GeneralSoftwareHardwareMoviesHot Wheels!Food & DrinkGamesRants!PetsJokes |
| War is bad... MmmmK? - Purple Penguin (9/03/2003 6:12:55 PM) |
I'm going to add my 20 cents worth on the topic of war in Iraq. Unless you're some kind of recluse, who doesn't watch TV or read the newspaper, you will be aware of the vocal opposition to the war in Iraq from the anti-war movement. The threat of war and the associated anti-war protesting are, at present, the main topics in the news media.
Only pre-pubescent males and the mentally deficient would actually think that war is a good thing that is desirable and that should be relished. If you are in either of these categories, check out the lyrics to Eric Bogle's "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" for a quick reality check. Maiming, mutilation, disability and ongoing health problems are among the effects of war. Despite modern advances in the conduct of warfare, where it is no longer necessary to level an entire city to destroy enemy force elements (think "surgical strike"), there will always be collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties. This is real problem. However, to focus on this aspect of the current situation with Iraq, is overly simplistic.
My problem with what I will call the "War is bad... MmmmmmK?" movement is that they apparently cannot see past this "War kills innocent people" issue. War does kill innocent people. It is true and is a fact that must be confronted. At the same time, however, well over a million innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by their own government over the last decade. In the current climate of the fashionably peaceful, it appears to be acceptable to vilify our elected representatives claiming that they are warmongers who want to murder innocent civilians in Iraq by waging war. It also appears to be strangely acceptable to stand by and do nothing and allow a belligerent regime to continue to brutally oppress, torture and kill its people.
A quick look at history provides some precedents. Adolf Hitler is historically infamous for the murder of millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals under the Nazi regime. With the benefit of hindsight, very few people would think that war against the Nazi regime was in anyway unjust; yet despite the actions of the Nazi regime, at the time a policy of appeasement was followed by British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain and the ineffective League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). The current situation of "more time for inspections" and the calls from the French and Germans for "diplomatic solutions" seems strangely similar to Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. If you do not learn from history, you are bound to repeat it. Hitler was bad, but had nothing on Joseph Stalin, whose 'liquidation of the Kulaks' and associate brutal oppression was directly responsible for the murders of tens of millions of his own countrymen. Another historical precedent - and yet there are no protests in the streets, demanding an end to the oppression of the Iraqi people. I believe that Senator Bob Brown, Lord Mayor Jim Sorley and other leaders within the anti-war movement would be hard-pressed to defend the actions of either Hitler or Stalin, yet they will vocally oppose interventions to remove Saddam Hussein from power, thereby relieving the oppression of the people that they purport to be speaking for.
We live in a democracy that allows us the right to protest against our government's actions - a right that the Iraqi people do not have and where the exercising of such a right results in imprisonment, torture or death. The anti-war movement is, I believe, misguided, and takes an overly simplistic view of the situation. War kills innocent people - yes. The idea of having to fight a war in Iraq resulting in the deaths of innocents is horrible; but it is far worse to simply stand back and do nothing and let innocents be brutalised, killed and oppressed under the Hussein regime.
"Do gooders" like Bob Brown and Jim Sorley, whose simplistic, inarticulate and vexatious anti-war statements do nothing for a constructive debate on responding to the situation in Iraq. There is a difference between "Do Gooders" and people that do good. If you want to do good and protest against war in Iraq, then do so; but consider both sides of the argument, and do it in a constructive way.
|
| |
This may be the war we need to have but the marketing to the general public is absolutely pathetic. Everything is stacked against it. George Bush the allegedly "elected" president of the USA, is so shonky. He comes across as a completely over aggressive idiot. The Australian public are rightly sickened when our prime minister jumps right into everything like an over eager-to-please lap dog, denies that we are committed, makes absolutely stupid comments about the Bali bombing. It doesn't help that the push is on an overly simple message that is obviously a weak lie. Try a little honesty you imbeciles - it works! The trouble is that honesty would not have the US government looking clean. How they supported Sadam, how they supported the Kuwait angle drilling into Iraqi territory and pumping as fast as they could, forcing Sadam to appeal to the UN which was stomped on by the US, so Sadam invaded Kuwait. Blah blah, I'm sure everyone has heard it all before.
People don't like being lied to and we are getting so many lies and mistruths.
Sadam doesn't belong in power and should be removed for so many reasons.
The same goes for George Bush.
As for John Howard, he needs a good boot up the bum.
And I still like my idea of increasing the number of weapon inspectors to 200,000.
| |
“well over a million innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by their own government over the last decade” How many Iraqi children have been starved and killed by US Trade Embargos, Tariff enforcement to bordering countries and stray "surgical strike" missiles?
Fair enough you can say that Hussein is the antichrist and if the US lead an attack without UN backing it’s a justified measure to ensure the safety of the starving kids in Iraq. But, don’t for one fekking iota tell me that the US aren’t there just for the oil… do you really think that it will do the people in Iraq any good to have their oil redistributed from some rich Arab fuck to a richer yanky one? I think not.
I don’t give a rats about the people of Iraq or anywhere else for that matter but I really get pist about government selling their policy to dumb ass people who think war is about religion or liberating a countries people from a nasty antichrist/communist dictatorship.
Fuck it, invade, concur, rape and pillage… whatever, but do it with some balls and above all tell it like it is.
| |
Elsta, I will remind you that the trade embargos and tarriff enforcements are actually UN policy, not U.S. Policy.
As we all know, I am a capitalist, who when his father died called the life insurance company before his grandparents, and his assorted relations. We also all know that I find Americans in the general loud, brash and unrefined. In spite of this one has to admire one thing of American Policy - they go and bomb the fuck out of a country, then they spend time rebuilding it in the image of the USA. Now I know that you are all like "But Germany is doing Afghanistan" - Yes, this is true, but with American forgein aid.
I doubt that this is about oil - what this about is access to the oil - and more importantly Zionism. The American policy on the middle east is skewed, unashamedly toward Zionism and the state of Isreal. Without Sadam the U.S. government can enforce a free market economy onto Iraq, which is good for the US economy and world wide inflation, and the Australian economy, by lowering energy costs.
Quick lession in Macro-economics - the two main causes of long term inflation are 1) Energy Costs, and 2) Interest Rates. Cost is determined by Supply/demand. More oil outside of OPEC = lower cost if demand is constant.
Say what you will about the American system - it is inward looking, and it is an individualistic country, but they mean well. In Iraq, as a man you either join the army, or are publically executed after watching your next of kin killed. In the US you choose to join the army, go to university or get on Jerry Springer. In Iraq, you vote for president Sadam, or you are executed as a subversive. In the US you can choose to vote, or you can choose to bitch about the clowns in congress. In Iraq, if you protest your tongue will be chopped out, without assistance from a surgeon, without stiches, and without pain killers. In the US, if you protest you can be eligible for tax free status as a political strategist.
For what it's worth, our leaders in Australia need to get their message into less then five seconds, otherwise their soundbite won't make in it onto news. And the Australian people as a whole are only interested in the soundbite. How many of you actually went to an offical party website to read the policies before casting your vote?
All of it is marketing and showmanship. I just thank the lord on high that I was born in a country where I can choose to condemn my leaders not based on fact, on their character, and their policies, but on the fact they are silly looking, or on the twists added to their positions in the editing suites owned by Packer and Murdoch.
As for the US and the oil, of course it suits US interests, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it! But they are not going to steal the oil, otherwise they would be just as tacky as Sadam when he pulled out of Kuwait.
| |
I forgot to mention that Sadam is a sworn enemy of the state of Isreal and wants to bomb it, and disband it for the sake of the Palistinian cause.
Right or wrong? I don't know, but at the U.S. has more money, more troops and the support of my country. Let us secure peace in one place at one time.
| |
Compared to the various reasoning of anti-war protestation in the present situation, I think the Chamberlain appeasement in the face of German annexation and occupation was a bit worse, although at the time, no-one except Germany were really mobilised for war. The movement of post WWII Russian Expansionism was also greeted by a more or less powerless and overstretched U.S., although the allied stronghold on West Germany and the airborne supply to a blockaded Berlin was kept up pretty well, as it was seen as a vitally strategic zone in Western Europe.
When Saddam tried to occupy Kuwait, and Milosevic was the head of Serbian 'reunification' in Bosnia against Muslims, and Indonesia once again reclaimed East Timor, we saw how standard UN policy works - i.e., there is (after a period of bush-beating), usually enough agreement to justify liberation of a sovereignty from an attempted occupation/annexation. What is being proposed in the current situation is different, and is more difficult to justify legally, hence the double speak and requirement of 'evidence' collection from various agencies.
Despite the U.S. 'meaning well', and despite the oppression of Iraqis and other nations existing under non-democratic regimes, the inhabitants are of the belief, thanks at least in part to their nation's propaganda, that the U.S. occupying forces are there to take their homes, their possessions, their wealth, their country away from them... essentially, their sovereignty. Of course, they will choose the lesser of two evils in their mind - the status quo.
So U.S. 'liberation forces' will be met not only by professional armed forces, but also by family homeowners armed with whatever they have, who think they need to defend their lives and property. Very sad. That is one reason why the U.N. isn't going for immediate action - you cannot just 'liberate' a non-democratic nation without the inhabitants resenting you and probably attempting to kill you. In their view, you are not liberating them, you are taking away their only sovereignty. If that nation was being taken over by another power, THEN you could aid the occupied nation and they might welcome your help, until it came time for them to restore government, and they told you to bugger off again. A nation has its pride, or else what would it be? Another state of the U.S.A.
Let's not forget the double-edged sword that the U.S. has usually funded and supplied aid efforts to most countries in need, (including post-war Russia and Germany - in some cases unknowingly providing materials and diplomatic intellectual property for Russian nuclear development) - usually as a loan or in return for future concessions, or to purchase voting rights... unfortunately, the U.S. are their own worst enemies. They play off so many sides against each other, often at the same time, and they wonder why the inhabitants of the nations they are giving 'aid' to, hate them so much.
If their policies were not so governed by, (or their interventionist actions were not attributable to) U.S. western capitalist ideology (rather, that the U.S. only offer aid to the U.N., and the U.N. decide where it should be distributed), then the world might not target the U.S. with hate and terrorism. Ha. Ha. We all know a system like that would never last. Too many CIA fingers in foreign pies.
The proposition of the U.S. 'stealing the oil' is a bit preposterous... They can do something smarter than that... as Princess notes - creating a stable open economy under a puppet government with liberal trade practices would be their aim (not that it has worked for very long in the past whenever they do it).
Let's just listen to the lyrics of Midnight Oil - Short Memory.
It is much more succinct that I can be. I could go on and on about this stuff.
| |
Stealing oil is preposterous? Maybe. But it is what Sadam has claimed as the reason to invade Kuwait. Kuwait / BP have not denied it as far as I know. The story goes that British Petroleum in Kuwait stole oil from Iraq by angle drilling, estimated at a total value of US$2.4 billion. Pumping oil like mad to drive the price down, something US and Britain desperately wanted at the time.
In 1989, Saddam complained to the Arab League that in defiance of OPEC, the British and US-friendly Kuwait was using British angle drilling technology to harvest Iraq's oil reserves, exceeding quotas by 20 per cent, driving the cost of oil down on the world market until Iraq had lost almost a third of its oil income that it desperately needed after war with the Ayatollahs.
It has been a well known fact since the Gulf War of 1991 that the Bush Administration's ambassador to Iraq was consulted by Saddam Hussein on whether the United States would be opposed to his contemplated invasion of Kuwait, and that the U.S. ambassador, April Glaspie, told him that the United States would not care.
Iraq invaded Kuwait with its smallest army.
US, suddenly decided it DID care.
I wonder if people remember the 15 year old Kuwaiti girl, called Nayirah, who testified before congress, in tears, about the attrocities going on in Kuwait. She swayed up to 7 senators to allow Old Bush to go to war. But her testimony was all fabricated, she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Now *that* is marketing.
For this, the US wants Iraq to give up all of their weapons of mass destruction. The weapons that the US helped them develop so they could have a nice old war with Iran. Of course Saddam sprinkled a bit on his own people, notably the Kurds. Did you know that the US government gave their indigenous people blankets sprinkled with small pox?
Why is the US so eager to invade now? Because it just had a big scare, and the US is always scared. They are now scared of biological weapons, and the major source of these weapons is likely to be their old pal Saddam, who they taught how to make these E.coli poo bombs. Oh, and they screwed him over with the Kuwait invasion thing, so Saddam may be of the disposition to give some bio weapons to whoever wants to smack the US about.
Anyways, Iraq set the oil drilling sites in Kuwait on fire as they left, kind of achieving their objective (for a while).
Look, Saddam deserves to go, but Bush aint clean. This is a dirty nasty war, between two evils.
| |
hey Uncle Princess..
what is Zionism???
| |
Zionism is (in a very encapsulated way) the train of thought that goes "The Jewish peoples are entitled to their own state in the middle east because it was given to them as the promised land and that is where Moses lead them too"
It is the "Jewish" cause - if they have their own state, then what happened in WW2 cannot be repeated. Ironically, in my opinon, in all of this they are doing very similar things to the Palistinian peoples that happened to the Jews).
Zion was the first Jewish city - founded under the law of Moses.
I am probably somewhat inaccurate, but that is my understanding of Zionism.
(BTW - A Zionist supports the ideals held up in Zionism).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|