Sadam Hussein

kill4thrills · July 2005

<div class="IPBDescription">world really better off without him?</div> sure, he was an arrogant SOB and had a shady past, but he wasn't a radial islamist. even bin laden called him a socialist and didn't trust him. non-religeous despots like him only care about being in power and can be turned useful if fearful of being ousted (like he once was to the US).

just look at musharaf in pakistan: the citizens have quite radical muslim views, and indeed breed a lot of terrorists, but with a theocracy in power, there would be no "ally" to at least attempt to root them out.

if the people there had their way what you'd end up with are ultra religious regimes like the taliban, and iran's ayatollah.

in non-religious, and even despotic regimes, radical religious elements are oppressed put in check by secret polices, and you get a much more progressive government. is that reallly so bad?

i'm under the impression now that democracy is not for everyone, and ignorant masses sometimes need a strong progressive leader to lead them out of the stone age. it worked wonders for russia under stalin, who was arguably one of the world's greatest villians, yet he was able to pull russian peasants out of oxen farming and put them on tractors, and turned a backward feudal state into one of the world's most advanced nations.

given the choice of a radical religeous government and a non-religeous despotic regime, i think the despot might just be the lesser of two evils.

any thoughts?

Narfwak · July 2005

My thoughts:

Wrong forum, dummy.

Oh, wait, you're restricted. Ha, how tragic.

Caboose · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Jul 26 2005, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> sure, he was an arrogant SOB and had a shady past, but he wasn't a radial islamist.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So you have to be Muslim to be evil now? I guess that makes Hitler comparable to Fred Rogers.

He was far more than arrogant as well.

Killing thousands of Curds with chemical/biological weapons is nothing, rite?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>given the choice of a radical religeous government and a non-religeous despotic regime, i think the despot might just be the lesser of two evils.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Maybe true, but given the choice of a a non-religeous despotic regime and a democracy, I know the lesser of two evils, and it's not the dictator.

Alcapwn · July 2005

Must...hold...back...

Erm, this should be locked up, as seeing you are restricted from these kinds of topics. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Plus, these kinds of threads could turn ugly, fast.

JediYoshi · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WaterBoy @ Jul 26 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Erm, this should be locked up, as seeing you are restricted from these kinds of topics. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Plus, these kinds of threads could turn ugly, fast.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yeah, you know, all the people who think they're mods and think they have any input to whether a thread gets locked or not posting their nonsensical views.

Marik_Steele · July 2005

Moved from off-topic to discussions.
kill4thrills, I'd recommend against making another topic that, like this one, so clearly belongs in the section of the forums you're currently not allowed to post in.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>given the choice of a radical religeous government and a non-religeous despotic regime, i think the despot might just be the lesser of two evils.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well well, that was exactly what some smarthead in the US administration thought when they put him in power. What was the result of the exercise? 3 wars, further destabilization of the whole area an embargo and last but not least a civil war ...

Under the line: Iraq is <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>economically dead</a> and the people are killing each other.

So, don't ask such questions and don't try to answer them. Especially do not try to make your conclusions come true. That usually hurts more people than it helps ...

To answer the question in the topic title: yes, the world would have been better off ... if Saddam had not been brought to power in the first place. Removing him now did probably more harm than good, but it would have come to this anyway when Saddam had found his end eventually.

BadMouth · July 2005

He was a dictator a lots of people hated him. Sure, we would be better off without him. But he was minding his own business when Bush decided to whack him. He wasn't bombing anyone or anything. I don't think the invasion of Iraq was justified. But since the US got him, they might as well whack him.

Marine0I · August 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well well, that was exactly what some smarthead in the US administration thought when they put him in power.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Uhhhh... Saddam put himself in power. Dont confuse supporting him later with actually installing him. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_in_the_Ba.27ath_party' target='_blank'>read</a>. But if you want unquestioning support of Saddam, perhaps you should be looking ove r the border at your French friends?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Under the line: Iraq is <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>economically dead</a> and the people are killing each other. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Nice article ... from October 2002. But Im sure you've got one from a month ago predicting gloom and doom for the Iraqi economic sector, because it isnt hard to paint a bleak picture when you are looking at an economy that was shattered even before the war started. As Iraq's Prime Minister said: "You can't fix in six months what it took 35 years to destroy." Something tells me that wont stop you from desperately hoping it all goes to hell.

As for the original poster - I couldnt disagree more. How can you downplay what Saddam has done? He was completely unstable. He had recently attacked a nearby nation. He had previously attempted to produce nuclear weapons before the Israeli's stopped him. He had attempted to have then US president George Bush Snr assasinated. He had used chemical weapons on the Kurds. He drained rich marshland to drive the Marsh arabs out of their homes and punish them. He raised torture to an art form - up to and including the "head first or feet first into a plastic shredder", or the ol rape the wife and daughter then send a tape to dad. He was giving money to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. He gave haven to the terrorist that killed an American wheelchair bound Jew on a boat.

Progression under those conditions doesnt mean balls. Stalin is a perfect example. Sure, he modernised things a little, but his country had no hope and went no where because you cannot succeed with an atmosphere of fear, torture and repression of freedom.

I dont want to use dictators like that. That kind of twisted thinking had the US supporting Saddam in the first place against the Iranians.

The despot is the lesser of the two evils - yes. There is a third option, why have evil when its removal also coincides with our strategic goals? Got Bush?

That_Annoying_Kid · August 2005

saddam getting tried in Iraq, even though the 82 massacre they are pinning on him should stick worries me a bit. He is an accomplished trial lawyer and might pull antics.

Legat · August 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Uhhhh... Saddam put himself in power. Don't confuse supporting him later with actually installing him. read. But if you want unquestioning support of Saddam, perhaps you should be looking ove r the border at your French friends?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

After the Iranian revolution, the western intelligence agencies wer swarming the gulf to find new friend and help them ... rest assured that Saddams carrer was not ... unwanted.
If you want to rant about the French or the European politics in general, feel free and open a threat and I will gladly fall in and surprise you with with my distaste for them. I am able to pick up my own dogs faeces. Do you?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nice article ... from October 2002. But Im sure you've got one from a month ago predicting gloom and doom for the Iraqi economic sector, because it isnt hard to paint a bleak picture when you are looking at an economy that was shattered even before the war started</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My temporary account has expired due to my related job is finished. Yet there were no new articles to the matter available indicating significant changes to the situation available at MEES 3 month ago. And the situation has not changed for the better. A simple look at reality shows this to anybody who wants to see.
The country is reduced to the shell of an ressource exporting third world country. The export rates have not increased signifficantly ever since and reconstuction efforts are nigh to impossible because of the unstable security situation.
The only buisness thriving in Iraq is that of private security services ...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for the original poster - I couldnt disagree more. How can you downplay what Saddam has done? He was completely unstable.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Now that was unpredictable beforehand wasn't it? He was such a nice guy when he waged ware aginst the evil Iranian fundamentalists who are so evil to revolt so they can dictate the prices of their ressources on their own.
What do you think are those people the US are now supporting like? Do you think <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allawi' target='_blank'>this guy</a>, is a better choice? What do you think will happen if the US really bail out next spring, as some comments from US army officials a few weeks ago indicated?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He had recently attacked a nearby nation.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> Seemed nobody bothered when he attacked Iran. Rigth those are the enemy.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He had previously attempted to produce nuclear weapons before the Israeli's stopped him.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ohh how dare he! Creating a balance of power. How immorale. Like those bad russians. Bad bad people want to have a nuke on their own. I give you a hint. Nuclear stalements are a good thing. They make both sides more careful. Look at Pakistan and India. They would slit their throats 3 times over if it was not for the nuclear capabilitiy. As much as I despise nuclear weaponry, they assure peace.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He had attempted to have then US president George Bush Snr assasinated.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
There are many Muslims around who would kill both Bushs. Like those who lost family members in the retalitation strike (after this assasination attempt) by Clinton who fired 23 cruise missles into the city of Baghdad.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He had used chemical weapons on the Kurds.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ohh. wow. Guess what? hes not the only one who killed Kurds. NATOs precious turkish allies did plenty of them ... and armenians ... Yet nobody seems to have issue with them. The US are even greatly encouraging the EU to allow them membership.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He drained rich marshland to drive the Marsh arabs out of their homes and punish them.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The turks are dammig up the Eufrat and use the water for their textile and agricultural industries. Water which is scarce in Iraq and Syria. Nobody said a word about that.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He raised torture to an art form - up to and including the "head first or feet first into a plastic shredder", or the ol rape the wife and daughter then send a tape to dad.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You wanna know what happens in turkish prisons? Or where to people dissapear in turkey? You know that the good friends of the US, the Saudis, still execute for religious crimes and dismember hands for minor crimes like theft? Political opposition is a dangerous thing in Saudi arabia and torturing is common.
But we don't need to liberate those countries do we?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He was giving money to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Like the Saudis did.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He gave haven to the terrorist that killed an American wheelchair bound Jew on a boat.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Wow, now that ... that is unbeatable. Maybe this way:
You know how many children under the age of 10 years are in need of prothetics because they stumbled across dud ammunition from US bombarment? You know the failure rate of Clusterbomb subammunition? Did You know, that the rate of deformed or disabled newborn children, as well as the cancer rate has increased drastically since 1991 because of DU ammunition?

Marine0I · August 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>After the Iranian revolution, the western intelligence agencies wer swarming the gulf to find new friend and help them ... rest assured that Saddams carrer was not ... unwanted.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah, no doubt. Thats still a hell of a long way from "someone in the US administration" installed Saddam. You seem to have this general impression that the US is directly responsible for every evil purpetrated in the Middle East. While they have a long history of supporting and supply a variety of vicious dictators, it was VERY RARELY the direct interference you propounded in your completely false assertion that the US installed Saddam.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My temporary account has expired due to my related job is finished. Yet there were no new articles to the matter available indicating significant changes to the situation available at MEES 3 month ago. And the situation has not changed for the better. A simple look at reality shows this to anybody who wants to see.
The country is reduced to the shell of an ressource exporting third world country. The export rates have not increased signifficantly ever since and reconstuction efforts are nigh to impossible because of the unstable security situation.
The only buisness thriving in Iraq is that of private security services ...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Reconstruction nigh impossible and economic progress non-existent? <a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-news-from-iraq-part-25.html' target='_blank'>rofl</a> That's part 25 of a huge series detailing positive news from Iraq. I worked my way back to part 15 before the good news got kinda repetitive and boring.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now that was unpredictable beforehand wasn't it? He was such a nice guy when he waged ware aginst the evil Iranian fundamentalists who are so evil to revolt so they can dictate the prices of their ressources on their own.
What do you think are those people the US are now supporting like? Do you think <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allawi' target='_blank'>this guy</a>, is a better choice? What do you think will happen if the US really bail out next spring, as some comments from US army officials a few weeks ago indicated? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sorry son, but lists of past US mistakes dont make the slightest impact on me. Bush has already admitted them as mistakes, mistakes that were caused by callous "realist" politics using bad people to attack other bad people, with the only real loser being the populations of both countries. If the US pulls out next spring and Iraq isnt ready for it, I will be shocked and disappointed. The country will collapse and heaps more people will die, all for nothing. Then I will want Bush arrested for war crimes, tried and then executed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Seemed nobody bothered when he attacked Iran. Rigth those are the enemy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually I was talking about Kuwait.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ohh how dare he! Creating a balance of power. How immorale. Like those bad russians. Bad bad people want to have a nuke on their own. I give you a hint. Nuclear stalements are a good thing. They make both sides more careful. Look at Pakistan and India. They would slit their throats 3 times over if it was not for the nuclear capabilitiy. As much as I despise nuclear weaponry, they assure peace. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

False. If Hitler had nuclear weapons, how many Jews do you think would be in Germany today? MAD works to prevent evil nations such as the USSR et al from starting direct conflicts with nations such as America, but it also leaves good nations powerless to intervene when the situation dictates the need. It is frequently neccessary. Yes, how dare he. He wanted to create a new balance of power, shifting the balance away from the democratic Jewish and American forces (the <b>good</b> guys, and I dont care if you are too obtuse to recognise that) and shift it to give him (the <b>evil</b> guy) more power. It would have made any military intervention in Iraq impossible - leaving him free to abuse peopple as he pleased. They dont assure peace, they merely prevent war. I do not consider daily government torture and murder peace.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
There are many Muslims around who would kill both Bushs. Like those who lost family members in the retalitation strike (after this assasination attempt) by Clinton who fired 23 cruise missles into the city of Baghdad.

Ohh. wow. Guess what? hes not the only one who killed Kurds. NATOs precious turkish allies did plenty of them ... and armenians ... Yet nobody seems to have issue with them. The US are even greatly encouraging the EU to allow them membership.

The turks are dammig up the Eufrat and use the water for their textile and agricultural industries. Water which is scarce in Iraq and Syria. Nobody said a word about that.

You wanna know what happens in turkish prisons? Or where to people dissapear in turkey? You know that the good friends of the US, the Saudis, still execute for religious crimes and dismember hands for minor crimes like theft? Political opposition is a dangerous thing in Saudi arabia and torturing is common.
But we don't need to liberate those countries do we?

Like the Saudis did. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm going to tackle this warped and illogical nonsense in the one go, rather than debunk each individually. This is what is commonly referred to as the "jaywalkers" defence, or "other people do bad stuff too, why pick on me"? Imagine there was a man at large in Australia. He was wanted by police for raping and killing little girls, molesting young boys, mass murder, publicly exposing himself, assault and battery, beastiality, insider trading, fraud, breaking and entering, racehate crimes, treason, tax avoidance, jaywalking, lying under oath and arson. The police launch a massive nationwide manhunt and the Attorney-General promises to throw the book at him if they catch him. Then someone stands up and says "Why pick on him? John Latham in Rockhampton molests little girls. Ivan Milat in Queensland committed mass murder. Peter Rothwell from Brisbane is an arsonist. James Rudd from Sydney has committed fraud and treason etc etc etc"

The reason for singling him out should be obvious. That man is pure malvolent evil who desperately needs to be stopped. What the others did is inexcusable, and they need to be dealt with, but it isnt sufficiently extreme to warrant a huge effort by the police and mass public outcry.

I am stunned (I should say, I wish I was stunned, but less and less suprises me from leftists these days) that you try to mitigate Saddam's actions by pointing out that other people have done bad stuff too. That is beside the point. Saddam signed his death warrant in a multitude of ways, his human rights record was one, his military ambitions another.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wow, now that ... that is unbeatable. Maybe this way:
You know how many children under the age of 10 years are in need of prothetics because they stumbled across dud ammunition from US bombarment? You know the failure rate of Clusterbomb subammunition? Did You know, that the rate of deformed or disabled newborn children, as well as the cancer rate has increased drastically since 1991 because of DU ammunition?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Intent is everything. You'll never understand, I've tried to explain this before, you didnt get it then and you wont get it now. Have you ever seen the movie Reservoir Dogs? In that movie, a police officer is taken prisoner, and then one of the criminals slices his ear off with a razor for the pure pleasure of it, while dancing and listening to music. That kind of torture, that kind of raw evil made me feel physically ill. But what it they had merely been coworkers on a construction site, and one mans negligence lead to another man's ear being severed accidentally by a saw. I would still be angry with the negligent man, I would still feel sorry for the innocent victim, but the absence of intent means I dont feel ill at the evil, because there was no evil. That situation isnt even half as bad as the one above.

In the same way, the US military does not go out of its way to procure civilian casualties. This means your attempts to equate callous murder with accidental and coincidental civilian deaths are intellectually bankrupt.

Oh, and bad luck getting taken in by the DU hoax. Sounded plausible right? Its got uranium in it, that must be radioactive, radioactive means cancer! amirite?!!! <a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm' target='_blank'>no, I'm not</a>

lolfighter · August 2005

As for the depleted uranium - yes, depleted uranium itself is not radioactive to a degree worth mentioning. However, from the article:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Department of Energy (DOE) recently reported that the DU it provided to DoD for manufacturing armor plates and munitions may contain trace levels (a few parts per billion ) of contaminants including neptunium, plutonium, americium, technitium-99 and uranium-236. From a radiological perspective, these contaminants in DU add less than one percent to the radioactivity of DU itself.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Now, as far as I remember (and that's all - don't ask me for sources because I have none, this is all from memory and I present it 'as is' - take it or leave it), the problem with the DU used during the gulf war was that due to sources it came from, it contained more than just a few parts per billion of plutionium (which is rather radioactive and also toxic), and was therefore mildly radioactive. And due to many projectiles being pulverized at impact, it could get into the lungs as dust I guess.
Hence the problem with the DU. It's not that the allies knowingly subjected friend and foe to (mild) radiation poisoning. **** happens.

Legat · August 2005

All right... I am considerably short on time so I should not do this ... but this will take a while...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah, no doubt. Thats still a hell of a long way from "someone in the US administration" installed Saddam. You seem to have this general impression that the US is directly responsible for every evil purpetrated in the Middle East. While they have a long history of supporting and supply a variety of vicious dictators, it was VERY RARELY the direct interference you propounded in your completely false assertion that the US installed Saddam.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You might want to do some reseach about a man called Daniel Mitrone, a US "development specialist" and technician who was employed in Uruguay during the 60s, and some other banana republics... He was abducted and executed by a local guerillia. The case is a nice example for CIA operations. Unfortunately I failed to find a good source in english language. Maybe it happened too long ago... that's pre INTARWEB... maybe I can dig somehting up later. Or you could make a little trip to a library. There's cool stuff there...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reconstruction nigh impossible and economic progress non-existent? rofl That's part 25 of a huge series detailing positive news from Iraq. I worked my way back to part 15 before the good news got kinda repetitive and boring.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Marine ... Ever been in a wild west showtown as a child and did some goldwashing for a dollar? You know, when they give you a plate and some sand and let you search for some bits of worthless gold grain. Thats what this blogger site is doing. It highlights some shiny dots in a huge pile of mud.

If there would indeed be visible and lasting progress, we would see the oil prizes dropping. Simple as that.

To go a bit into detail... just some things that cought my attention.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>SECURITY: There is good news for the Coalition troops as casualties decrease:</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes sure. because the US troops are being taken out of the line of fire. The bulk of the peace keeping is done by Iraqi forces who get the beating. And the thousands of private security personnel nobody ever mentions... <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.contractor/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.contractor/</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Speaking of northern Iraq:

"Relative stability and oil wealth are drawing jobs and opportunities to the northern city of Kirkuk, which will soon be the first major city in Iraq to take charge of its own defense...

"While much of Iraq struggles with roadside bombs and suicide attacks, Kurdistan -- the northern region where Kurds enjoyed more than a decade of virtual autonomy within a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone -- is prospering.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The Kurds are secessioninsts ... They want independence and seek to unite with their brethren in south Turkey. A scenario neither the Shiites will tolerate, nor the Turks. So, how long do you think the Kurds will stay calm?
And who do you think the US will deem more important? the Kurds? Or the Shiites and the Turks?

Next ex-ally waiting in line...

The Kurds are able to secure their own territory because they have the most well trained militias in the area. The US are partly dependant on the Kurds atm. In some places, people talk about Kurdish occupation ... Yet those militias are more loyal to their leaders than to the Iraqi army or nation and refuse to disband and join regular forces. You want to trust them? This <a href='http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46411.pdf' target='_blank'>report</a> details some of the problems. Sorry, its no the usual black and white trash found in the media. You have to dig up the conclusion for yourself.

Now lets have a look at the participation of Sunnites in the government. There were Sunnites in important position during the interim period. However, on to many occasions vital information was leaking, so many of them were sorted out. Implementing Sunnites in vital positions is a calculated risk. As we can see, the terrorist are able to strike where and whenever they intend to and even assasinate and abduct important administrative personnel. The security situation is awful. Simple as that.

The big problem is, that there is no real administrative infrastructure to build the nation on. Saddam destroyed all administrative structures of the other fraction during his reign and except those who were fast enough to go into hiding or exile, there is no one who could run the place except Sunnites. Whom you cannot trust. There is one of the fundamential problems that hinders true progress.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As economic situation improves, Iraqis are becoming car-crazy:</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
We had this point a while ago. It still is not an indication for economic growth, since cars do not mean the same thing there as in our society. Cars are an everydays comodity in the gulf because petrochemical products are so cheap. Think of it like luxuries. Far away, they are expensive, in the place where they come from, everybody can afford it. Kaviar is considered peasants food in Russia. If you ever travel to an arab nation, one of the first things you will notice is the sight of thousands of cars driving around day and night. Even in those countries which are not overly rich in Oil, like Egypt. A car means nothing special there, its not primarely a symbol of wealth like we might understand it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"Baghdad's heavily commercial Karrada Street, for example, has its hustle back. Fala Hassan, a shop keeper on Karrada Street, thinks his customers have turned a corner. Before the election, many of them were fearful and sales were slow, he said. But these days his customers are back, he notes, and their cash is flowing again. 'People were so worried before the election... Now they are less worried about the future,' Hassan said.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's arabia you know... they live for bartering. Ever been on a bazaar? That is perfectly normal even in poor countries. You will have the same sight in Moghadishu and still won't interpret it as "economic development". In Germany after the war, there was the same kind of trade, yet it was disalowed at that time, so there was a booming black market. Yet this kind of buisness is not even remotely connected to Germanys rapid economic development.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry son, but lists of past US mistakes dont make the slightest impact on me. Bush has already admitted them as mistakes, mistakes that were caused by callous "realist" politics using bad people to attack other bad people, with the only real loser being the populations of both countries. If the US pulls out next spring and Iraq isnt ready for it, I will be shocked and disappointed. The country will collapse and heaps more people will die, all for nothing. Then I will want Bush arrested for war crimes, tried and then executed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First of, since I' am possibly older than you are, yet coparison of birth dates will say nothing since neither of us can confirm them, I would prever you to refrain from calling me 'son'. Especially since I have a good clue on what you intend to imply with it.

My question is, what in the name of God makes you think that this particular time it is going to end any different? Do you think they make it by sheer probability or is it because Mr Bush pretends to act on behalf of his faithful soul? I ask this taking in consideration your religoius backround.
Are you aware that they are doing exactly the same thing again? Sending bad people against bad people? The first interim Prime minister <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allawi' target='_blank'>Allawi</a>, a former hitman of Saddam, shot six prisoners in front whitnesses to emphasis that the Iraqi security forces do not have to fear consequences when dealing with suspects.
He is not Prime anymore but he was always a favored figure by the US yet he has lost the elections and much influence. This guy was the one that told the US they would be having an easy time to liberate Iraq btw...

If they really leave the country next year, like it is rumored, then your anticipation is absolutely correct.
There was a recent discussion about wheter Iraq was another vietnam. You posted there too. Several sources (one even provided by the contra position) indicate that the US population is losing faith in the success of the mission. The fugures dropped to somewhat around 50 percent from 70 percent within a few month. During WW2, the figure never dropped below 75%, despite the fact that several hundred thousand of US soldiers died. So if this trend continues, the retreat is merely a matter of time.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually I was talking about Kuwait.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah yes. I know. That is why I stated that nobody seemed to bother about Iran, despite that was bloody stalement war that did cost millions casualties on both sides.
That was because nobody started a multi billion dollar media campaing to show the cruelties of war there.
By the way, did you know that Kuwait was a former province of Iraq before the British decided to grant them protection and that Kuwait did some <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling' target='_blank'>slant drilling</a> on Iraqs oil field? Just some trivia.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>False. If Hitler had nuclear weapons, how many Jews do you think would be in Germany today? MAD works to prevent evil nations such as the USSR et al from starting direct conflicts with nations such as America, but it also leaves good nations powerless to intervene when the situation dictates the need. It is frequently neccessary. Yes, how dare he. He wanted to create a new balance of power, shifting the balance away from the democratic Jewish and American forces (the good guys, and I dont care if you are too obtuse to recognise that) and shift it to give him (the evil guy) more power. It would have made any military intervention in Iraq impossible - leaving him free to abuse peopple as he pleased. They don't assure peace, they merely prevent war. I do not consider daily government torture and murder peace.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ooow... <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law' target='_blank'>bad foul... you lost <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /></a>
Jokes aside: That would fill another topic. Ingeneral, you can safely assume that something that "prevents war" is a good thing. If you want people to be free and such, you have to let them get it the hard way.
Closed societies and oppresive behavior inevitably results in political opposition that sooner or later corrupts the system and creates change.
If that is for the better or worse, well only time will tell. Take the civil rights movement in the US that resulted in such things like... umm black people allowed to use the same toilets as white citizens ...

Also: A nuclear stalemten in the Gulf would make the people in the arab nations sleep much safer. Right now, Israel is perceived as a violent threat with nuclear capabilities in direct proximity. I might remember you how the US reacted to such a situation, despite they were the first to install nuclear weapons in Turkey directly on the sovjet boarder.
(so much for aggressive behavior)

If you look at Israel and see what happens within the political right and the reaction of extremists because of the planned retreat from Gaza, you can't blame them. Such behavior is not very representative for a democratic society.
Just try for once to think not in your preassembled reality that conforts your mind and try to understand that the common arab fears Israel.

As a sidenote about the jews in nazi germany ... well, nobody really cared about the jews at that time. Nobody fought for them either, except the exilants that enlisted ...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm going to tackle this warped and illogical nonsense in the one go, rather than debunk each individually. This is what is commonly referred to as the "jaywalkers" defence, or "other people do bad stuff too, why pick on me"? Imagine there was a man at large in Australia. He was wanted by police for raping and killing little girls, molesting young boys, mass murder, publicly exposing himself, assault and battery, beastiality, insider trading, fraud, breaking and entering, racehate crimes, treason, tax avoidance, jaywalking, lying under oath and arson. The police launch a massive nationwide manhunt and the Attorney-General promises to throw the book at him if they catch him. Then someone stands up and says "Why pick on him? John Latham in Rockhampton molests little girls. Ivan Milat in Queensland committed mass murder. Peter Rothwell from Brisbane is an arsonist. James Rudd from Sydney has committed fraud and treason etc etc etc"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Excuse me but you should not talk about warped and illogical nonsense and come up with absolutely inapropriate comparisons.

It does not fit together when you claim to enforce ethnical standards and at the same time suport oppressive and reactionary regimes <i> that are located in the same cultural and political sphere of influence</i>. You cannot drive on the mid-line of the street like this and expect no one to ask questions.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The reason for singling him out should be obvious. That man is pure malvolent evil who desperately needs to be stopped. What the others did is inexcusable, and they need to be dealt with, but it isnt sufficiently extreme to warrant a huge effort by the police and mass public outcry.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
There was no other reason to single him out because he was the perfect target of opportunity. the army defeated long ago and the coutry rich on untapped ressources, the time right to bring some good news onto the screen after the futile hunt for Bin Laden. The time was appropriate. Exile Iraqis told them they would be greeted as heroes and things would be over in a few weeks....

However nobody seems to have forseen this outcome and the consequences for the US, the world market and the Iraqi population.

Saddam was in no particular way better or worse that all the other henchmen down there and the only reason why he was so violently oppressive is that his fraction was a minority that under normal circumstances (means without support) never had come to power. He was guided and prepared to take power. He had a purpose. This purpose was to keep the iraqi shiites down and from uniting their powers with Iran.
Then, he even broke chains with the Baath movement because he favoured US support. Only to find himself completely isolated and cornered all of a sudden.

And the worst thing that happened to the iraqi people was not Saddam, not the Iran war, not Desert Storm. It was the embargo. Just to set things straight.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am stunned (I should say, I wish I was stunned, but less and less suprises me from leftists these days) that you try to mitigate Saddam's actions by pointing out that other people have done bad stuff too. That is beside the point. Saddam signed his death warrant in a multitude of ways, his human rights record was one, his military ambitions another.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First of, I am no leftist. You and your kind have the issue that any opposing mindset must oviously be preset and irreparably centered around believes you deem wrong. That is why debating with your kind is fruitless, as you can only bombard them with data until they simply cease to answer.
With "your kind", I refer not only to those of your political opinion but those who represent the other side of the medallion and which you accuse me to be part of.

Honestly, I am sick of your generalisations.

So maybe I give You a little bit backround of myself, to set some things straight ....

I was politically active in in the youth organisation of the german "UNION parties", the CDU/CSU coalition. That roughly stands for "Chist Democratic Union" and "Christ Social Union", (basically the same, the CSU is the Bavarian branch) which resembles the conservative right wing and is comparable to the Republicans.
I still do remain in contact with those people, yet I am not active anymore since I made different carrer descisions. And I descided that political buisness is not what I want to sepend my life on.
I agree on most aspects to their politics,( uncluding restriction of immigration, liberalisation of economy, (means: not what the unions want) pro for nuclear power and last but not least: restore discipline as a priority in education....)

Yet, I am not a blind voter. I descided to vote for a change 7 years ago, because I thought the Kohl government was spent after 16 years and maybe a new direction would be good for the country.... That was probably the *WORST* descision I ever made.
The SPD (socialdemocratic party of germany, your *liberals* ) and the green coalition partner managed to bring down what was already quite shaking in an astonishing short period.

The second period of the current coalition is now coming to an end after only 2 years because of massive protest elections against the refoms that have been undertaken.
The last election was won due to the Iraq charade and the Chancellor instrumetalising the pacifist sentiments of the german polupation.

I did not vote for them <i>despite</i> they were against Iraq. (did not vote them for amultitude of reasons but that does not matter here)
I did not vote them, because their reason to protest against the Iraq war was obviously a political ruse to gain voters and save their sorry political carrers over the next election. That was <i>after</i> they supported the US in Afghanistan by the way. Note that I did never oppose against Afghanistan ...

I base my political views on information I gather from various sources of different origin, and rethink my position regularely. Do you?

Maybe you should try and to use your freedom the way its intended and try to take a look at the other side of the fence... You know, you are allowed to do so in a democracy. Maybe you will see some new insight in those unknown places you call "liberal"
You said you want Bush punished if he retreats from Iraq and leaves a mess? Just wait and see. Unforunately, nobody will punish him for this.

And get this trhough your head: <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>I AM NO LEFTIST </span>
when I take a certain critical stance I have made up my mind on it despite and unrelated to any political party I might feel affiliated to! Yes... that is possible. Blasphemous isn't it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Intent is everything. You'll never understand, I've tried to explain this before, you didnt get it then and you wont get it now. Have you ever seen the movie Reservoir Dogs? In that movie, a police officer is taken prisoner, and then one of the criminals slices his ear off with a razor for the pure pleasure of it, while dancing and listening to music. That kind of torture, that kind of raw evil made me feel physically ill. But what it they had merely been coworkers on a construction site, and one mans negligence lead to another man's ear being severed accidentally by a saw. I would still be angry with the negligent man, I would still feel sorry for the innocent victim, but the absence of intent means I dont feel ill at the evil, because there was no evil. That situation isnt even half as bad as the one above.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Intent does mean nothing in politics. Intends and morale are what you tell the voters, calculations is what you base your actions on. When you plan a military strike , you plan on civilian casualties. You knowm their estmated numbers. You accept them. So in order to stick with that silly and totally unrelated anylogy of yours:

The employer of the workers were cutting on safety in order to achieve their goals in less time and otherwhise favorable conditions. when they do so, they calculate that people come to harm.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In the same way, the US military does not go out of its way to procure civilian casualties. This means your attempts to equate callous murder with accidental and coincidental civilian deaths are intellectually bankrupt.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Intellectual bancrupt is to stick with a position that has been proven wrong, is causing harm and continue to ignore the results.

Intellectual bancrupt is to accuse media outlets, that were good enough to support you position when they did so, of being harmful to the greater purpose and dig for dirt and use inaccurate or false information to discredit your position. Especially since the same kind of slanderous and inaccurate jounalism was cited over and over i favor of your position in the first place.

Intellectual bancrupt is to repeat a pattern of failed policies that increase the tensions and dangers on this world in an exponential way over and over again.

Intellectual bancrupt is when you, while you seemingly disagree with said policies of former representants, you assume that this particular president will bring the great miraculous change just because he fits your idealistic pattern

Intellectual bancrupt is to assume that this idealistic pattern does represent the true nature of the politician, instead of being a personality show desinged for a specific audience.

Intellectual bancrupt is to thing that the situation in the middle east can become anything better by using force of arms, because it is a simple fact proven over and over by history, that foreign intervention and political or military preassure will inevitably result in armed revolution fought with any means available. Whether those means are spears , old french muskets, gurerillias, large armies or suicide bombers.
Armed revolution is the inevitable result and it will continue until the situation is resolved by one side winning.
The conclusion is, that the US cannot win because they cannot use the means nessesary to silence all opposition for that means would be genocide.

Intellectual bancrupt is to assume that Iraq was anything other that strategic ressource politics under the impression of the dimishing oil reserves. In case you do not realize, but we are currently in a golbal race for raw materials that has no equal except the periords before the World Wars, when tensions grew high.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Oh, and bad luck getting taken in by the DU hoax. Sounded plausible right? Its got uranium in it, that must be radioactive, radioactive means cancer! amirite?!!! no, I'm not
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Buddy... did I specify the exact effects of DU? What makes you think I had a misconception of it's chemical porperties?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Uranium-238 becomes DU, <b>which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. </b>Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Read: 0.7 times as radioactive... thats more than half of the initial radioactivity of natural uranium. Natual uranium does evidently cause severe harm to the organism, even if it is not handled directly or inhaled. Native tribes all over the world do evade natural sources of Uranium because of the innate radiation present even if it is not extracted.
Those places were considered evil in primitive cultures.
And a half life time of 4.5 billion years... hmmm that's going to sum up.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The amount of depleted uranium which is transformed into dust will depend upon the type of munition, the nature of the impact, and the type of target. The number of penetrators hitting a target depends upon many factors, including the type and size of the target. On average, not more than <b>10% of the penetrators fired by planes equipped with large machine guns hit the target (20 - 30 mm rounds). DU munitions which do not hit hard targets will penetrate into the soft ground or remain more or less intact on the surface. These will corrode over time, as metalic DU is not stable under environmental conditions.</b>
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hmm. Nice to know isn't it. So 10 percent of the billions of rounds fired in both wars actually hit the target and incendierate. The rest of them are under the soil and corrode, which does not actually mean that they lose any radioactivity. Hmm ever heard of... You know ground water poisoning and such things?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In late 2000 and early 2001, various news reports, mostly European, reported allegations of an increase in leukemia cases related to exposure to DU while serving in the Balkans. Subsequent independent investigations by the World Health Organization, European Commission, European Parliament, United Nations Environment Programme, United Kingdom Royal Society, and the Health Council of the Netherlands have all have discounted any association between depleted uranium and leukemia or other medical problems among Balkans veterans.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Now isn't that nice. And yet what actually causes those statistics? .... well well, we probably never know.... Maybe children play on the fields in which DU ammo is corroding... maybe they play on tank wreckages... maybe they are drinking the ground water...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Large numbers of corroding DU penetrators buried in the soil may also pose a long-term threat if uranium leaches into water supplies. Long-term sampling, particularly of water and milk, is required to detect any increase in uranium levels around areas where DU has been used on the battlefield.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ohh looksie... here we have it. Right in your own source Marine. You know why there has not been evidence for a relation between increasing number of sicknesses and DU? Because there are no long term studies available yet.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Most soldiers and civilians will not be exposed to dangerous levels of depleted uranium.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I wonder how they come to that conclusion, since fighting and airstrikes took place in all major cities of Iraq .... Do they expect the people to leave them in order to avoid DU fragements?

Fazit:
The quantities are not high but they are a cumulating and ongoing exposure to the human body, which means additional stress for the metabolism, especially for people like pregnant mothers, old people and children.
US veterans have shown signs of related sicknesses. The term "Gulf War syndrome" was not invented for nothing. And those troops are only in place for a year at most. Those people down there will live with that trash for the rest of their lives.
People did not know that X-ray radiation kills before someone brought up the idea of limiting exposure to a minimum... dumbness kills but unfortunately not exclusively those who do dumb things.

See it as it is: The US have found a cheep way to get rid of their nuclear waste *and* blow stuff up. Cool isn't it?
Someone dumping hazardous trash is usually punished by trial and you can be sure that future generations of the harmed population will want some compensation for this...

P.S. I have no time to spellcheck this, I wrote this in my lunchbrake. No, im not a native english speaker.

edit: some typo and grammar. Some clarifications. I know it's still a mess...

Marine0I · August 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You might want to do some reseach about a man called Daniel Mitrone, a US "development specialist" and technician who was employed in Uruguay during the 60s, and some other banana republics... He was abducted and executed by a local guerillia. The case is a nice example for CIA operations. Unfortunately I failed to find a good source in english language. Maybe it happened too long ago... that's pre INTARWEB... maybe I can dig somehting up later. Or you could make a little trip to a library. There's cool stuff there... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When I see it, then I'll comment on it. I am aware of various CIA doings in Central and Southern America including formenting violent government overthrows, but again I stress, this is no way similar to anything going on in Iraq, and was stupid + wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Marine ... Ever been in a wild west showtown as a child and did some goldwashing for a dollar? You know, when they give you a plate and some sand and let you search for some bits of worthless gold grain. Thats what this blogger site is doing. It highlights some shiny dots in a huge pile of mud.

If there would indeed be visible and lasting progress, we would see the oil prizes dropping. Simple as that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ehhh... Negative. The media finds good news from Iraq rather boring, and not quiet as interesting as "a massive explosion rocked downtown Baghdad today, shattering US military and Iraqi Government claims that security was improving as Iraq descends into further cycles of violence reminiscent of the Vietnam quagmire". That site merely compiles all the good news, and leaves the bad news reporting to the main stream media. It provides balance. It does not pretend thats the only news from Iraq, it claims only to collect the good news.

Someone feeding on an unhealthy diet of straight MSM material could be very easily fooled into thinking zero progress is being made in Iraq. You clearly fell into that trap, claiming "reconstuction efforts are nigh to impossible." That was a false claim, as that website has reams of information reporting on completed reconstruction projects.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes sure. because the US troops are being taken out of the line of fire. The bulk of the peace keeping is done by Iraqi forces who get the beating. And the thousands of private security personnel nobody ever mentions... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What is wrong with Iraqi's fighting for their own country against islamofascist filth and bitter wannadictator Sunni's? The more Iraqi's take over their own defence, the lamer and lamer claims this is a Muslim war against Christian invaders will become. Iraqi's have proven both in votes and blood that while they dont love their American liberators, they are far more skeptical of their religious fanatic "freedom fighters" than they are of democracy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Kurds are secessioninsts ... They want independence and seek to unite with their brethren in south Turkey. A scenario neither the Shiites will tolerate, nor the Turks. So, how long do you think the Kurds will stay calm?
And who do you think the US will deem more important? the Kurds? Or the Shiites and the Turks?

Next ex-ally waiting in line...

The Kurds are able to secure their own territory because they have the most well trained militias in the area. The US are partly dependant on the Kurds atm. In some places, people talk about Kurdish occupation ... Yet those militias are more loyal to their leaders than to the Iraqi army or nation and refuse to disband and join regular forces. You want to trust them? This <a href='http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46411.pdf' target='_blank'>report</a> details some of the problems. Sorry, its no the usual black and white trash found in the media. You have to dig up the conclusion for yourself.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure, the Kurds want to bail. That is a serious and legitimate concern. However, the Kurds currently stand to get the best deal of any Kurdish minority in the region, and they know it. Obviously, the peshmerger do not trust their countrymen completely, but there has been no serious indication they plan to split away from the current political process. Kurdish voter turnout was huge, they wield significant power, and the US still exerts significant influence over them. They are also intimately acquainted with democracy, having run their own democracy over the past decade. I just dont think they are anything to panic over just yet.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The big problem is, that there is no real administrative infrastructure to build the nation on. Saddam destroyed all administrative structures of the other fraction during his reign and except those who were fast enough to go into hiding or exile, there is no one who could run the place except Sunnites. Whom you cannot trust. There is one of the fundamential problems that hinders true progress.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its frustrating and difficult, but it is not crippling. Those kinds of problems get better as time goes on, not worse. The security situation makes it tough, but progress is made. The US is pumping billions of dollars into Iraq to rectify these kinds of problems. You clearly dont think they'll succeed in setting it up, I have faith they will.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We had this point a while ago. It still is not an indication for economic growth, since cars do not mean the same thing there as in our society. Cars are an everydays comodity in the gulf because petrochemical products are so cheap. Think of it like luxuries. Far away, they are expensive, in the place where they come from, everybody can afford it. Kaviar is considered peasants food in Russia. If you ever travel to an arab nation, one of the first things you will notice is the sight of thousands of cars driving around day and night. Even in those countries which are not overly rich in Oil, like Egypt. A car means nothing special there, its not primarely a symbol of wealth like we might understand it. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its the buying and selling which is his real point. Under the trade embargo, car parts were rare and expensive, and importing cars was generally a no-no. The mass purchase of cars is still a positive economic indicator, just like a sudden surge in peasant purchases of kaviar in Russia.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
That's arabia you know... they live for bartering. Ever been on a bazaar? That is perfectly normal even in poor countries. You will have the same sight in Moghadishu and still won't interpret it as "economic development". In Germany after the war, there was the same kind of trade, yet it was disalowed at that time, so there was a booming black market. Yet this kind of buisness is not even remotely connected to Germanys rapid economic development.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Disagree strongly here. As the shop owner says, people are a lot more confident now, they are spending more. They can see their business either increase or decrease. As consumers accumulate more wealth, and feel more secure, they spend more. Trading always goes on, increased trading is a positive economic sign. Its not the fact that business is carrying on that has him excited, its the increase.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My question is, what in the name of God makes you think that this particular time it is going to end any different? Do you think they make it by sheer probability or is it because Mr Bush pretends to act on behalf of his faithful soul? I ask this taking in consideration your religoius backround.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, you must remember that GWB is the first politician I've ever really had confidence in. Post 9/11 I thought he was a dangerous gibbering idiot who was manipulating religion to his own political advantage. I thought the US would be crushed in Afghanistan, and many of my friends thought/hoped so too. NATO stomped the Taliban and I was mildly disappointed. As far as I was concerned, the US was just using lame excuses to attack other nations. Then he turned his sights on Iraq - and for a substantial amount of time I had used Saddam as a prime example of US foreign policy failure. GHB had sold the Shi'ites out to Saddam and let them be slaughtered. I thought the US kinda owed it to the Iraqi's to finish Saddam and restore their country. I still bashed Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war, calling him a selfish oil-greedy imperialist etc etc.

Then someone pointed out that even if Bush was being selfish, the only way he could get his hands on that oil and retain any sort of legitimacy was to be seen as "freeing" Iraq, democratising it and making it pro-US and friendly. His supposed selfish aims and the humanitarian aims coincided, and he was staking a hell of a lot on the outcome. So I converted, I supported Bush in principle. He had too much to lose to simply pull out when the going got tough. In my view on things, when Americans are fully committed, they cant lose unless they get sick of it and bugger off. Bush had demonstrated that he would not be dissauded. This wasnt some cloak and dagger CIA thing, this was a concerted effort.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Are you aware that they are doing exactly the same thing again? Sending bad people against bad people? The first interim Prime minister <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allawi' target='_blank'>Allawi</a>, a former hitman of Saddam, shot six prisoners in front whitnesses to emphasis that the Iraqi security forces do not have to fear consequences when dealing with suspects.
He is not Prime anymore but he was always a favored figure by the US yet he has lost the elections and much influence. This guy was the one that told the US they would be having an easy time to liberate Iraq btw... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The details of his days as a Ba'athist in London are sketchy at best. "He has blood on his hands...", and confirmation from an anonymous Middle Eastern diplomat dont make for a strong case. He was no Saddamite hitman, Saddam did not rise to power until 1979, Allawi was out of the Baath party by 1975 and by the sounds of things actively opposing them soon after. A Saddamite hitman did try to assasinate him... with an axe :S. Those claims he executed 6 insurgents were reported in the SMH and the Age, the home of the Australian Left, completely unverifiable, and were hence mainly ignored by the American and European media. "Two anonymous guys told me Allawi killed some insurgents" is laughable from a country where rumours abound.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If they really leave the country next year, like it is rumored, then your anticipation is absolutely correct. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If they do leave early, it will be because the security crisis has become managable by Iraqi forces. Bush has stated repeatedly that he will not pull out till the job is done. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine Bush leaving and watching the country collapse.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There was a recent discussion about wheter Iraq was another vietnam. You posted there too. Several sources (one even provided by the contra position) indicate that the US population is losing faith in the success of the mission. The fugures dropped to somewhat around 50 percent from 70 percent within a few month. During WW2, the figure never dropped below 75%, despite the fact that several hundred thousand of US soldiers died. So if this trend continues, the retreat is merely a matter of time.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

They dont like it, but they wont leave. I dont know which poll you are referring to, perhaps this one <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html' target='_blank'>less than 50% US support war</a>, but while they might not support it, <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700270.html' target='_blank'>1 in 8 support immediate pullout</a>. Like the war or hate it, most Americans are not so stupid and so callous as to want to cut and run like dogs. Even if those numbers got close to 50/50, I still dont think Bush would pull the plug.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By the way, did you know that Kuwait was a former province of Iraq before the British decided to grant them protection and that Kuwait did some <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling' target='_blank'>slant drilling</a> on Iraqs oil field? Just some trivia.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Slant drilling is sneaky. Generally, your recourse is through international law. Saddam got confused and though war, looting, rape and pillage was an appropriate response.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you look at Israel and see what happens within the political right and the reaction of extremists because of the planned retreat from Gaza, you can't blame them. Such behavior is not very representative for a democratic society.
Just try for once to think not in your preassembled reality that conforts your mind and try to understand that the common arab fears Israel. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The common Arab fears Israel because he is brainwashed. I can kinda see their logic though, they've been trying to exterminate the Jews for the best part of 50 years. To the Arab mind, it only makes sense that the Jews would want to propagate the same kind of genoicde they attempted. The extremists do not control Israel. Palestinian hatred is directed at Sharon, who opposes the extremists. I try not to give the average Palestinian too much credit intellectually. They hate Jews, they think the Jews stole their land and are pure evil. Everything else they do and think can be explained within that framework.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Excuse me but you should not talk about warped and illogical nonsense and come up with absolutely inapropriate comparisons. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's not a comparision, its an analogy to explain a moral principle you should have picked up in preschool. The actions of others does not mitigate your own. You cannot mitigate the moral case against Saddam by outlining the evil of his neighbours. You tried, and I pulled you up on it, unless you were merely giving me an impromptu history/Middle Eastern current affairs lecture.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It does not fit together when you claim to enforce ethnical standards and at the same time suport oppressive and reactionary regimes <i> that are located in the same cultural and political sphere of influence</i>. You cannot drive on the mid-line of the street like this and expect no one to ask questions.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The case for attacking Saddam is many fold:

1. The bastard has oil. It would be great if a pro-US government was controlling the flow.
2. Make an example of him. Smash his regime and set up a democracy, demonstrating to nearby nations that democracy is big win.
3. Moral reasons, he is a monster. He kills and tortures for fun on a large scale
4. We think he has WMD. He has tried to get em before and the Israeli's stopped him. Who wants a moral monster with WMD?
5. He doesnt have that much support from surrounding nations. They dont like him any more than we do.
6. We got some allies on the inside, the Kurds will be happy to help us.
7. He has some serious opposition from Shi'ites who hate him just as much as we do. Perhaps they will help.
8. It is strategically feasible. We have desert combat experience, complete air superiority, and he has no allies to help him.

No one argument is airtight. No one argument is sufficient alone. Together, they made a compelling case. The moral case against him cannot be dented in any way, it cannot be even slightly mitigated by the evil of his neighbours. Evil associated by proximity cannot reduce evil. Stalin's evil did not reduce the moral case (unknown though it was at the time) for the destruction of the Third Reich. In the same way, Saudi Arabia's evil does not have any bearing on Saddam's evil and the need for him to be punished for it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First of, I am no leftist.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You must forgive my mistake then. In all matters moral, philosophical, religious and intellectual that we have discussed, you have been a veritable Leftist poster boy:

A European atheist, pro-abortion, anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian, anti-American, blames the prison system rather than the inmates for prison behaviour, pro-gun control, considers tax cuts for the rich corruption, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexuality, believes the UN is actually useful, postmodernist victim with associated cultural and moral eqivalence (that's just their culture/accidental=deliberate). All this is hard lefty stuff.

I was quite suprised to read this part:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I agree on most aspects to their politics,( uncluding restriction of immigration, liberalisation of economy, (means: not what the unions want) pro for nuclear power and last but not least: restore discipline as a priority in education....)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So I take it back, you are not a pure Leftists. On the issues which you share with the political Left, as outlined above, I still think you are completely and utterly wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I base my political views on information I gather from various sources of different origin, and rethink my position regularely. Do you?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Initially, yes. However, as time goes on I am increasingly becoming a Conservative Idealogue. I trust conservative ideas implicitly now. I am interested enough in them that I research them and confirm them in my own mind, but when they are first propounded I trust them enough to support them without 100% of the facts. On several issues I have discovered more as I go along, but these only ever serve to further reinforce my initial opinion.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Maybe you should try and to use your freedom the way its intended and try to take a look at the other side of the fence... You know, you are allowed to do so in a democracy. Maybe you will see some new insight in those unknown places you call "liberal"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Those places are not unkown to me. In my highschool years I was an anti-American Socialist Leftist, now I am a hardline right-wing evangelical conservative with a converts zeal.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You said you want Bush punished if he retreats from Iraq and leaves a mess? Just wait and see. Unforunately, nobody will punish him for this.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah, if he retreats he will get away with it. I'm just happy he wont retreat.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Intent does mean nothing in politics. Intends and morale are what you tell the voters, calculations is what you base your actions on. When you plan a military strike , you plan on civilian casualties. You knowm their estmated numbers. You accept them. So in order to stick with that silly and totally unrelated anylogy of yours:
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Intent is everything, politics or no. Accepting accidents is a normal part of life. Accidents are unavoidable, yet if you insisted on only ever acting when accidents were ruled out, you would never ever act. Yet we have to act, so we take all reasonable preparations to avoid accidents, and do what we have to.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The employer of the workers were cutting on safety in order to achieve their goals in less time and otherwhise favorable conditions. when they do so, they calculate that people come to harm.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Assumes that the employer has the ability to prevent the accidents whilst still allowing construction, but chose not to for purely selfish motivations. Civilian casualties are 100% unavoidable in war, no matter how hard you try you will hit the wrong person eventually. Once one begins to make extreme allowances for civilians, you inhibit your ability to actually win the war. In the same way, the employer would have to have an extremely good reason for scrimping on the safety, such as the need to finish a hospital before the wet season comes and the hospital is desperately needed by the local populace.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Intellectual bancrupt..
Intellectual bancrupt..
Intellectual bancrupt..
Intellectual bancrupt..
Intellectual bancrupt..
Intellectual bancrupt..
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Congratulations on succesfully managing to dodge my argument. You cannot equate murder and manslaughter. No amount of bluster is going to conceal that attempt. Accidental civilian deaths that are unwanted and minimised by the US are not comparable to deliberate mass murder and torture.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Read: 0.7 times as radioactive... thats more than half of the initial radioactivity of natural uranium. Natual uranium does evidently cause severe harm to the organism, even if it is not handled directly or inhaled. Native tribes all over the world do evade natural sources of Uranium because of the innate radiation present even if it is not extracted.
Those places were considered evil in primitive cultures.
And a half life time of 4.5 billion years... hmmm that's going to sum up.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Negative. I wish it were so, but the amount of radiation produced by natural uranium is so minimal its as if it werent there at all. If that was the case, the Australian Government wouldnt be currently battling Australian Aboriginals for the right to mine their tribal lands in the Northern Territory for Uranium. You do of course realise that .7 means its 70% as radioactive as normal uranium ie 30% less radioactive?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hmm. Nice to know isn't it. So 10 percent of the billions of rounds fired in both wars actually hit the target and incendierate. The rest of them are under the soil and corrode, which does not actually mean that they lose any radioactivity. Hmm ever heard of... You know ground water poisoning and such things? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is a concern, and it has been studied. To date, no one has been able to prove its done a thing, but WHO has recommended that areas saturated in DU to be carefully monitored. You can read their analysis of DU <a href='http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/' target='_blank'>here</a>. It gives DU a virtual clean bill of health. They also analysed the potential threat to children playing near DU.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ohh looksie... here we have it. Right in your own source Marine. You know why there has not been evidence for a relation between increasing number of sicknesses and DU? Because there are no long term studies available yet.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is called "keeping an eye on things". People arent stupid. It's still radioactive, and stuff like that needs to be examined closely. The current evidence is that its not harmful (equated to the kind of radioactive dose uranium miners recieve over long periods of time, which does precisely <b>nothing</b> to them), and every reputable organisation that has studied it has found little to get excited about.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I wonder how they come to that conclusion, since fighting and airstrikes took place in all major cities of Iraq .... Do they expect the people to leave them in order to avoid DU fragements? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As the World Health Organisation stated, DU fragments dont do jack. You do realise that the protective vest I use at work to protect me from X-rays (far more dangerous than DU's lame alpha radiations) is made of DU? If I can wear that 5 days a week, then I can live with Iraqi's doing likewise.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The quantities are not high but they are a cumulating and ongoing exposure to the human body, which means additional stress for the metabolism, especially for people like pregnant mothers, old people and children.
US veterans have shown signs of related sicknesses. The term "Gulf War syndrome" was not invented for nothing. And those troops are only in place for a year at most. Those people down there will live with that trash for the rest of their lives.
People did not know that X-ray radiation kills before someone brought up the idea of limiting exposure to a minimum... dumbness kills but unfortunately not exclusively those who do dumb things.

See it as it is: The US have found a cheep way to get rid of their nuclear waste *and* blow stuff up. Cool isn't it?
Someone dumping hazardous trash is usually punished by trial and you can be sure that future generations of the harmed population will want some compensation for this...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What happens to DU if someone eats it? According to a European Union study released in 2001, "most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."

That said, DU is a heavy metal; and like lead, nickel, and other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic when consumed in large quantities, especially harming the kidneys. However, studies looking at likely exposures to DU during and after battles have found that its effects on the kidneys of soldiers and civilians are mild and transient.

Another 2001 report to the European Parliament compared exposures to DU to those experienced by uranium miners and concluded, "The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."

The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that "because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." Another WHO report found, "The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."

What about those military reports? Dan Fahey, a former naval officer who served in the first Gulf War and is a long-time anti-DU activist, asserts that Defense Department spokespeople "have lied about the health of US Gulf War veterans exposed to DU and exaggerated the importance of DU rounds." What was the alleged lie? The Pentagon has said that no veterans in a small follow-up study of Gulf War soldiers who had been exposed to DU have contracted cancer. Fahey cites a memo that states that one veteran who had been recently added to the study has had lymphatic cancer. Fahey does acknowledge that "it is possible that this veteran's cancer is not linked to his confirmed exposure to DU."

Fahey thinks the Pentagon exaggerates the importance of DU munitions and points out that DU rounds probably took out only one-seventh of the Iraqi tanks destroyed during the first Gulf War. But Fahey also admits that there is very little evidence that DU is severely toxic. He also refutes other activists' alarmist claims that civilians have been severely harmed by depleted uranium. "There are no credible studies linking exposure to DU with any cancers or illnesses among people in Iraq, the Balkans, or Afghanistan," he declares.

If DU is not notably harmful to human health or the environment, why the fierce opposition to it? A lot of it has to do with conventional anti-nuclear activism: Some people automatically object to anything that hints of nuclear radiation. Second, some of the opposition is the result of a successful Iraqi disinformation campaign claiming that exposure to DU had caused thousands of cancers and birth defects to innocent civilians. When the WHO offered to investigate the claims, Iraqi officials flatly refused the offer. Other than trying to gain international sympathy, Pentagon officials argue that one of the real aims of the Iraqi campaign was to get DU munitions outlawed internationally so they would not have to face them again.

In addition, many U.S. veterans who returned from the Gulf War believe that they are suffering from " Gulf War Syndrome," a constellation of disparate medical problems that they think can be traced to their service in that war. One suggested explanation for their problems might be exposure to DU dust. But as we've seen, no credible studies show that exposure to DU is likely to be causing their problems.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Legat · August 2005

Well seems this is not going to be a short story. I am a bit short on time these days, so Id like to take on the points we establshed in smaller portions and add them one by one, so I can concetrate more on a few issues in the few sparetime I have. is that fine with you?
also, looking at the topic I've realized that we are going astray. So I guess we are moving within tolerable parameters by the standards of the moderators. I just mention this to remind outhelves that we should be a bit more watchful.

I take on some things first, which I can answer quite quickly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When I see it, then I'll comment on it. I am aware of various CIA doings in Central and Southern America including formenting violent government overthrows, but again I stress, this is no way similar to anything going on in Iraq, and was stupid + wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think you get the picture. Mitrone was an employe of a development organisation. In reality however he was an advisor for the regime and helped to train the police forces and the regimes secret services. This included the use of explosives in assasinations and interrogation techniques.

You say you are aware of these opeartions and do no approve them. Then you should also understand that those services were also granted to CIA clients in the middle east. Among them the House of Saud, Bin Laden and ... Saddam Hussein.
Saddams organisation was based on training and know how of western origin. With this help, he eliminated political opposition and fought his way to the top. You are right that his henchmen performed torture at a almost artistical level of perfection.
So did the bad people in the various regimes in Latin America ...

Now I come to the point:
At the present time, right now, US intelligence specialist are training Shiites and Kurds ...

Do you understand what my concern is? Do you understand why I do not believe that Iraq will not have a peaceful and democratic future in a forseeable time? I think that the former situation is going to be simply reversed, until the Shiites start to act in opposition to the US and the whole circle begins anew.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ehhh... Negative. The media finds good news from Iraq rather boring, and not quiet as interesting as "a massive explosion rocked downtown Baghdad today, shattering US military and Iraqi Government claims that security was improving as Iraq descends into further cycles of violence reminiscent of the Vietnam quagmire". That site merely compiles all the good news, and leaves the bad news reporting to the main stream media. It provides balance. It does not pretend thats the only news from Iraq, it claims only to collect the good news.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes it does. undoubtedly. however those news do not change the bigger picture of the country, which is that true and effective progress is impossible. Sabotage, assasinations and fighting prevent this. Reconstruction is not possible under such circumstances. It is simply because there can only be so many projects at a time be protected adequately.
The initial problems still stand. the oil porduction capacities are very small and the facilities are in bad shape due to war, sabotage, industrial theft (no kidding. equipment worth billions of $ was dismaltled and stolen to other countries under Saddams very nose ... ) and simple deterioration due to lack of maintainace during the embargo.
Reconstruction lacks funding and investors. But the companies will not risk employees and their money in Iraq as long as the situation is not reloved.

If I might quote myself:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If there would indeed be visible and lasting progress, we would see the oil prizes dropping. Simple as that.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You can't really argue that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Its the buying and selling which is his real point. Under the trade embargo, car parts were rare and expensive, and importing cars was generally a no-no. The mass purchase of cars is still a positive economic indicator, just like a sudden surge in peasant purchases of kaviar in Russia.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I understand what you mean, however those transactions do not alter the Iraqis gross domestic product. Importing cars does not increase the amount of money produced in Iraq, quite the contraty. The problem is, that Iraq is not producing anything notably except petrochemical products. However, the output of those has not increased significantly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Disagree strongly here. As the shop owner says, people are a lot more confident now, they are spending more. They can see their business either increase or decrease. As consumers accumulate more wealth, and feel more secure, they spend more. Trading always goes on, increased trading is a positive economic sign. Its not the fact that business is carrying on that has him excited, its the increase.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Same here. This kind of trade does only transfer money from hand to hand within Iraq and to the importeurs. It does not resemble a growing economy. Those commodities are not produced in Iraq hence they do not add to Iraqs gross domestic product.

As you are correct about the fact that the media coverage does not pick on the various small enterprises and bits of success, it does not change teh situation, which is dire. Like I said, I had access to MEES articles until a few month ago and I regularey checked them for changes in the big picture. MEES is an economic survey, so they are a good meaure if you want to see how the Buisnessmen perceive Iraq. And they don't like what they see. That is what matters.

Like I said. If Iraqs exports would have improved noticably, we would see falling oil prizes instantly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
They dont like it, but they wont leave. I dont know which poll you are referring to, perhaps this one less than 50% US support war, but while they might not support it, 1 in 8 support immediate pullout. Like the war or hate it, most Americans are not so stupid and so callous as to want to cut and run like dogs. Even if those numbers got close to 50/50, I still dont think Bush would pull the plug.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No, that is not the source I meant, while that was the one I posted.
I refer to <a href='http://www.hnn.us/articles/12778.html' target='_blank'>this</a>. This was used to counter the information from the Post article.

However:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Even Vietnam, where the myth of a risk-averse public was born, proves nothing of the kind. There, too, the public's sensitivity to casualties depended on its faith in the eventual success of the mission. And, prior to the Tet Offensive in 1968, that faith remained substantially intact.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Bush's vulnerability comes from the growing number of Americans who see events going the wrong way on the ground. In the most recent CBS News poll, only 45 percent see "the United States in control of events taking place in Iraq"--a figure that has declined from 71 percent in April. Similarly,<i>53 percent of respondents to the latest pipa survey think the "process of rebuilding Iraq is going 'not very well' or 'not at all well.'"</i> These findings do spell trouble for the president.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The article establishes, that doubt on the missions success will diminish support for the campaing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Sure, the Kurds want to bail. That is a serious and legitimate concern. However, the Kurds currently stand to get the best deal of any Kurdish minority in the region, and they know it. Obviously, the peshmerger do not trust their countrymen completely, but there has been no serious indication they plan to split away from the current political process. Kurdish voter turnout was huge, they wield significant power, and the US still exerts significant influence over them. They are also intimately acquainted with democracy, having run their own democracy over the past decade. I just dont think they are anything to panic over just yet.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So then what makes the Kurds concearns more legitimite than the palestinian? Or those of the Iranian revolutionists? Or those of the Irish rescessionists during the initial IRA uprising?

-------
OT WARNING: guess thats really off topic after rereading it ... If the mods wish do to delete this I have no problem with it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You must forgive my mistake then. In all matters moral, philosophical, religious and intellectual that we have discussed, you have been a veritable Leftist poster boy:

A European atheist, pro-abortion, anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian, anti-American, blames the prison system rather than the inmates for prison behaviour, pro-gun control, considers tax cuts for the rich corruption, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexuality, believes the UN is actually useful, postmodernist victim with associated cultural and moral eqivalence (that's just their culture/accidental=deliberate). All this is hard lefty stuff.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I can't recall about having even participated in discussions about most of the topics you mentioned, since my interests are more closely tied history and politics.
Some of the things you accuse me of are related to the debate we are currently in.
I would like you to refrain from using the term Anti-Zionism, as it is a close call to certain related term which I am certain you did not intend to imply.

In this particular case you are generalising. Having a critical stance on a nations political behavior does not equal "Anti -ism". Especially in the Palestine /Israel situation. You are talking about the Palestinians in a way that makes the the only ones responsible. Do you see what happes im Israel ATM? Do you see the radical right extremists protesting against the retreat from Gaza? Did you hear about the man entering a bus and shooting palestinians at random? If you seek radical and violent behavior, do not only search in Palestine.

As for the matter of Gun Control: absolutely, since it is my firm beleive that firearms should not be handled by ordinary people. This is no matter of right or left where I am from. Yet, I play paintball. Controversial isn't it?

As for the religious matters: I am quite sure that I did never ever on this board have argued about religion and peoples believes. I also do not consider myself an atheist.
Albeit I am no practicing christian, I was raised roman catholic and uphold the moralic values that come with it. I do have my issues with the Vatican poltics at times. I also am absolutely sure that I never ever doubted someones faith on this board, not even in science vs creationism debates (in which I do not post..) . I think that nobody should question other peoples faith, as it is a founation of someones personality and does nothing but create tension. I am for secularisation of state and church and politics however. Unquestionably. Politics and religion should never be mixed up.

Also I am sure that I did never argue in abortion threads. I do however occasionally remember people who complain about muslim fundamentialism, that such behavior is possible in our society too. As such I might use radical abolution enemies as an example. That does not mean I am pro abolution.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
blames the prison system rather than the inmates for prison behaviour
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If you are reffering to the experiment I cited in the torture debate, you are pulling this absolutely out of context.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
considers tax cuts for the rich corruption
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Here you take things out of context again. At that particular discussion you seem to refere to, I used it as an example how certain political groups gain support with their base. I also posted a counter example for more socialistic governments doing the same by favouring the workers.

In terms of economical issues, you would be suprised how "Pro-American" I can be...

edit: edited some of the content to clarify my statements. Added some things.

Crisqo · August 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am no leftist.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

Snidely · August 2005

...It could be someone who's been in a really bad accident. Don't make the same mistake I did.

Sadam Hussein

Comments