|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 4, 2005 20:09:10 GMT -3
Dear all, I don’t think anyone could fail to have been moved by the sight of so many millions of Iraqis as they queued for hours to dip their finger in purple dye, then to the world’s press stick that purple finger up in the air as if to say, “We did it, we finally did it!” Their courage was a humbling experience for those here in the west that won’t bother even to get out of bed to vote. They on other hand braved the threats of the al-Zarqawi terror groups who promised to turn voting queues into “rivers of blood“. They tried and failed and will be chased away to whence they came.
Iraq has taught us allot about ourselves, some of which is hard to bear but so necessary to learn.
I supported the war and in the same circumstances would do so again. I knew there was no third way with a tyrant who made a laughing stock out of the UN while he continued to murder, on scale, any threat to his throne. Saddam was a threat to the region and calculated that getting sanctions lifted, by compliance, would leave him alone construct his WMD anew. He would have done so. How he must have laughed his thingy off at Hans Blix, “Destroy your weapons of mass destruction, or we will send you a very stiff letter!”<br> Those that opposed action in Iraq and marched in protest must now acknowledge that those under the yoke of Saddam had no such option, but they do now. If the anti-war campaign was completely successful in stopping military action, as it was in many countries, then their only success would be keeping Saddam and his family business of extensive state murder and repression in power and preventing last Sunday’s historic event from taking place. Equally, those like me, who gave moral support for direct action must also understand the dangers of supporting a great power, whose arrogance directly contributed to the post-war chaos that ensued after the fall of Saddam. That reckless laissez-faire is so evident with Iraqis who want to see the back of the coalition forces, but do not have the slightest regret about the war. There were shocking abuses some of which have been investigated and prosecuted, some still to come to court. But let me say, 65.000 British troops have now served in Iraq. It is to their credit that only a few have tarnished our good reputation and those alleged to have done so are now facing trial.
Finally, I understand last Sunday’s election is just the start of a long road that the people of Iraq has just set foot on. But what they are walking free from are decades of trauma, humiliation and vile malicious slavery. Do we really think that they should not even be given the chance to begin this journey?
Best wishes, John.
On a lighter note: Is it possible that Michael Jackson will still be on trail when the Iraqi people try Saddam? Fox News will then have a wee dilemma!!
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Feb 6, 2005 17:30:34 GMT -3
“(...) white Sepulcres, neat outside and rotten inside” (Jesus of Nazareth)
“Let the blood fell on your heads” (Pontius Pilatus)
John,
Your quote:
“I knew there was no third way with a tyrant who made a laughing stock out of the UN while he continued to murder, on scale, any threat to his throne.”<br> Please, don’t beguin with that stuff again, not even children can believe it! While that tyrant was convenient to your interests you kept providing him with the chemicals needed to continue “murder, on scale” (so, you are his accomplicies on those mass murders; when Iran complained of Saddam’s use of chemicals against their civil population, you look the other side and kept providing the chemicals – and an embargo on Iran to debilitate it too)
When he affected YOUR interests, it was YOUR time for “murder, in scale”. You now pretend to invoke the UN, but you destroyed Iraq AGAINST THE UN. Have you forgotten that? Have you forgotten HMG and your own remarks about the UN being outdated because it refused to give you a mandate for war ? It was YOU who laugh on the UN, on international Right, on written treaties and the world by unleashing your brutal carnage of 100000 people and destruction of a country which YOUR GOOD TONY BLIAR accused of being able to launch WMD in an hour, (proven ABSOLUTELY FALSE), as all other reasons which has been invoked by HMG and USA. It was YOU who defy the UN and the world by the commission of that CRIME AGAINST PEACE, like those commited by NAZIS. You laugh on the Geneva convention, too.
There are many tyrants in the world, like your good allies in Oman, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Pakistan, Egypt, KUWAIT, etc. When are you going to allow them (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) to “walk free”? NOT while their governments let you suck their oil or are functional in ant way to your interests. You will commit ANY CRIME to control oil and to keep it’s price artificially low .
It is the USA & Britain who “continued to murder, on scale, any threat to their throne”, meaning the control of world resources (being oil the most critycal, nowadays). This war is just a battle for world oil supply, a new version of the “Great Game” played in Central Asia and the Middle East during the XIXth century, though Britain plays now the more humble part of the cepoys, not of the Empire. The Russian bear is ill and in the cave; USA cannot go for it (it is still a bear...) but you will take the opportunity of conquering all that you can while she is in her cave and there is no world balance.
The destruction and control of Afghanistan (most of the country is controlled by ‘good warlords’ allies) will allow you to build the pipelands to take out the Central Asian oil. The proven reserves of Kazakstan are 17.6 million barrels (the USA are 22 billion barrels) and Turkmenistan has the fifth largest gas reserve in the world. There is a president for life there, but he seems to be a “good dictator” to make bussiness with... On the other hand, in Kazakhistan there were “free elections” but the main opposition leader was barred from running... But who cares? They are willing to make buissiness. You will provide them with chemical weapons, given the circumstances.
There is a dictatorship in China at least since 1949 (previous to that, we must remember that Chiang Kai Sek was a “good dictator”). When are you going to harrase and occupy China, so they (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) can “walk free”? How on earth could HMG have handed over Hong Kong to that dictatorship without obbeying “the wishes” of the 5 000 000 Hong Kongers themselves? They cannot “walk free” nowadays! To defend their “right of self determination” with weapons in hand would have been a good start for the ‘liberation’ of the other 1000 000 000 Chinese... GO AHEAD! Oh, don’t tell me that China has no oil and plenty ammunition? That has no bearing, you kill just for principles, not for interests...
By reading your pretended ‘justification’ of your war of aggression against Irak it is immpossible not to remember your country in widely known as ‘perphidous Albion’. BY YOUR PAST AND PRESENT SUPPORT OF THE CARNAGE, YOU HAVE MADE YOURSELF IT’S ACCOMPLICE. Are you by a very happy chance, making a living of the ‘security bussiness’ arrousing from the present wars?
Javier
PS: those cases of brutallity and war crimes wre made public just because some of your soldiers were stupid enough as to send their films to CIVILIAN photoshops at home. If it were not because of that ‘silly mistake’ nothing would have come to light because your military are not interested in their behaviour to be known, AS HAPPENED WHITH THE KENIAN RAPES, as happened with the shooting of prisioners in Malvinas by the Paras. Regarding your ‘good reputation’, your name has always been associated with piracy and “Sir”Henry Morgan HM Governor of Jamaica.
PSII: your comment that “That reckless laissez-faire is so evident with Iraqis who want to see the back of the coalition forces, but DO NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST REGRET ABOUT THE WAR” is one of the most immoral I have ever seen (makes me remember your defense Minister). GO AND TELL THAT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DEAD, THE MUTILATED AND THOSE WHO HAVE LOST EVERYTHING.
PS III: You made mention recently to the President of Iran to be president for life and a religious leader. HM Queen Elizabeth was appointed for life and is the Heir of the Church of England. She, like the Ayatolaah, has a prime minister. Should the world bomb England? Do you remember Iran Prime Minister Mossadegh? He was democratically elected (unlike Sha Reza Pahlevi, WHO WAS SEATED IN THE THRONE –for life- BY HMG during your last invasion of Persia) but this Mossadegh dared to nationalize oil. A CIA operation toppled him by a coup, operation that was praised by HMG (the CIA agents responsible for the ‘feat’ were received and congratulated by your good old champion of freedom and self determination, Mr Churchill).
PS IV: you wrote that “Saddam was a threat to the region”: it is HMG who is a threat to the world.
PS V: Is general Michael Jackson, British Army, under trial?
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 7, 2005 12:54:01 GMT -3
Javier, You have been found to wrong, not by me, but by the people of Iraq.
John.
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 7, 2005 15:53:13 GMT -3
Javier, You have been found to wrong, not by me, but by the people of Iraq.
Let me add, that nothing seems to be going your twisted way just recently. Afghanistan, now an emerging democracy. Iraq with multi-party elections held - with an electoral turn out beyond anyones expection. Palestine joining in the road map for peace with Ms Rice.
Go back to reading your history books - the world is moving on and you have been left behind in a pile of spite that you can't see a way out of.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Feb 9, 2005 14:37:23 GMT -3
John,
In the ravaged countryside where most of the estimated 20 million to 25 million Afgans live, self-appointed warlords rule. A recent human rights report found that gunmen are terrorising the countryside -robbing, detaining, and raping Afghan citizens without penalty - and creating a climate of fear." National Geographic Magazine, november 03.
"Warlords and their militias control most areas outside Kabul, and Afghanistan is once again the world's leading opium producer" National Geographic Magazine, december 04.
So much for your "emerging democracy"... That is to be found even in your media. I hope you are not going to accuse NGS of 'antiamerican', are you?
Best - Javier
PS: have you found those weapons Saddam could use with one hour notice?
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 11, 2005 7:43:31 GMT -3
Javier, We're all aware that Afghanistan is emerging from the past into a democractic future that has just began.
From what you are saying I see that you would much rather have the Taleban back in the country?
The thing is the electorate in that country believe otherwise.
Best, John.
Your jibe about Saddam - I'm sure this question will posed to him personnally when when he gets to court.
btw: What's your feelings now that N Korea has declared that they have nuclear weapons and has pulled out of UN discussions?
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Feb 12, 2005 17:21:41 GMT -3
John,
When you started the Kossovo war, I wrote this war-though small- would have as unavoidable consequence NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, as Yugoslavia was in her internationally recognized frontiers and NATO had always sweared it would NEVER, NEVER be the first to strike. As UN charter and those promises proved to mean nothing to the West, the same could be deduced regarding the promises of not being the first to use nukes. ERGO, the only way to be sure NOT to be bombed by NATO would be to become a nuclear power.
When I stated this, British and pro British forum members pretended to laugh at it.
Less than a week later, the Russian Foreign Minister said the same. No more laugh.
What has happened in the world since then? Three countries -India, Pakistan and North Korea- have officially joined the nuclear club. You can bet some other one has probably gone the Israeli way (that is, to have them but not to say it) and many others are making efforts to join the club (there have been talks even in Japan about it). You know, the perspective of being blasted by cow-boys no matter what is a strong encouraging motive to give it a try.
Regarding North Korea, I am in favour of UNIVERSAL nuclear disarm. They have not more nor less right than you to have them. You are more dangerous, as you have the capability of dropping them world wide due your navy and you are ambitious enough as to operate world wide, make 'preventive wars' based on faked info, when you are no more no less than an European power with no menace to your homeland. Your problem is that unlike Germans, or Dutch, or Spaniards, or Belgiums, etc, you have still not renounced to empire.
You see, the present proliferation is a consequence of your own actions (though you are not the only culprits). After the end of the cold war, USA & Co had a brilliant opportunity to establish a long lasting peace (which is the TRUE aim of every war) but it was troughn away stupidly and now the world is beginning to enjoy a neverlasting war.
Best - Javier
PS: I reccommend you to read Edward Luttwak's "La Grande Strategia dell'Impero Romano"
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 13, 2005 15:19:47 GMT -3
Javier, Needless to say that I don’t agree with most of what you have written, yours is just another hindsight point of view, though quite interesting, in a world that is changing quite fast.
We intervened in Kosova because of genocide. (The US and the UK are pressing Kofi Annan to declare genocide in the Sudan) The aftermath of the break up in the former Yugoslavia has allowed the Baltic republics, Slovenia and Croatia incorporation into the EU - by their choice; instead of these new republics exploiting differences with one another. They’ve moved on.
Nuclear weapon proliferation, I agree with you, has the potential to re-ignite global conflict on a scale not seen or imagined. I want to see every last warhead dismantled - yet we appear to be going in the opposite direction. Your view that N. Korea and Iran should have nuclear weapons on the same basis as Russia, US, UK, France and China is deeply disturbing. Not so long ago N. Korea fired a long range missile over the North Japanese mainland. They are the state most likely to use such a weapon, even if it means massive retaliation. Anything for the great leader. Millions dead, millions poisoned, the collapse of any international commonality that has been won since the end of the cold war.
But to deal with your idea that if one has a nuclear weapon then so should others. Well, look at it this way. China is not implicit on retaliatory strikes - they will by national doctrine use them if it suits them. Would they let N Korea fired one against any westernised country? Probably! Why? Because for some time we know that China wants to replace the US as the world’s superpower and they are actively seeking alliance with both Pakistan and Iran. (Have a read of The Clash of Civilisations)
It will not happen peaceably.
Best, John.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Feb 13, 2005 21:17:40 GMT -3
John,
your quote:
"But to deal with your idea that if one has a nuclear weapon then so should others. "
Please, read my posting again. IT IS NOT my idea. My idea is that ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS MUST BE DESTROYED under international surveillance (that includes UK, USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, CHINA, INDIA; PAKISTAN, ISRAEL & NORTH KOREA).
My point is that you cannot have nuclear weapons yourself and pretend to feel scandalized if some other country follows your steps.
Your quote:
"Well, look at it this way. China is not implicit on retaliatory strikes - they will by national doctrine use them if it suits them. Would they let N Korea fired one against any westernised country? Probably! Why? Because for some time we know that China wants to replace the US as the world’s superpower and they are actively seeking alliance with both Pakistan and Iran. (Have a read of The Clash of Civilisations)"
The UK will also use them if they suit you. So would USA (the world doesn't believe US promises anymore). I remember that the only country which used nuclear weapons (twice!) is your GOOD ALLY USA.
Are the Chinese seeking alliance with your ally Pakistan? Why is it moral FOR YOU to have them as allies AND NOT for China?
Why cannot they be an ally of Iran? Is that immoral? Are you not an ally of the good Sultan of Oman? Is the UK not a good ally of the wonderful Sultan of Brunei?
What if China wants to replace USA as a world power? Has USA any Divine grant to be the only superpower? Is that another 'American right'? Is it on the Bible, perhaps? Do you believe that a 'preventive war' shoud be fought against China?
Your quote:
"Not so long ago N. Korea fired a long range missile over the North Japanese mainland."
Not long ago, the USA fired an enormous amount of LIVE missiles on Irak...
best - javier
PS: Please remember that USA is 'investing' more money in 'mininukes'. What for? Have they not enough? The world feels (is!) menaced by the "coallition of the war willing"! Everybody wants to survive. Regarding 'clash of civilizations', it is OLD AS THE WORLD. The Egypcians against the Hittittes, Greeks against Persians, Rome aginst barbarians, Chinese against Mogols, Spaniards against Incas etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Feb 14, 2005 6:27:07 GMT -3
Javier, Your Quote: PS: Please remember that USA is 'investing' more money in 'mininukes'. What for? Have they not enough? The world feels (is!) menaced by the "coallition of the war willing"! Everybody wants to survive. Regarding 'clash of civilizations', it is OLD AS THE WORLD. The Egypcians against the Hittittes, Greeks against Persians, Rome aginst barbarians, Chinese against Mogols, Spaniards against Incas etc, etc, etc. Spaniards against the Incas ? If you see Pizzarro and his gang of cut-throats, thieves and pirates as representative of Spanish 'civilisation' of Latin America then there are surely some major contradictions in your ongoing vilification of the British in this Forum which must give rise to some doubt as to the motivation of your campaign. Or did the true, irrefutable and 'suspended in time' history of the world really begin in 1810 as you would have us believe? Best wishes, Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 14, 2005 9:04:47 GMT -3
Javier, I understand what you are saying. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that nuclear weapons have been a reality since 1944. For such a long time those weapons were dared not employed – Mutual Assured Destruction etc. For as long as I can remember both the US and the old USSR tried with some success to limit these weapons and control worldwide proliferation. That is the objective aim, and please acknowledge that no nuclear weapon has been used in anger since 1945 and then only to end the most destructive war known to mankind. Regardless of how you or I view this is immaterial – those weapons are now loose and held by regimes that couldn’t care less about nuclear weapon non-proliferation treaties.
We don’t live in a perfect world – we live instead in a very dangerous world where the mechanics that kept a nuclear free peace during the Cold War no longer exist.
Ok, you hate the USA and everything it stands for – you prefer, so it seems, a world dominated by non-democratic regimes and the sectarian violent. I personally cannot foresee the free and democratic world of nation states ever tolerating this threat to their freedoms. You see, we vote, for better or for worse our governments, they don’t – they are governed by de-facto dictators, just as Argentina was – once upon a time. Democracy is not westernisation – it is not even quadrant global phenomenon – it is a historical human desire. Even the kingdom state of Saudi Arabia is taking its first tentative steps down the democratic road with their recent municipal elections. It’s what people want as 8.4 million Iraqis bravely gave testimony.
N. Korea is neither communist, Stalinist or Marxist. It is a highly secretive leader cult country that is currently suffering from at least 5 years of famine and zero industrial growth. A recent UN report mentioned that as many as a third of the country is suffering from malnutrition and being used as forced agricultural labour. Now they state (not yet independently confirmed) that they possess nuclear weapon capability. S Korea and Japan can now count themselves as targets of this despotic and highly volatile regime. So when you postulate your own morals, please bear this in mind when reply with your usual rhetoric.
Best, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Feb 14, 2005 10:57:41 GMT -3
John,
You wrote: "Ok, you hate the USA and everything it stands for – you prefer, so it seems, a world dominated by non-democratic regimes and the sectarian violent."
Where did you read this in Javier's posting? This is not a disscusion about football. There is no need to be loyal to any teams when we talk about rights, which is what Javier is talking about. Why is it that when anybody questions the motives of your government, the person is accused of supporting child pornography? Is this the best argument you guys can mustard?
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 14, 2005 11:28:48 GMT -3
Gabriel, "Ok, you hate the USA and everything it stands for – you prefer, so it seems, a world dominated by non-democratic regimes and the sectarian violent."
What alternative does Javier offer? Is there some middle way that I have missed? Until I hear such, then an opposite view is assumed, or as I say – “so it seems”
Both of you fail to mention the changes that have occurred in Afghanistan and in Iraq – only contempt by hindsight views that you both have postulated so often. Let’s have a debate without the rhetoric, let’s reason, and let’s us understand.
Throw me a bone here!
Best, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Feb 14, 2005 21:26:19 GMT -3
John,
Let's assume you have some disease and somebody suggests you will be administered a high dose of DDT. I will be opposed to such stupidity, and I will very likely not have an alternative. We have been shaking entire skeletons in front of you for a long time. Why don't we try this the other way around? Why don't you write what you think will be the right response?
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Feb 15, 2005 7:23:55 GMT -3
Gabriel, Thanks! As you request, let me re-iterate my position, hopefully so you and others can understand. As I mentioned in the lead posting the war was not without fault, of course it wasn't, but I maintain it was war that was right to fight. There was never going to be a third way with Saddam.
I've taken the opportunity of pasting an article from todays Times for you to read. the gravity of the comments are perhaps more closer to reality:
Now Iraq has tasted democracy, the Arab tyrants are shaking in their shoes
Amir Taheri AN ELECTION that was not supposed to happen because the so-called resistance in Iraq — and its sympathisers in the West — did not want it has produced results that the doomsters did not expect. First, the massive boycott of the polls did not take place. Last month almost two thirds of Iraqi voters voted in the first free and fair election in their history.
Now, the final results show that the doomsters were wrong a second time. There was no green tidal wave of radical Shiism that was supposed to transform Iraq into a carbon copy of the Khomeinist republic in Iran. The United Iraqi Alliance, a list endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shia clerics, did win 48 per cent of the votes. But this is far short of the two-third majority that the Shia could have won had they all voted for the list. In any case, the UIA list was not a confessional ticket and had Arab Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians standing as candidates. It is an alliance of half a dozen parties and groups, including secularists.
The supposed total exclusion of the Arab Sunnis from the National Assembly did not happen, either. Arab Sunnis account for some 15 per cent of the Iraqi population and are a majority in four out of 18 provinces. In three of those provinces the voter turnout was below 30 per cent, and in one, Anbar, dropped to 2 per cent. But only half of the Arab Sunnis live in those provinces. The other half, in Baghdad and other major cities, voted in larger numbers.
Based on their demographic strength, the Arab Sunnis should have 42 seats in the 275-seat transitional National Assembly. The final results show that the new assembly will have 49 Arab Sunnis sitting in it. Of these 40 were elected on the Shia-led and the Kurdish lists, plus the list headed by Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister. Five were elected on a list led by Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawer, the Arab Sunni interim President, while four more won within smaller alliances. If we add the Kurds, who are also Sunni Muslims, at least 110 members of the assembly are Sunnis.
But the politics of new Iraq is not about sectarian differences. Religious and ethnic identities were used in this election, but this was in an absence of political organisations that could not take shape under Saddam Hussein’s despotic regimes. The Shia-led and Kurdish lists, the two main winners, could theoretically form a coalition and control the transition and the writing of a new constitution. But we are not dealing with monolithic groups. The two lists are alliances that include many different ideologies — nationalist, liberal, Islamist, far Left, socialist and social democrat. My instinct is that the new assembly will be organised on the basis of political programmes rather than sectarian and/or ethnic identities with Arab nationalist, Islamists and liberals-conservatives blocs forming. But those who have known the new emerging Iraqi leadership for years know that almost all its members are united in their rejection of any new form of despotism. Having been liberated from Saddamism, few Iraqis would want to return to a state of virtual servitude, whether in the name of God or political ideology.
Saddam nostalgics, having failed in all their predictions of doom, are playing another tune. They claim that post-election Iraq will either become an Iranian-style Islamic republic or will be plunged into civil war. Some despotic Arab regimes, already shaking with fear that democracy in Iraq may spread to their neck of the wood, have lost no time in saying this.
Al-Ahram, the daily newspaper of the Egyptian Government, greeted the election results as the signal for civil war, claiming that holding elections is the principal cause of the current violence in Iraq. The Saudi media has brought back the Shia bogeyman as an argument against the holding of genuine elections in the region. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, however, see the Khomeinist regime in Tehran not as a model but as a warning. The Iraqi electorate has rejected not only Khomeinism but all other brands of extremism: the combined share of the votes for the most radical groups was puny. The party of Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand anti-American Shia cleric who was supposed to represent the angry Arab street, won just two seats.
One thing is sure: Iraq has been set on the road to democracy. This is going to be a bumpy road with many zigzags. But, provided the US-led coalition does not lose its nerve, but stays committed until the new Iraq can defend itself against its domestic and foreign foes, the Iraqi experience could inspire democratic change in other Muslim countries in the Middle East.
It would not be easy for Syria to orchestrate another fake election in Lebanon in May. The Khomeinists in Iran would find it hard to present another fixed election in June as a genuine reflection of the popular will. The Egyptians would have a hard time producing another 99.99 per cent majority for President Hosni Mubarak, or his son Gamal, in yet another single-candidate election next year. The Saudis would not be able to indefinitely postpone demands for at least half of the seats in the Majlis, their parliament, to go to elected members. In Libya Colonel Gaddafi might find it harder to appoint his son as prime minister with a mere acclamation from his henchmen.
The Arab despots and their friends in the West make a meal of the cliché that democracy cannot be imposed by force. But what happened in Iraq was not imposing democracy by force. The US-led alliance used force to remove impediments to democracy. The people of Iraq became the co-liberators of their country, first by not opposing the US-led coalition and then by risking their lives to set their nation on a new path in the face of vicious terrorism.
It is time to see what is happening in Iraq on its own merits, not in the context of an irrational hatred of the United States and George W. Bush. Like it or not, President Bush has got one thing right: give any nation a chance to choose democracy and it will.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian author and commentator
|
|