This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Against the would be restorers of feudalism and clerical reactionaries, the bourgeoisie and proletariat have a common interest. They are our common enemy.

Ahh yes... resort to blind useless sayings instead of addressing the facts. Your list of reasons was shot down like a duck in hunting season over Wisconsin, and all you do is resort to empty slogans...



Again... if you are going to give Iraq the benifit of the doubt, do the same for the US... oh yeah, that's right, it only weakens your already weak arguments

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MtG, al-Qaeda is not being harbored by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, like the rest of Iraq, are ruled by secular leaders, specifically two Maoist factions. Al-Qaeda linked operatives are attacking the current Kurdish "government." They are operating in a border area along Iran and Northern Iraq.

Secular, shmecular. All sorts of secular governments have harbored Al-Qaeda. Being officially blessed and sanctioned at the top level isn't necessary. If they're fighting, it must not be very hard.

If commies are running the Kurdish factions, you ought to be gung ho for the war - this is the chance to reestablish a communist government somewhere, compared to all those losses in the last several decades.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Given US track records, there is no reason to give the US the benefit of the doubt.

Nor do I simply assume that Hussein would have followed his word. However, the option was never explored, and it resulted in a situation that has led to the deaths of over a million people. At the very least, given that the military force was in place, the US could have tried negotiations, and then attacked if that failed.

I still would have opposed it. In a confrontation between to thugs I side with the innocent bystanders.

Che, This I totally agree with. Weapons inspectors and sanctions are no substitute for what we could have done at the time. We could have left our Army in place, conducted the inspections and weapons destruction coercively, and witdrawn with a permanent peace treaty, no WoMD and no sanctions. The alternative to a failure to cooperate was a drive on Bagdad that would have been easy with our army still in place.

[Ned]

MarkG, In an absence of a response to whether Clinton had sought and received Congressional authorization for his attack on Yugoslavia, the answer is a resounding NO!

http://WASHINGTON, DC -- As of 12:01...ious trouble."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Secular, shmecular. All sorts of secular governments have harbored Al-Qaeda. Being officially blessed and sanctioned at the top level isn't necessary. If they're fighting, it must not be very hard.

It's not as if the Kurdish "government" has a lot of power. Hussein would have overrun them a decade ago if we hadn't set up the safe zones. At best they can manage basic social services and a modicum of a police force.

Originally posted by Ming
Ahh yes... resort to blind useless sayings instead of addressing the facts. Your list of reasons was shot down like a duck in hunting season over Wisconsin, and all you do is resort to empty slogans.

Ned was talking about al-Qaeda, and I was responding about al-Qaeda. I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned was talking about al-Qaeda, and I was responding about al-Qaeda. I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

No it wasn't... but you don't seem to understand that the comments still hold true, no matter who you were responding to

Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best...

Try again

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What Hussein may or may not have done in 1990-91 before the war and ten years of sanctions and after are very likely two different things. We'll never know, really. Up to that point, Hussein had been a "co-belligerent" of the US against Iran, and he thought he had a good relationship with us. If we hadn't deliberately attacked his honor, who knows what would have happened.

Yes, we do know. Hussein wasn't our co-belligerent. He attacked the Iranians in a rather stupid and ineffective manner, and got his ass in a sling quickly. The US had a problem, in that Hussein was a nasty bastard, but he had started a war that Khomeini was likely to finish, with the distinct possibility of a major territorial grab and the spawning a of fundamentalist proxy state in Iraq.

The US originally considered Hussein the lesser of two evils, but Bush & company made the mistake of thinking that because we were bailing that no good son of a ***** out of his mess, that he'd be our boy.

Hussein repeatedly lied and manipulated, it's his life-long trademark, that and killing. There was no negotiated settlement to be had - Hussein (as he does) used the pretext of negotiated settlement (with conditions to be changed at Iraqi convenience) as a diplomatic weapon to try to derail the Arab league from supporting his forcible ouster. There were talks between Kuwait and Iraq going on within the Arab league - the semi-infamous statements by April Glaspie (then US ambassador) that the US had no interest in the Iraq-Kuwait dispute were made in the context that the US saw it as an Arab League diplomatic issue. NOT an encouragement to invade.

Besides, I thought it was commie doctrine to use diplomacy as just another tool in war? Ain't that part of Mao's little red book that was ripped off from Sun Tzu?

Saddam Hussein has been one of the most consistent leaders in the world for decades now - he will always manipulate, lie, kill or do anything he sees as useful to his position.

It is clear that the US had no intention of reaching a negotiated settlement. It wanted total surrender. That's its imperial prerogative as the planetary hegemon. People of good conscience, however, must act against against the empire, however.

Bullshit. The US called for "immediate and unconditional withdrawal" from Kuwait, which is entirely correct. Hussein's position was that "you negotiate and give us the concessions that we want, then we'll withdraw" which is unacceptable. If we'd wanted "unconditional surrender" we wouldn't be debating what to do with that mother****er now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... let's talk about the Kurds...

Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

Well I don't give a damn about your property, does that give me the right to take it away from you?

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

Hmmm... did we take any land for ourselves in this situation... Hmmm

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

So you saying that even if no invasion of Kuwait would have happened, we would have attacked a country just to prove how strong we were?

So quickly you forget Panama.

Please remember that Iraq was the agressor and doing the attacking... Iraq was in the wrong here. They started the war.

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Besides, I thought it was commie doctrine to use diplomacy as just another tool in war? Ain't that part of Mao's little red book that was ripped off from Sun Tzu?

I'm not a Maoist. I wouldn't know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best.

So when you can't argue, resort to ad hominems?

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Ming
Your list of "problems" is all meaningless dribble, and your later defense of them was pathetic at best...

Sad Ming, especially considering that once you take Chi's political beliefs into account (ie the slant), his list of reasons to be against the first Gulf War were entirely accurate.

His key complaint I think, and an entirely accurate one IMO, is that the U.S. struts around like the biggest bully on the block, regardless of the specific individual justifications (ie Saddam & Iraq currently).

And the truely sad thing is that so many Americans have been brainwashed while young to believe in their Maifest Destiny as the obvious rulers of the world. Thus they accept that they have the right to dictate at will to any other country how they will live (or cease to do so).

I must say that I was sickened by the attempted brainwashing that I encountered in 8 of my 9 years in the American elementry and high school system. It wasn't until 12 grade that my teachers actually tried to encourage independant thought, and that was likely because they were almost all AP science/math teachers at that point.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming Hmmmm... let's talk about the Kurds...

Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

Yep, but it's not just the US - the Syrians, Turks, etc. all have issues with it.

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

The Emir of Kuwait and his family does not own all property in the place. Private property ownership exists, the problem is with the oil resources. So you're saying ownership by a state which consists of a corrupt dictator is superior to ownership by a state which consists of a corrupt Emir?

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

Hmmm, given the choice between our flag, the Iraqi flag or the Iranian flag flying over all those resources, I'll take ours, thank you kindly.

So quickly you forget Panama.

Panama was ours to begin with. We stole if from Columbia, we created it, they even use our currency. Noriega was our boy, he just got out of line and had to be spanked.

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

Come up with an alternative besides kissing Hussein's ass. There can be two wrong sides in a war, but it takes two sides to negotiate peace, and Saddam only wanted "peace" on his terms. After initiating an invasion, then it was a bit too late for that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, let's. After promising the Kurds a state after WWI, the Great powers simply divided up the region amongst themselves. Since the end of WWII, the Kurds have been begging the UN for a state. Even today, the US is officially opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state. They deserve one.

But... who currently holds their fate, hmmmm... Iraq does... who is trying to suppress and kill them... Hmmm... their fellow country men. Your point was that most of Kuwait citizens are slaves and for that, their govenment isn't legitiment... well, the Kurds have it worse thanks to the Iraq govenment.. so by using your own logic, If the US government attacks, they are actually in the right.

I didn't take my property by force. I don't enslave others to keep it. If I did, I wouldn't have any right to it. Neither does the royal family of Kuwait.

Hmmm no right to it... They currently own it.
So you think all the land in the US should be given back to the indians... even land that you might own now.

Imperialism isn't simply about making sure the flag flies over the country. If you control the poltics, the economy, etc, you don't need your flag flying over them. The US has military bases in the Persian Gulf now and has its hands on the lifeline of the world's life blood. Does it actually need to carve out territories for it to be in control?

Hmmm... we sure as hell aren't doing a good job of it then... because most of the countries want our bases to go, or won't let us use their countries as bases of operations for future action. We are also paying for oil at the prices they dictate. They sure has heck don't sound like vassel states to me...

So quickly you forget Panama.

No I don't... but your point was "at that time" they would have attacked a middle east country just to show their power to a weakening Russia... How do you know that. It's pure speculation on your part... just so you can claim the US is evil...

Panama was in the past... Different situation...

Just because Iraq was in the wrong doesn't mean we were in the right. There can be two wrong sides in a war. There almost always are.

Sure there can be sometimes. But here are the FACTS that you can't deny.

1) Iraq launched an attack on ONE OF OUR Allies in the region.

2) We came to the defense of our ally and kicked them out... We didn't take the government down (even though many wanted to) we kept attacking until they surrendered! And then stopped, leaving the government in place. We didn't ransack the entire country like Iraq did when they tried to steal Kuwait.

3) Iraq were the ones that didn't live up to what they
agreed too...

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That was never my point, nor did I ever write such. I have said all along that the US was the driving force, and that had the Security Council not gone along with Sush's war drive, he would have attacked Iraq anyway. Which means that the UN did not order an attack on Iraq, it allowed one.

Lotsa posts inbetween but you did say that the only reason the US did anything was because the Saudis started taking their money out of the US to pressure us into acting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Lotsa posts inbetween but you did say that the only reason the US did anything was because the Saudis started taking their money out of the US to pressure us into acting.

That wasn't me. In fact, I would actually dispute that. The US had to twist the Saudi's arms, not the other way around.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


But... who currently holds their fate, hmmmm... Iraq does... who is trying to suppress and kill them... Hmmm... their fellow country men. Your point was that most of Kuwait citizens are slaves and for that, their govenment isn't legitiment... well, the Kurds have it worse thanks to the Iraq govenment.. so by using your own logic, If the US government attacks, they are actually in the right.

Most Kurds live in what is Turkish territory, and in fact, the Mosul province (northen Iraq) was disputed by Britain and True back before the Pecae treaty with Turkey (forget the name) and for many nationalist Turks the Mosul area should be theirs. The US will never help create an independent Kurdish state, as long as Turkey is a key strategic ally in the region. At best, an attack by the US v. Iraq might give the Kurds an autonomous federal state in a Federal Iraq, assuming such a thing comes about, and the Turks don't object to streneously or invade northen Iraq to prevent it.

Hmmm... we sure as hell aren't doing a good job of it then... because most of the countries want our bases to go, or won't let us use their countries as bases of operations for future action. We are also paying for oil at the prices they dictate. They sure has heck don't sound like vassel states to me...

Basing rights do not make the territory sovereign terrain of the other. S, even if the US built Prince Sultan, it is still regarded by law as Saudi territory, to be used at Saudi permision. Also, the Saudis try to keep the oil prices stable- not too low, not too high: the US supports this type of Saudi behavior. Bu ehy aren't a vassal state by any means.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
But... who currently holds their fate, hmmmm... Iraq does... who is trying to suppress and kill them... Hmmm... their fellow country men. Your point was that most of Kuwait citizens are slaves and for that, their govenment isn't legitiment... well, the Kurds have it worse thanks to the Iraq govenment.. so by using your own logic, If the US government attacks, they are actually in the right.

Currently, 3/4rs of the Kurdish people live in Turkey, a US ally. We have supplied Turkey with the weapons to wage a genocidal war against the Kurds for nearly two decades now. As bad as Hussein has been to the Kurds, including gassing them, the Turks have killed more Kurds than Hussein has. Over two thousands Kurdish villages have been destroyed in Turkey. Up until a few years ago, the Kurdish language was illegal. Even using Kurdish names was illegal. The Kurds may have been oppressed within Iraq, but they aren't slaves.

Today the Kurds have their own virtual country in Nothern Iraq. If the US said, "we recognize the government of the Kurds," it would become a legitmate country. That's all we have to do to give the Kurds their own country.

Hmmm no right to it... They currently own it.
So you think all the land in the US should be given back to the indians... even land that you might own now.

We're talking about royalty. I don't recognize the right of royalty to exist, let alone hold property.

As for the American Indians (which is off-topic), where their land was stolen or defrauded from them outright, it should either be returned or restitution should be made. There were fair deals made between the US and the First Nations, and at times the First Nations started wars with us and lost. I don't see any reason to return that land.

Hmmm... we sure as hell aren't doing a good job of it then... because most of the countries want our bases to go, or won't let us use their countries as bases of operations for future action. We are also paying for oil at the prices they dictate. They sure has heck don't sound like vassel states to me...

1) The people of those countries, not the countries themselves, want the bases to go.

2) Despite the fact that they can "dictate" whether or not we can use their territory to lauch attacks, they seem to grant it an awful lot. Despite the stupidity of the current regime in America, the US is capable of acting subtly and behind the scenes to influence its "vassals."

3) They don't dictate oil prices, the market does. They can influence that by deciding how much oil to produce, but thy are as much slaves to the market as any producer nation. At this point, they don't have the option to produce less because they need the money.

No I don't... but your point was "at that time" they would have attacked a middle east country just to show their power to a weakening Russia... How do you know that. It's pure speculation on your part... just so you can claim the US is evil...

At that time was a period of time from 1989 to 199+. The invasion of Panama was less than one year before the invasion of Kuwait. If Iraq hadn't obliged us by invading Kuwait, we would have found someone else, somewhere, who would have provided an exucsse for us to flex our muscles. I didn't say Middle Eastern, and I didn't say that it had to be January, 1991. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Panama was in the past... Different situation...

Less than a year past, and the different situation was irrelevent. The excuse for attacking Panama was even more flimsey than the one for attacking Kuwait.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Most Kurds live in what is Turkish territory, and in fact, the Mosul province (northen Iraq) was disputed by Britain and True back before the Pecae treaty with Turkey (forget the name) and for many nationalist Turks the Mosul area should be theirs. The US will never help create an independent Kurdish state, as long as Turkey is a key strategic ally in the region. At best, an attack by the US v. Iraq might give the Kurds an autonomous federal state in a Federal Iraq, assuming such a thing comes about, and the Turks don't object to streneously or invade northen Iraq to prevent it.

I was specifically refering to the Kurds WHO ARE in Irag's territory right now... and how they are being treated by their fellow country man. All your wonderful comments and arguments are fine... but right at this moment, the leader of the country they are currently in is treating them WORSE than slaves. And Che claims that is a good enough reason to attack another country when it comes to Kuwait by Iraq...

Yeah... the Kurds are currently screwed no matter where they are.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
And Che claims that is a good enough reason to attack another country when it comes to Kuwait by Iraq.

See, once again you put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was legitimate for Iraq to attack Kuwait. I said I was opposed to a US attack on Iraq to defend Kuwait, because (short version) Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people.

I never stated my actual opinion on the legitmacy of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or my opinion on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. My actual opinion, as opposed to the characture you have created in your own mind is: I don't give a damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people. F**k 'em. I see no difference between one evil country ruled by one evil person and two evil countries ruled by two evil people. However, I do give a s*** when American bombs and American power get thrown into the mix, killing all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives if the squabbles between little evil countries and little evil people had stay little.

[Fitz]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara ... Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people.

That seems remarkably closed minded and judgemental, although that doesn't mean it isn't true ...

Seriously though, historically Kuwait was part of Iraq, but I somehow doubt that the population of Kuwait was jumping at the thought of reunion with the motherland.

It was staightfoward piracy. Iraq invaded what was currently a soveriegn nation. They needed to leave. It is actually sad that the U.S. stepped in only because of compelling interest, but the reality is that the U.S. needs to make up it's mind:
1) Be even handed in promoting it's supposed doctrine of democracy for all, human rights and western superiority. (not all of them want this though)
2) Be a equal member of the internation community and work with others to decide what is acceptable and what is not, and only intervene when those lines are crossed.
3) Let other countries sort it out for themselves.

Personally, I would like to see number two with a healthy dose of human rights tossed in, but the U.S. prefers a mix of 1 & 3, depending on compelling interest in the issue at hand. That's one of the reasons we have a huge mess in the ME in the first place (the other bigger one is institutionalized hate in most of the countries there).

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Currently, 3/4rs of the Kurdish people live in Turkey, a US ally. We have supplied Turkey with the weapons to wage a genocidal war against the Kurds for nearly two decades now. As bad as Hussein has been to the Kurds, including gassing them, the Turks have killed more Kurds than Hussein has. Over two thousands Kurdish villages have been destroyed in Turkey. Up until a few years ago, the Kurdish language was illegal. Even using Kurdish names was illegal. The Kurds may have been oppressed within Iraq, but they aren't slaves.

Read my above response... and now you are claiming that since somebody else treats them worse than Hussein does, it make the argument not valid. And by your reasoning... I guess it's better to be dead than be a slave, because Hussein did gas them... not something that has happened to the "slaves" in Kuwait yet.

So again... by using your logic, an attack on Iraq is as legitmate as you claim Iraq's attack on Kuwait was.

Today the Kurds have their own virtual country in Nothern Iraq. If the US said, "we recognize the government of the Kurds," it would become a legitmate country. That's all we have to do to give the Kurds their own country.

Your grasp of international politics is interesting to say the least. It's not that easy and you know it. But I guess you are saying it only because it helps your currently non exsistent argement.

We're talking about royalty. I don't recognize the right of royalty to exist, let alone hold property.

Most of the current European states were built on royality... So, by using your argument, ALL the states in the EU should be desolved? or are you saying you don't recognize the rights of these countries to exist.

And what if somebody didn't recognize your right to exist. I guess that means you would have no problem if somebody killed you because that's how they felt.
And don't claim that that would be against the law, because the Kuwait government is considered legal.

Again... another non argument on your part.

As for the American Indians (which is off-topic), where their land was stolen or defrauded from them outright, it should either be returned or restitution should be made. There were fair deals made between the US and the First Nations, and at times the First Nations started wars with us and lost. I don't see any reason to return that land.

You should be consistent with your arguments... you claim it's ok to steal land via war, but not ok if you are royality... So a government can steal land, but royality can't... WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

Come on Che... you are grasping for straws with this non logical crap.

The people of those countries, not the countries themselves, want the bases to go.

And many of their governments are listening to their people and not us.

Despite the fact that they can "dictate" whether or not we can use their territory to lauch attacks, they seem to grant it an awful lot. Despite the stupidity of the current regime in America, the US is capable of acting subtly and behind the scenes to influence its "vassals."

I knew you couldn't go a post without letting the anti american venom drip from your lips.
But the point is, they sometimes don't... which means they aren't are vassel states. The fact they do, just means that they agree with us sometimes. Using your logic, just because England agrees with the US most of the time, that they must be a vassel state of ours...

They don't dictate oil prices, the market does. They can influence that by deciding how much oil to produce, but thy are as much slaves to the market as any producer nation. At this point, they don't have the option to produce less because they need the money.

And when they had a chance to stick it to us during the oil crisis... THEY DID... AND LAUGHED ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK... If they were indeed the "vassel states" that you so like to claim, we wouldn't have let them do it.

So again... no substance to your arguments. Just your weak and unsupported opinions

At that time was a period of time from 1989 to 199+. The invasion of Panama was less than one year before the invasion of Kuwait. If Iraq hadn't obliged us by invading Kuwait, we would have found someone else, somewhere, who would have provided an exucsse for us to flex our muscles. I didn't say Middle Eastern, and I didn't say that it had to be January, 1991. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then stop making things up. Your above anaylsis is pure opinion and absolute speculation with no proof.

So me saying just the opposite is just as valid.

Again... no real argument but opinion.

Less than a year past, and the different situation was irrelevent. The excuse for attacking Panama was even more flimsey than the one for attacking Kuwait.

I'll grant you that Panama was a crock. But you are implying that we had no valid reason to "HELP" Kuwait...



Hmmm... some nation makes an UNPROVOCKED attack on one of our allies... And we help. That's A FACT, unlike your opinions and speculation. A FACT.

We had a legitmate reason to help an Ally who was brutely attacked on surprise by it's neighboor.


So next time you respond... find some facts. And don't try to shift blame, make up stuff, state your opinion, put in a bunch of a bunch of anti american crap, change the subject, or sprout more propaganda... just the facts.

It should be a much shorter post

[chequita guevara]

Why am I arguing with an ad exec? You guys are masters of the big lie. You continually distort what I said.


I wonder if mods can be put in ignore lists?

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why am I arguing with an ad exec? You guys are masters of the big lie. You continually distort what I said.

Yeah... more misdirection... You distort everything, but when somebody else does it, it's the big lie.

Get a grip... but more importantly, get some facts. They sure help in real arguments vs just an anti american attitude and your own weak personal opinions

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



Actualy, Bush41 was going to LET iraq take kuwait. It's just that when the Saudi's started pulling money out of the US by the plane full, Bush41 conceded and started pressureing Iraq to pull out.

I stand corrected then. It was someone else's assertion. My apologies.

[chequita guevara]

You haven't really argued yet, Ming. You've done a lot of strawmaning and ad hominems, but no real arguing.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My actual opinion, as opposed to the characture you have created in your own mind is: I don't give a damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is an evil country ruled by evil people. F**k 'em. I see no difference between one evil country ruled by one evil person and two evil countries ruled by two evil people. However, I do give a s*** when American bombs and American power get thrown into the mix, killing all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives if the squabbles between little evil countries and little evil people had stay little.

Oh I see... Irag soldiers who raped pillaged and burned Kuwait are just "all sorts of people who would have lead healthy productive lives".

Yeah... some innocent people die. It happens in war, stop being silly... We didn't start the war. If Iraq hadn't been GREEDY, none of it would have happened.

They started it, and we ended it, on the request of Allies. You may not like them, but they are our allies.

But it is sad to see how little concern you have for human life, especially the people who are only stuck following the orders of their leaders. I would think your communistic attitudes would give you some sympathy for all these poor people that got caught in a war because of another countries greed... but instead, you don't seem to care about them at all... and you seem to wish they were dead... sad... so very sad...

[Velociryx]

Che...dude....by any measure you care to look at it, he handed you your arse. This is a fight you can't win. Your position is untentable. Best to simply concede defeat or shift the argument onto more a more defensible position.

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx shift the argument onto more a more defensible position.

And that's what surprises me. Che usually raises some really valid arguments, and supports them well.

This time, it's all anti american venom supported only by his own personal opinions.

Lord knows there is more than enough to jump on the US for. Our country has done some really stupid and bad things...

I just prefer to have facts thrown out to support opinions. So far, I have seen none in this discussion.

[Velociryx]

Ming....an excellent job in the debate....strong, well-laid arguments....five star....almost enough to earn you the title of Master Debat.....er...never mind....

-=Vel=-

PS

[uh Clem]

What the Kurds have to look forward to in Iraq following the removal of Saddam isn't hard to determine. All we have to do is look back at the last time a pro-US government was in power in Baghdad...namely before August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Before then, it was open season on the Kurds, pure and simple. Any degree of violence directed by the Iraqi government againt them was of little or no concern to Washington. The extent to which the US assisted this process, as opposed to merely looking the other way, is still debated. What isn't debatable is that the Reagan & Bush 41 administrations couldn't have given a flying **** about the Kurds.

There's no reason to believe that things will be any different this time.