Ethics of the Iraq occupation

The occupation of Iraq is...


  • Total voters
    15
Why the hell would they be terrorists? If they're terrorists, aren't the American invaders and occupiers terrorists?
Well, who was it that recently tricked women with Down's Syndrome into blowing up themselves and a bunch of civilians? Was that "militants"?

And, regarding the OP question, I'd say a precipitous withdrawl would result in chaos and massive bloodshed on a grand scale in Iraq. Given that that is the alternative, the occupation is certainly "right".

As soon as it's clear that we can withdrawl without igniting a firestorm, then we should. That's what's so stupid about the "militants". If they want us out, all they have to do is quit raising hell.
 
Well, who was it that recently tricked women with Down's Syndrome into blowing up themselves and a bunch of civilians? Was that "militants"?

Well, what side is ordered to indiscrimately kill civilians upon demand?

Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?

A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

Q: Over what period did all this take place?

A: During the invasion of Baghdad.

---

Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?

A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.

Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?

A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.

---

Q: A demonstration? Where?

A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."

Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?

A: Both.

Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.

Q: What kind of firepower was employed?

A: M-16s, 50-cal. machine guns.

Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?

A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.


http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
 
Well, who was it that recently tricked women with Down's Syndrome into blowing up themselves and a bunch of civilians? Was that "militants"?

Probably US troops. Wouldn't be the first time.


"We boiled the flesh off enemy skulls"

"Japanese skulls were much-envied trophies among U.S. Marines in the Pacific theater during World War II. The practice of collecting them apparently began after the bloody conflict on Guadalcanal, when the troops set up the skulls as ornaments or totems atop poles as a type of warning. The Marines boiled the skulls and then used lye to remove any residual flesh so they would be suitable as souvenirs. U.S. sailors cleaned their trophy skulls by putting them in nets and dragging them behind their vessels. Winfield Townley Scott wrote a wartime poem, 'The U.S. Sailor with the Japanese Skull" that detailed the entire technique of preserving the headskull as a souvenir. In 1943 Life magazine published the picture of a U.S. sailor's girlfriend contemplating a Japanese skull sent to her as a gift - with a note written on the top of the skull. Referring to this practice, Edward L. Jones, a U.S. war correspondent in the Pacific wrote in the February 1946 Atlantic Magazine, "We boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers." On occasion, these "Japanese trophy skulls" have confused police when they have turned up during murder investigations. It has been reported that when the remains of Japanese soldiers were repatriated from the Mariana Islands in 1984, sixty percent were missing their skulls."



Source: Kenneth V. Iserson, M.D., "Death to Dust: What happens to Dead Bodies?", Galen Press, Ltd. Tucson, AZ. 1994. p.382.

---------------------


p.997
"A long line of such incidents parades before my mind: the story of our Marines firing on unarmed Japanese survivors who swam ashore on the beach at Midway; the accounts of our machine-gunning prisoners on a Hollandia airstrip; of the Australians pushing captured Japanese soldiers out of the transport planes which were taking them south over the New Guinea mountains ("the Aussies reported them as committing hara-kiri or 'resisting'"); of the shinbones cut, for letter openers and pen trays, from newly killed Japanese bodies on Noemfoor; of the young pilot who was "going to cream that Jap hospital one of these days"; of American soldiers poking through the mouths of Japanese corpses for gold-filled teeth ("the infantry's favorite occupation"); of Jap heads buried in ant-hills "to get them clean for souvenirs"; of bodies bulldozed to the road-side and dumped by the hundreds into shallow, unmarked graves ...to the approval of thousands of Americans who claim to stand for high, civilized ideals."

"The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh" published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, 1970


---------------------

On Sept. 28 1901 Filipino guerillas infiltrated the town of Balangiga, Samar, attacking American troops at their breakfast table and killing 54.

Afte the succesfull attack on American soldiers at Balangiga in 1901, due to the public demand in the U.S. for retaliation, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the pacification of Samar. And in six months, General “Jake” Smith transformed Balangiga into a “howling wilderness.” He ordered his men to kill anybody capable of carrying arms, including ten-year-old boys.

Smith particularly ordered Major Littleton Waller to punish the people of Samar for the deaths of the American troops. His orders were: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.”

-----------------

As president Bill Clinton begins a six- country tour of Africa today, new evidence has emerged of how trapped United States troops indiscriminately fired on crowds of Somalis in Mogadishu in 1993, killing more than 1,000 - five times the 'official' number.

In a dramatic new account of the battle in central Mogadishu, collated from hours of interviews with American and Somali survivors, Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer has revealed that US troops abandoned their rules of engagement - to fire only when threatened by fire - and shot down every Somali they saw, including women and children.

------------------

The single action that did more than any other to cement Somali hostility and to unite the different clan factions in Mogadishu against the Americans was the massacre of a meeting of Habr Gedir clan elders on July 12, 1993.

The clan meeting was held at the house of an Aidid official to discuss peace proposals Admiral Howe had put to them the previous day, when the gathering suddenly was attacked by US Cobra attack choppers opening fire with TOW missiles and 20 mm cannons and with US ground troops finishing off the wounded.

The Washington Post described the event as a "slaughter" in which "a half-dozen Cobras" pumped sixteen TOW missiles and two thousand rounds of cannon fire into the gathering of elders, intellectuals, poets and religious leaders, "first blowing away the stairwell to prevent anyone from escaping."

The brutality of the attack not only unified the Habr Gedir clan behind Aidid but also recruited other clans in a desire for revenge. For Somalis, the firefight featured in the film was payback time for this massacre, known as Bloody Monday.

-----------------

s-child.jpg

An Afghan man lifts the head of a child who along with 11 other civilians died during US air raids in Kabul on October 28, 2001, witnesses said a man and his seven children were killed when a bomb crashed through their home. (AP photo)

US soldiers stormed the homes of Afghan villagers after they were bombed in a US air-raid last weekend and barred people from treating their wounded relatives, outraged Afghans say

"First they bombed the womenfolk, killing them like animals, then they stormed into the houses and tied the hands of men and women," Mohammad Anwar said at Kakrakai village in central Uruzgan province's Dehrawad district.

"It was cruelty - after bombing the area, the US forces rushed to that house, cordoned it off and refused to let the people help the victims or take them away for treatment," he said.

"Until seven or eight o'clock in the morning the Americans did not allow anyone to help the injured and to cover the bodies.

"Most of their clothes had been burnt off [in the attack].

"They kept filming and photographing the naked women," he said.

Anwar says he had no answers for the questions of his stunned people.

"The people are asking, 'is the result of the support we have extended to the Americans? This is humiliation. Our women were disgraced'," he said.

--------------

In the words of Pfc. William Bezanson, “To me, the greatest guilt that any man can suffer is that he died without a good reason. And to me, Vietnam is not a good enough reason. Not when we’re destroying the Vietnamese land, property and populace. We’re destroying the very moral fiber of this country at the same time.”

Drawn from across the spectrum of military units and ranks, the young servicemen, most only in their early to mid-20s at the time, describe in detail the burning of villages, the massacre of civilians, the rape and torture, including live evisceration, of villagers, the tossing of prisoners from helicopters, and the collection of human ears as trophies. As one soldier admits, “the more ears, the more beers.”

Their purpose in describing their acts was to establish that such crimes were widespread and indeed endemic to the Vietnam War itself. Details of the My Lai massacre in March 1968, in which 500 villagers were machine-gunned and the village razed, had finally surfaced in the American press, causing popular revulsion and increased antiwar sentiment. Attempting to contain the damage, the courts-martial of a handful of GIs and their commanding officer for the massacre at My Lai had finally gotten underway in November 1970. The guilty verdict for Lt. William Calley and the acquittal of his commanding officer, Ernest Medina, would be handed down the same month as the Winter Soldier Investigation.

-------


Standard Operating Procedure.

Would you want these men around your family?
 
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the question of whether "occupation" of Iraq is right or wrong is very different from the question of whether the US should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

The US army is currently in Iraq at the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq has a legitimate government, recognised by the United Nations, and it wants the US in Iraq. Whether you agree that Saddam ought to have been forcibly removed from office or not is irrelevant to the present legal status of the present government.

The Iraqi people have the opportunity to elect a government that will ask the US to leave Iraq, if they wish. Violence is not necessary. In fact, violence just destabilises the country.

I cannot understand how anybody could say the occupation in Iraq is "right" or justified. I'm half Iraqi, and have over a hundred relatives in Iraq alone. They say the country is completely devastated. They have two hours of electricity a day, and cars can't drive in most places because the streets are literally overflowing with garbage. They live in Kirkuk, which means they are in the middle of the Kurd/Arab conflict for that section of Iraq.

Of course, Kirkuk is still relatively peaceful. I can't imagine how horrible living in Baghdad is. The war has been a total disaster. My only hope is that the Sunnis/Shi'ites/Kurds can cast aside differences and force an American withdrawal.

There's no need for force, as I explained above.

The problem is that conflict in Iraq is not just about Americans vs. so-called loyal Iraqi patriots. Anybody who pretends that Sunni-Shia and other ethnic tensions are not at least partially fuelling the violence is deluded.

It is very easy to blame the US entirely for all of Iraq's current problems. The reality is more complex.
 
James do you HONESTLY think the US would accept that???

Lets see what happened to the LAST DOMCATICLY ELECTED goverment elected that the US didnt like, HAMAS. What happened to them again????? Oh yea thats right, the US, Israil ect all refused to accept the out come of the elections. Sure the Iraq's could elect them but its hard for them to rule if they get SHOT
 
The US army is currently in Iraq at the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq has a legitimate government, recognised by the United Nations, and it wants the US in Iraq. Whether you agree that Saddam ought to have been forcibly removed from office or not is irrelevant to the present legal status of the present government.

The Iraqi people have the opportunity to elect a government that will ask the US to leave Iraq, if they wish. Violence is not necessary. In fact, violence just destabilises the country.

1) Who cares if the U.N. recognizes the Iraqi government? They also recognize Israel, which speaks volumes about their credibility.

2) As I said before, the Iraqi government is simply an American puppet. Anybody who thinks a Kurd who has strong Western connections and helped fight AGAINST Iraq in the war alongside Iran in the '80s could be elected twice is out of their damn mind.

The problem is that conflict in Iraq is not just about Americans vs. so-called loyal Iraqi patriots. Anybody who pretends that Sunni-Shia and other ethnic tensions are not at least partially fuelling the violence is deluded.

Yeah, I don't see how anybody was doubting that. However, it is clear that the destabalization of the country by the U.S. is what caused the ethnic tensions to escalate. My post was intended to show how I wanted the ethnic differences in Iraq to be put aside.

It is very easy to blame the US entirely for all of Iraq's current problems. The reality is more complex.

You're right. Israel also has a lot of explaining to do.
 
Well, what side is ordered to indiscrimately kill civilians upon demand?
That guy has since been completely discredited.
“Jimmy was Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry all wrapped up into one tidy, soundbite-friendly package—a poster boy for peace topped off by a military uniform and tattoos to boot. But like a lot of the agitators who pose as well-meaning, good-faith peace activists, Jimmy Massey was something else: A complete fraud.”
The reporter embedded with his unit wrote a series of articles on the topic. He saw none of the atrocities mentioned by this wackjob. When he confronted Jimmy on these issues, he changed his story, saying he had just heard about this stuff rather than participated in it. Well, no one else seems to have heard about. Here's part of the interview with the reporter:
AMY GOODMAN: Ron Harris. What are your main concerns about Jimmy Massey’s account of his time in Iraq?

RON HARRIS: Let me just respond to that really quickly. No, I don’t read French, but I interviewed the author of the book, and she said there’s also—in that book there’s no corroboration of any of Jimmy Massey’s claims. And that’s the big problem here, that Jimmy Massey makes a lot of claims, but at no point, not on your show in his previous interview or at any point, has he introduced any evidence that shows that any of these claims are true. That’s number one. And number two, he has actually retracted statements that he made, again on your show and in other newspapers.

He claimed that he saw tractor-trailers filled with bodies of innocent civilians, men, women and children who had been killed by U.S. bombs and artillery. And when I asked him about it, he said ‘Well, actually, I didn’t see it. I heard about it.’ Well, I did see those tractor-trailers. In fact, Andy Cutraro of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch took photographs of those trailers, and in those trailers were bodies of all men, the vast majority dressed in green military uniform.

Jimmy Massey claimed that he saw a four-year-old girl shot in the head. It’s not true. When I interviewed him he said, “Well, I actually didn’t see a four-year-old girl shot in the head, but I heard about it. I was there when she got shot, and the other Marines told me about it.” Well, again we were there at that same incident in which he claimed Lima Company, which is one of the companies, shot that girl. Well, there was no four-year-old girl shot in that shot [inaudible]. Did the Marines shoot innocent civilians? You bet. They did shoot innocent civilians. We reported it, we took photographs of it, we published it. But in that case there was no four-year-old girl.

He claimed on three occasions that he shot a six-year-old girl in the head and killed her. Then when I asked him about it, he said, “Well, actually, I didn’t do it, but my unit did it.” So, his claims go back and forth and go back and forth, and then he’s admitted that some of this stuff is not true, and then again, you know, when I try to verify these claims and interview the people who were there, including all of the journalists who were there, and we certainly weren’t about the business of covering up what the Marines did. As I pointed out earlier, I reported that, in fact, on the second day of the war, Marines shot and killed a British television crew. So, it is not my job nor my desire to cover up for the Marine Corps, and that hasn’t been part of my performance.
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/14/did_former_marine_jimmy_massey_lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200512090931.asp
 
James do you HONESTLY think the US would accept that???

The US claims to have brought democracy to Iraq. If it refused to withdraw following a democratic election or request from the democratically-elected government it would subject itself to the most severe international condemnation.

Lets see what happened to the LAST DOMCATICLY ELECTED goverment elected that the US didnt like, HAMAS. What happened to them again????? Oh yea thats right, the US, Israil ect all refused to accept the out come of the elections. Sure the Iraq's could elect them but its hard for them to rule if they get SHOT

Do you really think the US controls Palestine?
 
The US army is currently in Iraq at the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq has a legitimate government, recognised by the United Nations, and it wants the US in Iraq. Whether you agree that Saddam ought to have been forcibly removed from office or not is irrelevant to the present legal status of the present government.

The Iraqi people have the opportunity to elect a government that will ask the US to leave Iraq, if they wish. Violence is not necessary. In fact, violence just destabilises the country.



There's no need for force, as I explained above.

The problem is that conflict in Iraq is not just about Americans vs. so-called loyal Iraqi patriots. Anybody who pretends that Sunni-Shia and other ethnic tensions are not at least partially fuelling the violence is deluded.

It is very easy to blame the US entirely for all of Iraq's current problems. The reality is more complex.
Did you vote in the poll? Sounds like you should have voted yes.
 
Kadark:

1) Who cares if the U.N. recognizes the Iraqi government?

All UN member states care. i.e. the vast majority of nations of the world.

They also recognize Israel, which speaks volumes about their credibility.

It speaks volumes about your credibility that you can't accept the obvious reality that Israel is a state.

Pretending that Israel doesn't exist politically is impractical in trying to achieve any political goal in the middle east.

2) As I said before, the Iraqi government is simply an American puppet.

Are you claiming that elections have been rigged by the US?

Do you have any evidence?

Yeah, I don't see how anybody was doubting that. However, it is clear that the destabalization of the country by the U.S. is what caused the ethnic tensions to escalate.

So, are the ethnic tensions the fault of the US alone, or do Iraqis have some internal problems of their own making to sort out?
 
James do you HONESTLY think the US would accept that???

Lets see what happened to the LAST DOMCATICLY ELECTED goverment elected that the US didnt like, HAMAS. What happened to them again????? Oh yea thats right, the US, Israil ect all refused to accept the out come of the elections. Sure the Iraq's could elect them but its hard for them to rule if they get SHOT

Or tortured by men claiming to be police.

Come on people, lets not forget what happened in Nicarauga, and Guatemala, and El Salvador. D'Aubuisson was trained in America, along with his death squads. And the coup against chavez ?, that too was sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (from America)...
 
madanthonywayne:

No, I didn't vote in the poll, because the poll is too blunt an instrument.

The poll starter needs to explain to me what it means for an occupation to be "right" or "wrong". Right or wrong for what? Right or wrong in what way?

The occupation may be good or bad for many different purposes and parties. Clearly, there is raging debate in the US alone about whether the occupation is "right" or "wrong" from the American perspective alone. Similarly, Iraqis are divided about whether the US presence is helping or hindering the stability of the country.

I seldom get involved in these discussions on sciforums, because the participants almost invariably get all hot under the collar and want to paint the entire situation as a case of good against evil. Their only disagreement is who are the good guys and who are the evil dudes. So, we get a lot of cheering for "our" team (whichever "side" it may be), but no useful discussion of anything meaningful, such as what might be the best future course to ensure the happiness and future prosperity of the Iraq people.
 
So, are the ethnic tensions the fault of the US alone, or do Iraqis have some internal problems of their own making to sort out?

I know the question was for Kadark, but I'd like to point out that although the cause of ethnic tensions wasn't the US. The Unites state military through either incompetence or deliberate decisions, made the police Shia dominated, and armed the Sunni militias. This is not conducive to solving ethnic tensions. So while the US is not responsible for the causes of ethnic violence, it isn't doing anything to calm it down. Legally, if an occupying power has control of an area, it is responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants.
 
All UN member states care. i.e. the vast majority of nations of the world.

Newsflash: nobody takes the U.N. seriously.

It speaks volumes about your credibility that you can't accept the obvious reality that Israel is a state.

It's a state based off displacement, theft, and warfare. Why should anyone recognize that, when its formation included the infringing of U.N. declarations and conventions?

Are you claiming that elections have been rigged by the US?

Do you have any evidence?

How the hell would I have evidence? Think logically. If you know the history behind Talabani, you'd laugh at the election. The man fought and killed IRAQI soldiers during their war with Iran. He's a KURD, which is the equivalent of seeing a Muslim make the Whitehouse. He has strong Western connections, which is like an American candidate shaking hands with Ahmadinejad.

So, are the ethnic tensions the fault of the US alone, or do Iraqis have some internal problems of their own making to sort out?

The internal problems were going fine until the government was toppled. When you have three different ethnic groups and one position in government, with 200,000 foreign soldiers representing corporate greed, there will be bloodshed.

Lots and lots of it.
 
Challenger78:

I know the question was for Kadark, but I'd like to point out that although the cause of ethnic tensions wasn't the US. The Unites state military through either incompetence or deliberate decisions, made the police Shia dominated, and armed the Sunni militias.

Just a couple of days ago, the Iraq government reversed its disasterous "de-Baathification" policy. Thus, public servants and the like will now be able to resume some of their old jobs.

The original policy, imposed by the US initially, was a mistake, since it removed a lot of expertise from the public service and the police force, on the mistaken assumption that any Baathist must be a died-in-the-wool supporter of Saddam. (Another example of harmful black-and-white thinking.)

Clearly, the Iraqi police force has been a disaster since the US invasion, with many policemen actually participating in "death squads" and the like for the purposes of ethnic-motivated violence.

This is not conducive to solving ethnic tensions. So while the US is not responsible for the causes of ethnic violence, it isn't doing anything to calm it down.

I disagree. I think you will find that the US army is trying very hard to clamp down on violence.

Legally, if an occupying power has control of an area, it is responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants.

Do you think the US army has control of Iraq?

Surely, if it had control, there would be no bombings, shootings and so on by armed militias.
 
Kadark:

Newsflash: nobody takes the U.N. seriously.

I don't see any countries pulling their ratifications of the UN Charter.

It's a state based off displacement, theft, and warfare. Why should anyone recognize that, when its formation included the infringing of U.N. declarations and conventions?

Ancient history, even if you're right.

There's no point whinging about the past. You need to start dealing with reality as it is now. Israel isn't about to disappear. You're going to have to learn to live with it. And advocating and threatening violence against Israel will just make Israel more determined to stamp you out as a threat to its people.

How the hell would I have evidence? Think logically. If you know the history behind Talabani, you'd laugh at the election. The man fought and killed IRAQI soldiers during their war with Iran. He's a KURD, which is the equivalent of seeing a Muslim make the Whitehouse. He has strong Western connections, which is like an American candidate shaking hands with Ahmadinejad.

Grand conspiracy theories are convenient and do not require real thought. They can be comforting. I'm sure you can invent lots of conspiracies to explain away any facts situations you find inconvenient for your politics.

It sounds like you believe that no Kurd could ever govern Iraq fairly or without bias. Is that what you think?

The internal problems were going fine until the government was toppled.

Did you approve of Saddam's regime then?
 
Challenger78:



Just a couple of days ago, the Iraq government reversed its disasterous "de-Baathification" policy. Thus, public servants and the like will now be able to resume some of their old jobs.

Thats good to hear, however, that strikes me as too little too late. What about the fact that they disbanded the Iraqi Army (which although technically defeated, was a useful labor force).


The original policy, imposed by the US initially, was a mistake, since it removed a lot of expertise from the public service and the police force, on the mistaken assumption that any Baathist must be a died-in-the-wool supporter of Saddam. (Another example of harmful black-and-white thinking.)

Clearly, the Iraqi police force has been a disaster since the US invasion, with many policemen actually participating in "death squads" and the like for the purposes of ethnic-motivated violence.
Glad we agree.


I disagree. I think you will find that the US army is trying very hard to clamp down on violence.
Do you think the US army has control of Iraq?

Surely, if it had control, there would be no bombings, shootings and so on by armed militias.

If the US army didn't have control of Iraq, casualties would be higher.All of the country is in control of the US, as are essential services which still have not been restored to full capacity.

Bombings and shooting by the militias, are probably the result of arms and broken promises by the US.
Seems to me, the US is fighting a counter insurgency in a conventional way. Bribes to militias, heavy military presence, denial of essential services, etc.
 
Im sorry thats a cope out.

Firstly i saw a post here 3 years ago that showed that the US had tried to interfere in the election of a labor goverment some years ago (i would give you a sorce if i could rember what the thread was)

Secondly you dont think that IN a war zone they couldnt despose of people who they dont want and blame it on "terriousts" without anyone questioning it????

Thirdly it doesnt MATTER if they have full control, as long as they occupy a piece of land they have legal responcabilitys

Lastly the UN wont be respected as long as 5 countries can do whatever they want without the rest of the world being able to use it to even complain. Can you see the US alowing a resolution against them to pass without a veto?
 
Ancient history, even if you're right.

There's no point whinging about the past. You need to start dealing with reality as it is now. Israel isn't about to disappear. You're going to have to learn to live with it. And advocating and threatening violence against Israel will just make Israel more determined to stamp you out as a threat to its people.

The whole Israel talk stemmed from "U.N. recognition". My point is that if Israel is recognized by the U.N. (despite its history and formation), then that tells me the U.N. is not something I'll take seriously.

Grand conspiracy theories are convenient and do not require real thought. They can be comforting. I'm sure you can invent lots of conspiracies to explain away any facts situations you find inconvenient for your politics.

You can call it a conspiracy - I call it common intuition.

It sounds like you believe that no Kurd could ever govern Iraq fairly or without bias. Is that what you think?

That's exactly what I think. It's almost as ridiculous as having Bin Laden run for President in the U.S. and become elected. You'd have to know the history behind this to understand, James.

Did you approve of Saddam's regime then?

More than I do this occupation.
 
Back
Top