Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
Who's up for declaring war on the USA? Only, I have a dossier here of various transgressions against humanity, and I think we have a good case to put to the UN Security Council. Included in the proposal are the following facts:
The USA continues to flaunt its hostility toward Iraq and Palestine, while enabling oppression by funding Israel.

The Bush regime (and its precursors) have developed anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over half a century.

This is a regime that willingly electrocutes its citizens, and has laws which make it easy to murder Americans with easily obtained firearms which its constitution guarantees the right to own.

This is a regime that agreed to international laws, then did what they pleased anyway. This is a regime without respect for the rest of the world.
Don't think my reasons are valid enough? Then nor are the USA's reasons for attacking Iraq. The entire list above is just a matter of replacing a couple of words in a list of Iraq's transgressions.

Speaking of replacing words, after reading this article, I felt the need to write something taking the piss - the article has about three lines of content, and the rest is just a massive advert. So I came up with this, which is scarily similar. It took about 5 word changes, and a single insertion of a sentence to clarify a point, and suddenly the article is totally different. Lazy Satire is good, because I don't have to think, and nor does whoever is reading it... ;o)

  • 1
no war on america.

no war at all.

don't you get it? it doesn't solve anything. we could wipe out the whole of america, and yes, the world might be less feverish and maybe a bit more stable. but america isn't george bush, despite his blanket hold. it's really just americans. war seems to group people together in the most inexact way and make mulsh out of what is truly individual. and it is the individual that can stand to say no.

you might argue that the only way to stop america would be to declare war, but is it honestly worth stooping to their level? you could also say that perhaps that would be the only way they would understand. i disagree. americans have been swayed by peaceful protest in the past, to, although not ideal, but fairly satisfactory conclusions.

if the international community simply said 'no. you will not bomb iraq. as you will not have any support of ours.' and held firm, bush would, at the very least, be forced to rethink much of his strategy not only towards the war-to-be specifically, but also towards his perception and approach of the international stage.

through this, he should also be forced (again, with international pressure) to rethink his foreign policies (something which should have been considered after sept 11th, and is long overdue anyway) and hopefully his constitution.

this is what we should do. i think.

and blah. sorry. i've wanted to say that to someone for ages. and now i have. gad, i'm boring.
rach xxx

You kinda said it to the wrong person - I'm a pacifist, and what I said was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to make a valid point (i.e., that those reasons are not justification for war). But nice try...... :oP

no your not! you got lotsa testosterone and stuff and you wanna go kick some AMERICAN BUTT! don't you? yes you do. mmhmm. :P

Not really, war kinda makes me sad. And I like America anyway - I still wanna live there. I just wouldn't do it under Bush...

Well it was kinda obvious that you meant your first comment, which in turn means you've totally missed everything I believe in. Which isn't fun for me.

i don't know anything you believe in, we've never talked properly about it. and my comment was just taking what you said at face value and organising my thoughts about it because i've wanted to for aaaages. it wasn't a personal comment on your belief...

Well you specifically said "don't you get it?", so I took that to mean that you were commenting on what I think. And true, we've never really talked about the topic, but for one of my best friends to think I would actually support a mindless war against a nation which has arguably done nothing wrong doesn't fill me with Happiness Juice. Sorry.

it was a stupid provocative statement and i apologise. and we should talk about it some day. especially since i kinda stated exactly what i thought and don't really how you feel.

Heh, one epic politics post coming right up ;o)

*hugs*

hehe, this has been fuuun... there's nothing like a good intelligent conversation :P

Heh, well feel free to debate all you like with the post I just made :o)

The Bush regime (and its precursors) have developed anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over half a century.

What they'd say about that is that the US and NATO would use the weapons 'responsibly' and that if they didn't produce them, then someone else would. Personally, I think that Bush is itching for a war, especially since the last major conflict was the Gulf war, and he has a lot of new toys such as the F-22 aircraft among others to test out. The UK also has the Eurofighter Typhoon to 'test' so I think that war is inevitable.

I have to say though, that as much as I think that Bush has an 'itchy trigger finger' I'd prefer it if Iraq didn't have nuclear/biological/chemical weaponery. Especially with all of the Russian 'expertise' floating around on the cheap right now.

Oh, I'd rather he was harmless too... But I don't think war is the way to go about achieving that....

How would you achieve it? Making sure he was harmles I mean.

Well weapons inspections would be a good start... I don't think he's especially dangerous right now anyway, so...

They tried that and he refused to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors. I'm not sure if he refused them entry to the country, or just refused to show them the requested sites, but either way he was uncooperative. So, other than 'kick his ass' so to speak, how would you enforce a weapons of mass destruction embargo on him?

Like I said, I don't think he's dangerous. He's a smart man, and he knows what the world is like right now. If he does have any weapons of mass destruction (which I strongly doubt), then he won't use them because he knows exactly what will happen if he does. Right now, he has a vested interest in playing along, because the alternative is annihilation.

Also, Iraq currently seems to be seeking cooperation. Even if it's not full cooperation, it's still a step in the right direction, and should always be considered before violence....

I have to say I disagree with you entirely about whether or not he is dangerous. I think that he is quite possibly the most dangerous man on the planet given the right circumstances (or rather munitions). But, that's just my opinion.

Also, Iraq currently seems to be seeking cooperation. Even if it's not full cooperation, it's still a step in the right direction, and should always be considered before violence....

With something like this, there can't be 'seeking cooperation' or 'partial cooperation' it has to be full cooperation. Otherwise it's like having a madman with a loaded gun go unchecked. But, you didn't answer my question, how would you enforce an embargo with him (and by him I obviously refer to his affilates etc) without resorting to the threat of / actual violence?

Given the right circumstances. That means him being in a situation where he has the right weapons (which he doesn't, nor does he have access to them), and the right political climate in the world to take action without immediately being destroyed (which is not the case). He'd be dangerous if given the chance, but he hasn't been, and is therefore safe as things stand.

He's done nothing against the US in the last ten years, and there is no published evidence to suggest he is in a position to do so now. The US has spontaneously decided that he is bad and must be killed, and now he's offering weapons inspectors the chance to come back. So why not take that? It's better than what we had a couple of years ago, and nobody was out for blood back then, so why now?

And I don't think we should NEED to enforce an embargo any more than we already are with the no fly zones and economic sanctions. That seems to be keeping him in check just fine.

The real solution is to provide a viable alternative to Saddam, which has yet to happen. If there was more support in the country for a regime change, it would be easier. As it is, nobody can come up with a decent alternative.

That means him being in a situation where he has the right weapons (which he doesn't, nor does he have access to them)

How do you know this to be true?

And I don't think we should NEED to enforce an embargo any more than we already are with the no fly zones and economic sanctions. That seems to be keeping him in check just fine.

Again, how do you know it's keeping him in check and that he's not building a nuclear arsenal (dramatic I know, but possible).

I agree that the US seem to want to crush someone. I mean, after Sep 11th, the number of people who had the first reaction of 'How terrible' followed by 'I wonder who's going to get nuked for this?' seemed pretty high.

The real solution is to provide a viable alternative to Saddam, which has yet to happen. If there was more support in the country for a regime change, it would be easier. As it is, nobody can come up with a decent alternative.

You aren't dealing with a typical 'Western' country here though, you're dealing with a dictatorship.

I don't know it to be true. I base it on the reports of independent experts in the field. There are conflicting reports from other experts. I merely choose the one which seems more plausible.

And the fact that he is not building a nuclear arsenal is quite obvious. You can't play with nuclear weapons without there being emissions of gamma rays. Furthermore, we know he can't have been experimenting with trial weapons because that would be abundantly obvious. If there was any evidence that he was playing with nukes, then it would be immediately made public, and a coalition would go in there and take them off him. The fact that this whole process has been so drawn out is proof enough for me that there is on hard or convincing evidence against him.

As for it being a dictatorship, you say it like it's a bad thing. I'll admit I don't know many Iraqis, but those I do know (two, to be exact, both living abroad now) said that it's not much of a problem. It's an entirely different culture, where the people have different expectations of their leaders. They want a strong leader, and a dictator fits that description. Chances are, a democratically elected president wouldn't stay in power for long. And we can't live a political vaccuum, nor can we impose even temporary western control over an arab state right in the middle of a hot-bed of arab militant action. So if we attack, we'll have to know in advance who will take over. Which we don't. If we did, maybe there'd be a case for regime change without the need for military action - the countries around Iraq don't like Saddam either, if we provide an alternative to him perhaps they (as Arab nations) would provide the required pressure to bring him down.

As for it being a dictatorship, you say it like it's a bad thing. I'll admit I don't know many Iraqis, but those I do know (two, to be exact, both living abroad now) said that it's not much of a problem. It's an entirely different culture, where the people have different expectations of their leaders. They want a strong leader, and a dictator fits that description. Chances are, a democratically elected president wouldn't stay in power for long. And we can't live a political vaccuum, nor can we impose even temporary western control over an arab state right in the middle of a hot-bed of arab militant action. So if we attack, we'll have to know in advance who will take over. Which we don't. If we did, maybe there'd be a case for regime change without the need for military action - the countries around Iraq don't like Saddam either, if we provide an alternative to him perhaps they (as Arab nations) would provide the required pressure to bring him down.

I agree that the allies would have to be certain of who would replace him should he be 'outed' from power. As this was the case in the Gulf War, they could have killed him, but knew that they'd open a whole new can of worms by doing that. As for taking peoples opinions on him, you admitted yourself that you're talking about the opinions of two people. What idea of the UK would you get from 2 UK citizens?

As for it being a dictatorship, you say it like it's a bad thing.

I don't think I'm even going to respond to that. :)




I used nuclear weapons as an example, but any weapon of mass destruction could be being manufactured. Why did he decide to refuse the UN weapon inspectors if he had nothing to hide?

I wasn't talking about the views of two Iraqis - I was talking about the views of a nation, as seen by two Iraqis, and there's a difference. Those two didn't like how the country was run, hence they paid up the hefty exit tax and left. I'd say that even one person can get a fairly good view of the mood of the majority from having lived in a country...

And the reason they didn't kill Saddam in the Gulf War is because they couldn't. Not without a full ground invasion of Iraq, which would have been a really bad move. But they didn't avoid doing it because they lacked a replacement - they just lacked the means to do it right.

Furthermore, if the will of the people is that it should be a dictatorship, then there's nowt wrong with it, simple as that.
We shouldn't try to force our idea of democracy on a people who don't want to have to choose their leader. If the leader can't choose himself, perhaps he's not strong enough (not necessarily my beliefs, but the beliefs of many in the country, and so who am I to argue with them?)

As for other weapons of mass destruction - the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons leads to emissions of certain biproducts. Those that they had when the weapons inspectors left will have mostly decayed by now - nerve toxins typically have a limited life span. Saddam lacks the facilities to create more (because they were destroyed), the raw materials (because they're not allowed into the country), and if he had been doing it, satellite spectroscopy (I think that's what they use) would have spotted it. The second he steps out of line, it gives the US justification to kill him, so if he had already done so, then he'd be dead by now. He's alive, no attack has happened, so logically, there's no clear evidence for attack.

The Americans have been aching to get rid of Saddam for years, if they had a single good reason, then they'd have used that reason and done it by now. Therefore it's safe to assume that they haven't got a good enough reason, and we should give Iraq the benefit of the doubt - you can't start a war which risks the lives of countless innocents unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that it is for the best. The US can't do that.

I wasn't talking about the views of two Iraqis - I was talking about the views of a nation, as seen by two Iraqis, and there's a difference. Those two didn't like how the country was run, hence they paid up the hefty exit tax and left. I'd say that even one person can get a fairly good view of the mood of the majority from having lived in a country...

The views of two Iraqis, the views of a nation as seen by two Iraqis, they're surely the same thing.

And the reason they didn't kill Saddam in the Gulf War is because they couldn't. Not without a full ground invasion of Iraq, which would have been a really bad move. But they didn't avoid doing it because they lacked a replacement - they just lacked the means to do it right.

Ok, that's a matter of opinion. I saw a documentary with General Schwarkopf (sp?) where he stated categorically that they could have basically rolled tanks up Saddams ass, but they didn't because they would still be there now trying to keep the country in check. I mean, the Iraqi forces are hardly crack troops are they? I think the US killed more allies than they did.

Furthermore, if the will of the people is that it should be a dictatorship, then there's nowt wrong with it, simple as that.
We shouldn't try to force our idea of democracy on a people who don't want to have to choose their leader. If the leader can't choose himself, perhaps he's not strong enough (not necessarily my beliefs, but the beliefs of many in the country, and so who am I to argue with them?)


if the will of the people is that it should be a dictatorship. Make your mind up. It's either a dictatorship, or its not. you're contradictign yourself there by stating 'the will of the people'. How do you know what the 'will of the Iraqi people' is?

As for other weapons of mass destruction - the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons leads to emissions of certain biproducts. Those that they had when the weapons inspectors left will have mostly decayed by now - nerve toxins typically have a limited life span. Saddam lacks the facilities to create more (because they were destroyed), the raw materials (because they're not allowed into the country), and if he had been doing it, satellite spectroscopy (I think that's what they use) would have spotted it. The second he steps out of line, it gives the US justification to kill him, so if he had already done so, then he'd be dead by now. He's alive, no attack has happened, so logically, there's no clear evidence for attack.

Even given the technology surveilling him, I don't think it would be impossible for him to produce weapons of mass destruction.

The Americans have been aching to get rid of Saddam for years, if they had a single good reason, then they'd have used that reason and done it by now. Therefore it's safe to assume that they haven't got a good enough reason, and we should give Iraq the benefit of the doubt - you can't start a war which risks the lives of countless innocents unless you can show beyond reasonable doubt that it is for the best. The US can't do that.

I agree to an extent, as the US tends to judge their Presidents on their handling of conflict and wars. But I still think that they haven't eliminated him as there is no clearly identifiable 'replacement' for him, as Schwarzkopf (sp?) said.

I just said, they couldn't kill Saddam with anything short of a ground invasion. In what way is "rolling tanks up [his] ass" not an invasion? The point was, the US-led coalition was there to liberate a country that had been invaded, which is why it had local support. If they'd tried going into Iraq properly, then the arab nations around the area would have been more than a little angry. That's why they didn't kill him - it was too risky.

And there is no contradiction regarding the dictatorship issue - the people are not consulted, but it has been said many times by different people that if they were, they would want a strong and powerful leader, which is what they have with Saddam. And the only alternative is somebody just as strong - if such a potential leader existed, he would probably have performed a coup by now...

And you're right, we can't be 100% sure that he has no weapons of mass destruction. What we do know is that there have, as yet, been no clear indications that he does, and that the only evidence we really have suggests that he doesn't. As I keep reiterating, if there was evidence against him, it would have been made public by now and an attack would have been carried out.

I just said, they couldn't kill Saddam with anything short of a ground invasion. In what way is "rolling tanks up [his] ass" not an invasion? The point was, the US-led coalition was there to liberate a country that had been invaded, which is why it had local support. If they'd tried going into Iraq properly, then the arab nations around the area would have been more than a little angry. That's why they didn't kill him - it was too risky.

I'm inclined to believe the leader of the Allied forces over this to be honest. 'Rolling tanks up his ass' was just a phrase. Technically they could've taken him out with a surgical airstrike. What I find interesting is the US-led coalition's reasons for jumping to help the invaded country. Was it compassionate support, or fear that the largest 'consumer' was about to have to pay a lot more for it's fuel?

And there is no contradiction regarding the dictatorship issue - the people are not consulted, but it has been said many times by different people that if they were, they would want a strong and powerful leader, which is what they have with Saddam. And the only alternative is somebody just as strong - if such a potential leader existed, he would probably have performed a coup by now...

The contradiction there was about the fact that it's a Dictatorship, but it was the 'will of the people that it was a dictatorship'. I have not personally heard any opinions about people wanting a strong and powerful leader, although my knowledge of Iraq's national opinion is admittedly poor. I still maintain that the whole 'will of the people' thing is flawed. I mean, what would you describe as the 'will of the British people' over our parliamentary system? What I'm trying to say is that everyone has differing views on it, and in my opinion there is no reason why the Iraqi populace should be any different in their views.

And you're right, we can't be 100% sure that he has no weapons of mass destruction. What we do know is that there have, as yet, been no clear indications that he does, and that the only evidence we really have suggests that he doesn't. As I keep reiterating, if there was evidence against him, it would have been made public by now and an attack would have been carried out.

We're basically agreeing with each other here I think. I agree with you that if there was insurmountable evidence that he was producing weaponary that there is no doubt that Iraq would have been invaded by now, and equally you see my point about there not being insurmountable evidence that he's not producing weapons.

We can discuss this until we're both blue in the face, but a lot of what we're talking about is opinion and isn't based on absolute fact.

Oh, and the reason he doesn't let inspectors in despite having nothing to hide is the same reason that the US won't accept an International War Crimes court even though they have done nothing wrong (allegedly). It's because they're feeling guilty, persecuted, and suspicious. That doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong, it just means they feel like everybody is out to rape them of their sovereignty and steal their rights.

(Deleted comment)
Really? It was kinda a big deal... Countries wanted a proper place to try alleged war criminals... The USA is doing everything in its power to stop this, including trying to veto it, bribing/threatening other countries, and basically dragging its feet on the issue as much as possible. Apparently, US soldiers are not accountable to humanity, or the UN.

Oops, wrong account. We'll pretend that never happenned shall we? ;)

Anyway, I don't have any recollection of hearing about that. I think that based on what you've said though, the US don't feel accountable to anyone for their actions.

I figured... Given who gave you the code for that account, and your views on said person as expressed once or twice before (I recall you 0wning them in the claim a LJ user thing), I have a funny feeling there's a wind-up going on here.... ;o)

And that's true - they really do seem to have an attitude of "we're above everybody", I've even heard American citizens (as opposed to the government, which is who I generally mean when I talk about the US) talking about how Europe is just holding them back, and that they (as a nation) know best.. Sickening...

I have a funny feeling there's a wind-up going on here

You wouldn't be wrong. ;)

And that's true - they really do seem to have an attitude of "we're above everybody", I've even heard American citizens (as opposed to the government, which is who I generally mean when I talk about the US) talking about how Europe is just holding them back, and that they (as a nation) know best.. Sickening...

Not a lot I can say to that really. In your opinion, why do you think the US see themselves as the 'police' of the world?

Because they're the richest (and therefore OBVIOUSLY the bestest and most right) nation in the world.. They think that with power comes the justification to do anything, and an unquestionable judgement....

Fair point. I also like your use of the word 'bestest'. Very 'Primary School' ;)

That's the article I satirised in this very post.

I think it's rather telling that the only nations who are pressing for this war are those who have a vested political interest in attacking Iraq. On the other hand, Germany (who have a good record of fighting terrorism) for instance are saying that they won't send a single soldier into Iraq. If Iraq was dangerous, I doubt so many people would be against action.

iraq did co-operate with un weapons inspectors until a large number of them were actually revealed to be spies reporting to the usa or britain, iirc. at that point he refused to co-operate. i think two of the men in charge of the weapons inspection teams (at the top, i mean, i don't remember what the post is called) have actually resigned in disgust at the way their leaders handled the 'weapons inspections' of the past.

very fuzzy, i'm afraid. i'm working from memory and for me that's not a very good thing.

incidentally, a few months ago, us state pressure forced out of his un office a man who might've been in a position to actually initiate reasonable weapons inspections in iraq. again, iirc.

essentially, it's all just another big example of how all 'leaders' are hypocritical, backstabbing bastards who piss on all constitutions and concepts of democracy and justice, all in the name of those they lead. ::waves a very small flag::

iraq did co-operate with un weapons inspectors until a large number of them were actually revealed to be spies reporting to the usa or britain, iirc. at that point he refused to co-operate. i think two of the men in charge of the weapons inspection teams (at the top, i mean, i don't remember what the post is called) have actually resigned in disgust at the way their leaders handled the 'weapons inspections' of the past.

very fuzzy, i'm afraid. i'm working from memory and for me that's not a very good thing.


I've never heard of any of that before.


incidentally, a few months ago, us state pressure forced out of his un office a man who might've been in a position to actually initiate reasonable weapons inspections in iraq. again, iirc.

Again, it's the first I've heard of it.


essentially, it's all just another big example of how all 'leaders' are hypocritical, backstabbing bastards who piss on all constitutions and concepts of democracy and justice, all in the name of those they lead. ::waves a very small flag::

Agreed.

What does iirc mean?

that sort of stuff doesn't make particularly good news, really. the private eye would probably have reported on it, though whether or not they did i don't know - i don't read it regularly. it might have been in an irregular non-news piece in one of the broadsheets, too. i think i heard about the whole thing via various independent news reports forwarded to the mark thomas mailing list. i'd offer you some links if i had any. sorry. you're welcome to disbelieve me if you like. ;P

http://www.indymedia.org/ is good, btw, as a hub for independent news from around the world. sadly they don't keep us up-to-date regarding david beckham's hair, but you can't have it all, eh?

iirc means if i recall correctly.

cheers!

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account