Demonstration outside US Embassy 20 Nov

by Fido Sat Nov 22, 2003 06:35

To get the Russian government to seize the assets of Victor Bout and arrest him.


It would be a far far better thing to do.

by Mildred Donkey Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:42

I tell you all , even a donkey can kick the ass of the US. ....yeeeeeeehaaaaaaawwww! Yeeeeeeeeehhaaaaaaw! Yeeehaaaaawww!

I hope my brothers and sisters from the donkey sanctuary will be there to set Embassy Paranoids on high alert! Yeeeeehaaaaaaaw!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027319722.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1090270,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/21/markets/oil.reut/

That's just the donkeys! when you see our asses you will know you are in the shit!

Mildred relaxes with some hay and molasses after the attack

by Fergal Sat Nov 22, 2003 19:32

It's just sick to gloat over the attacks by Saddam's Fedayeen.

At least 15 people have been killed today by these people.

You so-called "Peace activists" are just sick.

by Animal lover Sat Nov 22, 2003 19:44

How sick is she, Fergal?
As sick as a donkey, perhaps?

by David C. Sat Nov 22, 2003 20:28

Fergal - did you know that an average of 44 innocent Iraqi civilians are being shot every day by US troops in Iraq? When Americans are attacked, they machine gun wildly in all directions, into houses, schools, cars, crowds, etc, because deep, deep down they really don't believe that Iraqis are fully human. Better to snuff out a bunch of Iraqis that risk letting go attackers who dared to attack Americans.

Does this also make you sick? Do you even care? (the vast, vast majority of Americans don't).

It certainly makes me sick. It also makes me look at the resistance a little differently that you do. I realise that the American troops are just frightened dumb kids with no education - but they have the guns and the power and they freely choose how to use it.

by Drbinoche Sat Nov 22, 2003 21:50

All of what you just worte is pretty much crap. You have no evidence of an average of 44 Iraqis shot a day. If it was this high then how come you cannot put names and times and places and photos. It could all just be a lie to further undermine American intervention in Iraq.

Secondly, the American kids, do not all see Iraqis as Sub0human, unless you have profiled every damn soldier there, all 115000, then you have no idea what they think of the Iraqis. If you get shot at you shoot back, sitting back and saying wait we might hit an innocent person, is not going through you ming when an RPG7 hits the Humvee in front of you and your friends are getting killed. Its scary and no common sense and no sitting here and analysing a mission will EVER fully tell the story of a fire-fight. Unless you have experienced one, you really cannot claim to know what goes through the mind of a solider under stressful situations.

Finally, all American soldiers are Scared kids. Fuck you buddy. Yes there is a large proportion of underaged and under edcuated soldiers in the US Army, but I would doubt very much that they have entire divisions without a single coherent brain cell between. Don't insult people you know NOTHING about.

Blanket statements like yours do not help your cause at all. You want America to stop interefering then maybe you should try befriending the American soldiers and not treat them like enemies and morons.

Or even better, go to Iraq with a camera and get me some photos of the Innocnets Civilians being murdered. Also bring a dictaphone I want you to get a number of quotes from US Army soldiers saying that Iraqis are sub-human. You make the army sound like a bunch of SS Death squads. Have some taste and some fucking decency.

by lord widgery-doo Sat Nov 22, 2003 22:15

Yes, spot on Fergal old chap, damned cheek of people gloating over the vile and reprehensible actions of Iraqi terrorists .....

Good to see someone ready to stand up for our boys ... just doing their job keeping law and order ... like on Bloody Sunday all those years ago ......

I'll recommend your name for the New Year's Honours list .....

by ec Sat Nov 22, 2003 22:56

Donkeys and Guerillas... Ok, todays blog is going to look like something straight out of The Onion. Donkeys Could Be the Missing Link? Baghdad, Iraq- At around a quarter past 7 this morning, residents in downtown Baghdad awoke to the sound of explosions. Many inhabitants claimed that they assumed the sounds were the result of Operation Iron Hammer- the latest military tactic designed to send a message to Iraqi insurgents. Upon turning on their televisions, Baghdadis realized that two prominent hotels and the Ministry of Oil had recently been attacked. The two hotels assailed with missiles were the Sheraton and Palestine Hotel, both situated in a busy, commercial locale in the Iraqi capital. The hotels are home to the reporters and journalists of many major news networks, including the CNN, as well as foreign contractors. While there seem to be no casualties in either of the hotels, or the Ministry, witnesses confirmed there were injuries. The assailants? Donkeys. Yes, donkeys were found in various locations in Baghdad, leading colorful carts with missile launchers and missiles camouflaged with hay. The donkeys, looking guilty and morose, were promptly taken into custody for questioning and were not available for a statement. "He looks just like the purple donkey in Winnie Dab-Doob!" gasped one, young Baghdad resident, related to the reporter, in reference to one of the terrorists. The First Real Link Could this be the first real tie to Al-Qaeda? After months of trying to connect Iraq to terrorist activities, this latest attack could prove to be the Pentagon's 'missing link' . After all, donkeys and mules are very widely used in Afghanistan to travel through the rocky, mountainous region- their presence in Baghdad is highly suspicious. It is, as yet, unclear whether the donkeys are foreign guerillas who crossed into Iraq from one of the neighboring countries, or are actually a part of a local Al-Qaeda cell. Baghdad residents are wondering: could these culprits be the first donkeys sent to Guantanamo? By Riverbend, Baghdad Burning It's true... it's all we've been talking about all day. - posted by river @ 12:56 AM

by David C. Sun Nov 23, 2003 04:29

First the dead::::::

The American authorities will not talk about Iraqi civilian deaths, much less count them ("We don't do body counts" - Gen. Franks), which suggests that the numbers are not pleasant. In the absence of any 'offical' data we have to do the best we can:

One way is to collect the individual reporting of the international media presence in Iraq regarding civilian deaths. That is the approach of the Iraq Bodycount project, and it is sobering to read the specific information of individual records from this database (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db). Note that this database only includes deaths that have been reported in the online media, and so it obviously dramaticaly under-counts Iraqui civilian deaths at the hands of the occupation. If you take their maximimum number and divide by the number of days of occupation you get about 44 per day.

A second way is to use the hospital/morgue records for Baghdad and other major cities. This is the approach taken by Robert Fisk of the British newspaper The Independent (see www.robert-fisk.com). The American authorities have banned access to these records, but Mr Fisk went around to the hospitals and morgues and got records, which he extrapolated to the rest of the country. He puts the death toll at about 1000 per week for violent deaths, which is far more than 44 per day, but which also includes victims of the crime unleashed by the breakdown in authority (although it ignores those not brought to a hospital or morgue).

Another way is to read the papers every day and to develop an idea of *how* the american troops are killing people. For example in September the Italian Ambassador, his wife and a translator were driving in Baghdad and passed an american patrol. As they passed, a US solider fired a single shot into the car, killing the translator. The patrol drove on without stopping, and the wife said that the soldier smiled at her. Obviously we only learned about this because of the involvement of the ambassador, but dozens of stories every week suggest that it is very representative of the impunity with which americans are killing (1 dead here, 3 there, 6 there, 2 there, 1 there, etc), and just imagine what's NOT being reported. It is obvious that dozens and dozens of people are being shot every day.

Next the attitudes:::::

I mispoke here. I fully agree that all US troops are not the same - there are many thousands of decent americans in Iraq who are there through no fault of their own and who are trying to make the best of an awful situation. However there are also many thousands of simple-minded, arrogant, armed dimwits who think that americans are inherently superior to anyone else. Of course its difficult to do the right thing in a firefight, but imagine if you're a cop in the LAPD or NYPD and someone fired at you when you're walking down Broadway. Would you really empty your magazine into the crowd in a panic, killing 5 people? In Baghdad it would just be an unfortunate little incident that can be ignored. Too bad. Sorry. Pity.

If you want to see how an occupation works when practiced by soldiers who generally consider the occupied people to be human beings, then go to Basra and watch how the British do it. By going in with humility instead of arrogance they minimized the attacks on themselves, which minimized the damage of any response, etc. etc. The americans did the reverse, so that the resistance is now motivated mainly by revenge for acts committed by americans over the past 7 months (lots of evidence in the newspapers for this).

The american troops are clearly victims here too, and they have 2 huge disadvantages here: 1) they are, in general, not very smart, and 2) they don't know how dumb they are (this goes for the administration as well as for the troops). The short-term result is arrogance and the medium-term result is violence. The long term result is humiliating defeat. Face it - American troops are the economic dregs of american society - simple, uni-lingual, mono-cultural illiterates who were raised by televisions and who have had few choices in life. They are basically defenseless and so they swallow the US propaganda hook, line and sinker. In my opinion anyone who gives a shit about US troops in Iraq should be fighting against the war criminals who sent them there (and who won't even attend their funerals or allow pictures of their coffins on American TV)..

by Rex Fleet Sun Nov 23, 2003 05:00

Read the entry for Nov 20th. Even the Iraqis are laughing at your antics in London.

Like President Bush says, it's an abuse of freedom to use it to support tyranny.

_______________

This alleation of 44 Iraqis being killed every day by US soldiers is an out and out lie.

Mind you, your hero Saddam and his gang of thugs are still killing Iraqis. Not for long though, they'll have him by the end of next week. I'll keep you posted.

by Muja Deen Sun Nov 23, 2003 08:52

a Parrot......that's a good idea......I like that one! Mmmmmmmmmmmmm!

by Barber of Baghdad (no relation of Butcher) Sun Nov 23, 2003 12:49

Two American soldiers were killed in the centre of Mosul today after two teenage boys approached them in traffic and slit their throats. The bodies of the two male soldiers are lying in the street next to their vehicle with their throats cut.

by Tazz Sun Nov 23, 2003 13:15

This is exactly like how the Free State came into being. Isn't it great that the brave Iraqi people are following in the footsteps of our own national heroes??

by Mildred Donkey Sun Nov 23, 2003 15:58

I may be a little singed and shaken but not stirred or sick!

by Drbinoche Sun Nov 23, 2003 16:28

David C, you go on about how arrogant the Americans are in Iraq and how this is their own undoing, but I must point out that your last post, reaks of arrogance on your behalf. You regularly point how stupid the American soldiers are and how they are the dregs of the American society who have all come from Disadvantaged backgrounds and were raised by TV. You yourself sound as Arrogant as them.

You indicate that Mr Fisk extrapolated the figures he saw, but extrapolation if not an accurate way of telling the truth. He may have gone to the Morgue on a bad week, he is also using the numbers of dead in say 10 hospitals within Baghdad to indicate how many are being killed all over Iraq.

I don't think that the website for the number of Iraqis killed is a good site. The info is sketchy, there is no underlying proof. Give me Photo-evidence and Ill say that this site is worthwhile, but as it stands at the mo, it means nothing.

If you were a cop working for the LAPD etc, you would not be encountering fully automatic AK-47s and RPGs on the streets of LA or anywhere else in America. Also Gangs generally don't start shit with the cops coz they know they would be quickly outnumbered and out-gunned.

Tazz, grow the fuck up and stop living in the past. This is NOTHING like the foundation of the Irish Free state and nothing you say or do can change that. The only people who really believe that, in all honesty do not fully understand the intricacies of the situation in Iraq.

by Dermot - DAWC Sun Nov 23, 2003 21:12

Intricacies huh.

Today, two US soldiers were shot dead in their car when it was caught in a traffic jam, then the crowd slit their throats, pounded their bodies with stones and bricks and ransacked their belongings. So if you want to be "intricate" about it, you could say that the traffic jam was carefully set up for the right time, when by careful observation some "Saddam loyalists" or "foreign infiltrators" shot them, and had others prearranged to stand by waiting to carry out the rest.

On the other hand, you could conclude that the US military are hated more on a daily basis, and people take whatever chance they can, and those poor guys happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tell their families about intricacies. Do you think that Bush is dealing with these intricacies?

by David C. Sun Nov 23, 2003 22:35

As I said, the american authorities have purpousfully made it difficult to get a clear picture of how many Iraqi civilians they are killing each day, but all of the indications are that it is a substantial number. 44 or more per day is very possible. The rate at which the iraqi population has turned against the occupiers is yet another indication of how much misery they are inflicting. The Iraqi teenagers who killed the americans in Mosul today probably had friends or relatives arbitrarily shot by americans.

Bush and Saddam are on the same side - arrogant idiots with lots of power, including the power to create a situation in which Iraq kids and american kids kill each other in droves every day. They will both get what they deserve.

I think that the world will be a safer, better place if the Americans are decisively beaten, scarred and humiliated in Iraq. They need to be taught a lesson. They need to be given the gift of humility.

by Drbinoche Sun Nov 23, 2003 23:21

The truth of the matter is, that the humility that you believe America would receive from a decisive defeat, would not come. Instead you would have an isolationist America once again and then when some big problem crops up, one in which America is needed, you guys would be out here proclaiming how America has turned its back on Humanity. Humility does not factor into a defeat, all it does is lead to further hatred for the Iraqis and for the Middle East. Humility is rarely gotten easily and more importantly is rarely fully gotten.

As for the two soldiers killed today, I must say it shows alot for the Iraqi Muslims, who as muslims must be aware of how a body should be treated after death, but instead horribly mutilated them. I am not saying the Iraqis did not have the right to do it, but while you are arguing for Humility from the Americans, you must be also aware that to fully bestow Humility, one must have humility and mutilating bodies, does not denote a society with Humility.

Basically Iraq is fucked, and while it is certainly alot to do with America, it would be just as fucked if America had done nothing, except the Anti-war people would be still moaning about the UN sanctions and all of the other things that were in place before the invasion. Please remember that it wasn't the Americans who wanted to maintain the Sanctions after the collapse of the Iraqi Regime, no it was France, so why are you not yelling about how bad France is.

by Dermot - DAWC Sun Nov 23, 2003 23:33

>>The truth of the matter is, that the humility that you believe America would receive from a decisive defeat, would not come. Instead you would have an isolationist America once again

Good. The world would be a better and safer place.
One question - when was the US isolationaist? Including no spooks?

>>and then when some big problem crops up, one in which America is needed, you guys would be out here proclaiming how America has turned its back on Humanity.

That's what we're doing now

>>Humility does not factor into a defeat, all it does is lead to further hatred for the Iraqis and for the Middle East.

Further hatred huh? But I thouht that you inveded Iraq for the good of the people. Not for the oil.

>>Humility is rarely gotten easily and more importantly is rarely fully gotten.

Looks like you're goin to suffer a bit more then huh.

>>As for the two soldiers killed today, I must say it shows alot for the Iraqi Muslims, who as muslims must be aware of how a body should be treated after death,

How the muslims must be overjoyed at you telling them what they should believe.

by David C Mon Nov 24, 2003 02:28

The North Vietnamese put the americans on good behavior for almost 20 years, so there is every reason to suppose that if the resistance can drive them out of Iraq then it would make the US a little less high on war for quite a while.

A huge, deeply embarrassing and painful loss by the US in Iraq is in everyone's interest, even the Americans.

The only good thing I can see about the Americans being in Iraq is that it keeps them tied down in a way that is relatively safe. Americans like bush and his kind need enemys the way other people need food and water, and so if Iraq wasn't there then they would probably have picked a war with China or Korea.

by Conor (wsm personal capacity) Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:03

Drbinoche

“Basically Iraq is fucked, and while it is certainly alot to do with America, it would be just as fucked if America had done nothing”

Actually it is “drbinoche’s” analysis that is fucked

Iraq up to 1991 was a reasonably prosperous reasonably secular country growing at a fast rate.

According to one report

"In the 1980s, Iraq had one of the Arab world's most advanced economies. Though buffeted by the strains of the Iran-Iraq war, it had - besides petroleum -- a considerable industrial sector, a relatively well-developed transport system, and comparatively good infrastructure. Iraq had a relatively large middle class, per capita income levels comparable to Venezuela, Trinidad or Korea, one of the best educational systems in the Arab world, a well educated population and generally good standards of medical care."

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/96bf686fe9704cd7c1256dba0036a96e?OpenDocument

OK it had a brutal dictator put there by the CIA and fully backed and armed by the West. Since 1991 Iraq has been returned to stone age conditions (how the primitivists would rejoice). Sustained bombing followed by sustained boycott followed by more massive bombing and invasion have DESTROYED the country COMPLETELY and you wonder why people are pissed off !

"U.N. sanctions against Iraq, an oil-rich country that was rapidly developing when the Gulf War began in 1990, have claimed over a million civilian lives, more than half of them those of children"

(http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html contains a very detailed analysis of the use of sanctions as a weapon of war)

The sanctions were just another form of war sustained over 10 years. The purpose was always to demonstrate to the Third World what happens when a country acts independently: Its entire population is ruthlessly punished, its infrastructure is devastated, and its government is eventually overthrown.

When the country with the largest supply of oil in the world has to import it you know you’ve got major problems. If you want to support the gang of murderers in power in the States that’s your problem but at least get your facts right and attempt to construct some sort of rational argument.

Cheers

Conor

by David C. Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:02

All that is very true, Conor, however you may not know that prior to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait (actually on July 25, 1990), Saddam Hussein met with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. At that meeting he basically asked if it would be OK if he invaded Kuwait, and April basically said 'sure. Why not!'.

If you would like to read a transcript of that meeting, its at:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

The US is responsible all the way for what happened...

by Drbinoche Mon Nov 24, 2003 22:04

Jesus you guys really believe that America is the great Satan. If only you had a time machine you could all go back to Iran and Iraq during their wonderful warring days and hantg out with the people you admire so much.

Do you HONESTLY believe that every politician tells the truth. Do you honestly think they should?? Do you not realise that all politicians are lying bastards NO EXCEPTIONS!!!! America gave Iarq the go ahead, OK, would Iraq have done it without their 'backing' maybe, whats the point in arguing all of this hite. Either way you look at it, the majority of the shit the Anti-war people moan and bitch about is quite frankly redundant. The 500,000 people killed by the UN sanctions, well, I distinctly remember very little being said about how horrible these sanctions were until about 95-97, what about the first 4 years, did you all just suddenly realise they were bad. More importantly, why were you not trying to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam. It was on his head that the sanctions continued, he had every opportunity to give in to the UN and allow the sanctions to end, he didn't his people suffered and the UN get blamed.

America has been involved in putting him into power, so!! America has more than likely been involved in the majority of things that happen within important political situations for the past 25 years. Yes they have made a lot of bad decisions, and maybe if they weren't involved situations would be better, but whats the point in moaning. Do you think America is gonna turn around and apologise for its intervention. Do you think America is gonna be happy with withdrawing from Iraq when its soldiers are being mutilated by the so-called peace-loving Iraqis. People look it up, under Islamic law, the mutilation of a body, any body, is a very grave crime and not liked by the all powerful allah. So why did they do it and why are they allowed to get away with it. Oh coz the Americans are in their country. OK well what if the IRA had gone around Mutilating every damn british soldier they murdered during the troubles, where would we be. We'd be fucked worse than before. Mutilating bodies, attacking the troops endlessly, antagonising people with bigger guns than your own, only leads to further blood shed and you can be damn sure, that if America ever really wanted to coz major death in Iraq, it would not have to do alot.

I will also point out that while discussing this during a quiet moment in work today I asked a acolleague what they thought of the anti-war movement and he agrees. You have all spent so much time arguing over the littlest points and bitching and moaning about everything and anything, that the majority of the people in Ireland just couldn't care. They go to the rallies, not because the agree with all you say, they go because they are against the war, but they definitely do not go coz they agree with every word you guys pour out.

Get some general group leadership going and you might have better luck, other than that, our government don't even have to bother with you, the lot of you will bitch and turn on yourselves.

by David C. Tue Nov 25, 2003 05:29

The Iran-Iraq war was evil also - even though the US was on iraq's side in that one.

I think all politicians SHOULD tell the truth. Any politian who lies is wrong. Any politician who lies about the reasons for war is profoundly evil.

I think the sanctions were wrong too (and ineffective, by the way). Saddam Hussain was an evil fiend, but he apparently didn't develop any WMD's after 1991, which means that the sanctions were applied incorrectly. I bet the US had a lot to do with that.

I agree that if the US weren't involved in 'political situations' around the world then things would be better, but I think that there's a lot to be said for 'moaning', protesting, boycotting, interfering, disrupting, etc against them.

I don't care if America isn't happy withdrawing from Iraq. They weren't happy withdrawing from Vietnam either, and that was for the best.

The troubles ended because each side recognized the other side as valid human beings with valid points of view. Worked the same in South Africa, all over Latin America, etc. Americans (and Israelis) don't understand that approach to settling disagreements.

Oh! So you work with someone who shares your views? They must be correct, then!

You're right about why Irish people go to rallies. They go because they are against the war. They are amoung the most decent people on the planet and I certainly hope that they don't agree with every word that I or anyone else pours out.

The issue of group leadership is valid. I tend to agree with you on this, although I also respect the view that the grass-roots nature of anti-war and anti-american protest is its strength.

by Prebendary Tue Nov 25, 2003 07:28

You say the UN sanctions were wrong and ineffective. I agree, it was a humanitarian disaster for the ordinary Iraqi and hurt the regime in no significant way.

So, what would you have wanted to happen to bring an end to sanctions??

If Saddam had no "WMDs" then why did he not allow the UN insprectors in to verify this??

If he had no WMD program since 1991 then why did an Iraqi scientist tell the Americans that just before the invasion he was asked to keep a phial of anthrax at home in his freezer???

The notion that we could take a regime like Saddam's at their word is simply wrong.

The only way out of this mess was to remove the regime for good, not to mention the appalling tortures and massacres that were a fact of life for ordinary Iraqis.

PS// Dr Binoche, don't be too cynical about politicians. I have known of some good men in public life - Garret Fitzgerald is a good man, Ronald Reagan is a good man, George W Bush is a good man and a good Christian.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue Nov 25, 2003 16:10

by Drbinoche Monday, Nov 24 2003, 9:04pm


"Jesus you guys really believe that America is the great Satan. If only you had a time machine you could all go back to Iran and Iraq during their wonderful warring days and hantg out with the people you admire so much"


Well as I recall its was Rumsfeld who was doing the chin wagging with Sadam at the time so no need for time machines there just a selective memory

Satan hmmmm yes I see no references to satan in my previous post i mean if all you want to do is thrash and dribble like a mad dog ye can do it on your own !

other wise

like I said already at least get your facts right and attempt to construct some sort of rational argument

Cheers

Conor

by David C. Tue Nov 25, 2003 18:30

The consensus is that iraq has had no WMDs since it destroyed them all in 1991 under the terms of UN Security council resolutions. Anyone who points to a 10-year-old bottle of botox beside the salad dressing in a guys refridgerator as a 'WMD ' is an idiot -as much of the american administration indeed seem to be. As the sanctions were based on Iraq as a WMD threat, it seems to me that a decade of sanctions were applied in error.

The issue of why Saddam Hussain wasn't more cooperative with the UN insprectors is difficult to pin down. Remember that the US/UK was bombing Iraq daily since 1991, and that Hussain has a lot of arrogance and hubris that might have worked against iraqs interests. Also, there was a lot of mis-information about what really happened: for example after the UN left in 1998 the spin was that they had been forced out, which is actually false.

In my view the americans have been 'managing' the situation since 1991, using the UN.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussain and his thug family were very bad people, however I can point to several dozen far worse dictators. Using the 'we-did-it-for-the-iraqi-people' argument is just cynical and manipulative. I would love to live in a world in which the american administration gives a shit about the iraqi people, but I don't.

George W Bush might be a good man, but he is extremely stupid and ignorant and he has been used at a finger puppet by some very, very evil people. His christianity appears to be a simple-minded amoral cartoon that lets him justify extremely evil and cynical acts. His people worship satan - they just call him christ...

by Conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue Nov 25, 2003 19:58

David C

"The consensus is that iraq has had no WMDs since it destroyed them all in 1991 under the terms of UN Security council resolutions."

And the really depressing message seems to be that if they did have effective WMDs that the CIA etc were certain did exist then America WOULDN'T have invaded. File under North Korea

If you are a mad dictator make sure you have some nukes seems to be the not too subtle message......

Conor

by David C. Tue Nov 25, 2003 20:57

I think that's the worst thing that has come out of the american invasion of Iraq - it has made the west far, far more open to terrorist or WMD attack that ever before. Look at what the Iraq invasion has clearly demonstrated:

#1: The U.S. has *no* serious intelligence capabilities.
#2: The U.S. can't be defeated by a conventional force, but it CAN be defeated by a gurrila (sp?) force.
#3: WMDs will deterr the US.
#4: The western alliance is dying and the US is isolated politically and diplomatically.
#5: The US can and will behave irrationaly with huge force.
#6: The US does not intend to aknowledge or confront the underlying reasons for terrorism, namely the deeply-felt hatred of the US by billions of people.
#7: The american people can be manipulated at will by very simple propaganda techniques (repeat untruths, hide the dead, etc).
(did I miss any?)

I think that these lessons will be learned very well by the Afghan cave-dwellers and their many followers.

by Prebendary Wed Nov 26, 2003 07:13

If, as you say, the US has been "managing the Iraq situation through the UN", then why, oh why, did the US not get UN Security Council approval to invade Iraq and remove Saddam?

There's an inconstency here. I think some people overestimate the power of the US over the UN.

Secondly, why do people keep coming up with this specious argument "well, America put Saddam in power in the first place".

So what if they did? It was the Cold War and better a US-friendly power than a Soviet puppet. Does this fact in any way absolve Saddam for his terrible crimes in the aftermath of GW1?? Or for his continued cruelty to his people? Saddam was quite a charmer you know, one of his closest aides said recently: "I know now that he was a tyrant, but how could someone so kind and thoughtful to me do these terrible things?" It's the mysterium iniquitatis.

It's simply not logical to have opposed the removal of Saddam on the grounds that it was the US who put him in power in the first place. It is an illogical and immoral argument.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:52

Prebendary sez

" It's simply not logical to have opposed the removal of Saddam on the grounds that it was the US who put him in power in the first place. It is an illogical and immoral argument."

Let me reiterate Iraq in 1990/1 was one of the most prosperous Arabic countries with the second biggest oil reserves in the world (which still exist!) a rapidly developing economy, good transport, relatively secular with more rights for women then most in the middle east and led by a complete bastard.

Now Iraq is a completely devestated country bombed and sanctioned into the stone age with (best estimate) 60% unemployment, the environment in pieces - covered in depleted uranium and mines - a country with massive oil reserves importing oil and with hundreds of its people dying every week and run and owned by the last supper power

But thats OK because we got rid of nasty Sadam !

(though of course he's still alive and well and up to mischief but sure why let a small thing like reality interfere with Prebendary's entire reconstruction of the time honoured concepts of logic and morality)

This is zombie morality - zombie logic - you'll have to do better than that my wierdly monikored friend

cheers


Conor