we had to defend our selves. Is it ironic that 3 years later we fight a war and we have complete air superiority?

Why were we there in Iraq to begin with though? I suppose we hinted to Saddam that the border to Kuwait was lightly defended and that we didn't care too much for them anyway?

PenguinHunter

12 Jan 2007, 09:42 PM

The sanctions are not terrorism because "making life uncomfortable" is not the same as "causing serious bodily harm or death." Also, because the sanctions didn't restrict food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies (whatever those are), they didn't cause serious bodily harm or death.

Making life uncomfortable is just a nice way of saying it. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people died means that they did cause bodily harm and death. Whether this is direct or indirect is not relevant. For certain the Iraqi government is to blame, but that does not make the UN and the US free of charge. They knew well that Saddam was putting his limited resources into protecting his reign not sustaining his population and yet they continued with the same system for over 10 years.

Chemicals like chlorine, necessary to water purification, were banned as well. The problem is that what constitutes "humanitarian supplies" is defined by those enforcing the sanctions. At what point does discomfort become torture?

FranG

12 Jan 2007, 09:45 PM

The US military may claim not to intentionally harm Iraqi civilians but it's a tough argument to make when they happily enforce punitive measures on entire cities because all the inhabitants are "resisting."

Yep.

But is Al Qaeda justified in purposely targeting civilians to to achieve their objective?

Of course not. Neither is the U.S. Nobody's defending Al Qaeda (even though it's a CIA established and funded operation). We're saying the U.S. ain't shit. Same can apply to Osama, whatever. Don't try to pedalize the U.S.

Lest just call things what they are. From the 15-20th century it was words like "civilize", "christianize", "canibals", "savages" and the whole game was about colonizing African countries and stealing their resources for european and US markets. Today we use words like "terrorist", "insurgents", "axis of evil", "Democracy". Thats bullshit for a dumb populace that believes everything the media puts out.The US wants to dominate the region for it's oil and oh yeah capitalsim needs new markets to survive. Much like a drug addict shooting the dopeman to keep his habit supplied.
Were INTP we can think of both sides of the coin.What would you do if the russians took over your city, pit people against one another, brought in trained killers (equivalent to the Hessians vs G. Washington and colonial militia) and told you they were liberating you?

Yep. I'll also add that the U.S. wants to establish military bases in the Middle east too. Makes war easier to engage on targets in the region.

You are dancing around my main point still. I don't want you to justify an act of terrorism; I want you to admit that the Western governments (including the US and UN) still commit acts of terrorism. One of these acts of terrorism were the Iraqi sanctions. The purpose of the sanctions was to harm the civilian population enough to make them feel a need to overthrow the government. By your cited definition this is an act of terrorism.

If you have further argument then explain, with reference to your cited definition, why the imposition of sanctions by the US and the UN on Iraq was NOT an act of terrorism.

He's not gonna admit it's terrorism. He doesn't want to see it.

This Imperialism "dominated by the US" conspiracy theory ignores the fact that we left things alone in the Middle East until Iraq invaded Kuwait and Al Qaeda attacked New York.

Watch for that sleight of hand. You remind of this guy in this commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4vNINn1uMk) :lol: Listen man, just cause we wasn't physically over there doesn't mean we didn't have a hand in things. Don't forget we aided Saddam when he invaded Iran (I posted info on that somewhere). Also, we never officially declared war on Iraq. And UN secretary Kofi Annan said war in Iraq is illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) under the UN charter, which the U.S. is a signatory.

charred_heart

13 Jan 2007, 04:51 AM

So withholding materials used in the manufacture of chemical weapons endangered the civilians?

Even the sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait allowed Iraq to receive food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies. What happens to the people when the economy goes downhill due to restricted imports is the fault of their government. The sanctions weren't intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians. They were intended to avoid the inevitable civilian deaths which occur as the result of war, which was the next option when sanctions didn't work.Give me one example of sanctions leading to positive results. As a citizen of a country that is under UN sanctions, here is what it does according to my experience:
1-Allows a fundamentalist government complete freedom. Since the government cannot promote legitimate trade, it deals with the black market which allows for easier access to among other things a varied range of stolen or smuggled weaponry.
2-The populace becomes poorer, weakening their ability to question or act against the government. If you have trouble paying for bread, the last thing on your mind is political freedom.
3-The isolation of the country allows the government free reign to commit all manner of human rights abuses - without repercussions.
4-The government dries up the country's now meager resources by spending in select 'areas'. Namely, the military, the police, whatever crazy agenda they have and themselves.

The only situation where imposing sanctions would bring about a positive change is if the sanctioned government has it's country's and it's people's best interest at heart. Otherwise it will inevitably lead to war.

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 05:06 AM

^^^
And the people imposing the sanctions know this. They just play stupid and people eat that up and give 'em a pass. If you can divide a country, you can control a country.

charred_heart

13 Jan 2007, 05:13 AM

^^^
And the people imposing the sanctions know this. They just play stupid and people eat that up and give 'em a pass. If you can divide a country, you can control a country.of course they know this. If I could figure this out at 15, government advisers have no excuse.

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 05:16 AM

But people always give them a pass though. When I say such things, I'm just a crazy "conspiracy theorist."

charred_heart

13 Jan 2007, 05:20 AM

But people always give them a pass though. When I say such things, I'm just a crazy "conspiracy theorist."there there FranG, you're not always crazy :)

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 05:52 AM

Thank you sir. I'm still crazy enough to drink though :cheers:

charred_heart

13 Jan 2007, 05:54 AM

Thank you sir. I'm still crazy enough to drink though :cheers:cheers!

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 06:07 AM

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 06:12 AM

Nobody's defending Al Qaeda (even though it's a CIA established and funded operation).

OMG.

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 06:16 AM

Your comparison of the United States to Nazi Germany is irresponsible.

How? What's the difference? They seem very similar to me; if you look at the situation objectively.

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 06:58 AM

How? What's the difference? They seem very similar to me; if you look at the situation objectively.

This is going to come down to a matter of opinion, nothing objective about it. That said..........

The guiding principles of the United States are quite different than those of Hitler's Germany. Hitler promoted an ultra-nationalist message including racial superiority, carried out mass genocide, and operated a totalitarian regime. The United States is not a totalitarian state. It's justification for military intervention is almost always to protect economic/national security interests or to proliferate democracy.

The two are similar in that the end goal is power. It's what everyone wants. This is true for every state and most organizations. You are right in not buying the administration's rosy language about spreading democracy, make no mistake about it, the U.S. is after more power and influence. However, the question you must ask yourself is who would you like to see in control? Hitler's Germany, the U.S., powerful dictators, or religious elites, ect., ect.? Though the U.S. has its problems, ill take it over any theocratic regime. The end game is always power.

I disagree with the Bush administration's destructive policies and I believe they are insensitive to cultural differences. I also believe Bush has made us overtly imperialist in the eyes of the world. However, I do not equate George Bush's policies to American principles and democracy. The essence of democracy is that it is embraced by the people. This is not happening in Iraq.

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 07:31 AM

OK nice post. However let me interject my thoughts.

This is going to come down to a matter of opinion, nothing objective about it. That said..........

True. I agree

The guiding principles of the United States are quite different than those of Hitler's Germany. Hitler promoted an ultra-nationalist message including racial superiority, carried out mass genocide, and operated a totalitarian regime. The United States is not a totalitarian state. It's justification for military intervention is almost always to protect economic/national security interests or to proliferate democracy.

The U.S., or Bush, promotes an ultra-nationalist message too when he says shit like "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Or "what message does it send our troops when people criticize the War on Terror." Bush has carried out mass genocide, at least a half a million Iraqis (muslims) have been killed as a direct result of U.S. occupation in Iraq. Did the insurgence have an army of a half a million strong? And lets not forget about the torture of captured supposed terrorists. Plus indirectly our government killed many more via sanctions levied on Iraq. Sanctions was the U.S.'s brainchild.

And the U.S. not totalitarian? Come on man, let's not listen to the rhetoric and pay attention to actions. He had a Congress of similar party members giving him a rubber stamp to do what the hell he wants (Democrats in his pocket too for the record). But when Congress does get some balls and try to pass a law, if Bush doesn't agree, he issues a signing statement saying he disagrees with law and writes law as he sees fit. That's dictatorship. Congress never declared war on Iraq, which is required constitutionally for war. They gave all authority to Lord Bush. We've breached numerous international treaties, basically telling the rest of the war who's in charge of things.

I disagree with the Bush administration's destructive policies and I believe they are insensitive to cultural differences. I also believe Bush has made us overtly imperialist in the eyes of the world. However, I do not equate George Bush's policies to American principles and democracy. The essence of democracy is that it is embraced by the people. This is not happening in Iraq.

Yes Bush and his crew are pricks. But you can't let the government or the American people off the hook. Hitler was just one man too who made himself dictator. His citizens were brainwashed with propoganda just like Americans. As long as the Americans choose to be ignorant of all the sleight of hand shit its government is doing, then they must be held to account. It's like a parent giving a kid a loaded pistol and the kid goes out and shoots someone. The American sheaple have the ability to stop all of this right now but they gotta turn off Desperate Housewives and Fox News and educate themselves on current events and historical behavior of governments.

songbird36

13 Jan 2007, 07:37 AM

FranG, why do you get involved in political discussions you know nothing about?

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 08:03 AM

^^^^^
School me then. That's what I'm here for.

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 08:05 AM

The U.S., or Bush, promotes an ultra-nationalist message too when he says shit like "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Or "what message does it send our troops when people criticize the War on Terror." You're right. He says what he says so that the people will give him the power to transcend our fundamental American principles. He wants power.

Bush has carried out mass genocide, at least a half a million Iraqis (muslims) have been killed as a direct result of U.S. occupation in Iraq. Did the insurgence have an army of a half a million strong?
After Operation Iraqi Freedom (an operation in which many innocent people regretebly lost their lives), the military objective changed to try and end the violence carried out by groups such as al qaeda in Iraq. It is important to understand that most of the violence and killing in Iraq has been committed by Muslims against Muslims to create instability and undermine U.S. efforts. The U.S. war in Iraq has led to 1/124 of the casualties of Hitler's war.

And lets not forget about the torture of captured supposed terrorists. Plus indirectly our government killed many more via sanctions levied on Iraq. Sanctions was the U.S.'s brainchild.
Absolutely correct. This is another example of why Bush's policies are not consistent with American consititutional principles, Geneva conventions, or the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even so, the torture has not been carried out on the same scale as Hitler's Germany. Don't disparage the horrors of the holocaust by comparing it to Bush's illegal torture operations.

And the U.S. not totalitarian? Come on man, let's not listen to the rhetoric and pay attention to actions. He had a Congress of similar party members giving him a rubber stamp to do what the hell he wants (Democrats in his pocket too for the record). But when Congress does get some balls and try to pass a law, if Bush doesn't agree, he issues a signing statement saying he disagrees with law and writes law as he sees fit. That's dictatorship. Congress never declared war on Iraq, which is required constitutionally for war. They gave all authority to Lord Bush. We've breached numerous international treaties, basically telling the rest of the war who's in charge of things.
Congress has not declared war since WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Balkans, etc.........no congressional declarations of war. It would be political suicide to leave U.S. troops out to dry with no funding for equipment to protect themselves.

Yes Bush and his crew are pricks. But you can't let the government or the American people off the hook. Hitler was just one man too who made himself dictator. His citizens were brainwashed with propoganda just like Americans. As long as the Americans choose to be ignorant of all the sleight of hand shit its government is doing, then they must be held to account. It's like a parent giving a kid a loaded pistol and the kid goes out and shoots someone. The American sheaple have the ability to stop all of this right now but they gotta turn off Desperate Housewives and Fox News and educate themselves on current events and historical behavior of governments.
But the American people do not support Bush. His approval rating continues to hover around 30% or less. Hitler's Germany made the propaganda work and the people gave him unconditional support. Bush's fiasco in Iraq won't last much longer.

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 08:35 AM

OK quick rebuttal. I'll concede the Hitler comparison, I disagree but you make a valid point. Let me touch on the insurgency violence and the American people though.

As far as the insurgent violence, I can't agree that they are the cause of most of the deaths. We have troops over there that are shooting first and asking questions later. The insurgency have been doing the suicide bombing yes. But the fact remains that the U.S. illegally occupying their land. So all of this is provoked by the U.S. presence and some military acts too. Also, the air strikes always seemto miss their targets (despite all the money we pay the military contractors for that shit). You have to put most of the blame for the civilian casualties on the invading country. Hell, George Washington and crew were terrorists to the Crown in their rebellion.

As far as the American people, they have not supported the for two years now, actually right before Bush got reelected. I'll agree with you slightly here but you'll probably disagree with my reasoning though. The American people did vote Bush out of office. But those pricks stole the 2004 election too. Voter fraud was rampant; enough to where the results were totally unreliable. That said, Americans need to show active discontent with war. Not empty rhetoric; saying you disagree and that's that. Bush and Co. has pulled off a coup of the American government. People need to protest,boycott work, etc. to send the message that we won't put up with them acting unaccording to our wishes. Hell the spineless Democrats wouldn't even impeach Bush. They all suck. Bush isgutting theConstitution with all these police state laws. We gotta become aware and then protest against all that shit. Bottomline though, an oppressor isn't gonna take his foot off your chest, you have to move it. I feel like a foot in on our chests and we have to physically move it. The Republic has been gone for awhile now. But what stands out with me is when the Supreme Court said our property can be taken for private development. WTF? If you don't even own your home then goddamn,what else is there. Americans need to recognize that we're living in a police state and what's happening in Iraq will work its way to U.S. soil if we don't stop it. We obviously can't depend on those dicks in Washington.

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 08:45 AM

I think we agree that the administration is the principal cause of the Iraq fiasco and other violations of U.S./International law, that's what is important here.

INThoughtPolice

13 Jan 2007, 08:53 AM

FranG, why do you get involved in political discussions you know nothing about?

Necessary? Care to add anything?

FranG

13 Jan 2007, 09:11 AM

I think we agree that the administration is the principal cause of the Iraq fiasco and other violations of U.S./International law, that's what is important here.

Agreed.

Necessary? Care to add anything?

Yeah songbird. What did we miss?

dubbeltop

13 Jan 2007, 01:04 PM

U.S. Now Bombing Somalia Looking For Terrorists

The questions becomes:

Who where in Somalia first ?

The american bombs or the islamic terrorists?

Dark Razor

13 Jan 2007, 04:12 PM

Congress has not declared war since WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Balkans, etc.........no congressional declarations of war. It would be political suicide to leave U.S. troops out to dry with no funding for equipment to protect themselves.

Interesting, then what is the constitution good for if it can simply be bypassed? If it requires congress to declare war and the president just ignores it and goes to war anyway and congress goes along with that, isn't that treason? And should they not be both arested? and if so, who is going to arrest them? I mean what good is the constitution if it cant' be enforced, it is worthless then.

INThoughtPolice

14 Jan 2007, 12:06 AM

Interesting, then what is the constitution good for if it can simply be bypassed? If it requires congress to declare war and the president just ignores it and goes to war anyway and congress goes along with that, isn't that treason? And should they not be both arested? and if so, who is going to arrest them? I mean what good is the constitution if it cant' be enforced, it is worthless then.

The constitution says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States." It's all about interpretation. Iraq is officially termed a "conflict" as was Vietnam. There's your loophole. You can have a "conflict" instead of a war bypassing any constitutional requirements for congressional approval. But remember, congress controls the purse strings.

Helios

14 Jan 2007, 02:23 AM

Why do so many of you acted shocked and in disbelief when a Great Power uses force to express it's will? Ummm do you realize this is exactly what every nation has done since the dawn of time? Did you grow up in Candy Land?

So the US blows people up and calls it "freedom", whoopty shit! Napoleon marched across Europe "liberating" it from the ancien regime. Rome brought "civilization" to Gaul (and death to 10% of it's population) Muhammad brough his religion of "peace" to the people of Sassanian Persia, Arabia, Egypt and the Byzatine Empire (via the sword). Have you people never heard of "spin"?!

Ask the Chinese about the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". (then compare it to the Japanese version)

Just know, that Iman's starving cousins would be kicking your ass if it was reversed!

edit- I guess we can't employ french letters here?

FranG

14 Jan 2007, 04:34 AM

The constitution says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States." It's all about interpretation. Iraq is officially termed a "conflict" as was Vietnam. There's your loophole. You can have a "conflict" instead of a war bypassing any constitutional requirements for congressional approval. But remember, congress controls the purse strings.

You're right. But that's the problem, it's always a loophole. They seem infinite. You can call an object many things but the object will always be only one thing.

FranG

14 Jan 2007, 04:35 AM

Helios

14 Jan 2007, 04:50 AM

..... But that doesn't mean we have to accept it. ...families have been getting robbed and killed ..... So should we make a stink about it when it happens to one of our loved ones?

You are right, this level of emotion response would be reasonable in the context of a direct personal connection. So the question is, who in your family lives on coastal tip of Horn of Africa?

charred_heart

14 Jan 2007, 04:59 AM

Just know, that Iman's starving cousins would be kicking your ass if it was reversed!Somalia's people wanted the muslim militia out of the picture more than anybody else in the world, but since the U.S started dropping bombs on them for sport they would be inclined to kick American ass if the situation was now reversed.

charred_heart

14 Jan 2007, 05:05 AM

U.S. Now Bombing Somalia Looking For Terrorists

The questions becomes:

Who where in Somalia first ?

The american bombs or the islamic terrorists?that's a stupid question. Islamists aren't exactly democratically elected, why should the population take the blame for it and die ?

Just to annoy you, U.S troops were in Somalia before muslim militia took hold of Mogadishu.

FranG

14 Jan 2007, 06:52 AM

You are right, this level of emotion response would be reasonable in the context of a direct personal connection. So the question is, who in your family lives on coastal tip of Horn of Africa?

So what are you saying? That my analogy falls short?

FranG

14 Jan 2007, 07:02 AM

charred_heart

14 Jan 2007, 07:21 AM

Martial Law has now been declared in Somalia to try to "restore order" in the state. Are you surprised? This is the usual pattern that these types of events follow. Control and surpress the people to keep power.

-----------------

Somalia's parliament has voted to declare three months of martial law after the rout of Islamist forces.
MPs sitting in the provincial town of Baidoa voted 154 to two to ratify Prime Minister Ali Mohamad Ghedi's plan to restore order in the war-ravaged state.

The government regained control after a campaign led by Ethiopian troops which also saw US air attacks on militants. Read more... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6258415.stm)Actually that's necessary. The government had lost control of the capital to militia gangs for more than 10 years. The Islamists fought in gang wars to gain control of the capital - they were not even fighting the government, it was nowhere to be seen.
Without martial law, chaos will ensue.

FranG

14 Jan 2007, 08:36 AM

I agreebut the true question is why is there chaos in the first place? PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION. This is how tyranny works. First create a problem (government denies people decent living conditions or whatever), reaction occurs (militia groups form to equate the stakes so to speak. Chaos usually ensues as a result), and finally provde solution (usually some change to the status quo, often entails martial law).

So I agree with you but it shouldn't even have to get to that point. And the U.S. involvement just makes a bad situation worse. It further the fuel for the fire that they are trying to surpress. But of course they don't really want to surpress any fires, they're much happier with starting them.

htb

16 Jan 2007, 03:25 AM

The US/UN severely punish civilians to influence their government's decisions and actions. This is terrorism.This statement is a paralogism.

Sanctions were placed on Saddam Hussein's regime shortly after the annexation of Kuwait. They were meant to restrict the amount of wealth that Hussein could invest in his war machine, conventional or otherwise, and dissuade the dictator from his latest attempt at conquest. It was never to compel any kind of permanent political change either by weakening the government or, according to your incredible claim, wreaking devastation among the Iraqi population. Even two years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, even a melange of Aflaqian and Stalinist quackery, Iraq's economy was strong enough to provide for the Iraqi people.

The 1991 ceasefire agreement laid out clearly the conditions to end Iraq's probation. Hussein never met them.

PenguinHunter

16 Jan 2007, 04:24 AM

This statement is a paralogism.

Sanctions were placed on Saddam Hussein's regime shortly after the annexation of Kuwait. They were meant to restrict the amount of wealth that Hussein could invest in his war machine, conventional or otherwise, and dissuade the dictator from his latest attempt at conquest. It was never to compel any kind of permanent political change either by weakening the government or, according to your incredible claim, wreaking devastation among the Iraqi population. Even two years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, even a melange of Aflaqian and Stalinist quackery, Iraq's economy was strong enough to provide for the Iraqi people.

The 1991 ceasefire agreement laid out clearly the conditions to end Iraq's probation. Hussein never met them.

The primary intention of the sanctions, as you say, was to limit Saddam Hussein's regime. But Saddam Hussein obviously does not accept this limitation, and instead takes money from other essential services - this results in the death of several hundred thousand people.

Sanctions will work and would not be considered terrorism (by the definition we've been operating with as stated earlier) if the dictator carried the interests of his people above his own. This is rarely a characteristic of a dictator and is never a characteristic of a dictator who has sanctions imposed on his nation.

The UN and US were not in the dark about Saddam squandering his limited resources resulting the deaths of Iraqi civilians and yet they continued with this course of action for over 10 years. They know Saddam is not changing his mind and they know the population is suffering. Regardless of their original intentions, at some point along the way they have to be hoping that the population's distress will somehow influence Saddam's decisions. By the definition quoted, this is terrorism. (You may wish to redefine terrorism, which is a different argument.)

That is the benefit of the doubt argument.

Bush Sr. was quoted earlier in this thread. If his statement can be taken as the US side of the intention behind the sanctions, then the sanctions were an action that should be defined as terrorism.

Obviously the UN spokesman would never make such an un-PC blunder but you have to ask where the motive for the sanctions comes from. The UN is only a collection of the voices of many countries and the US, for better or worse, is a big one. The effect sanctions was not an unknown by the time they were imposed on Iraq. Many nations in the UN may well have supported the motion based on the fact that it would put heavy pressure on civilians, causing unrest and (if they were ridiculously lucky) revolution. I say in this sense, even the United Nations does not escape incrimination here - their intentions may well have been identical to the Bush quote, just not openly expressed. Halliday's resignation as Assistant Sec-General in '98 because "policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt," clearly shows the schism within the UN itself over the sanctions.

Even IF the morally troubling intention was not there (and I maintain that is a big IF) the US and the UN were still strongly complicit in the destruction of the Iraqi economy and the deaths of those Iraqi civilians over the period that sanctions were imposed. The length that the sanctions lasted are a testament to this.

FranG

16 Jan 2007, 04:43 AM

And to piggyback on what PenguinHunter said, U.S. companies (i.e., Haliburton, Dick Cheney's company) were still doing business with Sadam in the 90s while the sanctions were in place. (see link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm)). Sanctions are a joke and only serve to commit genocide on nations.

htb

16 Jan 2007, 02:34 PM

PenguinHunter: if this is whether economic sanctions are effective against dictators, then we are in agreement (though we differ on an alternative). And if the prolongation of measures designed to monetarily and materially inhibit a government results -- through the deliberate actions of said government -- mostly in the destitution of the populace, then the wisdom of such policies is called into question.

But it is collusion, not the incidence of unintended consequences, that makes a judging party in any way culpable for the actions of a reprobated government, especially when special accommodations and/or demands are made, repeatedly and in good faith, to ensure the passage of food, medicine and other essential goods. "Oil for Food," in fact, was organized for this very purpose, but failed to fulfill it. It was the autonomous United Nations' Secretariat that, in secret, cooperated with Hussein to divert capital to the regime. While reports of Iraqi dead made headlines, undermining the declared moral prerogative of sanctions, the dictator enriched himself.

Is that "terrorism," using semantic acrobatism? Probably, but not on the part of the governments of the United States or Security Council members that weren't complicit in Hussein's theft.

MacGuffin

16 Jan 2007, 06:29 PM

Why is it the US/UN's fault some dictator would rather thumb his nose at them rather than comply with the conditions that would remove sanctions so thousands of people don't starve to death? That's not terrorism, unless you are talking about the dictator. Perhaps then we need to go in a remove the dicta... shit! I just started justifying the Iraq invasion!

charred_heart

16 Jan 2007, 07:15 PM

htb

16 Jan 2007, 07:30 PM

the real question is why would the US and the UN enforce a plan that would yield no positive results and that adversely affects millions of civilians?One, embargoes are traditional diplomatic punishments (whose use persists, right past proof of inefficacy, to this very day). Two, the alternative was to do nothing in the first, or drop sanctions after Hussein made clear he was keeping his "nineteenth province"; or determine that sanctions would not restore sovereignty to Kuwait City, and militarily remove Ba'athist forces from Kuwait.

charred_heart

16 Jan 2007, 08:07 PM

One, embargoes are traditional diplomatic punishments (whose use persists, right past proof of inefficacy, to this very day). Two, the alternative was to do nothing in the first, or drop sanctions after Hussein made clear he was keeping his "nineteenth province"; or determine that sanctions would not restore sovereignty to Kuwait City, and militarily remove Ba'athist forces from Kuwait.so basically, there is no reason and it does not reduce the likelyhood of war.

htb

16 Jan 2007, 08:16 PM

so basically, there is no reason and it does not reduce the likelihood of war.There are reasons, just ones that you choose not to accept. As for the inevitability of war, returning to the post of MacGuffin's that you wanted clarified, and the point he made: whose fault is that?

charred_heart

16 Jan 2007, 08:19 PM

There are reasons, just ones that you choose not to accept. As for the inevitability of war, returning to the post of MacGuffin's that you wanted clarified, and the point he made: whose fault is that?I have no problems with the 1st war on Iraq, it was justified and more importantly it served a purpose. Sanctions are pointless.

You said there are reasons right? The only reason for sanctions I know is to destabilise the country so that a change in it's policies occurs. I have found out this does not happen. Care to enlighten me on any other reasons?

htb

16 Jan 2007, 08:44 PM

You said there are reasons right? The only reason for sanctions I know is to destabilise the country so that a change in it's policies occurs. I have found out this does not happen. Care to enlighten me on any other reasons?My reference to the tradition of trade embargoes and blockades and so forth was intended as shorthand for the arguments and evidence in favor, which can be researched independently. Relevant to this particular situation would be the initial round of sanctions, motivated by Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; and subsequent punishments in response to Hussein's failure to abide by the ceasefire treaty, or UNSCR 687.

But again, the point here is not the advisability of sanctions but blame, which rests, logically, with those committing unforced actions -- i.e., Hussein. Sanctions don't work because dictators are inexorable, and care nothing for their country's native population. And that is the dictator's fault. It's all very much "Buy This Magazine or We'll Shoot This Dog." Maybe the Third World most needs National Lampoon.

rawr

16 Jan 2007, 09:13 PM

There's an easy awnser for this that you're all overlooking.

Somolia is filled with burried pirate tresure, pillaged from old egyptian tombs. The U.S. needs to return the tresure or the sun god will reign fire oppon us all. Somolian war lords want to keep the tresure and spend it on women and poluting the atmosphere because they are aginst mother earth. Somthing the U.S. also cant tollerate. I also heard, if given the chance they will come and take our apple pie and steak away. Its all for jesus, thats just something you guys need to realise. Jesus and pirate tresure.

The U.S. is just trying to save the world here. Why would they want to control the world, its a democracy!

PenguinHunter

17 Jan 2007, 04:33 AM

Is that "terrorism," using semantic acrobatism? Probably, but not on the part of the governments of the United States or Security Council members that weren't complicit in Hussein's theft.

Heh, semantic acrobatism. That's the problem with using nebulous terms like terrorism. I used the definition given to my advantage but I'm certainly willing to agree that it's another one of those words (like "democracy" from the UAE thread) that has nearly lost definability.

Regardless, I still maintain that any nation involved in enforcing blunt sanctions like the ones used in Iraq, shares a responsibility for the ill effects that result.

Assuming two possible scenarios:

1) There are no alternatives to sanctions (or more accurately, the UN can imposes broad sanctions on the whole country or do nothing.) Regardless of the possible risk to the region, I refuse to submit to a utilitarian justification that the deaths which occur at the feet of the dictator - and the international community - will be fewer than the deaths as a result of inaction. At least not without a rowdy argument. Can one cannot exist in a world where an innocent man is slain to save two? Inaction is a the better option.

2) There are alternatives to sanctions. Then it's easy: pursue these options.

In both cases the enforcers of the sanctions share responsibility for any damage that results. (That's for you too MacGuffin.)

One, embargoes are traditional diplomatic punishments (whose use persists, right past proof of inefficacy, to this very day). Two, the alternative was to do nothing in the first, or drop sanctions after Hussein made clear he was keeping his "nineteenth province"; or determine that sanctions would not restore sovereignty to Kuwait City, and militarily remove Ba'athist forces from Kuwait.

As charred_heart said, I don't think many (non-Ba'athists) would argue that the military intervention to save Kuwait was the wrong thing to do. The first US invasion served it's purpose. Iraq would not have invaded Kuwait again after that - the sanctions imposed were superfluous. However, what is important here, and to my argument, is that there are alternatives to sanctions - or at least the kinds of sanctions used in Iraq - besides inaction.

1) If Saddam and his government remained completely uncooperative then the UN should have targeted the political party with precision sanctions. The UN could have hit Saddam's government with some well placed financial sanctions against the Ba'ath party and the Hussein family. Restrict movement and freeze assets. Target international financial institutions willing to deal with the Hussein family. Obviously an arms embargo is still appropriate.

2) Combined with a lighter version of #1, slowly begin disengagement and disarmament talks. Once the Iraqi forces were out of Kuwait, that should have been the end of US military involvement but bombing continued off and on over the next 10 years.

Iran could have been approached at that time as well. Saddam might have been more willing to comply with disarmament plans if he knew that his only real regional threat was doing the same. You just want to keep people talking. More talking, means less anxiety, means more cooperation, means more stability. The blunt sanctions used by the UN went against this and increased the volatility of the situation.

FranG

17 Jan 2007, 05:44 AM

But again, the point here is not the advisability of sanctions but blame, which rests, logically, with those committing unforced actions -- i.e., Hussein. Sanctions don't work because dictators are inexorable, and care nothing for their country's native population. And that is the dictator's fault. It's all very much "Buy This Magazine or We'll Shoot This Dog." Maybe the Third World most needs National Lampoon.

Not just to you but to all, why haven't we removed Kim in North Korea? The sanctions against themaren't working either.

Its all for jesus, thats just something you guys need to realise. Jesus and pirate tresure.

LOL yeah it's always about Jesus and pirate treasure. :lol:

htb

17 Jan 2007, 02:38 PM

PenguinHunter: I was about two-thirds of the way through a response when I pressed "backspace" which, in whatever situation I was, threw me back a page and "helpfully" cleared the entry field. I'll try to respond later today -- after I mourn the dear, dear fifteen minutes recently departed.

INThoughtPolice

20 Jan 2007, 04:21 AM

The UN should consider the motives of those whom they wish to affect prior to imposition of sanctions. As htb said, Sadaam was not concerned with the well-being of the Iraqi populace, but rather with the power of his regime. It should have been forseen that sanctions would be ineffective under the circumstances.

The Iraq war is a failure because it lacks an achievable military objective. As Sadaam defied the international community and attempts by weapons inspectors to ensure that he did not possess WMDs, he left little room for a peaceful solution. The objective of the coalition should have been to ensure that Sadaam Hussein did not have WMDs and to remove any other weapons in violation with regulations. Deposing Sadaam and installing a democratic government were part of a disproportionate response that went far beyond what was necessary to correct the problem. Our soldiers have been converted into police and are consequently easy targets for the growing enemy. /tangent

Wolf

20 Jan 2007, 10:55 AM

I wouldn't be so hard on the Democrats. The Republicans have them so thoroughly whipped they don't dare risk looking "soft on defense". Fuck, why don't they puff out their chests and say, "Who got us into Vietnam? WE DID! Who almost pushed the nuclear button over Cuba? WE DID!" Such short memories Americans have.
You do have a short memory, alright. Democrats in both cases.

I cannot blame the republicans, even though I don't agree with them, I agree with them more than the democrats. You see, Shrub is not a republican, he's an authoritarian socialist, that is, a democrat. Neocon = Democrat. He's the greatest democratic party aligned president in the last 50 years, I mean, look at the post-attack effects and who voted for/against the follow-up. Did any republican or democrat vote against it? Sure, the republicans could win since they align with the so-called republican president, and they outnumbered the democrats, but they didn't even symbolically disagree. I call that support that you cannot withdraw later without looking like an unstable child unworthy of representing anyone with a brain. Own up to your mistakes, you worthless little punks.

The problem is that neither have a good solution, that is, to withdraw the US troops entirely into the US, cut off all but heavily taxed and restricted trade, build the wall, and close off from the world. Then just focus on setting up the world's most advanced detection grid for ICBM launches, troop massings, etc, to defend just the US. Congratulations - the people in the US can live in peace and prosperity, they run low on domestic oil, so they come up with new methods of locomotion, the population decreases by attrition, the US doesn't attack anyone because it leaves the world alone, and nobody outside needs to concern themselves with the US anymore. Everybody wins.

And Somalia? The commitment of just a little air power is downright sensible for this administration. Death from above is more America's thing.
It's also a safe move - nobody is going to fight us over it. But really, what the hell is wrong with our nation? Let's just stop all this crap now. Isolate, it's the wave of the future and it works rather well.