[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Grow up. You act like there was never war before the Iraq War.
Ah, I see. A real man. A steely eyed realist. The kind that chooses one of history’s greatest monsters as his avatar and realizes that violent conflict is eternal.
Every hear of a self fulfilling prophecy?[/quote]
Yes. War is all his fault.
If the Muslims didn’t piss off Genghis Khan, I doubt he would have killed as many people as he did, since there were mongol tribes who regularly attacked parts of China throughout history. When he turned against the Muslims is where history was made.
P.S. Ever hear of Timur?
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
[/quote]
So we are to blame that Saddam used his UN money allotted for food to fill his pocketbooks.
Once again it is the US, not the UN, or any other nation involved, including Iraq, for the child deaths.
In other words, we should have stood by and let Saddam slaughter the Kurds and Shia and in the end be blamed for that also?
Do you also condmen us for stopping the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo?
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Can you imagine how strong the resistance would have been right after desert storm? A country with a large, experienced army that had been recently trained and armed by most of the world powers (with weapons in strict violation of international law)? Imagine all of them had disappeared and dug into the urban jungles of Baghdad and Fallujah. And don’t forget that the Afghan jihad had recently ended. Thousands of experienced fighters that had also been recently trained and equipped by unnamed governments would have been ecstatic at the opportunity to begin another jihad. And then there are the hundreds of thousands (at least) of ordinary Iraqis that are not alive today to cause problems for the occupying forces.
[/quote]
What? Are you jerking off to this.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If the Muslims didn’t piss off Genghis Khan, I doubt he would have killed as many people as he did, since there were mongol tribes who regularly attacked parts of China throughout history. When he turned against the Muslims is where history was made.
P.S. Ever hear of Timur?[/quote]
If you think it necessary to tell us that the history of Muslim cultures is full of violence then perhaps you should change your name from Gkhan to Captain Obvious.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Grow up. You act like there was never war before the Iraq War.
Ah, I see. A real man. A steely eyed realist. The kind that chooses one of history’s greatest monsters as his avatar and realizes that violent conflict is eternal.
Every hear of a self fulfilling prophecy?
Yes. War is all his fault.[/quote]
Don’t be daft. Unless GKhan is secretly a member of some shadow government the fact that he has that mindset doesn’t really matter a whole lot. But the mindset is pervasive amongst the ruling elites (often on all sides of a disagreement) which gives us the self fulfilling prophecy of unending violence.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
50x wrote:
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
This is as close to the truth as it gets.
50x
I must point out that these sanctions were supported by the Clinton Administration. If the sanctions and tactical air-strike policy of the UN resolution was too wimpy for the then administration it would have been vetoed.
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
The sanctions were phase two in a magnificently orchestrated modern genocide (all parties acting knowingly or not), where the medieval siege went high tech. In 42 days of “hot” war 110,000 aerial sorties were flown over Iraq (one every 30sec 24hrs a day). At the end of those 42 days nearly all of Iraq’s food storage and processing infrastructure had been destroyed by the new and highly touted “smart bombs.”
If I were you, assuming you had been chomping at the bit to remove Saddam since the start of the Gulf War, I wouldn’t lament the fact that it didn’t happen until 2003. The occupation forces can’t handle the the current levels of resistance and insurgency in Iraq. The US military is in terrible shape. Can you imagine how strong the resistance would have been right after desert storm? A country with a large, experienced army that had been recently trained and armed by most of the world powers (with weapons in strict violation of international law)? Imagine all of them had disappeared and dug into the urban jungles of Baghdad and Fallujah. And don’t forget that the Afghan jihad had recently ended. Thousands of experienced fighters that had also been recently trained and equipped by unnamed governments would have been ecstatic at the opportunity to begin another jihad. And then there are the hundreds of thousands (at least) of ordinary Iraqis that are not alive today to cause problems for the occupying forces.
[/quote]
Are we remembering the same highly trained Iraqie army,because the one I remember were giving up left and right. The same Iraqie peaple were begging us for regime change at the end of DS1. What i remember were Iraqies wondering why we didn’t march on Bahgdad when we had the chance.
50x
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
So we are to blame that Saddam used his UN money allotted for food to fill his pocketbooks.
[/quote]
Who is we? You and I didn’t have anything to do with it.
But I’m a little confused that you would support a policy that entrusted Saddam, a guy you obviously revere, to dispense aid funds in an honest manner.
Stop saying that it was the US to drum up nationalist defensiveness. If you check the history you’ll find that the Clinton administration was the leading proponent of the sanctions, but there were certainly others involved. However, you don’t seem to be in touch with the reality that there is only one superpower, and that it is a global and imperialistic one. Again, you have nothing to do with that.
Anyone that knows anything about the UN knows that its problems lie in it’s existence as a plaything for powerful security council members. Take Darfur for example. The UN can’t do anything meaningful to help those people because the Chinese won’t let it happen.
As a matter of fact, the world stood by and did nothing during the worst of Saddam’s atrocities. You’ve got to learn the chronology. The infamous gassing of the Kurds in Halabja happened in 1988 the tail end of a brutal crackdown that began during 1986. This crackdown was of course going on during the Iran-Iraq war (more accurately known as The Gulf War) when Saddam had the full support of the West. This illustrates the complicity of the governments that were aiding Saddam. The complicity of western intellectual culture is shown by the fact that only half as many news articles were written about Halabja in 1988 as were written in 2003. Suddenly in 2003, gassing up to 5000 of your own people became inexcusable.
[quote]
Do you also condmen us for stopping the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo?[/quote]
Using the collective term “us” again for a calculated government policy. The Kosovo intervention has been the subject of an intense propaganda campaign. Most people don’t even know that most of the major atrocities occurred AFTER the aerial bombing had begun. The really despicable thing is that estimates of the conflict beforehand predicted an escalation in violence if bombing were to commence. Saying that the Kosovo intervention stopped the slaughter of Muslims is factually incorrect.
Not to mention that covert operations by the CIA involved funding and training of Islamic extremists. A Chechnyan group linked to al-Qaeda sticks out in my mind. And for those not familiar with what happens when the CIA gets involved, now nearly all of Europe’s heroin is transported through the area.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
If the Muslims didn’t piss off Genghis Khan, I doubt he would have killed as many people as he did, since there were mongol tribes who regularly attacked parts of China throughout history. When he turned against the Muslims is where history was made.
P.S. Ever hear of Timur?
If you think it necessary to tell us that the history of Muslim cultures is full of violence then perhaps you should change your name from Gkhan to Captain Obvious. [/quote]
Captain what? You’re not the first guy to call me that.
lol
What I am telling you is to look at your own culture before you critizice ours. Spreading hatred against America is fighting terrorism…how?
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
As a matter of fact, the world stood by and did nothing during the worst of Saddam’s atrocities. You’ve got to learn the chronology. The infamous gassing of the Kurds in Halabja happened in 1988 the tail end of a brutal crackdown that began during 1986. This crackdown was of course going on during the Iran-Iraq war (more accurately known as The Gulf War) when Saddam had the full support of the West. This illustrates the complicity of the governments that were aiding Saddam. The complicity of western intellectual culture is shown by the fact that only half as many news articles were written about Halabja in 1988 as were written in 2003. Suddenly in 2003, gassing up to 5000 of your own people became inexcusable.
[/quote]
The massacre I am talking about was going on during the sanctions. You condemn the sanctions and at the same time, the no fly zones were set up to protect the shia and kurds from saddam’s gunships. So, if we stopped supporting those people, how many would have died then? And if we did, would you blame us for this yet again?
If you want to condemn someone for Kosovo atrocities, try the Dutch. . .
As far as the Chechens go, why do you guys never condemn the dictator Putin put in charge to crush those people.
All I ever hear about is dictators in Egypt, SA and Pakistan? How come none of the Russian backed dictators or the ones in Africa committing genocide amount to nothing?
I would also say that there are 4 superpowers: The US, Russia, China and Europe.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
… The Kosovo intervention has been the subject of an intense propaganda campaign. Most people don’t even know that most of the major atrocities occurred AFTER the aerial bombing had begun. The really despicable thing is that estimates of the conflict beforehand predicted an escalation in violence if bombing were to commence. Saying that the Kosovo intervention stopped the slaughter of Muslims is factually incorrect.
…
[/quote]
True, perhaps, or not:
( Wikipedia again:) Some of the worst massacres against civilian Albanians occurred after that NATO started the bombing of Yugoslavia. Cuska massacre[18], Podujevo massacre [19], Velika Krusa massacre[20] are some of the massacres committed by Serbian army, police and paramilitary.
But who knows how many would have been killed if the NATO action had not been done at all? Reports and air surveillance before the bombing suggested military movements that threatened large numbers of Kosovars with massacre or starvation.
Deaths incurred or deaths averted? Who can count them? The Lancet study–a travesty of scientific inquiry from the get-go–can’t count the former and no one can know the latter.
[quote]50x wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
50x wrote:
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
This is as close to the truth as it gets.
50x
I must point out that these sanctions were supported by the Clinton Administration. If the sanctions and tactical air-strike policy of the UN resolution was too wimpy for the then administration it would have been vetoed.
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
The sanctions were phase two in a magnificently orchestrated modern genocide (all parties acting knowingly or not), where the medieval siege went high tech. In 42 days of “hot” war 110,000 aerial sorties were flown over Iraq (one every 30sec 24hrs a day). At the end of those 42 days nearly all of Iraq’s food storage and processing infrastructure had been destroyed by the new and highly touted “smart bombs.”
If I were you, assuming you had been chomping at the bit to remove Saddam since the start of the Gulf War, I wouldn’t lament the fact that it didn’t happen until 2003. The occupation forces can’t handle the the current levels of resistance and insurgency in Iraq. The US military is in terrible shape. Can you imagine how strong the resistance would have been right after desert storm? A country with a large, experienced army that had been recently trained and armed by most of the world powers (with weapons in strict violation of international law)? Imagine all of them had disappeared and dug into the urban jungles of Baghdad and Fallujah. And don’t forget that the Afghan jihad had recently ended. Thousands of experienced fighters that had also been recently trained and equipped by unnamed governments would have been ecstatic at the opportunity to begin another jihad. And then there are the hundreds of thousands (at least) of ordinary Iraqis that are not alive today to cause problems for the occupying forces.
Are we remembering the same highly trained Iraqie army,because the one I remember were giving up left and right. The same Iraqie peaple were begging us for regime change at the end of DS1. What i remember were Iraqies wondering why we didn’t march on Bahgdad when we had the chance.
50x [/quote]
I didn’t say highly trained. They were trained, experienced and equipped. This is more than can be said for the army that existed in 2003. But your point is moot because being equipped, trained, and experienced does not equate to having high morale and loyalty to Saddam Hussein.
My last paragraph was obviously a hypothetical scenario in which all the actions of the invaders were the same as in 2003, namely the moronic decision to disband the Iraqi army. If the army had been disbanded in the early 90’s you can imagine how much worse the situation would have been.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Captain what? You’re not the first guy to call me that.
lol
What I am telling you is to look at your own culture before you critizice ours.
[/quote]
Criticize my own culture? What cultural background do you think I come from? My name isn’t johhnybinladen30.
I don’t follow. Could you clarify this question?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
… The Kosovo intervention has been the subject of an intense propaganda campaign. Most people don’t even know that most of the major atrocities occurred AFTER the aerial bombing had begun. The really despicable thing is that estimates of the conflict beforehand predicted an escalation in violence if bombing were to commence. Saying that the Kosovo intervention stopped the slaughter of Muslims is factually incorrect.
…
True, perhaps, or not:
( Wikipedia again:) Some of the worst massacres against civilian Albanians occurred after that NATO started the bombing of Yugoslavia. Cuska massacre[18], Podujevo massacre [19], Velika Krusa massacre[20] are some of the massacres committed by Serbian army, police and paramilitary.
But who knows how many would have been killed if the NATO action had not been done at all? Reports and air surveillance before the bombing suggested military movements that threatened large numbers of Kosovars with massacre or starvation.
Deaths incurred or deaths averted? Who can count them? The Lancet study–a travesty of scientific inquiry from the get-go–can’t count the former and no one can know the latter.
[/quote]
It is, indeed, a murky issue. But the forewarnings of escalation as a result of intervention suggest the picture is less murky than that brief wiki-excerpt suggests.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
Can you imagine how strong the resistance would have been right after desert storm? A country with a large, experienced army that had been recently trained and armed by most of the world powers (with weapons in strict violation of international law)? Imagine all of them had disappeared and dug into the urban jungles of Baghdad and Fallujah. And don’t forget that the Afghan jihad had recently ended. Thousands of experienced fighters that had also been recently trained and equipped by unnamed governments would have been ecstatic at the opportunity to begin another jihad. And then there are the hundreds of thousands (at least) of ordinary Iraqis that are not alive today to cause problems for the occupying forces.
What? Are you jerking off to this.[/quote]
No comment.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Captain what? You’re not the first guy to call me that.
lol
What I am telling you is to look at your own culture before you critizice ours.
Criticize my own culture? What cultural background do you think I come from? My name isn’t johhnybinladen30.
Spreading hatred against America is fighting terrorism…how?
I don’t follow. Could you clarify this question? [/quote]
Not Johnny Binladen, good, but by your talk, you sure had me fooled.
Ok, a new question that I can’t figure out for the life of me:
Saddam attacks Iraq with the aid of the US, Russia and many other countries. The US is singled out as the main contributor to this war (even though the US had one of our ships bombed by Iraq while escorting oil tankers through the Gulf). The US is condemned because “they armed” Iraq against Iran.
Iraq attacks Kuwait. The US lead a coalition in driving him out. The US makes it so he can not wage war against any other nation again. And again…the US is condemned about this.
Why was it wrong for Saddam to attack Iran, but ok for him to attack Kuwait?
Should The US have let him keep Kuwait? And maybe move against SA or Iran once again?
Why is it wrong that the US freed the Kuwaitis and stopped Iraq from waging war against his own people and neighbors?
What should the US and the world have done?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok, a new question that I can’t figure out for the life of me:
Saddam attacks Iraq with the aid of the US, Russia and many other countries. The US is singled out as the main contributor to this war (even though the US had one of our ships bombed by Iraq while escorting oil tankers through the Gulf). The US is condemned because “they armed” Iraq against Iran.
Iraq attacks Kuwait. The US lead a coalition in driving him out. The US makes it so he can not wage war against any other nation again. And again…the US is condemned about this.
Why was it wrong for Saddam to attack Iran, but ok for him to attack Kuwait?
Should The US have let him keep Kuwait? And maybe move against SA or Iran once again?
Why is it wrong that the US freed the Kuwaitis and stopped Iraq from waging war against his own people and neighbors?
What should the US and the world have done?[/quote]
Honest question, here. Was there a threat that we, the US, would have been on Saddam’s “to be conquered,” list?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
As a matter of fact, the world stood by and did nothing during the worst of Saddam’s atrocities. You’ve got to learn the chronology. The infamous gassing of the Kurds in Halabja happened in 1988 the tail end of a brutal crackdown that began during 1986. This crackdown was of course going on during the Iran-Iraq war (more accurately known as The Gulf War) when Saddam had the full support of the West. This illustrates the complicity of the governments that were aiding Saddam. The complicity of western intellectual culture is shown by the fact that only half as many news articles were written about Halabja in 1988 as were written in 2003. Suddenly in 2003, gassing up to 5000 of your own people became inexcusable.
The massacre I am talking about was going on during the sanctions. You condemn the sanctions and at the same time, the no fly zones were set up to protect the shia and kurds from saddam’s gunships. So, if we stopped supporting those people, how many would have died then? And if we did, would you blame us for this yet again?
[/quote]
I can’t really comment on a non-specific massacre. But if it further establishes that Saddam was a bad guy, perhaps there’s one more reason to change your name to Captain Obvious. 
I’d love to here what the Dutch have done.
I don’t want the people of Chechnya to be crushed. They have every right to the safety and security that you and I have. Putin’s atrocities in Chechnya are deplorable. The people have a legitimate complaint about how they are treated, but terrorist groups respond in illegitimate ways.
I’d be happy to talk about other dictatorships. For instance, the Chinese are blocking any meaningful attempts to stop the Darfur genocide. When somebody starts a thread about that we can talk about it.
[quote]
I would also say that there are 4 superpowers: The US, Russia, China and Europe. [/quote]
I have to disagree here. After the fall of the Soviet Union I have never heard anything other than the US referred to as a superpower. China is getting close and will likely achieve that status. Europe is rising also as the American economy sinks. But for the moment US dominance and influence is unprecedented in world history.