Forums > Social Discussion > Shock and Awe.

Posted: 10th May 2006
Woah woah woah, we wouldn't agree to UN decisions? The UN had 12 years of sanctions that did nothing but make the problems worse, and harder on the iraqi people than before, all while saddam was laughing at them having a grand ol' time. What do you want, another 12 years? I think that is more than enough time to expect a reasonable person to change. I don't think this war is any harder on the Iraqi people than the conditions before, and in many ways it's better. You have to remember that the views of Iraq that the media shows isn't exactly fair. From all the troops I've talked who've come back, the vast majority of Iraq is calm and peaceful with only a few hotspots of violence.

You guys talk like all American's want to do is get into a war. Thats not true at all and believe me I'm all for peaceful diplomatic solutions, but we know that there is a time when the talking has to end and there need to be real consiquences. If all you can do is preach peace and democracy but produce nothing what good is it? You talk like we're the [censored] child but we're the only ones willing to put our necks on the line. Where would the world be if the US suddenly pulled all of its foreign aid and funding around the world? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

You may think there is no moral or ethical reasoning behind the war, and there may not have been initially but I can assure you there is to the troops, and the troops, the people on the ground where the metal meets the meat are the ones I care about. I have no respect for an organization that calls for peace but cannot, and will not, enforce it. Would you have liked this 'war' better if it was called a peacekeeping mission? It's the same god damned thing.

You talk like Iraq is now a barren wasteland, you want some things that the media doesn't tell you about? the ways that we've IMPROVED Iraq now? Here, I'll list a few for you..

* Nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are working.
* Iraq Judiciary is fully independant
* By October 6th 2003, power hit 4,518 megawatts (thats more than it was pre-war)
* all 22 universities, 43 technical institutes and colleges are open
* by oct 1 2003, coalition forces had rebuilt over 1,500 schools
* School attendance is up over 80% from what it was pre-war
* Girls are allowed to attend school
* all 240 hospitals, and 1200 clinics are open (100% operational and staffed, as opposed to 35% prewar)
* Over 22 Million vaccinations to Iraq's children
* 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever
* Iraq has a single unified currency (first time in 15 years)
etc etc etc

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Posted: 10th May 2006
Andrealee, I’m not sure how the international community can get better leadership and co-operation out of counties like the USA, and Iraq. But it’s a great question for discussion.

 Written by:

Woah woah woah, we wouldn't agree to UN decisions?

Lurch, exactly. America wouldn't agree to UN decisions. So off charges America into Iraq, like a bull in a china shop, and the result is terror and chaos.

Even Bush knows he stuffed up

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 11th May 2006
Lurch, I dont think your facts are accurate, or at least they are skewed significantly when compared to ones I just recently heard cited on our national news service, which is usually very reliably referenced. Worth considering how we get accurate information on the subject.

In addition to that, I hear contradictory information about the safety and stability of peoples lives there.I am told that the region is far far from peaceful. People I know are there working on video projects and with various aid and witness operations. No one I know has reported anything even vaguely resembling a normal safe routine life. Even waiting in line for gasoline, which is a good days wait in some cases, is dangerous. As one report I was listenning to said, not inconvenient, wasting a whole day, but dangerous.

Sure, some progress has been made, but I really question the sugestion that it is better now. Certainly not yet. And if it is, why not get out, and let the Iraqi's make their own decisions from here on out?


No one would disagree that the troops on the line deserve our care and attention, no one wants to see them hurt. But one of the best ways to see them not hurt would be to not have them there. Or, have some remain, but as part of an international military prescence, as a real peacekeeping mission, present only by invitation of the Iraqi population.There is a huge differnece between an invasion and a peace keeping mission!!!!

And I have to agree with Stone, the US has been one of the major reasons the UN has not been effective. They have blocked many UN initiatives, and have not been paying their dues, etc etc. It is a long sad list of interference actually.

Obviously the sanctions were not working, were corrupted, and that harmed many people. Yet war was not and is not the only solution to that. The invasion of a country because you dont like their leader is illegal.

As for the USA's contributions to relief efforts around the world, and general international aid, why would that grant America the right to intervene in a countries politics, or the right to simply invade? Yes, the US has made some wonderful, massively significant financial gestures internationally. No question. Unfortunately much american aid has gotten tied in with influence brokering arrangements, which complicates the reception and administration of such generousity. People begin to question if it is legitimate aid, or manipulation. Are they being bought?

I am glad for the generousity the american people have shown the world. You guys should be happy and proud to play such an important role. I can feel that way, yet still be appalled at other decisions made by your government. My appreciation for one set of humanitarian actions by the USA does not silence my disapproval of other corrupt, violent political manipulations. I am astounded at how quicklyso many people just accepted this war. Thankfully, protest is growing. Within the USA,and without.

Lurch, if you dont respect an organization that can not enforce their "peace", do you have any suggestions about how to create an international organization that could?

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 11th May 2006
I never said that the country was safe and stable, The majority of the country is however, but you never hear about it because it's not interesting. There are hot spots that harbor and encourage the violence, and they get all the attention, do you really think Iraq is made up of the 3 or 4 cities that you constantly hear about on the news? come on now

The facts may not be accurate, that was taken from an article written about a year and a half ago. I'm not saying there haven't been faults, god knows there have in this war, pardon my french but it's been a clusterf*ck from the get go. BUT, that doesn't mean there never should have been a war, it just means it was poorly managed. We didn't have enough troops there to stabilize the country effectively after hostilities ended. Because of the massive 'push' to seize Baghdad, we skipped over many pockets of resistance that later bit us in the ass. I'm not going to get into all that though, that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

We can't leave Iraq right now because for the most part apparently, the people causing the trouble, are not Iraqis but other people who've come in to profit from the situation. If you look at most of the civilian casualties and the hardships on the people, it is caused by these 'insurgent's and they are the people we're trying to remove. Iraq isn't stable enough to run itself yet, but it is getting there. Chances are no matter what we do as soon as we leave there will be a civil war.

As for the UN.. The whole system there is screwed up. Yes the US hasn't always payed its dues, but that was as a from of protest, not because we were throwing a hissy fit. The use of our 'veto' (it's not technically a veto) powers has mainly been in relation to the UN's repeated condemnation of Israel but refusal to mention the other terrorist groups associated with that whole ordeal...

There were 16 UN security council resolutions sanctioned on Iraq after the end of the gulf war, mainly in relation to it's WMD's and other prohibited weapons. I'll say that again. THERE WERE SIXTEEN DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS all saying essentially the same thing after being repeatedly ignored. How many more opportunities did you want to give him? Because I don't think the last 15 did any good.

If you really truly want to argue justification for war, than you need to go to the final resolution 1441 done in mid Nov 2002. Their failure to comply to that was the last straw. UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed the presence of massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 1998, Iraq could not account for it's supposed "disposal" of those weapons. If indeed it DID dispose of them, they did not follow the proper procedure to do so, and it couldn't be proven either way. The burden of prof DOES lie on Iraq to prove that to the worlds satisfaction that it disarmed, not for us to prove to ourselves that it has.

By mid Feb 2003 there were still issues and inconsistencies, the US finally drew the line in the sand and called for the UN Security Council to reconvene to figure out what to do. France put out a statement on March 10th saying that they would veto any resolution leading to war.. (hmmmmmm.....) The deadline was drawn for March 17th for Iraq's complete compliance to 1441, they failed to meet that, the war was on.

France and Russia were definitely not very eager to go to, or let a war start with Iraq. Personally I have a feeling it was much more policitally/economically based that ethically. French oil companies had stake in nearly 1/4 of all of Iraq's oil. Not to mention $20 billion worth of weapons that France had sold them, along with materials (prohibited by the UN trade embargo's) to build long range missiles. They were after all, Iraq's #2 trading partner, second only to *gasp* Russia! All of that would, and did, go away as soon as the war started.

So I ask you, there were 15 previous resolutions, 1441 marked the 16th that Iraq failed to comply on. Obviously the resolutions weren't the solution to the problem, and you say war wasn't either, so what is? What should we have done? France and Russia had huge stakes and profit to be made the longer Saddam remained in power.

Now I must say, Saddam played his part beautifully. He got himself into a war he could not possibly win, so what would be his best move? To make us look like fools. If his WMD's magically disappeared, and he crumbled and fell apart at the seams, he 'obviously' wasn't the threat we claimed him to be However if he'd fought back, launched any sort of biological or chemical attack against our troops I doubt anyone would have any problems with the war today, and he probably wouldn't still be alive.

But don't tell me the war was un-just, you know that Saddam needed to be removed from power one way or another, he had gross human rights violations in 2001 and so much before then it's sickening.




Now... How to fix the UN..

The use of force in peacekeeping missions should not be swayed by any economic gain or loss by the countries involved. France probably would have been much more open to the use of force if they hadn't been in line to lose billions of dollars. At the same time there needs to be a line, 16 different resolutions is ridiculous. I can't believe it went on that long, and I can't believe that would have KEPT going on if we hadn't done something. This pussyfooting around military action is only going to get more people killed in the long run. There are people out there who are not afraid to use their military. The only reasons they have not done so yet is because they know there will be retribution. If you take that threat away, if you take that ability away, than we're all doomed.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Posted: 11th May 2006
Each country involved in this conflict (or opposed to it) has it's own agenda. Those of us who have access to sources other than the local mass media - whose criticism of their government is limited by the fact that media corporations are economic entities, tied to the economies of their host countries - And who have/take the time to find varying sources, will be more aware of these agendas.

The US/UK and their allies had no problem whatsoever with Saddam Hussein and his human rights abuse and possesions of WMD, so long as the oil continued to flow.

In many countries in the Middle East, after both WWI and WWII, promises were broken with the allies we had made in those areas, and the west took measures to install leaders who would be more sympathetic to the needs of the west, such as Saddam Hussein and the Shah or Iran. In many of these countries it took civil war to remove those leaders, and obtain leadership more fitting to the will of the people. This of course has resulted in hatred for the west and it's meddling in other countries' affairs.

It was economically sound for the likes of France and Russia to favour independance for Middle Eastern countries, as they could gain more favourable trade agreements.

Iraq's developing independance, after initially being favourable to US/UK policies, went too far for those countries to tolerate when Saddam became favourable to the idea of trading oil in Euros, instead of in Dollars, the only currency used to trade oil.

With a market in place to trade oil in Euros, other oil suppliers would have the option of joining that market, and the result of that would be the complete collapse of the US economy, and those countries who are closely tied to it's currency.

The US is in a precarious state economically, as it exports very few products (Very rarely does a product have a 'Made in the USA' sticker outside the US). It also imports huge amounts from abroad, and it's corporations pay wages to cheaper labourers abroad. This has led to a much greater expenditure than the country has income, and has led to a national debt of several trillion dollars.

The only reason that this state of affairs continues is the ongoing trade in dollars, which allows the US to continue trade in it's own currency.

Saddam's interest in trading in Euros occured shortly before the second gulf war. Similarly the recent posturing for an invasion of Iran occured after that country considered creating an oil market based on the Euro.

The reasons behind the actions of each and every country in this war, have been first and foremost, protecting their own interests.


I'd like to finish by pointing out that for several posts this discussion has been , as the subject is not the invasion of Iraq, but the use of D.U. as a weapon.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 11th May 2006
Continuing the theme, here's something else for you to consider.

Both France and Russia have had the experience of being occupied countries within living memory, so have a greater appreciation of how occupation affects the psyche of a nation as a whole.

In contrast, the US has not been occupied since it's war for independance. A time whose lessons seem to have been long forgotten.

The US (and UK) are acting very much like bullies. Having being threatened after continued unpleasant behaviour, they respond with a show of force, to disuade further attacks.

France and Russia are acting like those who have been on the receiving end, by avoiding violence.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 12th May 2006
Well your original post was using DU as one example of how we don't really know our own commanders as well as we should..... I've just considered this thread an evolution of the conversation as the DU topic had been pretty well discussed before we moved on to this stuff... I apologize though someone else can make a new thread for all this stuff if you want, I'm not sure what else to be said about depleted uranium though..

But yes, in some ways you're right, France and Russia have been occupied countries fairly recently in their history. But who came to Frances rescue in WWII?

The US and the UK are not acting like bullies. Bullies torment and attack people for their own entertainment or just for the power trip. We DID have a problem with his human rights violations and illegal weapons, why do you think there was a massive trade embargo put on him in attempts to put him in line. We are standing up for something while the rest of the world buries their head in the sand and hopes it will go away if they pretend it doesn't exist. France and Russia are being timid IMHO and scared to step up. Hence the 16 resolutions that got us nowhere.

Two, Three I could understand, but 16?

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Posted: 12th May 2006

 Written by: Lurch


But yes, in some ways you're right, France and Russia have been occupied countries fairly recently in their history. But who came to Frances rescue in WWII?

who came to frances rescue? please dont give me that 'we helped you so you HAVE to tow the line' bullocks. if you actually think about it the US joined the war because they were attacked by japan, germany were allies with japan so to win the war the US had to go to france regardless of whether they actually cared about the country or not, it was just stratigically neccissary.

 Written by: lurch

We are standing up for something while the rest of the world buries their head in the sand and hopes it will go away if they pretend it doesn't exist.

France and Russia know what occupation is like and wouldnt want to force it onto another country, so they wish for diplomacy and democracy to prevail instead of violence and agression. the very fact that they blocked the resolutions shows they were desprate for peaceful non-occupation methods to prevail instead of the 'lets go in kill people we dont like and control them' method, which doesnt seem to be working out particularly well...........

 Written by: Lurch


We DID have a problem with his human rights violations and illegal weapons,?

illegal weapons, where?

(all the while not forgetting US oil interests as a war incentive)

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 12th May 2006
The thread opened with the underlying motif of distortion of the truth, and acting to reveal that truth no matter how unpopular or radical the idea may be.

I'm willing to consider the fact that the people at the top acted in good faith in using D.U., and the people who provided them with information about it's effects were the ones at fault.

Consideration of other forms of information control is the other side of the original post, and that has been ignored in favour of more mainstream arguments, that have already been discussed at length elsewhere.


Who it is that 'came to France's rescue' has little bearing on their experience of war and their resulting opinion on how it should be waged. It is a common form of avoiding the argument to bring up something that at face value appears to be related, but in fact has no relevance to the argument.

For the record, the first to attempt to come to France's rescue was by the British in 1940, when they were driven back by superior forces and made retreat at Dunkirk.

Four years later a combined US, British and Canadian force began the offensive against Germany with D-Day.

If Pearl Harbour had not occured it is unlikely that the U.S. would have joined the war until later.


As I have pointed out, the US/UK has in the past 'installed' dictators as the leaders of other countries, in the Middle East, and in South America. These leaders, on behalf of the US/UK supressed their populations, while providing access to their countries resources by corporations based in the UK/US, to exploit at great profit, and with cheap labor.

Any sanctions/embargos that happened were no doubt compromises that the UN managed to wrangle out of member states, who would much rather allow the state of affairs to continue, than risk any threat to their access to Iraq's resources. As I pointed out the US/UK only came up with a pretext to invade Iraq when Saddam's actions threatened their economies. They had to act alone as they couldn't persuade a majority at the UN to favour that course of action, it not being in the interest of those countries to stop progress towards Euro based oil trading.


The topic is not just the circumstances surrounding one war, but is the abuse of peoples access to information, by those who consider themselves better able to decide what is right for the people of a country, than those who should be trusted to democratically elect their representatives, and instead decieve the people, in order to rule them according to their own designs.

Our leaders may have our best intentions at heart when taking measures to protect our economies and quality of life. However, I think it should be up to the people of our countries, as to what cost is incured by other nations, in order for this to be so, and whether we should risk their anger with us as a result.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 12th May 2006
I never said France needs to back us because we helped to save their country.

Saddam had known stockpiles of illegal weapons in 2001, known by UN inspectors. He was ordered to 'dispose' of them, but could not, and did not present any proof that he had done so. Which means he probably didn't. Just because he got rid of the evidence doesn't mean he didn't have them, like I said before what better way to play us for a fool than to not have any when we showed up.

If we lied about them from the start, don't you think we would have kept lieing and planted them for ourselves to find and go 'see we told you!'?

Our oil interests as war incentives Yeah we've really profited from our control of those oil fields, lookit how high oil is now. Yay us! That's bull, we'll never make our investment back off of oil sales from Iraqi oil fields dont give me that.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Posted: 12th May 2006
i wouldnt talk about what hasnt happened yet. if the US can install a "democracy" its unlikely they'll have people in there that will stop selling to the US, they've just replaced one of their old cronies (saddam) with a new one (parliment).

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 14th May 2006
Hey Lurch, have you been to an airport lately? There was never enough money to fight world poverty, but look at the billions and billions that are going into security from terrorism.

You point the finger everywhere except at the real catalyst for the escalation in world terrorism. What about the “gross human rights violations” at Guantanamo Bay???

How to fix the UN? How about America abiding by the umpires decision for a change.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 15th May 2006

 Written by: Stone


Hey Lurch, have you been to an airport lately? There was never enough money to fight world poverty, but look at the billions and billions that are going into security from terrorism.

There doesn’t seem to be enough money to fight terrorism either. We should print more.

 Written by: Stone


You point the finger everywhere except at the real catalyst for the escalation in world terrorism.

Islam? How could you even imply such a thing! There is no link between Islam and terrorism.

 Written by: Stone


What about the “gross human rights violations” at Guantanamo Bay???

Clearly, more UN resolutions are needed. They fixed the human rights violations in Iraq and Afghanistan, after all.

 Written by: Stone


How to fix the UN? How about America abiding by the umpires decision for a change.

Wait a sec… I though America was the Umpire, and the U.N. was the game that America was overseeing.

Posted: 15th May 2006
Patriarch? Is that post serious!?

Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

Posted: 15th May 2006
Ha Patriarch917, I love American humour, it’s so revealing.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 15th May 2006
Patriarch917, as a world leader America has no integrity on the world stage. For example, Bush is willing to sell uranium to India, a country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty yet is unwilling to sell uranium to Iran who has signed the treaty. To me, this undermines having the treaty in the first place, and throws mud in the face of those countries who signed and honored the treaty.

In reality, Americas message to the rest of the world is that its acceptable to break International agreements for profit.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 16th May 2006

 Written by: Stone


In reality, Americas message to the rest of the world is that its acceptable to break International agreements for profit.

*cough*Kyoto*cough*

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 16th May 2006

Sethis, dont think America signed on to Kyoto in the first place? And they have done way better reducing emissions than Canada has, who did sign. I am embarassed
that not only did we not meet our goals, but that now our new PM is actually withdrawing from the accord. Breaking his promise. Cause it costs too much...

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 17th May 2006
I know it was off-topic, I wasn't really looking for a response... just thought I'd throw that in as yet another example of Bush thinking he's so righteous he can do whatever he wants.

Carry on like I'm not here

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 17th May 2006

it wasn't off topic-ness that caught my attention- I just put that there to note I was going to continue off topic! I was just wondering about Kyoto/USA... I was pretty sure they did not sign, which is awful, cause it is an important first agreement. But it is more awful, that Canadians did sign, then reneged...

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."