Know War
- Started
- Last post
- 96 Responses
- version30
they should do one of vietnams losses if they want to make a statement
this is as much a publicity stunt as "mission accomplished"
- mpfree0
they should do one of vietnams losses if they want to make a statement
this is as much a publicity stunt as "mission accomplished"
version3
(May 4 06, 13:55)absolutely
- version30
and if you want to "know war" check out http://thegroundtruth.org/
or get really interested and log on at http://gnn.tv/
- Cactus0
I look at it this way.
If you intervene you must take responsibilty for the consequences of that action and what comes after.
Somalia/Iraq
Same goes if you don't. You must bear the consequences of that choice also.
Rwanda/Darfur
Either you are your brother's keeper or you are not. To put it in microcosm take the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese as an example:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/seri…
- Anarchitect0
or get really interested and log on at gnn.tv
version3
(May 4 06, 14:02)
- ASBESTOS0
Many of you have mentioned the other horrific conflicts that are occuring around the world too. Know War is not ignoring these tragedies, but only focusing on the Iraq conflict as it wishes to stike a note with the American public. The site will eventuallly be more than just the home of one photo, it is intended to be a focus for discussion on the horror of war by letting the soldiers and people affected have their say.
for the moment though, it's just focusing on this powerful photo.
- KuzII0
I look at it this way.
If you intervene you must take responsibilty for the consequences of that action and what comes after.
Somalia/Iraq
Same goes if you don't. You must bear the consequences of that choice also.
Rwanda/Darfur
Cactus
(May 4 06, 14:12)So the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian intervention?
First they said Saddam had WMDs, then they said he was linked to Al Qaeda and was an imminent threat to us all, and now its was a "humanitarian intervention".
Problem i find with that excuse is that probably his biggest crime - the poison gas attack in Halabja, happened in 1988 when the "West", were supplying and acquiecing to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran in his American sponsored expedition into Persia.
And that since the 1991 war the UN had maintained a no-fly zone that had rendered the Kurdish north practically independent and had given security to the southern Shia region. (except of course when the Shia's did rise up and Bush Sr permitted Hussein to ruthlessly crush the rebellion - fearing of course that a Shia dominated Iraq would give undue influence to Iran in that region).
I find it pretty fucking spurious to suggest that there was an imminent humanitarian catastrophe awaiting Iraq as there was/is in Kosovo/Rwanda/Darfur.
Oh but there is a humanitarian crisis now, so that's ok.
- Cactus0
Hey Kuz,
Thought you had given up the ghost. Glad you are back though...there has been no one to defend Saddam Hussein's regime since you disappeared.Perhaps you not aware of recent, and not so recent revelations, concerning the debunking of certain anti-war shibboleths.
To take you points is order:
1. Read the Dulfer Report on Iraq's weapon programs and the recent film of Saddam's intention to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. In addition to the fact that no trace of his "declared" pre-war WMD arsenal was verifyed to have been destroyed or produced as he was obliged to do by the UN and his 1991 treaty commitments.
2. The 1993 WTC bomber fled directly to, and was given sancuary by, Iraq, after that bombing. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and Ansar al-Islam was operating in northeastern Iraq against the Kurds with Saddam's blessing.
3. Your Halabja assertion is a total lie. Full stop.
4."Bush Sr permitted Hussein to ruthlessly crush the rebellion" Are you now advocating an invasion of Iraq in 1991 against the UN mandate?
5. I guess you prefer a slow moving "humanitarian catastrophe" (Internal Shia, Kurds, Marsh Arabs...) to a creeping one. Much easier for sensitive souls to absorb or forget.
As for Darfur, there is good news for people believe this was the correct (UN proscribed) way to handle humanitarian catastrophes. They are about to sign a peace treaty to stop the ethnic cleansing by the arab government backed janjaweed militias.
The bad news is most of the black indiginous population there is already dead.
- ********0
On a wing and a prayer. Thank God Almighty that this administration is planning and dealing with the threat of avian invaders. Having run out of attacking humans fortunately they have discovered that birds, yes, birds are coming to take away our freedom and precious bodily fluids. They enjoy freedom of the skies but wish to deny you your freedom of movement below. We say, we will raise up! The administration has discovered a plot that can only be explained by the theory of evolution. Darwin knew this could happen and did nothing to stop it. Americans, there are millions of birds amassing in other parts of the world that will soon infiltrate across our borders. They fly together, they sleep together, they communicate in a language no-one understands- they are coming here and millions of Americans could die! Hispanish too!
They are coming but we will be victorious. USDA! USDA! USDA!
- Cactus0
agent provocateur
- ********0
I am not scared.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/dis…Happy concho, cinco whatever, we hate the French too!
- KuzII0
i dont remember ever defending Saddam's regime or even stating that i was "anti-war", i'm just debunking some of the misleading reasons for going to war.
1) Saddam had no capacity to make WMD's whatsoever and had none stockpiled. The war was sold to us on a bogus "45 minute" threat.
2) Saddam's regime had never given any material support to Al Qaeda - an organisation, since his invasion of Kuwait, was bent on his destruction
3) What part of my Halabja assertion is a lie? That it happened in 1988? That the US in particular turned a complete blind eye when he used chemicals warfare against Iran? That the US and other Western nations supplied him with missiles, aircraft, and other weaponary to deliver these weapons? And that base material for chemical weapons came from, amonst other countries, Germany? That the US sponsored Iraq's invasion of Iran through financial and military aid?
4) No, I was pointing out that a southern no fly zone existed to protect the Shia and Marsh Arabs (not to mention the comnplete demilitirisation of the Kurdish north) to prevent any genocidal tendencies of Saddam's regime.
5) Again, Saddam's capacity to forment a humanitarian crisis had been severly curtailed by the heavy policing of his military by the "coalition". The attacks on Kurds and Marsh Arabs occurred pre-1991. His forces existed freely only in the central Sunni district - the core of Saddam's power base.
I'm reticent about supporting wars for "humanitarian" reasons. When the Nepalese King was butchering his own people recently, it was right we stayed out. With the all out genocide underway in Darfur, it is right that the world should act. From experience, i see that nations only want to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons, when it suits their geopolitical purpose. The British used the same excuse when they "intervened" in the 19th century. Before you knew it, a third of the world was under the European hegemon.
Rightly or wrongly, the war in Iraq was fought for other geopolitical/geostrategic reasons. Controlling oil supplies; security for Israel; flexing of US muscle; creating another, more pliable US friendly barrier to Iran; a grander scheme for withdrawing US troopes from Saudi Arabia, and yes, even forcing "good" governance on the Middle East etc. etc.. From a geostrategic point of view, the case for war was compelling.
What I don't understand, is that a proto-Fascist like you, Cactus, would normally openly declare the validity of going to war purely for geopolitical reasons, at least when it comes to a poor, corrupt nation such as Iraq. Why do your kind continue to hide behind the defunkt WMD/Terrorist/Humanitarian reasons?
Maybe cos you realise, from the unprecedented worldwide reaction against the war, that the traditional "war of imperialism" is not a pill people are willing to swallow?
(ps, i can't ever remember having argued about Iraq with you or anyone. Iran, Danish Cartoons, Muslim immigration, Paris riots, and other anti-Islamic baiting from you - but never about Iraq. I dont usually get into the anti-war ranting and raving on here, since, in the beginning, i was all for it).
- Cactus0
"proto-Fascist"?
Now that's the Kuz I have come to know and love. After reading your first post I was momentarily afraid you had mellowed since your return from Waziristan.
Saddam never had the "capacity to make WMD's whatsoever and had none stockpiled". I assume you are referring to a post Halabja Iraq. The 45 minute claim was a local affair concerning only you brits. Bush's regime had always combined humanitarian reasons with geo-political interests for the project to remove Saddam's Baathist dictatorship. The WMD argument was used as a technical lever to convince a corrupt UN to finally act on it's many ignored resolutions.
You disregarded my last post about Al Qaeda in Iraq preceding the invasion. In the end Saddamist propaganda was entirely Isalmist...Saddam even used his own blood to illustrate a Koran. Iran harbors Many Al Qaeda fugtives despite that organizations Iraqi branch murdering their co-religionists in their thousands. A love of terrorism and a common enemy apparently doesn't prevent them for co-habitating.
Yes, the West did support Saddam against Iran pre 9/11. The idea was to save him from defeat and thereby block the spread of Khomeinist ideology from infecting the wider region. But the US and Britain supplied, by far, much less weaponry than Russia, China, and France and Germany.
Furthermore, if you condemn this policy of supporting Saddam, are you not pleased that this is no longer the case?
So Saddam was "contained" was he? And all that nasty stuff he did was in the past and he had learned his lesson. Would you have removed the sanctions that were allegedly killing so many Iraqi babies? Withdrawn the American and British air-cover protecting the Kurds and Shia? I am amused to find that you use western military power so gratuitously. I suppose you would have them there indefinitely risking their lives over Iraq at your infinite pleasure.
Your anti-white European orthodoxy isn't doing any favors for those starving in the desert of being living under warlord rule in the ever-growing number of failed states. It's very easy to take the positions you do sitting comfortably in London protect by a government and military forces you despise. Perhaps you should go and live in Somalia and see what it feels like.
- ********0
So the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian intervention?
First they said Saddam had WMDs, then they said he was linked to Al Qaeda and was an imminent threat to us all, and now its was a "humanitarian intervention".
Problem i find with that excuse is that probably his biggest crime - the poison gas attack in Halabja, happened in 1988 when the "West", were supplying and acquiecing to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran in his American sponsored expedition into Persia.
And that since the 1991 war the UN had maintained a no-fly zone that had rendered the Kurdish north practically independent and had given security to the southern Shia region. (except of course when the Shia's did rise up and Bush Sr permitted Hussein to ruthlessly crush the rebellion - fearing of course that a Shia dominated Iraq would give undue influence to Iran in that region).
I find it pretty fucking spurious to suggest that there was an imminent humanitarian catastrophe awaiting Iraq as there was/is in Kosovo/Rwanda/Darfur .
Oh but there is a humanitarian crisis now, so that's ok.
KuzII
(May 5 06, 02:02)It's cuz they're brown.
- KuzII0
Haha, I wondered when you'd resort to charicaturising me as a scimitar weilding jihadist anti-semite.
The 45minute claim was Blair's, yes, but Colin Powell also painstakingly and embarassingly tried to convince the UN of Saddam's non-existant WMDs. The US sold the war on Terrorist reasons - it was an extension of their war on terror. Britain sold it on WMDs. Both gave different amount of weight to the others arguments. Humanitarianism was just a subtext to get the "left" on board. I'm not disregarding anything you said - there was NO CONNECTION between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or Bin Laden whatsoever - as Bush tried to claim. But ofcourse you only see the world in terms of a much broader global Islamic jihad against the whole world.
And yes, Saddam did pass himself off as a Muslim hero to legitimise his regime, a latter day Saladin.
And yes, Saddam was contained, but only by the ever watchful eye of the UN. I repeat - there was no imminent humanitarian crisis in Iraq as you tried to claim (drawing parallels with Rwanda and Darfur). Consistently risking their lives? I'm astounded at your lack of awareness at your own hypocrisy, suggesting as you do that the US should be engaged in perpetual hot war against distasteful regimes.
Yes I am pleased Saddam is no longer around. I just dont buy this "we did it for the Iraqis!" bullshit.
And really, your suggestion that the US should be relentlessy engaged in more Iraq's, is pretty mind boggling considering the complete fuck-up they've made in Iraq.
And stop putting words into my mouth. I dont despise my government or its military forces. However I do hate white people. They eat pigs for fucks sake! Filthy cunts!
- kelpie0
I resent that you dirty mad mullah.
- GeorgiePorgie0
"A people that has come out of Arab lands covers the face of the land. Now come and put a curse on them for me. Perhaps then I will be able to fight them and drive them away."
Numbers 22:10
- kelpie0
fuck off jaz
- namanamo0
Cactus... how dare you challenge people with coherent thought.
(you're arguments are rock solid... keep it up my man)