If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Stop the coming destruction and genocide of Iraq demonstrate on September 28th
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
If there is another attack Iraq it will destroy the entire country and cause mass genocide. The Iraqi people are already suffering greatly from the effects of sanctions and the last Gulf War which resulted in the deaths of 200,000 mostly Iraqi civilians and destroyed factories, schools and hospitals. It also left the country littered with unexploded cluster bombs which continuie to kill and maim. The use of depleted uranium shells then created cloudsof radioactive gaswhich results in radiation related illnesses such as cancers, birth defects and leaukemia. Water and sewage treatment plants were destroyed resulting in massive outbreaks of water borne diseases that could not be treated due to sanctions on medical equipment.
The people of Iraq are amongst the poorest in the world as a result and another war would cause totaldestruction of their country and mass genocide asthe whole country is run like a refugee camp with people living on rations, a war could cause a break downof the ration system and mass starvation.
This issue is above politics! It is about defending an entire people from a devastating attack which would be as big a disaster for them a several major earthquakes!
There will be a mass anti-war demonstration in London on September the 28th starting at 1pm at the Embankment. Everyone who lives within travelling distance of London should therefore make an effort to attend this march!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
The people of Iraq are amongst the poorest in the world as a result and another war would cause totaldestruction of their country and mass genocide asthe whole country is run like a refugee camp with people living on rations, a war could cause a break downof the ration system and mass starvation.
This issue is above politics! It is about defending an entire people from a devastating attack which would be as big a disaster for them a several major earthquakes!
There will be a mass anti-war demonstration in London on September the 28th starting at 1pm at the Embankment. Everyone who lives within travelling distance of London should therefore make an effort to attend this march!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
0
Comments
Steelgate, go away. People really aren't interested in your socialist bollocks. You have no concept of the arguments for war, and your arguments against are so flawed. You must realise that by now, they have been picked to pieces in Politics so many times.
America is the most advanced military power in the world if it attacks Iraq the whole country will be destroyed! Make no doubt about! In the last Gulf War the Iraqi army didn't stand a chance and Iraq was totally devasted by tons and tons of so called smart bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, fuel air bombs and depleted uranium shells. Sanctions on Iraq have since killed one million people half of them children due to the outbreaks of waterborne diseases being unable to be treated! And sanctions have prevented the rebuilding of the country!
This left the country is totall ruins and killed 200,000 mostly Iraqi civilians. If 200,000 dead is not mass genocide then what is? You don't need to be interested in politics or to be a pacifist to be against this war. All you need to is look at the facts to see that this war is wrong!
It doesn't mean that you are political if you demonstrate against this war it just means that you care about the lives of people in one of the poorest countries in the world! What is political about that?
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
And if we don't make a regime change, it's gonna be us that's totally devastated. Did you not do history my dear Red? Or did you just read the Stalinist history books. Does appeasment have absolutely no meaning to you? War is not nice, but when you're dealing with a mad man, it's often necessary.
By the way what is destroying Iraq the most is the effect of the sanctions which have prevented the rebuilding of the country and have led to over one million deaths of Iraqi people! And the effects of the last Gulf War which totally devasted the country in the first place!
Saddam maybe a brutal dictator but so are many of America's allies in the middle east such as Suadia Arabia, Oman and Pakistan. When has America ever called for a regime change of these countries?
Lets get this straight America isn't against Saddam because he is a brutal dictator but because he wont tow the line and do as America wants! Saddam used to be one of Americas allies in 1980s when he was fighting Iran, then they didn't complain about him being a brutal dictator then they armed Iraq to the teeth and gave Iraq the technology to produce chemical and biological weapons! Only when he stepped out of line and threatened American oil interests in 1990 by invading Kuwait did they then consider him an enemy!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Steelgate knows that this shoud be posted in the Politics forum, in fact he already has posted it there.
Naturally it has been met with derision.
As are the rest of his ramblings...
GET A JOB
The rhetoric being employed by the US and British leadership is hypocrisy of the highest order. Steelgate makes a valid point that noone is planning to invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to oust those dictatorial regimes, which would be just as much a defence of those hallowed democratic and freedom-loving ideals that Bush and Blair like to drone on about.
Any level headed individual has to admit that this is about stealing control of oil production pure and simple. Any other excuse is merely a pretext. Now, if we superpowers run roughshod over countries that have oil any time we so desire, how are we morally any better than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait?
Frankly there is no easy solution to this mess, but more guns and bombs won't solve it.
I don't think I questioned it here, I actually only pointed out that he shouldn't have posted this argument in the "Anything Goes" forum. It has now been moved to Politics, where it should be. THat's all I was arguing for.
I don't remember ever suggesting that the US didn't support Saddam in the past. The "enemy of my enemy" argument.
Doesn't mean we have to like what he does now...
You know this?
Might be worth pointing out that Pakistan was subject to sanctions from the US, until recently.
Because the US doesn't have any oil reserves of its own :rolleyes:
If this was truly the case, why not take over Saudi (which has the higest quantity of oil?
You're right, there is no easy solution. And that's why after 11 years of diplomacy, military action is closer.
Want to bet?
Nevertheless, successive US administrations have had this agenda in common wherever in the world they can call the shots with respect to oil production by hook or by crook. We dont need to Attack the Saudi's because they have been reigned in politically by the Western powers and are content with the arrangement since it is in the best economic interest of the Saudi leadership to adhere to the status quo. That doesnt mean that America isnt throwing its military might around elsewhere, where it can get away with it without starting WWIII (as re: Afghanistan/ Turkmenistan).
I suspect, from watching these items in the news for a couple decades now, that the real intent is to take what we can at rock bottom prices from the arab world until either the wells run dry or something else prevents easy and cheap access to OPEC and mid-Asian oil, and then the US will turn on its Alaskan pipeline and be the big oil baron on the block selling crude back to the world at over-inflated monopolistic prices. This last point is my own pet theory however.
It is just massively hypocritical for the US/UK administrations to spout about how nasty Saddam is now that he is no longer our trained dog, when he was just as dispicable and genocidal while we were arming him to the teeth. Since the media refuses to remind the average western citizen of this fact, it is no wonder the majority of Western citizens are so prepared to swallow, without question, whatever our leaders say we must do.
What is really at issue here is whether or not it is right to use such extreme force to remove a brutal dictator who could be a threat to peace in the region.
If we look at the records of other countries in the Middle East like Israel which has been a threat to its neighbours and has weapons of mass destruction there has never been a threat to Israel to force it to comply with UN resolutions of face war!
Another reciever of massive amounts of American military hardware is Turkey which has brutally oppressed its Kurdish minority since 1984 forcing millions of them to flee as refugees and destoryed thousands of Kurdish villages. Turkey claims that this is in response to terrorism by the PKK the Kurdish guerrilla movement which is demanding a Kurdish homeland. America not only ignored atrocities in Kurdistan by Turkey it continued to sell the country massive amounts of arms. Strangley though when Milosevic tried to do the same to suppress the KLA the Kosovo Albanian Indepence guerrilla movement, America and other NATO countries responded by mass bombing of Serbia.
The hypocracy of American foreign policy is staggering!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Truly you are a moron. Warfare is the ultimate political act.
When has Israel ever threatened it's neighbours?
Typical of the "let's support the terrorists" attitude of you, that you cannot see that Israel has always been the nation threatened.
But hey, why let truth get in the way of your "Support the freedom fighters" bullshit.
I would lay money on you finding support for every single terrorist organisation.
Try reading a history book.
During the Suez crisis and incident, Israel, acting as the aggressor, invaded an seized a large portion of Egypt. If that isn't a threat, I'm not sure what is.
What about the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebonan in which tens of thousands of people were killed by aggresion by Israel! What about Israelis massacres of the Palestinian people like Deir Yessen when 250 men women and children were brutally butchered! Also in 1946 Zionist terrorist group Irgun demanding a Jewish state in Palestine bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing 91 people, they also bombed British army barracks. During the six day war in 1967 Israel also bombed an American war ship killing hundreds of sailors! Israel was also originally offered 58 percent of the land in Palestine by the UN in 1947 but went on to seize 78 per cent of the land and since 1967 has been illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip and is in breach of 31 UN resolutions!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
You really should get out more you know.
What prompts this "mass murder"?
Couldn't be politics, could it?
Horseshit.
I would suggest that you should stick to topic about which you know anything, but if I did we wouldn't see you at all.
Terrorist use innocent people as their prime target. THey aren't interested in going after the well armed well trained soldiers because they know they would get killed.
Yes, indeed there was no provocation at all was there?
Its not as if Lebanon was being used by the PLO as a staging post for armed incursions into Israel or anything :rolleyes:
Next you'll suggest that the six-day war was an Israeli act of agression too.
Check your history book. When did the state of Israel come into being?
Do you believe that Israel threatened its neighbours or not when it launched a pre-meditated and unprovoked invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis?
Apologies, not my usual style...
Israel, as allies of the UK and France unilaterally invaded Egypt to secure the Suez Canal, that I don't deny.
Prompted by...?
Its also worth looking at the strategy here, did they threaten "Egypt" or was the target purely to maintain access to Suez? I think that inpite of their action, they had no problem with Egypt's right to exist. Something you couldn't say about their neighbours attitude towards them.
The British and French concocted a deal with Israel in which Israel would launch an attack on Egypt, sweeping swiftly across relatively poorly defended Eastern Egypt. The British and French would then land troops in the Canal zone, ostensibly as "peace-keepers" to protect the canal zone.
They went ahead with the plan, and the action was immediately condemned by both the US and the USSR; an extreme rarity in the climate of the Cold War. America began a run on sterling, and the British were forced to withdraw to prevent economic catastrophe. The Israelis, however, held on to many of their territory acquisitions.
By the way there is no difference between war and terrorism! In the recent so called "War On Terrorism" American and British forces had killed over 7,000 Afghan civilians by December and pounded the country with massive daisy cutter bombs which are the most powerful non nuclear bombs and thousands and thousands of cluster bombs many which failed to go off and have injured thousands of innocent civilians! Before the bombing even started one million Afghan civilians also fled their homes and went to live in squalid refugee camps on the Pakistan border when it was anounced that Afghanistan was to be bombed!
Thousands of Afghan homes were also destroyed in the massive bombing raids over Afghanistan and the country has been left in chaos fought over by rival warlords!
In the last Gulf War 200,000 mostly Iraqi civilians were also killed that is terrorism by anyones standards!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Occupying land conquered during war is not generally illegal. Or maybe you think the US/UK/French and Soviet occupation of Germany was illegal too?
Ever been to the Sinai? Only the Negev is more desolate and unwanted.
It has also left Afghanistan in chaos fought over by rival warlords and the Afghan people still ruled by Isalmic fundamentalists.
Large numbers of unexploded cluster bombs have also killed, maimed and injured large numbers of Afghan civilians.
The response to the September 11th attacks was therefore an even greater act of terrorism than the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
If Amercia, Britain and other western countries didn't have such bad foriegn policies then they would never have become targets for terrorism in the first place as terrorism is always a response to oppression. For example in 1969 in Northern Ireland the IRA hardly existed and the Catholics there used to write graffitti saying IRA = I Ran Away at the IRAs refusal to protect Catholics from sectarian loyalist attacks. The IRA though grew massively after events like bloody Sunday and after loyalists attacks increased such as the Shankill Butchers brutal killing of Catholics who were kidnapped off the streets then tortured to death. Wherever there is oppression terrorism will grow as a response!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Sheer, unadulterated Bullshit. The Soviets and the Chinese were/are far more oppressive than any western country and neither have anything resembling a "good" foreign policy, yet neither of them had/have much problem with terrorism. Your logic (in this case, lack of it) is rather flawed. Please, get a psychiatric evaluation.
The Soviets and Chinese, whilst practicing support for insurgencies throughout the world or by undertaking direct military expansionism were/are largely insular societies. The dual factors of Western foreign political manipulation and uncontrolled/unregulated business hegemony of foreign resources puts us well ahead in culpability for the conditions of destitution that are the breeding ground of terrorist recruitment.
Given its move toward Western market driven economics, Russia may yet experience what the West has if it does not learn from our global mismanagement and regulate its economic interests accordingly.
Try learning a little bit about Vietnam from 1970-1990
Single examples are sufficient to illustrate your incompetence. There are always more, but it really isn't worth the effort when one is enough.