WMD Weapons of Mass Deception

[Dagobahn Eagle]

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.

There's a reason why I used the "s. I know they aren't all communists.

The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.

No.

If they didn't search for WMDs, that'd be appeasement. But they searched for it, and many of the ones they found, they made Saddam destroy.

 

The only two things I heard in the news about inspectors was stuff like "1 missile found and destroyed" and "no missiles in X city." Never "Saddam refuses to destroy the three missiles found in a bike workshop".

[Breton]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.

 

...while thousands of Americans have died due to firearms because the Bush administration has failed to concentrate about other things than destruction and revenge.

 

And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.

 

Oh, and BTW, you hear a lot of these torture chambers, but you never see them. Why is that, do you think?

 

The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.

 

If everyone in the world would rush to war like the Bush administration does, have you then any idea of how many (unnessisary) wars there would be? I must say that Bush is not doing a good impression for other countries.

 

Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.

 

Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten .

 

2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.

 

Oh, most of them are all fine. Even more of them would be fine if the economic embargoes were dropped. Do you really think damaging their economy is a good way of being nice to Cuba?

 

3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya.

 

And the rest of the world countries.

 

People must learn that a country and it's goverment are two VERY different things.

 

Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"

 

Wrong. The day after the inspectors were pulled out, USA did massive bombing at Iraq. There is no doubt that this was the reason of why they were pulled out.

[Zodiac]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

None of those countries with the right to veto is a GREAT thing. Some of the countries are using their veto powers for the wrong reasons, some more than others (with the US most likely abusing it the most, with its outrageous 73 times since 1990).

And if you really believe that the US is only using its veto to promote freedom and democracy, then perhaps it is you who should "stick its head out of the sand", "face reality" and look at the facts.

 

For example: In early december 2002, the US vetoed a resolution condemning violence in the Middle East, specifically the killing of U.N. employees by Israeli soldiers and the destruction of a U.N. warehouse filled with food for needy Palestinians.

 

Of course it's not only the US who is misusing its power to veto, but to assume that the US is using it to only promote freedom and democracy is plain out ignorant or just VERY naieve.

[Wilhuf]

It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.

[Wilhuf]

And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.

 

This is the course the UN followed for 14 years from 1991 up until 2003. Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation. It is an irrefutable fact that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector of the much-vaunted UN himself said that Iraq was NOT fully co-operating with inspection teams.

[Zodiac]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.

Exactly! This has been exactly what the US has done many times with its abuse of its veto power since 1990. The Security Council made numerous resolutions to step in and act to protect human rights, but the US vetoed many of them (while in the meantime "spouting on about human rights"). Blaah, the hypocracy of it all! Glad we agree on at least one thing.

[Wilhuf]

Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten

 

Iraqis have enjoyed more freedom and democracy in the past few weeks than during the entire 30 years of Baath tyranny.

 

Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.

 

A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.

 

As to the "nonexistent torture chambers," all you have to do is watch TV news or read a newspaper. There are dozens of reports on wrongful Iraqi imprisonments and torture. A cursory glance at the almighty UN's own Comission on Human Rights reports revealed a pattern of widespread violation by Iraq of almost all human rights, including torture. See a sample UNHCHR report on Iraq. The complete list is here .

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Were the Cubans "Fully Cooperative" during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

 

Were the Russians "Fully cooperative" during the Cold War?

 

Are the North Koreans "fully cooperative" during the Nuclear Missile Crisis we see today?

 

Are the Israelis "fully cooperative" when countries try to end violence in the Middle East?

 

No. Do you go to war against any of those? No.

 

Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation.

*Is clueless* What makes you think that? The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.

 

Cooperation? I ask again, if it's so important that UN member countries and countries affected by the UN cooperate, why doesn't the US Administration give a damn? If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?

 

Comic:

Bush has determined that only blatant and total disregard of UN treaties and rules can stop Saddam's blatant and total disregard of UN's treaties and rules

 

Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.

 

A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.

Of course not. But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.

 

PS: Please stop double-posting and use the EDIT button.

[Wilhuf]

There are probably a lot more things we agree on than disagree on. (Star Wars?) But I bet it is off topic.

 

I think the Iraqi operation was really a first (well, second actually) of its kind. The first real military operation with a real humanitarian agenda. Although one could say that the US-led wars in Kosovo and Bosnia were also humanitarian in nature.

[Wilhuf]

The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.

 

Yes Uncle Saddam had a few Al-Samoud missiles destroyed , right before the US operation. But notice the CONTEXT. There were several HUNDRED THOUSAND US SOLDIERS parked right next door, ready to go in. How many missiles did the Iraqis destroy BEFORE the US military buildup in Kuwait? ZERO.

 

Actually this example is a good demonstration of how the THREAT of force, not ACTUAL force can in fact affect change, up to a point. And it demonstrates vividly how inaction really wont unshackle the oppressed.

 

If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?

The US does obey international treaties it ratifies. In the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom the US claimed it was following UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament.

 

BTW in 1991 as part of the cease-fire arrangement between the US and Iraq, Iraq agreed to disarm itself of CBRN and WMD. So, from a "legal" standpoint, the US already had the paper backing it needed.

 

But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.

If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.

 

As many as 50,000 Shiaas were alleged to have been killed by Iraqi military units during a Shiaa uprising in Basra in the early 1990s. The US sat by and did NOTHING, while Iraqis used helicopter gunships to put down the rebellion, which took place within the Southern No-Fly Zone. This is just plain WRONG.

 

IMO, the US OWED the Iraqis liberation to somehow try to set right that grave injustice.

[Vagabond]

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that blow up church services.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.

 

I disagree with both of the points you made a half-a@@ attempt at promoting.

 

First, I find it hard to understand how you can call someone who disagrees with a policy as anti-American. This is obviously an attempt inciting anger, resentment, shame, or some other emotion that those lack critical thinking skills would likely feel. A sad attempt at controlling the psyche of someone in a chat forum...

 

In fact, dissent and the refusal to settle for the status quo is VERY American. Some of our greatest patriots refused to accept the government's stand on many issues: Rosa Parks, Dr. King, John Brown, Mother Jones, Charles Young, and Chief Seattle to name a very few. I see it as un-American to sit idly by and watch what you consider to be against your convictions of honor and good sense become the norm for your government. At the very least, you should SPEAK OUT.

 

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

 

Yes, that quote says it nicely.

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

 

As it was promoted in:

 

[*]Chile - 1973

Where we helped General Pinochet overthrow the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Pinochet's brutal rule eventually was blamed for the deaths of thousands of students, union organizors and other "anti-Chileans."

 

[*]Guatemala - 1953

Where the U.S. corporate-controlled United Fruit Company was about to be nationalized by the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz. We weren't about to stand for that (loss of economic control of a region). 40 years of death squads and torturers trained by American SpecOps was the outcome after this regime was changed.

 

[*]Indonesia - 1957

We use disinformation, lies, and blackmail to replace Pres. Sukarno with General Suharto (see a trend of generals here?). Over 1 million are killed in Indonesia and American weapons and training are instrumental in this and the invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor. The population was perhaps 700,000 before Suharto's forces killed nearly 200,000.

 

[*]Columbia - now

The U.S. backed the Cali Cartel in order to get rid of Pablo Escobar... seems that Escobar was speaking some 'anti-American' sentiments (perhaps he was a history major as well as a drug dealer) and anti-imperialist rhetoric. We are being overwhelmed by the flow of drugs comming from the Cali Cartel, now fortified and solidified.

[/list=a]

 

Of course there are many, many more examples: Iran, Afganistan, Cambodia, The Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Philippines, etc.

 

Forgive me if I use precedent to mistrust my government's intentions. Especially when I see evidence of corporate favortism and exclusive corporate contracts. True, the war will cost the American taxpayer a bundle. It already is. But the few at the top of the pyramid will make out like bandits. There are Trillians of dollars (or Euros....) to be made in the Iraqi oil fields. There are billions that can be saved by corporations that have insurances about supply and pricing.

 

Economic control of the region.

 

In the 1950's, the Eisenhower doctrine stated, the United States “is prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle Eastern country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” In other words, no one is allowed is to f^ck around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States.

 

I don't think things have changed much. If they have, show me the evidence.

 

One thing I do find fascinating about your post's Wilhuf, is the condescension that eminates through the text:

 

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.

 

A good example. I'm fascinated that you feel the need to command. Your views go lock-step with the right-wing fascist attitudes that get spouted from the mouths of Ari Fleisher and Darth Rumsfeld. The fascists around here (and you ARE a fascist, evidenced by your comments about aggressive nationalism and militarism) simply amuse me. I'm going to have to consider them along with the UFO nuts and Religious Fundamentalists in my quest to answer "why do people believe."

 

Also:

Originally Posted by: Vagabond Super Moderator

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that blow up church services.

 

I see SuperMods aren't above spamming....

[Wilhuf]

None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:

 

You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny).

 

Skinwalker's comments are appropriate and even representative in a way: it's one thing to talk about the need for pluralism, open-mindedness, world unity, understanding, and the need for all peoples to live as they see fit, free from the dictates of foreigners.

 

But it is supremely ironic, as I've said, to hear the same individual, when confronted with the need to actually fight, kill, go to war, and to do the unspeakable to uphold those beliefs. It saddens me to see people of conviction positively shrivel when it is time to act. This kind of reaction from people who normally say "o yes I believe in freedom and democracy" to the Liberation of Iraq is utterly dissapointing.

 

Ok so maybe you've gone to an anti-liberation protest, or even ransacked a Starbucks, but it's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.

 

BTW the Eisenhower doctrine was a desecndent of the Truman Doctrine, which was born out of a need to contain Soviet Totalitarianism. A cursory look at Stalin-era human rights will make obvious why the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines were born. Both have minimal relevance in today's post-cold war era. But I do appreciate SkinWalker's half-*ssed pedantry!

 

On the other hand, I think Vagabond's joke about WMD had far more insight than anything SkinWalker's list of irrelevent history synopses could conjure. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Guffaw!

 

Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.

 

It seems we're in for another debate in the UN about terminating sanctions on Iraq. Apparently the Russians and the French want to keep on punishing the Iraqi people by upholding economic sanctions? Are these countries out to make the Iraqis suffer as much as possible? Or are they really just trying to score 'points' against the US (again)?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:

 

Personal attacks is something you should be wary about yourself. Your tone is very condescending, and I've seen you refer to other people as ignorant and naive before.

 

You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny).

 

Read Skinwalkers post again, this time in context to your own. You said: "and you ARE an antiamerican" - Skin just did the exact same to you, in a try to make you see the irony in what you are now saying. In short, he was trying to be funny. If you have the power to call someone in here Antiamerican, we have the power to call you a fascist as well - it goes both ways. Mind you, I don't encourage this behaviour but I'll justify its use when its biting you in the behind.

 

It's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.

 

You've set a precedent, that's for sure. Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you. N. Korea could technically nuke San Fran on account of you threatening their sovereignity and using terrorism against civilians (yes, you've done that).

 

Just drop this. The UN does act and help oppressed people. If we total the amount of time the US has vetoed against such an action versus the amount of times it has actually helped, you'll be looking like a sore pacifist. And don't forget all the corrupt dictatorships you've not only supported, but helped establish. They are very relevant in this discussion.

 

Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.

 

And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.

[Wilhuf]

And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.

 

That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

 

Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.

 

My tone is condescending, this thread needs an arrogant voice to present another, apparently unpopular view. Review my posts . I haven't made any personal attacks against forum members. Except SkinWalker, who used direct namecalling. So, I guess I'm just defending myself.

 

Another question : what kind of mind says "well the US has supported dictatorships in the past, so it really shouldn't remedy the situation?" In other words, just because the US has had relationships with nasty regimes in the past it should NEVER do anything to knock out the bad apples. This is tremendous fallacy!

 

If the US fell victim to this twisted "reasoning", the US would never have entered World War II.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

 

Good to hear. BTW, my country did support you in the Iraq war, for what it's worth.

 

Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.

 

Again, Skin was making a parody on you, but everyone should watch what they say in this heated debate, I agree.

 

EDIT: silly typo.

[Wilhuf]

OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.

 

C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!

 

Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you.

 

If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.

 

How can you defend yourself if you're the one who delivered the first attack? A pre-emptive strike, perhaps?

 

C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!

 

Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!!

[Wilhuf]

A pre-emptive strike, perhaps?

Har har haw.

 

From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...

Norway?

[Breton]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

 

And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, and after that China, because they are after all, anti-American communists, and I am sure you can "find" some relationships with Al-Quida there too. After China, you go after Russia for the same reasons as with China, except that you are going to "disarm" Russia. And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. And after that, the eastern European countries because they are communism dictatorships, before taking down Scandinavia, who also are communists and socialists, and then taking down all the countries you don't like in Africa, before occupying UK and then take a final charge against Australia and the southern European countries.

 

Don't you think?

 

This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.

 

So does the Bush administration. Should we attack the USA then? Well, if Europe were thinking like the American goverment does right now, then that would be possible.

 

OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.

 

Hehe, this is funny. You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself? And when Skin does the same thing to you to show how dumb it is, then you make more personal attacks than Skin has done in his whole forum time. Makes me glad you aren't a supermod, to be honest.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...

Norway?

 

Close.

 

Move one down, and one to the left. When you reach England, you've gone too far.

[Wilhuf]

You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself?

 

If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.

 

Should we attack the USA then?

 

This kind of thinking IS anti-American.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Move one down, and one to the left

 

If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!

 

Well well, it depends on where you start in Norway. Count Sweden as the "down" one.

 

EDIT: Of course, I wouldn't be dissapointed if you can't find me country. It's a wee small one.

[Wilhuf]

I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!

 

Denmark!

 

 

And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, ... snip ... And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. ..snip...

 

Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!

 

Denmark!

 

 

YAY!