Home Politics & Debate
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

"Bush and Blair, the champions of peace

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
That was a sign, written in Arabic, held up by Kurds as they take back their city.

War is the worst thing and best thing you can do to a civilization. People realize the need for liberation. No one is saying: thank you peace movement of UN for delaying our liberation.

A sign held up by Muslims in Baghdad so the US Marines could see:

Human Shields
Go home you U.S. wankers.


Here, the peace movement felt it was putting its members lives on the line for peace. But to people who know friends and relatives who've been tortured or murdered. Human Shields were there to protect Saddam.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PNJ maybe the peace movement was naive, maybe it wasn't. At the end of the day people in the peace movement were trying to stop innocent people dying which in my eyes is a noble cause. The UN is a good organisation designed to prevent war wherever possible. You act like the Americans are noble but if the Americans were so concerned about ordinary Iraqis why did George Bush Sr. encourage them to rise up against Saddam only to let them be murdered by him when it was considered too much trouble to liberate the Iraqis in 1991.

    The American government is not doing this for the good of the Iraqi people. They were happy enough to keep Saddam in power when he was their puppet in the 1980s - perhaps you have seen the photos of Defence Secretary Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983? We in Britain and America were more than happy enough to sell him the weapons of mass destruction which he used on the Kurds in 1988 which President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher were happy enough to ignore at the time.

    The only reason this war occurred is because Saddam became more independently minded and wouldn't be the American puppet government anymore so now they're going to put in a new puppet government. The oil revenues will be given to the Iraqi people - but then taken back as they have to pay off the bills for their reconstruction to American firms. Also the fact that Saddam and Iraq was an easy target because Bush can't find bin Laden (remember him?) and needed to have someone's head on a platter to enable him to win re-election in November 2004.

    Yes, most Iraqi people are liberated now and no-one would say that's a bad thing but how liberated do you think those who died, were injured or who have lost loved ones feel?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    George Bush Sr. encourage them to rise up against Saddam only to let them be murdered by him when it was considered too much trouble to liberate the Iraqis in 1991

    The UN only allowed the US to get Saddam out of Kuwait. They didn't want him deposed.

    No one in Iraq or in the Iraqi exile community in Deerborn Michigan recognize the peace movement for doing any good. The peace movement is seen as people working against the liberation of people who were being tortured and murdered for one purpose: oil deals with Russia and France. Chemical deals with Germany.

    Good intentions or not, people need to know what they're marching for and how they're actions could be used by tyrants. The US and UK are going to set up a transitional government made up of Iraqis that were exiled in the US, we have the largest Iraqi population outside of Iraq, and people from every ethnic group within Iraq. This transitional government will lead to the creation of a government by Iraqis that Iraqis want.

    The US and the West will benefit from lower oil prices on oil the Iraqis control. The Iraqis, like the Kuwaitis we liberated, will decide what companies get what contracts. That's historial fact. I can't imagine why they'd give any to the French and Russians.

    The UN should not be involved because the French and Russians will put forth measures that will require the Iraqis to pay back the billion Saddam's government owes France and 3 billion owed to Russia.

    I'm not pro war...it's both horrible...and in times of liberation...wonderful. But the peace movement was comprised of Anti-American dirt bags. The jealously and hatred of America is apparent in the posts on the site.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    The UN only allowed the US to get Saddam out of Kuwait. They didn't want him deposed.
    Since when has the US been bothered about what the UN thinks? :lol: Besides which if the US were supposedly forbidden from entering Iraq by the UN then why did George Bush Sr encourage the Iraqis to rebel against Saddam if he knew the Americans wouldn't enter Iraq to help them?
    No one in Iraq or in the Iraqi exile community in Deerborn Michigan recognize the peace movement for doing any good. The peace movement is seen as people working against the liberation of people who were being tortured and murdered for one purpose: oil deals with Russia and France. Chemical deals with Germany.
    Maybe in America, but here the Iraqi exile community was very heavily linked with the peace movement - why? Because as terrible as Saddam is/was they didn't want to put their loved ones back in Iraq in danger from coalition bombs. Why would the French, Russians and Germans want innocent Iraqis tortured? The torture of Iraqis was to do with Saddam upholding his regime, nothing to do with foreign countries. If you're going to use that argument you may as well say that we in Britain and America were responsible for the torture of Iraqis when our governments were on good terms with Saddam in the 80s. I note you conviently side-stepped the issues I put to you about British and American deals with Iraq in the 1980s.
    Good intentions or not, people need to know what they're marching for and how they're actions could be used by tyrants. The US and UK are going to set up a transitional government made up of Iraqis that were exiled in the US, we have the largest Iraqi population outside of Iraq, and people from every ethnic group within Iraq. This transitional government will lead to the creation of a government by Iraqis that Iraqis want.
    Not the case, the proposals are as far as I understand it is that the Americans will be very firmly in charge, General Garner will be interim head of the Iraqis and each department of government will be headed by an American general with Iraqis beneath them. I also note that every time I turn on the news the proposed democracy in Iraq keeps getting postponed by about six months, originally the American occupation was supposed to be for a few months now it seems like it will be for a few years.
    The US and the West will benefit from lower oil prices on oil the Iraqis control. The Iraqis, like the Kuwaitis we liberated, will decide what companies get what contracts. That's historial fact. I can't imagine why they'd give any to the French and Russians.
    So you agree with my point that this was not done solely for the liberation of the Iraqis. The American oil firms stand to gain heavily. Incidentally, the average Kuwaiti was not liberated, Kuwait is still run by their monarchy and is not a democracy.
    The UN should not be involved because the French and Russians will put forth measures that will require the Iraqis to pay back the billion Saddam's government owes France and 3 billion owed to Russia.
    The UN is the nearest thing we have to a global parliament and I think it should be involved if only for its wide range of experience in rebuilding nations over the years such as in the Former Yugoslavia. The Russians and French will get back their loans anyway, even an American administration in Iraq is bound to honour Saddam's debts.
    I'm not pro war...it's both horrible...and in times of liberation...wonderful. But the peace movement was comprised of Anti-American dirt bags. The jealously and hatred of America is apparent in the posts on the site.
    Again I'd ask you how liberated those who died, got injured or lost loved ones feel. War is always horrible, sometimes necessary but mostly horrible and unnecessary. Instead of attacking those who have a different opinion, maybe you should consider why it is that America is hated so much? Myself, I don't hate America, Americans are some the nicest, most friendly people I have met and I love American food, movies and music but I despair at the American government and I despair that so many Americans lack the ability or willingness to criticise their own government and just swallow whatever they're told.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    But the peace movement was comprised of Anti-American dirt bags. The jealously and hatred of America is apparent in the posts on the site.

    Show me one post on here that shows either jealousy or hatred of America.

    I wish you wouldn't make sweeping statements about what people think from a small amount of evidence, some peoplke were celebrating in iraq, many were not, some iraqis hate the US, many do not.

    There is always a plurality of opinion.........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    The UN only allowed the US to get Saddam out of Kuwait. They didn't want him deposed.

    Then why didn't they ignore the UN then? They have only let the UN have precedence when it suited them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The topic headline came from the Kurds. They also said they don't trust the UN. They won't work with them in creating a new Iraq. They want the Americans to lead it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since that was always the intention of the Bush camp it matters little what the Kurds want, that's what will happen anyways.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But you can't blame the Kurds and exiled Iraqis for not trusting the UN. First of oil they want to administer the oil. And second of oil the idea of liberation never came up in either the Gulf war or this one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    But you can't blame the Kurds and exiled Iraqis for not trusting the UN. First of oil they want to administer the oil. And second of oil the idea of liberation never came up in either the Gulf war or this one.

    OK, this is a little confusing for me to read so forgive me if I accidentally misinterpret a few things. (All that mention of oil PNJ - you should be in the Bush cabinet :lol: ) Okay so your first point seems to be that the UN want to adminster the oil - the Americans want to do that too. At least with the UN the oil revenues would go directly to programmes such as the Oil for Food programme - providing direct humanitarian assistance for the Iraqis without the huge cut which the American oil companies will take when they administer it. Liberation was only the aim of this war when they couldn't find another unchallengeable war aim - such as weapons of mass destruction the supposed threat which has yet to emerge in a grand scale. The Gulf War was about the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam but again I refer you back to my point about George Bush Sr encouraging the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam in the belief that the Americans would help them to overthrow him. Which you still haven't explained along with my other questions from my earlier posts.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No the Iraqis would administer their own oil...first the transition government then the permenent one they create.

    If the UN administers it, contracts with France and Russia would apply and the money would be funneled through the same bank in Paris being used for the oil for food program.

    The Kurds have already rejected this and the Iraqi exiles don't want it either.

    The truth is there's so much oil in Iraq, even if the new government of Iraq is wasteful...there's still plenty to run the country on. IF. They don't get saddled with over 4 billion in monies owed to France and Russia.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your naive faith in all this magnanimity on Washington's part is amusing indeed pnj. Youre in a rude awakening as to how little the reality of what will transpire will match with the BS fed to the US public to ensure their support.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Your naive faith in all this magnanimity on Washington's part is amusing indeed pnj. Youre in a rude awakening as to how little the reality of what will transpire will match with the BS fed to the US public to ensure their support.

    I don't think you are far from the truth, but you have a serious "oil conspiracy" issues, mano. In fact it's a touch of McCarthyism except instead of "commies" under the beds you see oil barons! ;):)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, seeing corprate interest written large over this whole affair is nothing akin to the sweeping societal betrayal of McCarthyism. If anything is McCarthyistic its the use of fearmongering by those in power in Washington and their new pitbull the DHD in having free reign to apply the label "terrorist" to anyone who might be a threat to the politcal control of the administration.

    I truly wonder how many Americans are vigilantly scrutinising just how the powers of the DHD are being wielded. I suspect that like everytime in our history when the nation has been duly worked into a state of insecurity and fear, the public need only hear the suggestion that someone is guilty or under suspicion to believe that the DHD is truly guarding our safety.

    Without being held to account to the nation openly, i suspect many lives are systematically being ruined without the slightest concern from the majority. That is the essence of McCarthyism my firend.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My point is still valid though, as you have just proved.

    You accuse "them" of using fear to support their goals, and suggest that we should be fearful of "them"...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No I do not suggest we should be fearful of "them". I suggest that the nation should wake up and exercise its civic responsibilities in holding our leaders accountable. This admin is due for some serious and thorough investigation on a number of matters, all of which they have either stonewalled or diverted attention from.

    Being fearful of our current admin is what they wish of the public so they can avoid scrutiny of their flagrant abuses of constitutional power.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with what you said Clandestine about making leaders be accountable.

    I love that more Arabs are protecting and defending America as a result of this war. Al Jazeera was chased into Kuwait by Shi'ite Muslims as a result of how they reported the war. These Iraqis also accused Al Jazerra of being "anti-American." I love it. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.