The Iraq Thread

[Longinius 1]

"Promoting, encouraging or supporting the enemy can be criminal - even if you don't love him."

Again, how is wanting peace promoting, encouraging or supporting the enemy? Its about not wanting a war, period. Its not about chosing sides or helping anyone.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 27 2003,15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, how is wanting peace promoting, encouraging or supporting the enemy? Its about not wanting a war, period. Its not about chosing sides or helping anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I'm just point out what I said as a generality.

However, sometimes promoting peace might be the best way to help the enemy by allowing the enemy to continue his agressions.

I'm not saying this is true of any, few, many or all peace demos but the potential is there.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 27 2003,14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"That aint scary, thats the corect thing to do. I don't think that you should help the opponent in a war but maby it is just me."

How is demonstrating FOR peace helping the opponent?

"And then all the Saddam lovers has to shut up."

Very few of the people demonstrating against this war have any love for Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

Ofcause demostrating for peace is not a bad thing if you belive in it, but this law dosent just say that you can't demonstrade there is alot of other things you can do in war time like funding the enemy suporting him in other ways.

Now I know that the enemy isent knoking on our dor, it is the other way around but by wanting peace you are automaticly helping the enemy in this case Saddam killing his own people.

And a demonstration whit loots of people would be a good taget for an enemy.

I dident say that there are many peoples ho love saddam, I was refering to the extreme muslims yelling that they will fight for Saddam(a couple of them in denmark too).

STGN

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 27 2003,15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, how is wanting peace promoting, encouraging or supporting the enemy? Its about not wanting a war, period. Its not about chosing sides or helping anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I'm just point out what I said as a generality.

However, sometimes promoting peace might be the best way to help the enemy by allowing the enemy to continue his agressions.

I'm not saying this is true of any, few, many or all peace demos but the potential is there.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I agree with you there. From a general perspective such laws make sense.

However in Denmark's case they do not since Denmark is under no threat from Iraq.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Even if deep down the Kurdish want an independant Kurdish state ,the Kurdish have quite realistic leaders and they stated countless times that they would settle for for degree of autonomy or becoming part of a federal Iraq.

I think the Kurdish northern region could prove one of the easier areas to administer assuming some great falling out between America and the Kurds does not take place. They are very enthusiastic about American involvement and are even berating America for not putting enough troops into northern Iraq.

I have been very impressed by the fledgling Kurdish democracy

.The south and especially the middle of Iraq could become hell.

More international agreement on a post-conflict UN role would help. As long as it looks like only America and Britain going into Iraq for any reason (including humanitarian) it is easy for Saddam to make himself look like a champion and extend the war (surely the last thing the west should want).

The idea that Saddam has brought stability or prosperity to the Iraqi people is patently absurd.

He initially brought some semblance of such and a great degree of stability but prosperity for the masses was never really his goal or even something he greatly cared about. He likes to think of himself as a great moderniser, and he instilled Iraq with a sense of nationalism (mostly through wars and counter-insurgencies)

But at the same time he divided in order to conquer, turning one people against another and pursuing a racist 'arabisation' of Iraqs prosperous regions. He has been a relentless centraliser to the exclusion of all else. The power has been stripped from tribal groups (the traditional Iraqi holders of power)and centred on him. He has ruled and brought his 'stability' to a great extent by extreme fear. One very major reason Iraq has been stable under Saddam is because of the peoples great fear of the state apparatus. we saw that evaporate in 1991 and it took a massacre to get that fear back. He has consistently thrown away any chance of peace, stability or long term prosperity by his erratic and selfish actions.

'Reconstruction' of Iraq will be damned difficult assuming the war goes more or less well. Iraqis will not forgive or forget about the war even if they become free from Saddam(and like it). I hope the British in this war help take out Saddam and those around him as quickly as possible and then either see a massive surge of happiness in Iraqis or get the hell out of Iraq. Im not sure we'll see either happen.

The amount of instability in Iraq (and the region) this war will create is unknowable. However i dont think it will be negligable. Who knows how long guerilla fighting and terrorist attacks might go on after a Saddam downfall...

Oh yes, booting out Al-Jazeera is obviously stupid but somewhat predictable.

[foxer 0]

I don't really care if people protest or not.But if you block the damn road you should be sent to jail.You don't see people supporting the war blocking the roads. I think it's kinda funny though when the cops beat the shit outta the protestors.

[foxer 0]

I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to watch it, nobody forces you. When CNN is showing pictures of dead or surrendering Iraqis, are you sure that they have notified their families?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's kinda funny though when the cops beat the shit outta the protestors. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh well... Why dont you move to Egypt or Jordania then ?

You can have a lot of democracy on the roads there...

Democrazy is based on people´s will. This includes freedom of speech. This includes freedom of opionion. Isn´t that part of the systrem you are all so proud of ? Democracy ?

Well move to Argentinia or any other "democratic" country and tell thast to people who get shot on streets during protests.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to watch it, nobody forces you. When CNN is showing pictures of dead or surrendering Iraqis, are you sure that they have notified their families?<span id='postcolor'>

I think there is a diffirence bethwen intavuing a prisoner and filmeing some one on distance.

STGN

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to watch it, nobody forces you. When CNN is showing pictures of dead or surrendering Iraqis, are you sure that they have notified their families?<span id='postcolor'>

I know foxnews covers the enemy faces.I don't know about cnn.

Sure no one has to watch anything,but if you hear marines have got killed and you have family over there that's in the marines,Do you think their not going try make sure ?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STGN @ Mar. 27 2003,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to watch it, nobody forces you. When CNN is showing pictures of dead or surrendering Iraqis, are you sure that they have notified their families?<span id='postcolor'>

I think there is a diffirence bethwen intavuing a prisoner and filmeing some one on distance.

STGN<span id='postcolor'>

I find all this bleating from the coalition governments about the showing of PoW's on TV to be somewhat irritating. Ok so it's obviously upsetting for families and friends back home, but this is a ruler and a regime you've labelled as being one of the most evil on the planet. So now we complain that someone classed as being an evil despotic dictator who kills his own people, shows the bodies of the dead and PoW's? Well duh, what did you expect?

From a completely emotionless stand point, it's actually probably a very good tactic. Show the corpses of coalition boys and girls, and demoralise the families at home = less support for the war in general perhaps.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 27 2003,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand them blocking out Al-Jazeera though.I mean they show the faces of the dead and POW's before the family even knows.That's really crappy on their part.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to watch it, nobody forces you. When CNN is showing pictures of dead or surrendering Iraqis, are you sure that they have notified their families?<span id='postcolor'>

I know foxnews covers the enemy faces.I don't know about cnn.<span id='postcolor'>

As I mentioned above, Reuters certainly didn't but I don't see Reuters being treated like Al Jazeera.

Don't get me wrong, IMO Al Jazeera's reporting is highly slanted against the coalition. That may be the real grounds for them losing their priviledges. But if so, why not just come out and say so?

Now this is what I call stupid journalists.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now this is what I call stupid journalists.<span id='postcolor'>

Why is that? The only justification that I see for that is that the Iraqi reporters are wearing uniforms. That's a questionable justification since they are in fact not part of the Iraqi military.

Or are you seriously suggesting that a duck-hunt on western reporters in Iraq would be kosher?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is that? The only justification that I see for that is that the Iraqi reporters are wearing uniforms. That's a questionable justification  since they are in fact not part of the Iraqi military.<span id='postcolor'>

The military use TV broadcasts to promote battling the coalition. That's an obvious military target to me. Any government controlled communications facility should be a legitimate military target.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or are you seriously suggesting that a duck-hunt on western reporters in Iraq would be kosher?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean halal.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PARIS (Reuters) - The international media watchdog Reporters without Frontiers (RsF) has condemned the U.S. bombing on Wednesday of Iraq's television station, saying Washington violated the Geneva Convention by targeting it.<span id='postcolor'>

Whoa, whoa.... WHERE is RsF located, again? Let's rewind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PARIS (Reuters)<span id='postcolor'>

Once more?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PARIS<span id='postcolor'>

'Nuff said.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is that? The only justification that I see for that is that the Iraqi reporters are wearing uniforms. That's a questionable justification  since they are in fact not part of the Iraqi military.<span id='postcolor'>

The military use TV broadcasts to promote battling the coalition. That's an obvious military target to me. Any government controlled communications facility should be a legitimate military target.<span id='postcolor'>

BBC is a government controlled agency. They also promote the war against Iraq, telling about Saddams horrible 'regieme of terror'. So it's ok to shoot BBC's reporters and to bomb their headquarters in London?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or are you seriously suggesting that a duck-hunt on western reporters in Iraq would be kosher?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean halal. <span id='postcolor'>

I knew I should have not mentioned "kosher" and "duck" in the same sentence

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,17:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC is a government controlled agency. They also promote the war against Iraq, telling about Saddams horrible 'regieme of terror'. So it's ok to shoot BBC's reporters<span id='postcolor'>

No.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and to bomb their headquarters in London?<span id='postcolor'>

Definitely but only when the UK joins the Axis of evil list.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or are you seriously suggesting that a duck-hunt on western reporters in Iraq would be kosher?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean halal. <span id='postcolor'>

I knew I should have not mentioned "kosher" and "duck" in the same sentence <span id='postcolor'>

Well some ducks are kosher. Many aren't though. This made me hungry.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and to bomb their headquarters in London?<span id='postcolor'>

Definitely but only when the UK joins the Axis of evil list. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, that's the catch ain't it? If a "martyr" was to attack the BBC headquarters, everybody would be screaming "bloody terrorism!".

The same goes for the double-standard POW on TV discussions.

I think it sets some good references on how objective official statements are. If they are as forthcoming with their reports on casualties, successes, losses and so on... well, you can draw your own conclusions.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

The complicated and bloody history of Iraq:

http://home.achilles.net/~sal/iraq_history.html

In particular if you skip to the modern era it is interesting how history repeats itself...

"although the monarch was elected and proclaimed King by plebiscite in 1921, full independence was not achieved until 1932, when the British Mandate was officially terminated. In 1927, discovery of huge oil fields near Karkuk brought many improvements to Iraq. The Iraqis granted oil rights to the Iraqi Petroleum Company -a British dominated, multinational firm."

"Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani appointed an ultranationalist civilian cabinet, which gave only conditional consent to British requests in April 1941 for troop landings in Iraq. The British quickly retaliated by landing forces at Basrah on April 19, justifying this second occupation of Iraq by citing Rashid Ali's violation of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. Many Iraqis regarded the move as an attempt to restore British rule. Iraqi troops were then concentrated around the British air base at Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad; and on May 2 the British commander there opened hostilities, lest the Iraqis should attack first. Having won the upper hand at Habbaniyah and been reinforced from Palestine, the British troops from the air base marched on Baghdad. The ensuing war between Britain and Iraq lasted less than a month, as the British steadily advanced, and on May 30th Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani and his government fled the country.

"Nuri as-Said concentrated on the participation of Kuwait as a third country in the proposed Arab-Hashimite Union, Shaikh Abdullah Al-Salim, ruler of Kuwait, was invited to Baghdad to discuss Kuwait liberation from the British protection, and on the subject of tri-unity. Britain opposed declaring Kuwait independent at that time. At this point, the monarchy found itself completely isolated. Nuri as-Said was able to contain the rising discontent only by resorting to even greater oppression and to tighter control over the political process"

"In 1961, Kuwait gained its independence from Britain. Abdul-Karim Qassem immediately claimed sovereignty over it, claimed the Amirate as originally part of the Ottoman province of Basrah. Britain reacted strongly to this threat to its ex-protectorate, dispatching a brigade to the country to deter Iraq. Qassem backed down, and in October 1963, Iraq recognised the sovereignty and borders of Kuwait."

"In October 1994, Iraq moved some Republican Guard units towards Kuwait, an act that provoked a large-scale US troop deployment to the Gulf to deter any Iraqi attack. The move was interpreted as a sign of Saddam's frustration with the continuation of UN sanctions, but afterwards he took a more moderate line, agreeing to recognize the existence and borders of Kuwait."

All i will say is that the linklyhood of a stable Iraq without a massive military presence is low.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 27 2003,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The complicated and bloody history of Iraq:

http://home.achilles.net/~sal/iraq_history.html<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting, I'll make sure to read it. I can't believe that I havn't bothered to do some reading about the history of Iraq until now

[Longinius 1]

"Now I know that the enemy isent knoking on our dor, it is the other way around but by wanting peace you are automaticly helping the enemy in this case Saddam killing his own people."

We have all been helping him do that for some 20+ years. And now, all of a sudden, this war is about freeing the Iraqis? If that is the case, this war is a couple of decades late.

Personally, I am not protesting the effort to take Saddams regime away. I am protesting the way it was done. And no, I am not walking in the peace marches because as far as I am concerned, thats a load of bull. Why werent these same people demonstrating for the Iraqis ten or twenty years ago?

"I don't really care if people protest or not.But if you block the damn road you should be sent to jail.You don't see people supporting the war blocking the roads. I think it's kinda funny though when the cops beat the shit outta the protestors."

Why would you block the road if you are FOR the war? You dont even need the attention then, you all ready have what you want.

"Sure no one has to watch anything,but if you hear marines have got killed and you have family over there that's in the marines,Do you think their not going try make sure ?"

You are actually talking against free, uncensored press? Yes, some things are terrible to watch. Some news are not always what we want to hear. But if it is the truth, why hide it? If they hadnt shown the American POW's, you guys would be claiming that there were none, because Pentagon would deny it. Well, now you know the truth. Is that bad?

As for the argument that relatives get to see the dead / captured before notified. Well, that happens every day, all the time. Some newscrew films a murder victim, or a car accident, or a fire, and relatives see their kin before the police get a chance to notify them. I dont see any difference here, except the fact that the Pentagon probably had plenty of time notifying relatives that their kin were MIA, presumed POW.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,169)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and to bomb their headquarters in London?<span id='postcolor'>

Definitely but only when the UK joins the Axis of evil list. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, that's the catch ain't it? If a "martyr" was to attack the BBC headquarters, everybody would be screaming "bloody terrorism!".

The same goes for the double-standard POW on TV discussions.

I think it sets some good references on how objective official statements are. If they are as forthcoming with their reports on casualties, successes, losses and so on... well, you can draw your own conclusions. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we once had this discussion that you have problems identifying good and evil.

If we go back to WWII, you might have even said the same thing about the Blitz of London. Hey after all, both side have just as much right to bomb each other. May the best side win - as if this was a tennis match at Wimbledon.

Now, I'm not saying that Allies versus Nazis is exactly the same as today's coalition versus Saddam.

As for the TV POW double standard, I did indeed state that it does appear externally to be that, though I think there's more obvious justification for fingering Al Jazeera.

[theavonlady 2]

What a coincidence! Just saw a report that the coalition have captured the TV and radio stations in Basra.

Expect Coke commericials on the waves within the hour.

[Guest]

I believe that if you are advocating a certain philosophy or moral that you should stick to it, especially if your reason for war is the enforcement of that philosophy.

It doesn't matter who the good guy or the bad guy is. The Blitz on London was as bad as the firebombing of Dresden.

A bombed Iraqi TV station is as bad as a bombed British TV station.

As for the 'good guy' vs 'bad guy' thing, I'm not sure that the roles are so defined. While Saddam of course is a murderous bastard of proportions that Bush only can dream of it doesn't define the rights and wrongs here. Iraq is being attacked, unprovoked and they have my sympathy for that. Also it is hard not to root for the underdog.