>> ^Farhad2000:
bcglorf,
Galloway was against the economic sanctions against Iraq because he understood correctly what the international community did not want to, that economic sanctions never affect the ruling apparatus of any regime but directly affect the living standards of the general population.

"Sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result"
- Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

No, that's only what Galloway says was his reason for opposing the sanctions. He went to Iraq after the first gulf war and as misterwright points out addressed Saddam saying "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. I can honestly say there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming here, hoping to meet with yourself, that did not wish me to convey their heart felt support and fraternal greetings". Galloway's defense is that he was addressing the Iraqi people, not Saddam himself. Fortunately for the world, the above lines are on video and show Galloway for the lying SOB that he is. After Saddam invaded Iran, Kuwait and exterminated the Kurds, Galloway still went over and congratulated Saddam and encouraged him. To this day he has never defended this statement in any fashion except to declare he is misquoted and wasn't speaking to Saddam, knowing full well even with the video most people won't bother looking at it.

Hamas is not to blame for formulating a political and social campaign that managed to oust a largely inept and corrupt Fatah movement. Democracy is what the US pushed for in the Middle East and they got Hamas who they then promptly started ignoring in the the favor of reinstating Fatah into power. Instead of negotiating with Hamas, the US and Israel basically went around them to Fatah. Why? Fatah is more malleable to concessionary action. This was self fulfilling prophecy for Hamas who found more cause to use terrorism against Israel. While this is not a supportive plea for Hamas, who deep inside their ideology believe that Israel should be wiped out, it does show the lengths to which Israel and the US would go to control the terms of negotiation.

Ultimately I believe that it is Israel's wish to contain the peace issue in formaldehyde for as long as possible, their inaction to seriously consider drawing back to 1967 borders only fuels more retaliation by extremists elements, which Israel then uses to impose more security and encroach further into post-1967 lands. Which is beneficial for them, they have captured and controlled more and more land over the last 60 years that this conflict has been playing out over.

At this point Hamas, Fatah and any other formation is fighting a losing battle against an opponent who outmatches them far more on military and economic means. Concession to peace is the only solution the price of which would be a total annexation of most of Palestinian land.

Israel would dictate the terms, an example would be the complete hand over of East Jerusalem, which would mean a lose of its political, cultural and religious center. That is only a 1% adjustment over 1967 lands. I don't believe one is fair when dictating the terms, the Palestinian people would inherit a shell state, or a become a stateless people within Israel along the lines of Bedoun in Kuwait.

Tzipi Livni had to prove she was capable of action, the transition in US power cripples a credible response from the only nation able to dissuade Israel. The losers are the countless civilians caught in the crossfire, most of which will be Palestinian people.

Obama should (but probably will not) make the peace process a central piece of foreign policy, as injustices carried still ring true through Arab people and their leaders. Formulation of peace on which all Palestinians can agree on would allow for normalization of relations between the US, Israel and the Arab world. But that won't happen as Palestinians differ on the terms of peace, Israel is too willing to continue this decade long process of wholly swallowing the Palestinian lands and the US is too afraid to take actionable stances on terms.

I actually was looking forward to it, I wanted to know American impressions of Kuwait. People stationed here have a really odd habit of staying completely within their designated compounds, only being with other Americans, and am not just talking about the troops but almost everyone here within working capacity with the State Department. It really is odd.

I remember speaking to someone back in Canada, a daughter of some US personnel stationed in Kuwait, and she didn't have a clue about the place at all. Very strange considering they lived here for 5 years.

Ah the Kurds, I never knew that concentration camps existed, it seems kinda of odd to me. I had thought that intervention with Kurdish affairs ended with Operation Provide Comfort.

Even then I would not agree to the grounds for war in 2003. I would have agreed to them in 1991, when there was a strong international coalition and strong legal and moral pretense with the Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons against its own people, Iran and the Kurds, as well as the invasion of Kuwait. But its hard to say something like that, knowing that the US bankrolled the Iran Iraq war, that it propped up Saddam Hussein after the CIA blowback from installing the Shah in Iran and the subsequent Islamic revolution. It's hard to support the American effort knowing that their meddling in middle eastern affairs created the very problems they seem to address years later, the aptly called "hes a son of a bitch but our son of a bitch" foreign policy of propping up dictators and despotic rulers, this is not even starting to talk about the ISI, Afghanistan the Mujahedeen and the formation of Al Qaeda.

Personally I think the largest example of international do nothingness is the 800,000 killed during the Rwandan genocide. Somehow Iraq is okay to invade to liberate, Bosnia is okay to invade to liberate but not Darfur and not Rwanda. The UN simply sat and watched a country collapse into internal genocide.

Saddam never had concentration camps. I have no idea where exactly you pulled that one from.


I got the idea from many sources, two good sources are Human Rights Watch and this documentary I linked earlier that nobody can be bothered to watch. Both have countless first hand sources and accounts of the concentration camps from both survivors and captured official Iraqi government documents. The mass graves existed too, and they are further proven because they still exist and are being dug up where they are able to be found, many are over 2 decades old though in the middle of a lot of desert.


I understand what you are trying to say, and I would have agreed with you had this war been carried out with international support, with a realistic time table instead of pushing invasion as soon as possible

And I would agree with you about waiting for international support, but I dare say I don't believe it was EVER coming. After Saddam's genocide of the Kurds the world couldn't agree on removing him(even the Americans<spits>), even after he invaded Kuwait the world could only manage enough agreement to remove him from Kuwait. I'm sorry, but I am convinced waiting for international agreement absolutely meant never doing anything.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^bcglorf:
Actually, no. If the British and Americans weren't there, Saddam(not Iraqi's) would be killing Kurds and Shia quicker than you can say genocide. Yeah, he might off some Al-Qaeda chaps at the same time too, but I consider the current situation the lesser evil myself. Go read about Saddam's Al-Anfal campaign before pining for the days that Saddam 'kept the peace'.

Lesser evil my ass considering the death toll of the iraqi war is higher than the deaths caused by Saddam during his entire reign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Bush has the blood of a million Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers on his hands. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don't condone and make excuses for what he has done.


I think Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld should all be impeached and tried for war crimes for ever defending the use of torture. I feel no need nor inclination to defend them. I do feel a strong need to condemn Saddam and the even more horrific evil he inflicted on the world. If you want to compare body counts for Saddam you should include the Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait invasion, and an unknown number of internally executed Iraqi's buried in mass graves that are still being dug up. You're blissful ignorance of that count wouldn't be offensive if you weren't so keen to stay informed about the costs of ending that nightmare.

Go look at Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign before talking about how much 'worse' Iraq is today. You might be surprised just how nice the today's horror show in Iraq is compared to yesterday's. Be warned though, it's hard to watch the stories about something that makes 100,000 casualties the lesser evil.

I believe sexual relationships before marriage would only make you a better person to get married to, not only would you know exactly what you would want in a partner sexually, but it would allow you to become a better lover as well also you'd have soaked your oats enough to be able to settle down.

Many a marriage fails here in Kuwait because the people are just not sexually educated or compatible or don't know what the hell they are doing, leading to things like torn vaginas, bent penises and so on. Most of the time the woman suffers the most.

"A Chinese murderer, a scrawny white kid, and a Sudanese Family!"

LOL!

Imagine being that Iraqi soldier at the checkpoint. He was probably thinking Kuwait was the weirdest place on earth.

I'm going to smack the next man I meet named Jalal.

Sends chills down my spine. Amazing sift. Freedom is fragile, especially when you're young and dumb.

I've been down a similar path, though nowhere near anywhere such as Kuwait. Still, loss of freedom is a traumatic experience the first time 'round; though, I admit, the second, third and fourth time diminishes the effect.

I'm sure torture, however, would decrease the diminishing returns of fear and loathing.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow. Scary shit. Remind me not to smoke hash in Kuwait.

I'm sure Farhad is worried about the Secret Service knocking his door down in Kuwait over a comment said on the internet.

In your own words, MINK: Don't be retarded.

Amazing how history looks different if you only tell one side and remove all context. A full accounting would of course require a goodly stack of history texts and global newspapers, but here's a 5 second primer:

"1982:U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians."
All true, but one shouldn't ignore that the amount of Soviet military equipment provided to Iraq made the American contribution almost irrelevant by comparison. Any criticism of America for aiding Saddam needs to go 10 times over for Soviet aid.

"1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S."
As above, they also used 10 times as much Soviet provided equipment. The wording implies that the invasion of Kuwait was somehow approved of by the U.S....

"1991: U.S. enters Iraq...Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait."
Wow, that sounds like Saddam "liberated" the Iraqi province of Kuwait from a dictator and then the U.S. was the aggressor coming in and invading the Iraqi province of Kuwait... No comment.

"1998:Clinton bombs weapon factory in Sudan...Factory turns out to be making aspirin."
Actually, my understanding was that the factory produced much more important medicine than just aspirin. Things like anti-biotics for which many died for the want of.

"1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis."
Actually, the no fly zone enforced over Iraq had a less sinister purpose. It was to prevent Saddam from repeating his genocidal "Al-Anfal Campaign". Look it up, dropping VX gas on villages is pretty ugly and I think it's sick to make out like the American no fly zone preventing that kind of thing was an imperialistic maneuver.

Well I said that because you said something about "ask the Kurds, Kuwait, etc..." I assumed you didn't know where he was from. No, I didn't know that, but as far as world history goes, I kinda suck.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You do realize that Kuwait would actually be a province of Iraq under Saddam had no one intervened?

In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.
But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.
Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.
Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.
Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.



Here is what I actually said:

"shoot people in their own homes and cities..."
Do you really mean to make it sound like civilians are the intended targets?

"in a preemptive global police action"
Removing a dictator that committed genocide against his own people, annexed a neighboring sovereign country and failed at annexing a second is pre-emptive?

"instigated for monetary purposes"
Really? Even after this video and the well documented down turn the American economy is going through? Are you sure?

"If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us..."
Oh yeah, let's go really far out into left field. Let's pretend that the insurgence in Iraq is fighting to reinstate the toppled Baathist regime. Let's ignore that the true liberation army of Iraq, the Peshmerga army of Iraqi-Kurdistan, is fighting alongside American troops. Let's even pretend that American citizens are just as unhappy with their government as Iraqi's were with Saddam. That's an insult to every man, woman and child now buried in the mass graves of Northern Iraq.


I never suggested what the 'best' way was. I just stated that the current situation in Iraq, as bad as it is, isn't as bad as the genocide that Saddam was continually pursuing. More over, one can hardly look at pre-war Iraq under Saddam and say that some kind of collapse and ensuing civil war wasn't already on the way. You can't say that the factionalism that the American's have blundered into worsening, wasn't being fed even worse by Saddam's heavy handed oppression of all Kurdish and Shiite people.

More importantly, the main point I was addressing is the notion that the video speaks of, the cost to American tax payers of the war. It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that the Iraq war could have been anticipated to be good for the USA's economy by anybody, and so talk of a war based on American greed is just hyperbole. The only benefit to America of removing Saddam is the same enjoyed by many other countries the world over, one less dictator encouraging war, genocide and division. Pretending the disaster that is the current state of Iraq wasn't well in the works since even before the first Gulf War is extraordinarily dishonest(though that lie was pushed the most by Bush/Cheney pre-War)

I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.

But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.

Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.

Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.

Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.