 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Na....not that bush would tell shroeder anyway? 
I hear Bush is still "Considering" the matter on how to go about it (lots of domestic pressure to take out Saddam. Senators and public opinion). |
Lots of good reasons for delay.
1. Afghan campaign not yet finished. Presents particular dilemma regarding Iran. We would like iranian help, or at least neutrality for campaign against Iraq (they host shiite opposition leaders). OTOH hand as long as Afghan unstable, they tend to intervene in Afghan politics and undermine Kharzai regime, requiring US pressure to keep Iran out. But this pressure strains budding US-Iran rapprochement. Ideally wait till after Kharzai govt is stronger, less tempting to Iran, then real US-Iran detente, prior to Iraqi campaign.
2. War on AL-qaeeda. Although i think a new regime in Iraq will be good for US in longer term, in Mid East, in short term may disrupt cooperation against Al-qaeeda. We want al-qaeeda even further on the ropes than they are now before going after Saddam.
3. Afgan campaign used up stocks of precison weapons.
Yup, we may actually be out of bombs. Need to rebuild stocks
4. Diplomatic campaign. It must be made clear to the world that Saddam has no intention of cooperating with weapons inspections, is in defiance of international law, and remains a threat to the region and the world. This will take time, further UN resolutions, etc.
5. Build up Iraqi opposition. To do this right we want a strong Iraqi opposition, as in Afghan. This is not to be a war on the Iraqi people, but US support for the Iraqi people in their revolution against a hated, oppressive regime - which means they must do a lot on their own, as they started to do in 1991. This can be done best by establishing strong contacts with Iraqi opposition elements, and by strengthening them in various ways. Ideally we will already have a blueprint for the future constititional shape of Iraq, the role of Kurds and Shiites, etc. This will go along way to assuaging Turkish and Saudi concerns.
For all these reasons i cant see a campaign against saddam before mid-summer, maybe even later.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
What is assasinate? Turn him into an ass? Some say thatīs what he is already.
[/QUOTE
Oh wow, youve found a typo. Congratulations.
[QUOTE]
If you mean assassinate: This has been proven by an independent court, right? 
[/QUOTE
IIUC, this was established in Kuwaiti court, they had jurisdiction. Oh yeah, i Kuwait court wouldnt count of course.
[quote]
And even if it were so: The CIA certainly never tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein before 1993, right?
Americans. [/QUOTE
Not prior to his invasion of Kuwait certainly. while we were at war, certainly, but then we were at war. Afterwards, before '93, I doubt it.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
1 You read too much into my handle. I have no idea why a Communist should like Saddam. I suppose he wouldnīt.
2 Show me a quote of mine proving I like Saddam. I like the concept of state souvereignity taken seriously. Iraq is a souvereign state.
3 Baathism is quite an original invention (meaning Arab national 'rebirth'). It 'owes' a lot to British/American colonialism from what original Baathism (which has been around longer than Saddam Hussein) wanted to free the Arabs. A noble goal, in principle. Not that it has been realized very impressively.
4 Who or what was pointed by Hannah Arendt?
: |
1. if someone claims to be a communist i take that seriously.
2. The concept of state sovereignty, and the obligation of states to respect other states was born at the treaty of westphalia in 1648, in reponse to problems of the the European system at the time. It is not an eternal moral principle of all time, nor is it an absolute in international law as that law has developed in the last hundred years. In fact prior to the league of nations, state sovereignty was effectively a right of great powers only, routinely violated in the case of smaller powers where higher international needs required it. (see "europe's classical balance of power") The league charter (and the UN) generalized the concept as a way of maintaining the peace, but both these documents placed there own limits on state sovereignty. This is not to argue for US hegemony, (which would be bad for the US) but it is to point out that state sovereignty is only one value, and can be reasonably opposed by others.
3. More on the history of baathism later
4. That totalitarianism is a broad phenomon, with essential charecteristics transcending its manifestations on the right and left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
My goodness - yes ive heard of "cultural genocide" - you honestly believe that "cultural genocide" is the equivalent of mass murder?
My great-grandfather was murdered by totalitarian Germans because of his ethnic-religious identity. I can assure you he would have been much better off if they had only suppressed his culture.
Totalitarian Germans
well no - actually 
LOTM |
The Turks wiped out entire villages. The only question is if they killed just thousands, or rather tens of thousands.
But the question was if they committed genocide or not, and I see you concede that they did.
And the UN definition is International Law, and binding, regardless if you have 'heard about it', or not. There are a lot of things you havenīt heard about, I guess.
And what has the fact that your great-grandfather was murdered, and that I am supposedly German -which I am not, but Austrian-, to do with it? Sleazy tactics, I presume? Even if my great-grandfather had murdered your great-grandfather, which is pretty unlikely, I would still not see the connection.
(One of my great-grandfathers sank with an Austrian battleship in World War One, and that was really bad luck, because we had only one battleship. Even worse, the ship was sunk after the war was already over, by Italians who didnīt know that the war was over. This doesnīt give me a neurotic preoccupation with Italians, as you seem to have developed in regard to Germans. And no, I donīt have a neurotic preoccupation with Americans instead, itīs just that their combination of ignorance and aggressivity is scary, from a psychopathological viewpoint.)
Americans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
This is not to argue for US hegemony, (which would be bad for the US) but it is to point out that state sovereignty is only one value, and can be reasonably opposed by others. |
Itīs not a value at all; itīs the law.
If you say property is only one value, and can be reasonably opposed by others, this may sound reasonable enough, but if you draw my wallet, they will lock you up. I would sure wish for someone to lock up the US already.  They deserve it.
quote:
4. That totalitarianism is a broad phenomon, with essential charecteristics transcending its manifestations on the right and left. |
I know about Hannah Arendt. I was just pointing your grammar. Btw, 'totalitarianism' is a name-calling concept made up for the only purpose to equate everything you donīt like with Hitler. Btw, you are totalitarian.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
In 1993, . . . Iraqi agents attempted to assasinate Mr. Bush while he was in Kuwait, but the plot was foiled. |
The US government has subsequently admitted to making that up. It never happened, it was propaganda to garner support for bombing Iraq and continuing the embargo.
quote:
B. Iraq is in fact a sponsor of international terrorism, in particular international terrorism directed against the United States. |
This remains to be proven. By and large, the vast majority of terrorism directed towards America is sponsored by Syria (an ally), Iran (an enemy), and by the Saudis (another ally).
However, the United States is a massive sponsor of terrorism against the Iraqi people: from the 1963 and '69 coups that brought Hussein to power, to the arming and funding of Hussein (incluing supplying him with the chemical and agents necessary to conduct his chemical warfare and biological attacks), to the deliberate destruction of the civilian infrastucture of Iraq, to the continued starvation of Iraq (resulting in the excess deaths of a half million children below the age of 5 according to the latest UN report), to the continued bombing of Iraq.
quote:
This supposition is only reinforced by reports from Czech intelligence of contact between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaeeda operatives prior to 9-11.
LOTM |
The US government has recently stated that there is no evidence, what-so-ever, that Iraq is in anyway connected with 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. In fact, the main theory curently being floated is that the anthrax is from a domestic terrorist, completely unconnected with the Middle East.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2002 10:55
|