Saddam statue - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Saddam statue (/showthread.php?tid=700)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Saddam statue (/showthread.php?tid=700)
- AmbitionlessHipster - 12-11-2003
CanuckCourage Wrote:PRZ, I agree with you that violence does occur sometimes at protests , there are always people who take it too far whether it be protesters , robust teenagers or people who are there to cause trouble and get themselves on TV, oblivious to any cause , gatherings of people will always bring that element . (look what happens when the Lakers win a Championship )
In my mind there is no doubt Saddam Hussein would have had , or tried to aquire "Weapons of Mass Destruction " . However there was little hard evidence of this , and it was obvious that what few weapons he had were of no threat to anyone , his army in the first Gulf war compared to this invasion were vastly different armies , everyone knew this . He was no threat to anyone but his own people . I think that in his last stand he would have put up more of a fight, had he the arsenal. If he had this massive threat of fire power , surely he would have unleashed it , and now they can't find anything ? Even if they find some Mustard gas etc... The quantities better be so massive as to prove he was a threat , and especially to the US on the other side of the world .
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the United Nations passed resolutions that cleared the way for economic sanctions and for military intervention. The United States was working with and through the United Nations at the time . The first Gulf War was cut and dried , Iraq invaded Kuwait and had to be removed . US had no place to go in and take over , Iraq lost , and retreated . A ceasefire was called after this by the United Nations . The UN would not have approved of the US taking over Iraq , much like this most recent invasion by the Americans/Coalition Forces . I don't believe money was the only reason for the invasion , but I do believe it had nothing to do with WMD , Liberation or Regime Change , other than the fact regime change cleared the way for occupation .
OK... just a little thought... isn't it our right to fight/disagree/stand up for rights/oppose views? In a democracy, we are run by a majority vote, yet we are ruled by a few men (of whom all have certain agendas... i'll leave it up to the imagination). Should we sit back and allow them to speak on behalf of us? In protests, the violence is often instigated by police and those who try to oppress the demonstrations. People come equipped with gask masks and shin guards because they know that the police will instigate as much as possible so as to create a stir, so as to create violence and therefore justifying force and legitimising the view that protests become violent. Trying to barricade people far away from these summits is ridiculous... we all have a right. In the age of civil liberties, we are restrained from reclaiming what belongs to all humanity, the human space and the freedoms. The idea of civil liberty as opposed to freedom is very impotrant to think about... they are not one in the same. We are restricted.
And... if you want to bring in propaganda.. the gulf war is the epitome. Remember those World War I posters that instilled pride to get people to join the forces? yeh, well this time they orchestrated a scene where a woman (who ended up being a dimplomat's daughter) was crying and blaming the Iraqi forces for coming into a hospital and destroying 12+ incubators and killing premature babies. Now, if this isn't a good way to win over public opinion about the gulf war, then i dont know what is.
Not to mention weapons of mass destruction (why should the USA have them and no one else? Who gives them legitimate authority to decide who can posess these weapons... it seems to me as if the USA is self-proclaiming the role of Rousseau's lawgiver and making up thier own general will of what the rest of the world should follow) Anyhow, yes.. the United states "gives" and "funds" weapons research in many countries.. including Iraq (pre-gulf war). In fact, it is documented of Bush Sr's close relationship with Saddam. The USA likes to keep tyrants in power so long as they enact the wishes of the USA. If you comply, you can commit genocide. So, yes, the USA was friendly with good ol' Saddam (sending money and authorising research/creation of WMD's) until Saddam pissed them off by invading Kuwait (gee, USA the lawgiver... who stops them from all of their invasions?!??) Now, all of a sudden, look where Iraq is on the USA-relationship scale.
It's just sad to see the USA giving money to those who kill (ahem, Israel... thats right America, your tax dollars are funding 6billion a year to starve, maime, orphan and kill Palestinians)
Just like how the USA is friendly with Indonesia's president Suharto who is currently commiting genocide on the East Timorians. But, this atrocity is OK because the USA is getting cheap labour (sweat shops) and oil! In fact, America was so kind as to train Indonesian special troops (to secure more oil fields from the East Timorians)... gee... similarities always seem to arise.
:x money and power
- AmbitionlessHipster - 12-11-2003
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Mark, I think there are several things wrong about your analysis of the rational for the first Gulf War. First, the UN, the US and the world essentially created the mess we are in today because they decided not to overthrow the monster they created back in 1991. What sense does it make to let Saddam continue in power after his invasion of Kuwait? I think the UN was naive in assuming that Saddam would be a good boy and not invade his neighbors or brutally supress the Shia's, Kurds or other political opponents. Essentially, the UN is myopic about dictators and tyrannical governments in general. With Saddam, their thinking was that you've done bad by invading another country, tisk tisk, but your legitimate because you are the major power within your country, no matter how you came to power, they treat governments that derive their power from the consent of the people as equals with those who govern out of fear, supression and murder(Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe)True, sanctions hurt the ordinary person far more than the dictator or tyrant in power because the ordinary guy doesnt have the power or resources to thwart the sanctions like Saddam did, yet the anti-sanctions groups argue that the sanctions should be removed and say nothing about removing Saddam. How is that going to make the situation better? The ordinary guy is going to have access to medical supplies, food, fuel, etc but dont you think the ordinary guy is going to be denied these resources unless he/she agrees to support the dictator/tyrant again? Removing sanctions in these cases is putting these people at the whim of tyranny without access to basic human rights. Sometimes, invasion of tyrannical governments is the only way to free people who dont have the power to free themselves. There is alot of pain, destruction and death involved and I agree that war is never pretty. But sometimes you have to tear down and then rebuild to give people a chance to make smart choices of their own.
Well, why debase someone you can use to your advantage? That is why half of the dictators are still in power, and the other half got there by America funding coups. Once they secure a puppet government (like all of the 'great' ones in South America, for example) they are all set. They have everything they need (money, power, compliance) until that dictator decides to screw the US, who in turn find some way to wage war.
The Taliban were left alone for a darn long time until they started to refuse the US in their hopes to build an oil pipeline... Then, well, we all know what has happened from that.
The United Nations is a lackey organisation.
Yes, you truly underestimate the power of sanctions. They 'hurt' the individual... how about destroy them. Just think of the children.... they sanctions have so far led to 500,000 children dying. How disgusting.
Think about how we felt for a few hours without power... now think about all those without power, water (its sick), food... what would we do without heat, clothing... just normal everyday sustainable items?
The ordinary guy, yes, is trapped and must support a tyrant... however, the USA supports tyrants and dictators whenever it best suits them. Why is it so different?
War perpetuates more war. It really is never an answer. Dont you think it stems from something greater?
just because we live in a "democracy" (haha) does not mean that we should feel "safe." So many important decisions are based on a majority vote of one man who has a group of people surrinding him, just like him... supported and mainly funded by corporations and fuelled by greed and power. THat sounds pretty scary to me.
- CanuckCourage - 12-12-2003
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Mark, I think there are several things wrong about your analysis of the rational for the first Gulf War. First, the UN, the US and the world essentially created the mess we are in today because they decided not to overthrow the monster they created back in 1991. What sense does it make to let Saddam continue in power after his invasion of Kuwait?
They created this mess , yes , they create every mess , every dictator they support , and every goverment they bring down . These messes are created for greed and power, maybe you remember when the US was selling chemicals to Saddam ? Saddam was a monster created long before the first Gulf War . They knew he was a murdering bastard . Saddam didn't pull the wool over their eyes , he's no wolf in sheeps clothing , he's a wolf outright and they knew that . How about Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand in 1983 ? .They were not Naive . Here is an exerpt from an article on US-Saddam relations from Newsweek , this sums up some of the US history with Saddam quicker than I can ..
A TASTE FOR NASTY WEAPONS
American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath ever since he became the country’s de facto ruler in the early 1970s. One of Saddam’s early acts after he took the title of president in 1979 was to videotape a session of his party’s congress, during which he personally ordered several members executed on the spot. The message, carefully conveyed to the Arab press, was not that these men were executed for plotting against Saddam, but rather for thinking about plotting against him. From the beginning, U.S. officials worried about Saddam’s taste for nasty weaponry; indeed, at their meeting in 1983, Rumsfeld warned that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons might “inhibit” American assistance. But top officials in the Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful surrogate. By going to war with Iran, he could bleed the radical mullahs who had seized control of Iran from the pro-American shah. Some Reagan officials even saw Saddam as another Anwar Sadat, capable of making Iraq into a modern secular state, just as Sadat had tried to lift up Egypt before his assassination in 1981.
But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran’s “human wave attacks” threatened to overrun Saddam’s armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal—American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of “dual use” equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for “video surveillance applications”; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of “bacteria/fungi/protozoa” to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.
‘WHO IS GOING TO SAY ANYTHING?’
The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam’s own forces. There was only token official protest at the time. Saddam’s men were unfazed. An Iraqi audiotape, later captured by the Kurds, records Saddam’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid (known as Ali Chemical) talking to his fellow officers about gassing the Kurds. “Who is going to say anything?” he asks. “The international community? F—k them!”
The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:I think the UN was naive in assuming that Saddam would be a good boy and not invade his neighbors or brutally supress the Shia's, Kurds or other political opponents. Essentially, the UN is myopic about dictators and tyrannical governments in general.
The UN was not naive , they knew Saddams past , applying sanctions and hoping for co-operation from Saddam could be advantageous coming from the worlds second largest oil producer . I'm sure the reasons are plenty and more complex.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:With Saddam, their thinking was that you've done bad by invading another country, tisk tisk, but your legitimate because you are the major power within your country, no matter how you came to power, they treat governments that derive their power from the consent of the people as equals with those who govern out of fear, supression and murder(Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe)
They do treat them as equal , they see the opportunity for gain , under the justification that the populus will overthrow a regime when they have had enough . They have a reason to treat them as equals , and it isn't fear , but the foresight of possible gain . What is being done for the numerous African and South American countries run by dictators ? The US could walk into any one of these , and annihilate their forces . Why don't they Liberate these people ? Well there is no oil , there are no Million/Billion dollar contracts , peoples suffering has never been a concern of American Administrations , not before and not now .
VioletlightHeron Wrote:True, sanctions hurt the ordinary person far more than the dictator or tyrant in power because the ordinary guy doesnt have the power or resources to thwart the sanctions like Saddam did, yet the anti-sanctions groups argue that the sanctions should be removed and say nothing about removing Saddam. How is that going to make the situation better?
Sanctions hurt everyone (except Sadam and his cronies) , but especially the poor , which is the vast majority of the population . What was the rational behind the sanctions ? To incite the population to overthrow Saddam ? Well when you are dying of hunger and no medical supplies , no weapons, it's hard to overthrow a tyrant .
VioletlightHeron Wrote:The ordinary guy is going to have access to medical supplies, food, fuel, etc but dont you think the ordinary guy is going to be denied these resources unless he/she agrees to support the dictator/tyrant again? Removing sanctions in these cases is putting these people at the whim of tyranny without access to basic human rights.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense , it's not a matter of the "ordinary person " supporting the dictator , they have no choice , speak up and you and your family dissappears . Sanctions took away food and medical supplies , how does the relaxing of sanctions worsen the situation ? These people already are at the whim of tyranny . Look at malnutrition before the sanctions and after the sanctions , under the same regime .November 26, 1997: UNICEF reports that "The most alarming results are those on malnutrition, with 32 per cent of children under the age of five, some 960,000 children, chronically malnourished -- a rise of 72 per cent since 1991. Almost one quarter (around 23 per cent) are underweight -- twice as high as the levels found in neighbouring Jordan or Turkey."
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Sometimes, invasion of tyrannical governments is the only way to free people who dont have the power to free themselves. There is alot of pain, destruction and death involved and I agree that war is never pretty. But sometimes you have to tear down and then rebuild to give people a chance to make smart choices of their own.
This may be true some of the time , but these people weren't freed out of goodness of heart, what's freedom without food, water, work, basic infrastructure, when you take over a country and have zero contingency plan for when power is taken away from the source, and freedom of action occurs, people riot, no police, no plan, no nothing, just chaos. To not plan for this and claim you are there to liberate them is ridiculous. Their best interests weren't taken into hand before the invasion and will be nothing but an afterthought henceforth .
- VioletlightHeron - 12-12-2003
Mark, there are some things in your reply i agree and disagree with, however ive got finals this week, when i get a chance i'll reply back. Thanks for the debate
- prz - 12-12-2003
CC said
"They do treat them as equal , they see the opportunity for gain , under the justification that the populus will overthrow a regime when they have had enough . They have a reason to treat them as equals , and it isn't fear , but the foresight of possible gain . What is being done for the numerous African and South American countries run by dictators ? The US could walk into any one of these , and annihilate their forces . Why don't they Liberate these people ? Well there is no oil , there are no Million/Billion dollar contracts , peoples suffering has never been a concern of American Administrations , not before and not now . "
CC, You are missing a key fact why the US has turned its back on Africa. The Somalia mission of 1992 was a disaster. Not just for the US but other nations that were present including Canada and Italy.
It led to Americans being killed on a UN mission where the purpose was to stablize the region and bring food to the people. Ever since the photos and videos of a US soldier being dragged through the streets there, America has not returned and I doubt they will for a very long time.
- CanuckCourage - 12-14-2003
prz Wrote:CC, You are missing a key fact why the US has turned its back on Africa. The Somalia mission of 1992 was a disaster. Not just for the US but other nations that were present including Canada and Italy.
It led to Americans being killed on a UN mission where the purpose was to stablize the region and bring food to the people. Ever since the photos and videos of a US soldier being dragged through the streets there, America has not returned and I doubt they will for a very long time.
First of all , America hasn't gone back there because the Corporate interests aren't significant enough . They (Corporate Interests) were there when the US decided to step in on this mission to bring food to the people . Some interesting facts about this little conflict ..Four American Oil companies (Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips) had agreements with the former President of Somalia Mohamed Siad Barre to exclusive rights to explore over two thirds of Somalia for what was believed to potentially be oil fields in access of 1 billion barrels . Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in Jan 1991 , the US comitted troops, 20,000+ for "Humanitarian aid" . Conoco in the meantime volunteered it's main office in Mogadishu to be the US Marine Headquarters , Conoco out of the concern for the people of course, did this . Here is an exerpt from an LA Times Article by Mark Fineman ;
"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast.
"You don't know until you study a lot further just how much is there," O'Connor said. "But it has commercial potential. It's got high potential . . . once the Somalis get their act together."
O'Connor, a professional geologist, based his conclusion on the findings of some of the world's top petroleum geologists. In a 1991 World Bank-coordinated study, intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations, the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.
Presenting their results during a three-day conference in London in September, 1991, two of those geologists, an American and an Egyptian, reported that an analysis of nine exploratory wells drilled in Somalia indicated that the region is "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." A report by a third geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, said offshore sites possess "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas."
Beydoun, who now works for Marathon Oil in London, cautioned in a recent interview that on the basis of his findings alone, "you cannot say there definitely is oil," but he added: "The different ingredients for generation of oil are there. The question is whether the oil generated there has been trapped or whether it dispersed or evaporated."
Beginning in 1986, Conoco, along with Amoco, Chevron, Phillips and, briefly, Shell all sought and obtained exploration licenses for northern Somalia from Siad Barre's government. Somalia was soon carved up into concessional blocs, with Conoco, Amoco and Chevron winning the right to explore and exploit the most promising ones.
Another interesting fact is the that the US sold more than $500 million dollars worth of arms to Mohammed Siad Barre in the 1980's . The US Government also worked out a deal in 1990 with Barre to let American Military Bases be built there in return for more arms .
The UN was on a humanitarian effort there, In Somalia the US lost troops , and this was enough to run them out of a country ? They weren't afraid to go into Iraq , with Saddam and his feared " Weapons of Mass Destruction" What did the Somalia fighting force consist of ? Rival warlords fighting for power . This is not some powerhouse country . The US has not entered Africa because the gains pale in comparison to other interests . I don't think they were expecting rival warlord to give them so much trouble , it became a liability and so they pulled out .
- Kim - 12-14-2003
Saddam Hussein arrested in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3317429.stm
:thumb:
- mrlayance - 12-14-2003
I wonder what they will do with him?
- Kim - 12-14-2003
He'll go to trial and either be put to death or rot in jail for the rest of his life I assume.
That is if nobody gets to him first... :rambo:
- mrlayance - 12-14-2003
I think he will get his own sitcom
- Beat - 12-14-2003
:lol:
- jen - 12-14-2003
mrlayance Wrote:I think he will get his own sitcom
:lol:
- VioletlightHeron - 12-15-2003
Mark, no doubt Saddam was a murdering bastard. However, the world sometimes runs according to realpolitik, where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran was the biggest threat to our security,apart from the Soviet Union, and I highly doubt the mullahs running Iran would have been interested in talking or doing business with us. I have my doubts now that they are willing to let the people of Iran elect a government they want.We didnt like Saddam back then, but between the choice of Iran overrunning Iraq(granted Saddam was a blundering idiot for starting that war in the first place) and setting up another Islamic theocracy and supporting a murdering thug to prevent greater instability in the region, when all the world's economies depend on ready access to oil. It's not an easy choice and the easy call would be to support none of the above and encourage a democractic alternative to both. But that possibility didnt exist and doing so with the time constraints and no history of democratic opposition in Iran or Iraq. You may notice that we didn't invade all the Arabic OPEC countries because their cartel goes against our interests. The U.S. is not alone in supporting monsters out of their own self-interest. France supported plenty of African, Asian and Middle Eastern despots(Algeria, Vietnam and the Congo) to benefit French business interests. Yet it seems America is always to blame. We give out a ton of foreign aid to numerous countries around the world but that isnt appreciated or noticed by critics. Canada and Germany opposed the war because they felt it went against their moral principles and I applaud them for speaking out on moral principles, not their self interests. I understand that it looks bad when there is no clear threat against the US(like Saddam having nuclear missiles or threatening to launch germ bombs against Israel), but by his refusal to allow transparent inspections and come clean he shows he wasnt interested in giving up his ambitions to greater land and power. Therefore he had to be removed. We aren't perfect and it isnt possible for America to always act perfectly, nor would i expect other countries to always act for the global need of the many, rather than their needs of the few. We would just like some credit where credit is due for helping out others in their time of need and trying to make their world more stable for democracy.Criticising the US all the time isnt going to make us change the policies you disagree with, but acknowledging that we do try to change the world positively would help
Ok, ive rambled enough about the subject, but jeez did it help me prepare for my international relations final! :lol: :rambo: :lol:
- jen - 12-15-2003
Excellent argument Violetlight... :thumb:
- VioletlightHeron - 12-15-2003
thanks! :oops: and thanks mark, the debate helped me kick ass in my international relations final! A good,honest debate is always welcome!