It doesn't matter if they find WMD or not.

by James McKenna Sat Apr 19, 2003 09:17

Poor old Avi. Deserate o justify the unjustifiable.

IF there are no weapons found it makes a lie of the argument the US/UK/Israel used to justify the war.

I also means the US administration, Bush, Powell Fleischer and Blair all LIED.

Sure it doesn't matter. We all know the war was illegal anyway and that they are liars anyway. I agree.

by E. Goldstein - AirstripOne.com Sat Apr 19, 2003 09:26 goldstein at SPAMKILLERairstripone dot com http://www.airstripone.com

Of course we support Saddam. We love the sonuvabitch. True, we never shook hands with him like Donald Rumsfeld (see picture here -- http://www.airstripone.com/030406index.html ), or gave aid and support to this tyrant during the '80's (see above link) unlike the AngloAmerican Axis you wholeheartedly support... but why let cold, hard facts illuminating your own hypocracy and moral bankruptcy come in the way of a good brain-flush, right?

by Intransigent Sat Apr 19, 2003 15:29

Think the Iraqi people know where they're at. Thanks Uncle Sam now fuck off and let us get back to business.

by Avi H Sat Apr 19, 2003 17:15

A v. brief quote from an article about Syria by Lebanese journalist Kim Ghattas on the Beeb site illustrates this well:

'Even Iraqis aren't immune to angry Syrians. Just before the fall of Baghdad, I was standing by the side of the road talking to some Iraqis who were telling me how much they hated Saddam Hussein and wanted to see him go.

They said it didn't matter if the US was waging the war because of Iraq's oil - under Saddam they had never profited from the oil gains anyway, and they didn't have any freedom.

Maybe the Americans would take the oil, but at least they would give Iraqis their freedom.

All of a sudden, a Syrian man came up to us screaming. How dare they criticise a leader who was fighting against the imperialistic troops? How could they allow the Americans into their country?

'Traitor'

The Iraqis started screaming back, saying Arabs had never done anything for the Iraqis, never said anything about Saddam killing his people by the thousands, and now anti-war protesters around the world were brandishing posters of Saddam. The Iraqis were furious.'

That's right: I DIDN'T SEE THE ARABS LIBERATING THEIR OWN: THEY LEFT IT TO THE AMERICANS AND THE BRITS.

by STOP NYC Inc. Sat Apr 19, 2003 18:03

The POINT here is not about who we "support"-or don't. It's about one nation declaring it has the sovereign "right" to invade,occupy, colonize and committ mass murder in any other countries it wishes to! THAT is what we are opposed to-because in doing so, the U.S. and U.K. are ALSO in violation of International Law! As bad as Saddam was in Iraq, he NEVER invaded or threatened to invade either the U.S. or U.K.! NOW do you get it?

by Des Sat Apr 19, 2003 19:10

The attack on the people of Iraq Avi, was an act of aggression on an independent sovereign nation by U.S. imperialism and two of its junior allies. Bush’s army have no legal or moral authority to detain any Iraqi citizen, including members of the Iraqi government. The aggressors through their use of sanctions have being responsible for the deaths of over a MILLION Iraqi people, and have scored further successes through for example blowing the arms off a young Iraqi child and have used the plight of that young child for a nauseating propaganda stunt. Bush, Blair and Howard have no interest whatsoever for the welfare of the Iraqi people, their goal was to obtain control of the most important natural resource of the country and to install a stooge regime to further that policy. They were prepared to kill as many innocent people as was necessary to do so. They are the real TERRORISTS. The attack was the first step in a blatant re-introduction of colonialism in the developing world. As an apologist for the Zionist racists, I am not surprised that you find common cause with Bush and co. BTW, the aim of the anti war campaign was to prevent further suffering been inflicted on the Iraqi people, the decision as to the system of government and who should be head of state in Iraq is or rather should be a matter solely for the Iraqi people. Incidentally, if you are interested in WMD, you should send an email to Ariel.

by E. Goldstein - Airstripone.com Sun Apr 20, 2003 00:20

To recap. Yet again. For the slow learners at the back:

"France has found a way of dealing with Saddam Hussein that simply wouldn't work for the United States because it entails a degree of cooperation that is not acceptable for us....."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-022403.htm
February 24, 2003
Memorandum to opinion leaders
Richard Perle on Iraq

"U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials. "
Saddam key in early CIA plot
Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
April 10, 2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Sooo... the _antiwar_ people are the Saddam groupies... is that it?

by Avi H. Sun Apr 20, 2003 01:55

The logic of some of the previous postings, taken to its conclusion, would be that the British, the Americans and the Russians had no right to invade Nazi Germany in WWII, because if the Germans wanted Hitler as their leader and to murder millions of people, Germans and non-Germans alike, well, that was up to them, and their 'sovereign' right. If they didn't like Hitler, then they should get rid of him on their own. As the Iraqis could have done but evidently 'chose' not to do with Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, right.

by Irish American Sun Apr 20, 2003 02:36

The demented excesses of Saddam and his boyz, including the MILLIONS of dollars in CASH found yesterday, the kitschy palaces built, the weapons bought, while his people were suffering (according to the crowd around here "because of the sanctions") are enough evidence.

Now, if you're Israeli, please get your gov't to vacate the West Bank and Gaza, puleezzz.

by jews Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:19

Just like most of the last few centuries

www.jrbooksonline.com

www.davidnoone.cjb.net

wake up

by Caspian Sun Apr 20, 2003 13:45

Israeli Avi talks paid for shite!
Before the Americans and British started destroying the whole infrastruvture of Iraq after the first Gulf attacks, Iraq for all Saddam's faults was one of the more enlightened countries in the Arab world. It had an excellent and free health service, unlike America for example or Ireland, excellent education and free schooling for all, unlike the previous two countries. All this was paid for by the oil revenues. Petrol was dirt cheap and Iraqis paid no income tax!
Yes Saddam was a cruel dictator but his people were actually better off than the Egyptians, the Yemenis, the Saudis or the Jordanians or the Syrians who all have to live under just as cruel dictatorships.
Good riddance to Saddam but unfortunately he is about to be replaced by yet anothe Israeli approved warlord.
Oh by the way, Saddam did not gas his own people. This attack was carried out by the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis did not have that particular gas in their arsenal but the Iranians did and had used it before on Iraqi troops.
Happy passover, Avi, but please stop murdering Palestinian children.

by Red Dub Sun Apr 20, 2003 15:54

Irish American. So Saddam being rich is justification for this horror? Welcome to the world of communism!!! So I can attack the Windsor and Bush families? The Windsors have thousands of times the wealth. How can any capitalist say wealth is justification for a war?

Avi, the point here is this war was planned and decided on over three years ago, before Sept 11. A few questions for you to ponder.

1: Where are the WMD and why werent they used when Saddam was on the back foot. THe US has been spying on Iraq for 12 years, controls all the major Iraqi military and paramilitary installations and has yet to find even ONE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT!

2:How could that army be considered a threat to the west?

3: Where is the link to Osama and Al Quieda? Apart from the fact they tried to assasinate Saddam in 1991. And we know how forgiving Saddam is of his enemies. A deliberate and cynical attempt to play on Americans fears by linking the two.

4: Why, if this is not an imperial conquest, has the US dollar been introduced as the currency of Iraq?

5: Why, if this is not about oil, are US troops guarding oil refinieries while looting (including of museums of huge importance) is left unchecked?

6: What is your comment on Mr Perle's comments that the positive side affect of this war is to neuter the UN and hopefuully destroy it?

But I really object to you dragging Hitler into this, See point three. Saddam was contained. Hitler wasn't. Hitler was not put in place by the UK/US. Hitler was not armed and supplied by the UK/US. Its a childish polemic. I recall nine other scumbag dictators being compared to Hitler in the last fifteen years. Stop crying wolf.

by red dub Sun Apr 20, 2003 19:53

also news today that the US intends to build at least 4 permanent military bases in Iraq.

They kept him in power when it suited them Avi. Thats the problem

by Josef Sun Apr 20, 2003 21:34

It was wrong to oppose this war. Whatever the policies of previous US administrations, the removal of Saddam has saved hundereds of thousands of lives. Besides, the majority of Iraqis welcomed it, contrary to the hopes of middle class Bush hating westerners.

The antiwar movment played a cynical game with Iraqis lives and they were shown up.

by red dub Mon Apr 21, 2003 19:00

The ANTI WAR people played a cynical game with Iraqi lives?

We werent dropping bombs on the suburbs of Baghdad!!!

No one on the Anti war side will miss Saddam. We were protesting against our governemts support for Iraq during the Iran war. Most of you pro war heads hadnt heard of him.

I will acknowledge I am wrong if:

a: The US army leave at the first opportunity. They have alreadty said they won't.

b: The Iraqi's get to choose their own leaders. They clearly wont be allowed elect anyone who the pentagon dislike.

c: Iraqi oil profits go directly to Iraqi's. Not a hope. Halliburton are already in.

This is imperialism. Kicking the shit out of the Iraqi's on a spurious pretext and stealing their oil. Its that simple.

Don't mistake the Iraqi hapiness of being shot of the Baathists with welcoming US troops. The Marines have already shot pro democracy protestors. Not a good start.

To sum up. No WMD, no link to al Queada, no credible military threat, but lots and lots of crude. And about four thousand dead Iraqis.

God bless America!

by Josef Mon Apr 21, 2003 19:55

You casually drop in "bombing the suburbs of Baghdad" as if the US had deliberately targeted certain suburbs for destruction. You know it's not true. It's a typical propaganda. Are you so brainwashed that you cannot think for yourself without having to subvert the truth?

by red dub Tue Apr 22, 2003 01:40

Did bombs drop onto Baghdad suburbs?

Yes

Did innocents (so called collateral damage) die in these bombings?

Yes

Are the US/UK denying it happened?

No

Whats your point?

by Josef Tue Apr 22, 2003 18:44

To "bomb" means to drop bombs intetionally on a targeted area. So that's what you're saying when you say the US bombed Baghdad suburbs - that the US deliberately targeted civilians.

You may have no problem with saying that but I do because I hate lies.

by red dub Tue Apr 22, 2003 22:54

We could argue about the bombing (twice) of crowded market places. We could argue about the shelling of the Palestine Hotel, killing journalists. We could argue about friendy fire. We could go on and on.

Deliberate targeting, bad intelligence (and I use that term reservedly for the white house), faulty weapons, bad weather, trigger happy troops. Take your pick from one or more of the above. There is no difference to the dead.

Civilians died. More than were killed on 9/11. Over 100,000 soldiers, mostly conscripts died. Thats a lot of liberated dead Iraqis. The country is on the verge of civil war. IF THE IRAQI'S ARE SO HAPPY WITH THE LIBERATION, WHY DID THE MARINES KILL 10 UNARMED CIVILIANS AT A DEMO, AND PARALYSE A 10 YEAR OLD GIRL. Today's FT has a military source saying they 'over reacted and got the wrong people' Lovely.

It was an illegal war. The world is not a safer place, in fact the opposite if the Yanks fleece the oil, which they are doing today.

Just because they won, doesnt make it right.

by Gaillimhed Wed Apr 23, 2003 14:44

Nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, uranium tipped balistics and global sattelite missile shields, the real tyrant has usurped the white house.

just a little caveat, a recent reappraisal of the use of DIOXIN (high on the list of the ost deadly chemical agents known to man) in vietnam by the US armed forces:

Agent Orange: Vietnam's hot spots

Herbicides including Agent Orange were extensively used for military purposes during the Vietnam War. This week, Nature publishes new analyses of archived military documents that reveal that current volume estimates are more than 7 million litres low, and that the Agent Orange was heavily dioxin-contaminated. The distribution of spray can be seen by mapping flight paths and volumes, which indicate that spray missions were aimed at carefully defined targets, many of which were sprayed repeatedly. It seems that at least twice as much dioxin was dispersed than had previously been estimated. This work has provided a geographic information system that will allow epidemiologists to piece together health effects that exist in the region as they now have a much clearer idea about the distribution of the agents (and the dioxin) and about the 'hot spots'.
Online access to this feature is free: simply click here.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v422/n6933/full/nature01537_fs.html