Just to piss Maha off...... [Archive]

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 14:06

Amd it's a classic example of mainstream media only telling us what the powers that be want us to be told.

Yes.... because before sanctions all those poor starving children who are now dieing in their thousands were well fed, healthy and driving Ferraris....

Oh wait!

That's right - they were poor and starving BEFORE the sanctions were imposed and their government would rather let them starve than as opposed to letting weapons inspectors in to make sure they weren't trying to build NBC weapons.

(remembering of course that Mr Hussein was quite happy using chemical weapons on the kurdish villagers in Iraq)

Oh the Agony of choice - being gassed to death by an actual genocidal nutjob or enduring the hardships bought on by the same genocidal nutjobs refusal to play ball with the west.

And of course - we are the bad guys - because we didn't do enough to stop the genocide of the Kurds and when we did do something, we are the bad guys cause we our sanctions kill children en-masse

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Katman

31st May 2015, 14:19

That's right - they were poor and starving BEFORE the sanctions were imposed and their government would rather let them starve than as opposed to letting weapons inspectors in to make sure they weren't trying to build NBC weapons.

Saddam Hussein was never going to rival Gandhi or Mother Teresa in the annuls of human kindness but the average Iraqi was certainly not poor and starving before the sanctions were imposed.

America and the UK set about wiping out Iraq's societal infrastructure thereby ensuring the sanctions would have greatest effect.

Cold, calculated genocide.

oldrider

31st May 2015, 14:37

America and the UK set about wiping out Iraq's societal infrastructure thereby ensuring the sanctions would have greatest effect.
Cold, calculated genocide.

USA and UK lost me when they invaded Iraq and even more so when they pounded the infrastructure into oblivion revealing that their agenda was totally floored!

Crasherfromwayback

31st May 2015, 14:47

Yes.... because before sanctions all those poor starving children who are now dieing in their thousands were well fed, healthy and driving Ferraris....

Oh wait!

That's right - they were poor and starving BEFORE the sanctions were imposed and their government would rather let them starve than as opposed to letting weapons inspectors in to make sure they weren't trying to build NBC weapons.

(remembering of course that Mr Hussein was quite happy using chemical weapons on the kurdish villagers in Iraq)

Oh the Agony of choice - being gassed to death by an actual genocidal nutjob or enduring the hardships bought on by the same genocidal nutjobs refusal to play ball with the west.

And of course - we are the bad guys - because we didn't do enough to stop the genocide of the Kurds and when we did do something, we are the bad guys cause we our sanctions kill children en-masse

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You wouldn't have a fucking clue.

Katman

31st May 2015, 15:08

An interesting review of Hans Von Sponeck's book.

http://gicj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=59

I'll have to hunt me down a copy.

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 15:20

Saddam Hussein was never going to rival Gandhi or Mother Teresa in the annuls of human kindness but the average Iraqi was certainly not poor and starving before the sanctions were imposed.

America and the UK set about wiping out Iraq's societal infrastructure thereby ensuring the sanctions would have greatest effect.

Cold, calculated genocide.

How then do we deal with a torturing, Genocidal dictator?

Bombs and Bullets - that went down so well in both the popular press and in practice
Sanctions - causes pain and suffering to the population (although the real question is does it cause more or less than having your village carpet bombed by a B52?) but gives the government in power a clear way to stop the suffering.

My challenge to all of you who complain about how evil the west is/was is this:

How would you remove a Genocidal dictator that is both more humane and less costly (in terms of human suffering, not monetary hardship)?

I put forward that the west is between a frying pan, a fire and an incinerator:

Do nothing - we are the bad guys as we stand by while kurds are gassed and tortured
Impose sanctions - we are the bad guys because we enforce policy that causes suffering
Engage in a military campaign - we are the bad guys because War and killing is bad and innocents suffer.

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 15:22

USA and UK lost me when they invaded Iraq and even more so when they pounded the infrastructure into oblivion revealing that their agenda was totally floored!

You do know that attacking an enemies infrastructure is a very effective military tactic - the same infrastructure supports the average Iraqi also helps support the Industrial Military complex.

same reason in WW2 we bombed train lines, bridges, factories and dams (and the Germans did the same to us)

Katman

31st May 2015, 15:23

How then do we deal with a torturing, Genocidal dictator?

Bombs and Bullets - that went down so well in both the popular press and in practice
Sanctions - causes pain and suffering to the population (although the real question is does it cause more or less than having your village carpet bombed by a B52?) but gives the government in power a clear way to stop the suffering.

My challenge to all of you who complain about how evil the west is/was is this:

How would you remove a Genocidal dictator that is both more humane and less costly (in terms of human suffering, not monetary hardship)?

I put forward that the west is between a frying pan, a fire and an incinerator:

Do nothing - we are the bad guys as we stand by while kurds are gassed and tortured
Impose sanctions - we are the bad guys because we enforce policy that causes suffering
Engage in a military campaign - we are the bad guys because War and killing is bad and innocents suffer.

You should do a bit more reading.

Your silly posts betray your naivety.

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 15:32

You should do a bit more reading.

Your silly posts betray your naivety.

Oh Great Katman - Enlighten us with your knowledge:

post up a solution that would both remove Saddam from power, whilst being less damaging to the Iraqi people.

If I am so naive - you should be able to post something up quite easily.

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 15:32

You wouldn't have a fucking clue.

Actually I find the whole history of the middle east fascinating - it is a testament to good (but misguided) western intentions, Flawed attempts by the CIA to control a country whose people believe in a higher power, the power that greedy corporations can exert in the west etc.

But make no mistake when I say this:

For all the bad that the west has done (and there is a lot the west should have to answer for,) it is less evil than what Saddam did to his own people - how much less evil or how you determine the scale of evil is up for debate.

I think the late, great Mr Hitchens said it best when he pointed out the 3 things a country needs to do to loose it's sovereignty (according to International Law) and that Saddam had done all 3.

Crasherfromwayback

31st May 2015, 15:44

post up a solution that would both remove Saddam from power, whilst being less damaging to the Iraqi people.

If I am so naive - you should be able to post something up quite easily.

Should've been left to it. If not for wanting their oil, he would've been. To think it was about anything else, is indeed naive. How did arming the Teliban work out for the Yanks? How come we had no IS when Saddam was about? The Yanks backing Israel? How's that working out for the poor people of West Bank? How many Dictators have the Americans removed from their places of power in Africa? So it's not about *saving the people* from such people is it? Like I said...you wouldn't have a fucking clue.

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 15:51

Should've been left to it. If not for wanting their oil, he would've been. To think it was about anything else, is indeed naive. How did arming the Teliban work out for the Yanks? How come we had no IS when Saddam was about? The Yanks backing Israel? How's that working out for the poor people of West Bank? How many Dictators have the Americans removed from their places of power in Africa? So it's not about *saving the people* from such people is it? Like I said...you wouldn't have a fucking clue.

If you can honestly suggest that he should have been left to it - then you sir, have no fucking clue.

In fact:

Take a good look at this:

https://eyreinternational.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/halabja8_01.jpg

This is what using Chemical weapons on innocent children looks like. And this is only a handfull of those lucky enough to be killed outright, as opposed to dieing from complications resulting from the largest Chemical weapons attack against a populated area in History.

Take a good. Fucking. Look.

Don't you dare try and play the holier than thou card whilst outright saying that the best solution was to leave Saddam in power.

Katman

31st May 2015, 15:56

Don't you dare try and play the holier than thou card whilst outright saying that the best solution was to leave Saddam in power.

Countless millions of innocent people have died throughout history's wars.

America only went after Saddam Hussein because they had an alterior motive to do so.

To think America set about destroying Iraq as a nation because they were 'thinking of the children' is taking naivety to the extreme.

Crasherfromwayback

31st May 2015, 15:58

Take a good. Fucking. Look.

Don't you dare try and play the holier than thou card whilst outright saying that the best solution was to leave Saddam in power.

And what sort of horrific images are we now seeing you fucking clown? IS beheadings live? Where was IS when Saddam was in power? That's right...no fucking where. Docile prick. Every fucking where the Americans have set foot, is now total chaos. Holier than thou card be fucked. Moron. And you didn't bother to answer the question regarding not bothering to remove all of those nasty African dictators? Why aren't you up in arms about that eh? I'll answer that for you then. It's because you haven'y got a fucking clue.

Katman

31st May 2015, 16:04

Don't you dare try and play the holier than thou card whilst outright saying that the best solution was to leave Saddam in power.

Indonesian forces are currently commiting genocide in West Papua - right on our doorstep.

Does America care?

Do you even care?

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 16:41

Countless millions of innocent people have died throughout history's wars.

America only went after Saddam Hussein because they had an alterior motive to do so.

To think America set about destroying Iraq as a nation because they were 'thinking of the children' is taking naivety to the extreme.

Did I ever say that? - I frequently agree that America had Ulterior motives - but that doesn't change the fact they still were the ones who finally put an end to the Tyranny of Saddam.

If anything - you are the ones complaining about the dead children, yet you complain when I point out that without the west's influence - Saddam was quite happy committing the largest Chemical warefare attack against a populated area in history - so if you have the audacity to decry sanctions because of dead children, you had best be damned sure you know what the alternative was and that you can live with the Hypocrisy of your arguments.

The simple fact is that Saddam was a monster who systemically murdered almost 200,000 Kurds In one military campaign, he frequently used Torture and extra judicial execution (disapearances)

And if you say that the price we have to pay to remove such a monster is that we have to do sly deals with corporations, in this instance - I pay it gladly.

And what sort of horrific images are we now seeing you fucking clown? IS beheadings live? Where was IS when Saddam was in power? That's right...no fucking where. Docile prick. Every fucking where the Americans have set foot, is now total chaos. Holier than thou card be fucked. Moron. And you didn't bother to answer the question regarding not bothering to remove all of those nasty African dictators? Why aren't you up in arms about that eh? I'll answer that for you then. It's because you haven'y got a fucking clue.

So its better to sit by letting people get tortured, gassed etc. and do nothing because we are all too scarred that we might make it worse? Sitting by and doing nothing is how we ended up in this mess - who is the Docile prick now?

As for African dictators - I am pretty sure in other threads I have said numerous times that I take great um-bridge with western foreign policy in that it picks and choices where to intervene, frequently due to commercial rather than humanitarian interests.

But even if the sole and only reason for America stepping in to some of these areas is for commercial interests - it is STILL better than standing by and doing nothing.

IS - they are just the logical by product to America's attempt to be the good guy and handle Iraq with Kid gloves (mainly due to the complaints by people like yourselves) - what Saddam did to make sure there was no IS was to make sure that he was much MUCH worse than IS. Sure IS decapitate people and burn the occasional Jordanian alive, but they have yet to systematically herd an entire group of people (the Kurds) into modern day extermination camps - IS didn't exist because they knew if they even held a fart up to Saddam, they would be taken in the middle of the night, tortured for days, then executed in public whilst their families were forced at gun point to clap and applaud.

Saddam knew this, the people that IS knew this, and the people that formed IS know that the west won't ever do something like that so they are pretty much free to do as they please.

As for who hasn't got a clue - answer me this:

What is a better way?

But since neither of your have answered it, I will answer it for you:

you both know that there is no better way - Military action results in civilian suffering, sanctions result in civilian suffering and doing nothing results in even more civilian suffering. Does any of us have perfect foresight to know which solution will result in the least amount of suffering?

TheDemonLord

31st May 2015, 16:44

Indonesian forces are currently commiting genocide in West Papua - right on our doorstep.

Does America care?

Do you even care?

If it is on our doorstep - why do we need America?

Why don't we grow a pair and do it ourselves?

I do care, but I am also a realist - The 'War is bad' brigade have forgotten that sometimes in order to stop evil, we must send people to their deaths - Unless of course - you can suggest an alternative?

Crasherfromwayback

31st May 2015, 16:50

So its better to sit by letting people get tortured, gassed etc. and do nothing because we are all too scarred that we might make it worse? Sitting by and doing nothing is how we ended up in this mess - who is the Docile prick now?

But even if the sole and only reason for America stepping in to some of these areas is for commercial interests - it is STILL better than standing by and doing nothing.

IS - they are just the logical by product to America's attempt to be the good guy and handle Iraq with Kid gloves (mainly due to the complaints by people like yourselves) -
As for who hasn't got a clue

In 1999, United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) estimated that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions.

Yeah...we're saving the innocents REAL well. Fuck we're good!

And America's attempt to be the good guy? If it weren't so tragic it'd be funny. Like I said...

But hey tough guy...why don't you fuck off over there and save everyone?

You.

Katman

31st May 2015, 17:01

Sitting by and doing nothing is how we ended up in this mess

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

Crasherfromwayback

31st May 2015, 17:12

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

It's as funny as fuck really. There's no one more dangerous than a dummy that thinks they're smart.

oldrider

31st May 2015, 17:30

You do know that attacking an enemies infrastructure is a very effective military tactic - the same infrastructure supports the average Iraqi also helps support the Industrial Military complex.

same reason in WW2 we bombed train lines, bridges, factories and dams (and the Germans did the same to us)

And that was good? - 2015 and world opinion is still agreed that that was all good shit? - Not on your fucking Nelly! - So why keep on doing it? :mellow:

Because someone who benefits financially and politically says do it! - Yeah right! :sick:

buggerit

31st May 2015, 21:16

How then do we deal with a torturing, Genocidal dictator?

Bombs and Bullets - that went down so well in both the popular press and in practice
Sanctions - causes pain and suffering to the population (although the real question is does it cause more or less than having your village carpet bombed by a B52?) but gives the government in power a clear way to stop the suffering.

My challenge to all of you who complain about how evil the west is/was is this:

How would you remove a Genocidal dictator that is both more humane and less costly (in terms of human suffering, not monetary hardship)?

I put forward that the west is between a frying pan, a fire and an incinerator:

Do nothing - we are the bad guys as we stand by while kurds are gassed and tortured
Impose sanctions - we are the bad guys because we enforce policy that causes suffering
Engage in a military campaign - we are the bad guys because War and killing is bad and innocents suffer.

Would not a bullet between the eyes of the offending individual removed the genocidal dictator?, just sayin

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 11:53

In 1999, United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) estimated that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions.

Yeah...we're saving the innocents REAL well. Fuck we're good!

And yet in that time period - Saddam still managed to build sprawling palaces in every major city in Iraq - lets put aside for a minute that while the sanctions were in place he wasn't able to enact the same level of genocidal campaigns against the Kurds that he was before the sanctions (I will come back to this)

all the time that the sanctions were in place, Saddam was too proud to let the UN in to lift the sanctions - He was so proud that he would let those 500,000 children die rather than take a seat at the negotiation table - can you pile those 500,000 dead children solely at the wests feet? To do so would relieve Saddam of his responsibility in those deaths.

but back to some numbers - the Kurdish Massacres - took place over a 3 year period: 1986-89 and claimed about 200,000 lives - sanctions were in force for about 14 years.

200,000 dead in 3 years is a greater cost of human life per year than 500,000 over 14.

Had we not intervened and done something, that blood would be in your hands

And America's attempt to be the good guy? If it weren't so tragic it'd be funny. Like I said...

and like I said - tragic, maybe. Misguided, possibily. ulterior motives, definitely. But doing something was better than doing nothing.

But hey tough guy...why don't you fuck off over there and save everyone?

You.

Were I in a position to do so, I would roll into every corrupt shithole on the planet, dragging genocidal psychopathic dictators out by their testicles and executing them like the vermin they are - but alas, I cannot.

However the accusation of being a Keyboard warrior swings both ways:

if you can watch your sons and daughters be raped, tortured and then publicly executed whilst you are forced to clap and cheer at gunpoint - then you may turn round to me to say that it is a better alternative - till that time (and I hope for your sake, it never happens) you are just as much a blow hard as I am, in fact, I would say you are far worse for saying that doing nothing is preferable to doing something.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 11:57

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

The only embarrassment I see here is someone criticizing every action as wrong but when challenged to come up with a better solution is silent.

I have never said that west was 100% or that the actions taken were infallible - only that they were the least worst option. If you think there was a better option - I am all ears (well, eyes - since this is a forum)

However I think we both know that you don't have a better solution - if you did, you would have posted it up long ago.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 11:59

And that was good? - 2015 and world opinion is still agreed that that was all good shit? - Not on your fucking Nelly! - So why keep on doing it? :mellow:

Because someone who benefits financially and politically says do it! - Yeah right! :sick:

Please re-read my post.

I said Effective.

not good.

For example - Waterboading is an effective torture technique - but you would not say that waterboarding was a good torture technique.

When crippling an enemies infrastructure stops being an effective military technique, then we shall see it's use decline.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 12:05

Would not a bullet between the eyes of the offending individual removed the genocidal dictator?, just sayin

There are 3 main issues with this:

1: Saddam was rather paranoid about this and so took lots of precautions, not to mention such an action would be an almost death sentance for the shooter.

2: We in the west are rather squeamish about state sanctioned assassinations (afterall, a death sentence without the due process of a trial is akin to murder)

3: Perhaps most importantly - History has shown that rarely does this work - typically the government structure collapses until someone with the strength of character emerges to restore order - typically this person will have been 'schooled' by their predecessor (by observing how they operated to maintain law and order) and usually tend to be even worse.

Katman

1st June 2015, 12:24

The only embarrassment I see here is someone criticizing every action as wrong but when challenged to come up with a better solution is silent.

I have never said that west was 100% or that the actions taken were infallible - only that they were the least worst option. If you think there was a better option - I am all ears (well, eyes - since this is a forum)

However I think we both know that you don't have a better solution - if you did, you would have posted it up long ago.

But the sanctions didn't actually achieve anything did they?

Saddam's long gone and Iraq is still a shit-hole. Argueably far worse than when Saddam was in power.

Katman

1st June 2015, 12:28

See, America knew that by imposing the sanctions they would be hurting the most vulnerable in Iraqi society - not those in power.

And all the while you sit back and applaud their cold, calculated genocide.

Katman

1st June 2015, 12:35

Have you ever stopped to wonder why America didn't finish the job off properly during the First Gulf War? Why they stopped just over the border instead of heading straight on to Baghdad? Why they chose to leave Saddam in power for a further 10 years?

Crasherfromwayback

1st June 2015, 12:36

Were I in a position to do so, I would roll into every corrupt shithole on the planet, dragging genocidal psychopathic dictators out by their testicles and executing them like the vermin they are - but alas, I cannot.

However the accusation of being a Keyboard warrior swings both ways:

if you can watch your sons and daughters be raped, tortured and then publicly executed whilst you are forced to clap and cheer at gunpoint - then you may turn round to me to say that it is a better alternative - till that time (and I hope for your sake, it never happens) you are just as much a blow hard as I am, in fact, I would say you are far worse for saying that doing nothing is preferable to doing something.

You're absolutely in a position to be able to join in. You're able bodied no? Sign up...go and make a difference. And I don't see how pointing out facts you don't understand makes me a keyboard warrior. And yes, I say, not our mess, not our job to clean it up. So yes, I'm happy to sit on my arse and do nothing. You on the other hand...should go grab some testicles! I'll pay to see that.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 14:11

Katman

1st June 2015, 14:26

You seem to forget who invaded Kuwait. There were no sanctions prior to this........

You seem to forget that America effectively gave Saddam Hussein a 'green light' for his invasion of Kuwait.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 14:30

But the sanctions didn't actually achieve anything did they?

Saddam's long gone and Iraq is still a shit-hole. Argueably far worse than when Saddam was in power.

Really, but you oppose going in all guns blazing and then you also oppose UN sanctions.

You seem to forget that America effectively gave Saddam Hussein a 'green light' for his invasion of Kuwait.
According to WIKI
but is that what was really meant, I doubt it, as Kuwait was the one keeping oil prices down.
Everyone seems to avoid that wee nugget of information.
As it doesn't suit your own theories
Iraq wanted Kuwait to limit production to keep the price higher.

Katman

1st June 2015, 14:38

According to WIKI
but is that what was really meant, I doubt it, as Kuwait was the one keeping oil prices down.
Everyone seems to avoid that we nugget of information.
Iraq wanted Kuwait to limit production to keep the price higher

Kuwait were producing more oil than the prevailing quota allowed - in a deliberate attempt to hurt Iraq through lower oil prices.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 14:53

Kuwait were producing more oil than the prevailing quota allowed - in a deliberate attempt to hurt Iraq through lower oil prices.

They were producing oil as they so desired and was allowed for and entitled to legally. Opec were not worried, they did not support Iraq's position, So how does that suit your argument then.

Yet your augment falls over yet again.....
On 25 July 1990, only a few days before the Iraqi invasion, OPEC officials said that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to a proposal to limit daily oil output to 1.5 million barrels, thus potentially settling differences over oil policy between Kuwait and Iraq.

Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the US$14 billion it borrowed from Kuwait. Their problem.

Swoop

1st June 2015, 14:54

Have you ever stopped to wonder why America didn't finish the job off properly during the First Gulf War? Why they stopped just over the border instead of heading straight on to Baghdad?

Simply because the UN mandate didn't allow it. There were many who wanted to continue into Baghdad and finish it (and circumvent GW2 from being needed).

pritch

1st June 2015, 14:56

Not totally relevant but sort of interesting.

Tony Blair the former Brit PM had been invited to speak for twenty minutes at an international conference on hunger in Sweden. He advised them his fee would be 320,000 quid. That included 80,000 for expenses. 80,000 expenses? - WTF?

Blair's sense of perspective hasn't got any better since he did his stint as a war criminal.

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:14

They were producing oil as they so desired and was allowed for and entitled to legally. So how does that suit your argument then.

They were producing and selling more oil than the OPEC quotas allowed.

Not exactly sure how that qualifies as 'entitled to legally'.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 15:20

They were producing and selling more oil than the OPEC quotas allowed.

Not exactly sure how that qualifies as 'entitled to legally'.

If it was an issue OPEC would have supported Iraq's position. They did not.
Kuwait could do anything they wished in regards to production it was, their country, their oil.

Market weakness in the early 1980s caused OPEC to focus on oil production sharing as a strategy for controlling oil prices by regulating crude supply. A voluntary production-sharing plan was launched in 1982

The end of the Iran–Iraq War provided an opportunity to mend intra-OPEC relations, but the second Gulf War, which began when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, brought new turmoil to oil markets and to OPEC itself. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, world oil prices were depressed and virtually every OPEC member with excess production capacity was producing over its quota. Unfortunately for Kuwait, it was the only country small enough and close enough to suffer Iraq's wrath directly. After Kuwait was liberated in February 1991, U.N. sanctions against Iraq, imposed in retaliation for the invasion, ended legal oil exports from Iraq.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/OPEC.aspx

Kuwait even agreed to voluntarily limit production yet Iraq still invaded.

On 25 July 1990, only a few days before the Iraqi invasion, OPEC officials said that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to a proposal to limit daily oil output to 1.5 million barrels, thus potentially settling differences over oil policy between Kuwait and Iraq

Under a plan submitted by Saudi Arabia to a meeting of Arab gulf producers in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, in mid-July, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates appear to have agreed to stick by a quota of 1.5 million barrels a day each for the rest of this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/25/world/opec-meets-today-talks-are-clouded-by-iraq-s-threat-to-kuwait.html
Your argument is thus invalid yet again.:yawn:
Kuwait refused to write off the money Iraq owed them though.

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:25

Your argument is thus invalid yet again.:yawn:

I've never claimed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was morally or legally justified.

I'm simply pointing out that the situation at that time between Kuwait and Iraq was far more involved than any of us can claim to fully understand.

I do hope you're not going to start suggesting that America's 2003 invasion of Iraq was morally or legally justified.

awa355

1st June 2015, 15:29

.

I do hope you're not going to start suggesting that America's 2003 invasion of Iraq was morally or legally justified.

According to G W Bush, they were "Doing Gods work". He didn't say which God's work tho.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 15:39

I've never claimed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was morally or legally justified.

I'm simply pointing out that the situation at that time between Kuwait and Iraq was far more involved than any of us can claim to fully understand.

I do hope you're not going to start suggesting that America's 2003 invasion of Iraq was morally or legally justified.

Your back peddling is getting pretty embarrassing........
You are making a fool of yourself yet again with your lack of understanding and comprehension of basic facts to back your own assertions.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 15:39

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:42

Your back peddling is getting pretty embarrassing........

I haven't back-peddled in the slightest.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 15:43

Kuwait were producing more oil than the prevailing quota allowed - in a deliberate attempt to hurt Iraq through lower oil prices.

So its okay for Iraq to invade another country for commercial interests, but its not okay for America to invade another country for commercial interests?

Sounds like a bit of a double standard?
You can't be holding the katamarangatang to logic
You are wasting your time, he will just say I never suggested that it was then attempt to change the subject.
he will sart beating on his chest a bit to try and make out he is right.
Then he will start the red repping..........

edit 15.57 he delivered his normal simple red rep simple is predictable, Katman is simple

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:44

So its okay for Iraq to invade another country for commercial interests, but its not okay for America to invade another country for commercial interests?

Your reading skills seem as poor as husaberg's.

Where did I say it was 'okay' for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 15:46

I do hope you're not going to start suggesting that America's 2003 invasion of Iraq was morally or legally justified.

(now this will really set the cat amongst the pidgeons)

I didn't support the 2003 invasion for only 2 key points:

1: America could easily win the military campaign - everyone knew that. But how do you win the political and social campaigns? what is even the conditions of victory? America was ill-prepared for this and IMO naively thought that if they went in all guns blazing like they did in Germany in 1945, everyone would love them.
2: They lied about the reasons - if they had simply said 'Saddam is a Genocidal psychopath who needs to be removed from power' - then I would have been fine with it, but instead they choose to go down a patently fabricated path in order to justify the war. Waging war over a lie is never a good idea.

The mess we see in Iraq now is solely down to point number 1.

However, the fact that the invasion has brought an end to the dictatorship of Saddam ultimately has been some form of success.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 15:46

Your reading skills seem as poor as husaberg's.

Where did I say it was 'okay' for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

Kuwait were producing more oil than the prevailing quota allowed - in a deliberate attempt to hurt Iraq through lower oil prices.
Everyone else was as well............lol:psst:

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 15:48

You can't be holding the katamarangtang to logic
Your are wasting your time, he will just say I never suggested that it was then attempt to change the subject.
Then he will start the red repping..........

I've already got enough Red Rep from him

As an FYI Katman - Neg repping someone just because you disagree with their opinion in a debate is very Poor Form.

PrincessBandit

1st June 2015, 15:53

Hmmmmm, so what I'm reading from most of this seems to come down to "as long as [insert any foreign nation]'s laws and practices don't impact on my country leave them to sort their own problems out".

I don't believe in any country's right to invade and/or impose their will on another but the sad reality of life for humanity is that there are those who take/control/subjugate/terrorise/annihilate etc simply "because they can". Mostly it is done out of some variation on the 'greed' concept.

This then presents us with a challenge. Do we look away and say "not our problem, sort it out yourselves"; do we ignore pleas from those who look to us for protection when they can't get it from their own leaders; do we give the requested help conditionally (based on what we feel we can work to our own advantage out of the situation) or do we assist knowing that whatever we do it's going to be manipulated by some other party or agenda but morally we feel obliged to do it anyway?

Nothing like being able to lay the blame of your own population's misery and desperation at the feet of other nations trying to assist. Must be every dictator and despots dream.

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:53

Everyone else was as well............

Now you're just making yourself look silly.

Like I said, I've never claimed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was legally justified.

I've simply pointed out some of the possible reasons why it happened.

Let's not forget that Kuwait is seem by many as the 19th province of Iraq.

Katman

1st June 2015, 15:55

And meanwhile, the Zionists sit back and smile knowingly.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 15:55

Now you're just making yourself look silly.

Like I said, I've never claimed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was legally justified.

I've simply pointed out some of the possible reasons why it happened.

Let's not forget that Kuwait is seem by many as the 19th province of Iraq.

Too funny for words:baby:

And meanwhile, the Zionists sit back and smile knowingly.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 15:57

You're absolutely in a position to be able to join in. You're able bodied no? Sign up...go and make a difference. And I don't see how pointing out facts you don't understand makes me a keyboard warrior. And yes, I say, not our mess, not our job to clean it up. So yes, I'm happy to sit on my arse and do nothing. You on the other hand...should go grab some testicles! I'll pay to see that.

Is the NZ army going to places like Somalia, The Congo, North Korea and taking the fight to the Dictators?

No?

Then me joining up to the joke that is the NZ armed forces would achieve nothing.

Pointing out facts is fine, I even understand, however unlike you - I am able to weigh one set of facts against another - you seem to have blinkers on as to just how bad Saddam and his regime was and having an opinion where you ignore the true horrors of what you are implying is what makes you a Keyboard Warrior.

As for your last comments:

2 quotes from History:

"For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing."

- Simon Wiesenthal

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me"

Pastor Martin Niemöller

I suggest you go read up the annals of history and count all the times that people have let atrocities happen by standing by and saying 'not my mess, not my problem'.

Katman

1st June 2015, 16:14

Too funny for words:baby:

So let's recap....

You accuse me of back-pedalling.

I point out that I've never claimed what you suggest I've claimed.

Then instead of posting proof of my claim you revert to a posting a meaningless four word reply.

Have I missed anything?

Crasherfromwayback

1st June 2015, 16:15

I suggest you go read up the annals of history and count all the times that people have let atrocities happen by standing by and saying 'not my mess, not my problem'.

I suggest you get a brain, then try to learn how to use it. If you think (and you've said you do) illegally invading another country, so you can steal their oil and make millions for your bent cronie mates by giving them all manner of contracts to *rebuild* the very place you've just destroyed, all under the total lie of finding *weapons of mass destruction* is all kosher...you're thicker than I originally thought. We (New Zealanders) didn't create the hell hole that is now Iraq/Syria etc etc...not our job to risk hundreds of our men and women cleaning up the mess the Yanks and Poms created.

Maha

1st June 2015, 16:28

Let's not forget that Kuwait is seem by many as the 19th province of Iraq.

Kuwait is what, by many?

husaberg

1st June 2015, 16:30

So let's recap....

You accuse me of back-pedalling.

I point out that I've never claimed what you suggest I've claimed.

Then instead of posting proof of my claim you revert to a posting a meaningless four word reply.

Have I missed anything?
Correct.
You have missed the whole original premise of your own argument.
Have you forgotten what that was already......
PS thanks for the red rep I was going to red you back but that would make me as stupid as you, so here's a green same colour as the vegetable you are.

And meanwhile, the Zionists sit back and smile knowingly.

oldrider

1st June 2015, 16:33

And meanwhile, the Zionists sit back and smile knowingly.

There are many false trails - Zionism has many branches - that it's difficult to identify and follow the right one is not an accident!

That we waste our time and energy fighting amongst ourselves and missing the point - is no accident either - they are successful because they are clever cunts! :shifty:

And we are not :no: that is why "we" fight their wars! - :weird: - :corn:

Katman

1st June 2015, 16:39

Kuwait is what, by many?

Have you seen where the n and m live on a keyboard?

PrincessBandit

1st June 2015, 16:43

Have you seen where the n and m live on a keyboard?

right mext to each other 😁

Katman

1st June 2015, 16:55

right mext to each other ��

I was going to post 'Have you seem where the n and m are on a leyboard' but knew the excitement would just be too much for Mark.

Maha

1st June 2015, 17:24

I was going to post 'Have you seem where the n and m are on a leyboard' but knew the excitement would just be too much for Mark.

I did consider doing a cartwheel on the back lawn, but was revealed to discover that your top two inches is not 98% perfect.

Madness

1st June 2015, 17:49

I did consider doing a cartwheel on the back lawn, but was revealed...

I'm relieved I wasn't there to see that.

TheDemonLord

1st June 2015, 17:57

I suggest you get a brain, then try to learn how to use it. If you think (and you've said you do) illegally invading another country, so you can steal their oil and make millions for your bent cronie mates by giving them all manner of contracts to *rebuild* the very place you've just destroyed, all under the total lie of finding *weapons of mass destruction* is all kosher...you're thicker than I originally thought. We (New Zealanders) didn't create the hell hole that is now Iraq/Syria etc etc...not our job to risk hundreds of our men and women cleaning up the mess the Yanks and Poms created.

Even if I agree with everything you said about the Iraq invasion - for me, the end (removing a Genocidal Psychopathic Dictator with a penchant for Torture and using NBCs on his own people) Justifies the means.

As for blaming the Yanks and the Poms - you know that when Britian mandated Palestine (1920) NZ was still a member of the British Empire (So we are responsible by Proxy) and if my NZ history is correct - The act that seperated NZ into its own country was passed in 1948 and was implemented on January 1 1949, whereas Israel was made a state in 1947 - so again, NZ was still 'British' and any mistakes were NZ's by proxy (although lets forgo the arguement, because we both know you will never admit to any culpability in it)

as for not our job - you clear missed the entire point of my post.

Bad things happen to those less fortunate because people like yourself refuse to get their hands dirty helping out their fellow man.

Because afterall - who cares about the hundreds of thousands of people being tortured and executed - so long as a few hundred Kiwi's don't come home in Body bags right?

buggerit

1st June 2015, 18:11

There are 3 main issues with this:

1: Saddam was rather paranoid about this and so took lots of precautions, not to mention such an action would be an almost death sentance for the shooter.

Granted, not a job for the poms or the yanks, but achievable.

2: We in the west are rather squeamish about state sanctioned assassinations (afterall, a death sentence without the due process of a trial is akin to murder)

So whos going to tell them?

3: Perhaps most importantly - History has shown that rarely does this work - typically the government structure collapses until someone with the strength of character emerges to restore order - typically this person will have been 'schooled' by their predecessor (by observing how they operated to maintain law and order) and usually tend to be even worse.

So isn't that what has happened in the region?

Crasherfromwayback

1st June 2015, 18:12

Bad things happen to those less fortunate because people like yourself refuse to get their hands dirty helping out their fellow man.

And like I say...people like myself? When do you fly out? If you're not about to...shut the fuck up. Because sitting on your mothers lap, making brave statements on her computer, does not make you a war hero saving the poor people of such places. As much as you like to think it does. What a fucking wankstain you are.

Maha

1st June 2015, 18:45

I'm relieved I wasn't there to see that.

:gob: Run out without facing a ball.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 18:50

I was going to post 'Have you seem where the n and m are on a leyboard' but knew the excitement would just be too much for Mark.

Talking about excitement any more of these free energy engines the media and big business is hiding from us Katamarangatang......

And it's a classic example of mainstream media only telling us what the powers that be want us to be told.

Has anyone seen this?

http://xtrememusclecars.co/inventor-jailed-after-releasing-this-video/

It always amazes me how quickly some people form a conclusion before they've even investigated an idea.

See, that's what makes you a fucking moron.

What the fuck has him being sent to a nuthouse or convicted of multiple counts of fraud have to do with the theory of what we're discussing?

Even if it was debunked by chemist or engineers it could be still a big oil in a conspiracy plot
The inventor claims they drilled his teeth.
he also reportedly charges 3500 dollar for a weekend seminar to show people how it works.
Free seems pretty expensive these days.
http://kfor.com/2012/11/09/the-man-with-the-magic-motor/
http://okgazette.com/2013/01/02/liquid-energy
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/fall/the-madman-and-his-motor

It always amazes me how quickly some people form a conclusion before they've even investigated an idea.

nodrog

1st June 2015, 18:54

...., does not make you a war hero saving the poor people of such places......

careful, he's probably clocked tour of duty or something on his playstaion.

Katman

1st June 2015, 19:03

careful, he's probably clocked tour of duty...

With Valour.

Crasherfromwayback

1st June 2015, 19:11

careful, he's probably clocked tour of duty or something on his playstaion.

With Valour.

And wears his chocolate starfish badge with P.R.I.D.E.

Katman

1st June 2015, 19:57

I did consider doing a cartwheel on the back lawn, but was revealed to discover that your top two inches is not 98% perfect.

You make it too easy.

husaberg

1st June 2015, 20:06

You make it too easy.

As easy as the alternative fuel engine, go on tell us more about how Big oil is trying to keep it under wraps..........:laugh:

oldrider

1st June 2015, 21:44

Even if I agree with everything you said about the Iraq invasion - for me, the end (removing a Genocidal Psychopathic Dictator with a penchant for Torture and using NBCs on his own people) Justifies the means.

As for blaming the Yanks and the Poms - you know that when Britian mandated Palestine (1920) NZ was still a member of the British Empire (So we are responsible by Proxy) and if my NZ history is correct - The act that seperated NZ into its own country was passed in 1948 and was implemented on January 1 1949, whereas Israel was made a state in 1947 - so again, NZ was still 'British' and any mistakes were NZ's by proxy (although lets forgo the arguement, because we both know you will never admit to any culpability in it)

as for not our job - you clear missed the entire point of my post.

Bad things happen to those less fortunate because people like yourself refuse to get their hands dirty helping out their fellow man.

Because afterall - who cares about the hundreds of thousands of people being tortured and executed - so long as a few hundred Kiwi's don't come home in Body bags right?

KBr's generally, if you can ignore the religious as informative and simply the bearer of the revelations of this clip you might find it worthwhile to fully view it!

The clip covers most of the things we (KBr's) have commented on (sometimes in confused ignorance) on many serious world historical subjects!

View with an open mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6v8nzFiUk - and consider content as the free thinker you believe you are! :corn: Enjoy.

TheDemonLord

2nd June 2015, 06:59

And like I say...people like myself? When do you fly out? If you're not about to...shut the fuck up. Because sitting on your mothers lap, making brave statements on her computer, does not make you a war hero saving the poor people of such places. As much as you like to think it does. What a fucking wankstain you are.

Okay - I will point out the glaring fallacy and blatant hypocrisy of your post:

Does the common soldier have any sway or input as to when, where and how they are deployed?

No?

So then, joining the Armed forces would have zero impact on the world stage, unless I were to be deployed to the various locations - since most of them have had dictatorships for 20+ years, I doubt the NZDF will be going there any time soon.

What does impact where, when and how a soldier is deployed is the Government of the time, Governments that are made of Politicians, Politicians who jobs depend on them pissing off the least amount of people. How then do I effect the lives of others less fortunate than myself (and for the record and a point of order - I do not consider myself a war hero) - I effect the lives of others by realizing that if the price I have to pay to remove genocidal totalitarian bastards like Saddam is to turn a blind eye to the profiteering, flimsy motives and probably illegal reasons (my international law is a little flimsy) - so be it, because ultimately the net-gain for humanity was IMO a positive one. If you do not believe so, and believe that the best solution was to leave it be - then by all means, go live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then let me know if you still sing the same tune. With almost 100% accuracy every survivor of such a regime sings a completely different tune.

Now for the Hypocrisy - for this I can assume you may be a Policeman, or a Firefighter or Paramedic - but I can also assume you cannot be all 3 at the same time.

When you call the Police - you expect them to help, even though that may involve them putting their lives in danger - but you are not a policeman?
When you call the Fire service - you expect them to help, even though that may involve them putting their lives in danger - but you are not a Fireman?
When you call for an Ambulance - you expect them to help, even though that may involve them putting their lives in danger - but you are not a Paramedic?

You expect others to come to your aid, even when it could potentially be at the cost of their own lives - but you are happy to sit idly by for others and say 'not my problem'. And that makes you a Hypocrite.

But anyways - I think we are rather finished with this debate - since you seem to have run out of logical arguments and have had to reduce yourself to childish name calling (which is an automatic win for my position, if you can no longer defend your arguments with reason) - which really serves to simply highlight the level of your intellectual immaturity.

As for Nodrog and Katman:

It's Call of Duty, and it is not 'with valour' but 'with prestige' - however I don't play CoD so your insults land somewhat left of the target.