Regarding Press Censorship

[nick256]

No one knows the exact number of Iraqi's that Sadam's thugs murdered but its commonly estimated to be in the neighborhood of 300,000 or more! Were the Iraqi's really better off under the "loveable" Sadam? Iraq is full of the mass graves of his victims. The surrounding countries have tens of thousands of graves of their own due to Sadam's wars of aggression.

The current violence is being perpetrated by the same thugs that supported Sadam's criminal regime. In addition, they are being joined by foreign terrorists who dream of establishing a medieval theocracy. Confronting these thugs is not something for America to be ashamed of. The Iraqi's want the same freedoms that you enjoy. Sure they care about their security but put the blame where it squarely belongs. On the shoulders of the Baathists and the foreign terrorists who are allied with them.

Nick

[nick256]

Raid on Baghdad mosque uncovers car bomb workshop

What was that again about the sanctity of the mosque? But take note: this is not pure hypocrisy. From the Islamic perspective, the Americans, being (mostly) non-Muslims, violate the sanctity of the mosques by entering them. But for Muslims to hold car bomb workshops in the mosque doesn't violate their sanctity: it is part of the jihad, which is a sacred activity.

Nick

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A mosque raided by security forces in southern Baghdad contained a workshop to rig suicide car bombs, with seven vehicles ready for terror attacks, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official said Sunday.

Car bombings and remote-controlled roadside blasts have become routine in the Iraqi capital in recent weeks, including a blast Sunday that wounded two U.S. soldiers.

 

National Guard forces raided the Sunni Muslim Al-Yassen Mosque in the southern Baghdad area of Abu Dshir on Saturday, said Gen. Saleh Sarhan of the Defense Ministry. In addition to seven cars pre-rigged with explosives, the guardsmen found 30 rocket-propelled grenades, high-powered rifles, mortars and remote control detonators, Sarhan said.

 

"The National Guard arrested the imam (religious leader) of the mosque," Sarhan said, and detained an additional 18 people suspected of involvement in the car bombings.

 

Anti-U.S. insurgents used some 60 mosques in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, to stockpile weapons and provide cover during a U.S.-led offensive against the city earlier this month, the U.S. military says. One of the mosques was described as a general arms depot capable of equipping insurgents across much of Iraq.

[Zorro]

Nick256

 

Wake up mate.

 

Who do you think supported the Baathists and gave them chemical weapons back in the 1980s?

 

Yes, it was the US.

 

The US backed Iraq in the Iraq Iran war that incidentally killed upwards of a million people (cannot remember the exact figures.) They weren't too concerned about all the innocent people killed using chemical weapons then. Where was the US when the Kurds were being systematically slaughtered?

 

Nobody is arguing that Saddam Hussein didn't commit atrocities or that the regime was a very brutal and corrupt one .

The US never went into Iraq to bring democracy to the masses or out of any great benevolence to the Iraqi people.

When it was found that there were no WMDs they had to have some sort of fall back postion so they decided to bring up the old democracy line. The funny thing is that there are now about another 150 odd countries where they might want to apply the same rationale to.

The US went into Iraq out of their own perceived self interest nothing more and nothing less.

[Sukhumvit]

:applause: :applause:

[nick256]

Zorro; The US banned chemical weapons in the late 60's and has never provided them to anyone since at least that time. Where did you get such a distorted view of history? Iraq was a Soviet client state throughout the 70's and 80's although no one seems to want to hold the Russians to account for it now. The US was never very friendly or close to Iraq and Sadam they did marginally side with Iraqi's vs an equally reprehensible theocratic regime In Iran. That doesn't make the US responsible for gassing the Kurds.

Its true the US acted in its percieved interest in invading Iraq, in that regard it is no different than any other country today or historically. The US percieves it is in their interest to spread freedom and Democracy in the Middle East.

I'm glad that you recognize that getting rid of Sadam is a good thing.

Nick

[Zorro]

You are wrong.

 

The US actively supported SH and the Baathists and US companies did provide chemicals which were used in making chemical weapons.

If I had time i would provide you with the links to verify this.

 

Nick said

"The US percieves it is in their interest to spread freedom and Democracy in the Middle East."

 

The US really doesn't give a hoot about democracy in the ME.

THe US is concerned about getting cheap fuel to run its economy and maintain its economic dominance.

THe US will quite happily support despotic regimes as long as it gets what it wants.

Saudi is a very good case in point.

Besides which democarcy cannot be implemented at the end of a gun barrel. It is a movement that has to come from within the countries themselves and cannot be outwardly imposed.

Further it is complete cultural arrogance to suggest that the US system or way of life is the way every country should go.

[nick256]

Zorro; I believe their is a great yearning for democracy in the Middle East. If you read the arab press they may be anti-American but their frustration with their own despotic governments is clear. Both Japan and Germany had democracy imposed upon them by the US at gunpoint. I think everyone would agree all peoples have a right of self-determination and it isn't up to the US to dictate to others how they would live. I personally was opposed to going into Iraq because of the ridiculous cost to the US taxpayer and the unecessary loss of American soldiers lives. Now that we're there, we must see it through or give it back to the baathist and terrorist scum. I don't see democracy and human rights as a culturally specific human yearning. Instead I believe that liberty is desirable for all peoples. Real cultural arrogance is saying "Democracy is good enough for me, but not you. You are too different!"

I would tell you that you're mistaken about US intentions, Sadam offered the US access to cheap oil and even a deal on WMD on several occaisons in the 90's and one other time after Bush II was elected. We should have taken the offer. America is spending many times more on Iraq's reconstruction than we're getting oil out of the ground. The oil money is being kept in Iraq anyways. The whole idea as originally formulated by the Neo-cons was to clean up the Middle East once and for all just like we did with Germany and Japan. By introducing a stable democracy with a vibrant economy. The example of Iraq and hopefully Afghanistan should spread reform throughout the Arab world and align their interests with peaceful coexistance with the rest of the world.

Of course the Jihadis would like to rule a theocratic despotic state that spans all muslim countries for a start. They realize what a threat a successful democracy would bring to their vision.

 

In regards to your charge against american companies providing chemical precursors used in the formulation of chemical weapons. I'd point out to you that these are common chemicals with peaceful applications in both industry and agriculture. The criminal offense was with the iraqi's who formulated the weapons and with their Russian advisers that taught them how to do it. Was a fertilizer company guilty of the Oklahoma city bombing? I don't know about you, but I hold Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols accountable for that one. What about the German and French companies that provided Industrial materials and chemicals used in these chemical weapons manufactor? Are you holding them to account as well? We should also mention here the Soviet assistance provided in helping the Iraqis build a nuclear enrichment facility that would have given them the bomb if not for the Israeli bombing mission. To be consistent you should be holding them to account to a much greater extent than the US.

You do have a legitimate point about the US historically supporting despotic Arab regimes like Saudi in order to keep the oil flowing. It seems to me that this is the very policy that Bush is trying to change in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways so which set of policies are you in favor of?

I'd also point out to you that the other rich nations such as Japan, Western Europe ect. has also supported the oil for tyranny status quo in the Middle East. Are you also angry with them?

[Zorro]

nick256

 

There is frustration in the a lot of the Arab world about the sort of governments that are in place in the region. There is no argument there.

 

Germany and Japan post WW11 are different kettles of fish to the current ME situation.

 

I think that the US made a big mistake going into Iraq and was badly advised to do so. You are right that they may struggle to make the Iraq venture pay but there is a long way for this thing to run before its played out.

 

"Neo-cons was to clean up the Middle East"

An interesting turn of phrase i must say.

I think it is blatantly obvious that the intention of the neo con policy is or was to strengthen the position of both Israel and the US in the region. Again i would stress that it is not out of any great benevolence or any real great desire to have democracies in the region that the US is intervening in the ME.

This is one of the great problems of perception that many have with US policy in the region. They don't believe that the US has any real interest in democracy in the region because apart from the rhetoric there is no real evidence to support the notion. Further how would the US handle democracies that became Islamic states because there is a strong possibility of that happening. Would the US accept hostile democratic countries in the region? I doubt it quite frankly.

US companies were exposed for selling banned chemicals to the Iraqis. The chemicals were known to be used in the creation of biological and chemical weapons. So i think you are being a bit disengenous when you make a comparison between the selling of fertilisers and the situation in regards to Iraq.

As for France, Russia , Germany etc They are indeed guilty as charged. They too have meddled in the ME for their own financial benefit and are no less accountable than the US. They did however have the good sense to realise going into Iraq was not a clever move.

The British should have known better because in the early part of the 20th century they went into Iraq to free the people and bring democracy to the masses but they were not welcomed with open arms. Again history repeats itself.

[chilli13]

Why put a warning - do you want to censor the source?

BelgianBoy said:

All,

 

Have a look here : http://fallujahinpictures.com/ at what war is all about.

 

Warning : some pics are really gruesome.

BB

[nick256]

Zorro; Thank you for a civil reply. I don't think we are as far apart on this as I initially thought. You mentioned US companies were exposed for trading in banned chemicals whose only use was for weapons. Do you have a source on this? That is a different version than what I recall but I haven't looked into it in years. I would agree, if true, that this would be a despicable act and make the said companies guilty of the actions the resulting weapons were used for. It would also be important to know who exposed these companies. If it was the US government who then prosecuted and penalized these companies then I wouldn't think its reasonable to hold the US to account. If it was exposed by the press and the US did nothing, or if the US govt. knew about it at the time it occurred, then the US govt is accountable.

I was under the impression that the Mustard gas used on the Kurds and Iranians could be manufactored with common industrial chemicals. I guess I'd have to look into it more. These are very serious charges. It's hard for me to imagine that the US press and public would give anyone a free pass on it.

Your point about US intentions is contrary to the public pronouncements of both Bush and Blair. Lets face it, if they do elect anti-western democracies in free and fair elections, the Brits and Yanks will have no choice but to accept the result. The election will be closely monitored by international groups and is being organized by the UN. If there is any interference it will come to light. The Iraqi's will elect a government that will want to put distance between itself and the coalition just for the sake of legitimacy. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, so I guess we'll see in about 6 weeks. Everything else is speculative. Until then, I take the coalition at its word.

It seems that we are in agreement on a few points. (please correct me where I'm wrong) that the Arab world has been badly misruled and caused the current resentment of their people. That Sadam himself was a particularly despicable thug who brought nothing but misery to Iraq and its neighbors. We agree that Western governments as well as developed Asian economies have tolerated and cooperated with the tyrannies in the ME in exchange for dependable and reliable oil supplies for the past 1/2 century.

What we are witnessing now is obviously a departure from that traditional policy. You seem to think its an attempt by Bush/Blair to directly sieze control of the regions oil with 9/11 being the excuse pawned off on the gullible electorate. I believe its an attempt to force the region to make democratic reforms and introduce elective representation. Our disagrrement seems to boil down to what intent we read behind their actions.

Nick