Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Do Iraqi Citizens Deserve Freedom?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:28 PM

Is it worth risking British lives to bring freedom to Iraq, and to help instal rational government in the most dangerous area of the world? That is the question that the Left needs to answer.




This is From telegraph.co.uk

=================

Answer this: do the people of Iraq deserve freedom?
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 29/01/2003)

I wonder what the Blix report would have to have contained for the anti-war lobby to have thrown up its hands and said: "Well, that's that then. No more argument. We've obviously got to get rid of this regime."

Photographs of a smiling Saddam, standing in his favourite pose with a rifle pointed at the sky, beside a thermo-nuclear device labelled "primed and ready for use"? VAT receipts for the purchase of weaponised anthrax found behind the clock on the palace mantelpiece?

Given this regime's past form, and the handsome amount of time it was given to hide any incriminating evidence, did anyone actually believe that this was conceivable? That it was profoundly unlikely was perfectly clear to the United Nations Security Council, which is why its unanimous resolution 1441 did not require that the inspectors locate what is being described as a "smoking gun".

Although the anti-war party has now (unilaterally, as it were) decided that such a smoking gun is the sine qua non of justification for war, it is never absolutely clear what would count as being one. An oven-ready, fully armed nuclear missile? A cache of loaded chemical weapons warheads (rather than the unloaded ones that were found)?

No, what 1441 demanded - quite realistically - was that Saddam account for the weapons of mass destruction that he was known to have had when he threw out the weapons inspectors last time round. He says he has disposed of his stores of anthrax, as well as the chemical agents that were left over when he had finished gassing the Kurds.

If so, it is really rather important that we know how, when and where they were discarded. We cannot be expected simply to take Saddam's word for it. Surely such a major disarmament operation was documented and monitored, if only for internal security reasons (and Saddam is no slouch on internal security).

The UN needed to see the proof - or at least some vestige of Iraq's own record-keeping on this project. As Hans Blix made devastatingly clear in his report, Iraq has produced no evidence whatever of this kind.

This is not a case, as some in the anti-war party maintain, of Saddam being forced to prove a negative (that he has no weapons of mass destruction), which would be logically impossible. It is a demand that he explain how and where he destroyed or dismantled the hideous armoury that he once demonstrably possessed.

This is a straightforward proposition that should have been credible and easily understood by everyone from the outset. Unfortunately, Tony Blair failed to make any use of it at all during the long period of phoney war between himself and his own party.

As a result, the anti-war lobby was allowed to run amok, making ever wilder anti-American claims, stating its opinions as if they were facts and generally establishing an absurd set of evidential requirements (a smoking gun) that the UN itself had never requested.

Only now is the Government bothering to explain why the Blix report is so supportive of the Anglo-American case. As Jack Straw made clear - more or less - on yesterday's Today programme, Saddam's failure to co-operate in offering evidence of disarmament is in itself a breach of the UN resolution.

The "smoking gun" was always a chimera - invented and promoted with quite spectacular success by the Left-liberal axis whose opposition to this war has been framed in the most visceral anti-American terms.

In the vacuum left by Mr Blair's refusal to engage in proper argument about the need to remove Saddam, systematic falsehoods have gone unchallenged. The most damaging is the Left-liberal credo that America is going to war only because it is determined to "get its hands on" Iraqi oil supplies.

America does not need Iraqi oil. The country that has the most immediate vested interest in that oil is Russia, which has $43 billion worth of oil contracts with Saddam. (That sum, by the way, is about half the annual GDP of a small southern state in America, but it is a major coup for the emerging Russian capitalist economy.)

There is, however, a legitimate sense in which the Bush Administration is concerned about Saddam's oil supplies. The American economy - and hence the economy of the world, and particularly the fate of the poorer nations - is dependent on stable oil prices. For one of the major oil-producing countries to be controlled by a volatile, homicidal tyrant, who sets oil fields alight when he is provoked, is probably not a good idea.

So yes, to that extent, this is a war "about oil". But is also about removing a regime that is guilty of genocide, that has made use of chemical weapons banned for generations by international conventions and that has, through its sponsorship of Palestinian suicide bombing, made any peaceful settlement in the Middle East virtually impossible.

This is where I find the case of the more rabid anti-war (which is to say, anti-American) party not only dishonest, but also deeply hypocritical. There are those who argue not only against going to war to remove Saddam, but also that economic sanctions against his regime should be lifted.

Shall we try to imagine what these voices of the liberal conscience would have said if the white South African authorities had used chemical weapons against the black population in Soweto? Would they have been arguing for British inaction and a lifting of economic sanctions against Pretoria?

There is always a lot to be said for not going to war, even against an evil dictator, when your own country does not appear to be under immediate threat. But if the main argument against the war is primarily self-interest, then the anti-war lobby should drop its claim to the moral high ground.

Is it worth risking British lives to bring freedom to Iraq, and to help instal rational government in the most dangerous area of the world? That is the question that the Left needs to answer.
  • 0

#2 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 12:01 AM

Azov, who brought freedom to Cuba?
  • 0

#3 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 04:47 AM

Calm down spanky. I was not insinuating anything. I knew what was your answer was going to be. May I pose another question? Who brought freedom to the United States of America? Are you American?

AH
  • 0

#4 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 04:54 AM

"Without this history of meddling, of occupation and installation of satellite regimes, there would have been no Castro."

True, but perhaps he has been there too long. 30 plus years is quite lengthy, would'nt you say?

I am sure you have a novel response to explain how it the USA's fault that Fidel has been leader for so long.

Riddle me this azman:

If the US swore not to interfere in Cuban affairs after the crisis then why is Castro still in power? Surely a suitable member of the trained Cuban intelligentsia could have taken over by now.

Whatever happened to vision and change and democracy and all that jazz?:confused:
  • 0

#5 chisinau

chisinau

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1129 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 04:54 AM

Brits and their Master, the USofA, could bring "peace-and-freedom" to Burundi, Sudan, Rwanda... etc. But there is no oil, so f#$% the damn niggers.
This is the "freedom" concept of these gents who appropriated the Freedom of the People they rule.
What Dubya said about the "enemy-within" in Iraq is vali as well in UK or Britan, i.e. :
The enemy is not around your countries, the enemy is ruling you.
  • 0

#6 chisinau

chisinau

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1129 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:01 AM

While Castro was in power and struggling against an economical embargoe, the USofA supported Somozas, Pinochets, Strossners and other criminal puppets in Latin America.
Moral should never be invoked by those who commited Crimes-Agains-Humanity ilegally overthrowing democratic regimes like Allende's, supporting criminal fascists like Suharto.
Accordingly, stick your moral values inside your @$$.
  • 0

#7 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:05 AM

Chisinau
  • 0

#8 Iconoclast

Iconoclast

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:05 AM

Sam no need to argue with azov, he is part of the blame america first crowd.

Now before azov jumps on me for an ad hominem attack I would just like to point out that everything I have seen him post is negative and critical of america. I believe no matter what he will have a negative view.
  • 0

#9 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:10 AM

"That's not for the United States to decide"

What does this have to do with the situation?

The US obviously does not care about CUBA anymore.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the CUBANS in HAVANA feel about their leaders extended stay in office.

Why do you bring the US into the subject? If I wanted to talk US politics I would not be on PRAVDA.
  • 0

#10 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:28 AM

I did not mean to bait you. Perhaps you chomped your unpatriotic teeth at an invisible hook.

My original question was,

"Azov, who brought freedom to Cuba?"

I figured you would demonize the US and ignore Castro's little army. I never mentioned America. You gave the lengthy answer, not I.
  • 0

#11 stranger

stranger

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6747 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:34 AM

Azov;
About that "bringing freedom" to Iraq... I can't help but to think about that warning of yours "beware of your smiling benefactors."
It's so... perfect, although I am actually the one who hates arabs.
I remembered your phrase today, when they showed on CNN the new monstrous shopping mall opened in Moscow. The correspondents were marvelling about "wait till Russians get their hands on credit cards..."
Then I looked at the site of "Medicine sans frontiers," about how people die from cold on the streets of Moscow.
Back in the Soviet Union I would have thought of you as of "crazy American." (I still do sometimes,;) but there it was - beware...
  • 0

#12 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:38 AM

"The real question is, why is imperial domination of a place like Cuba an act of "patriotism" to you?"

There you go again. It is rude to put words in people mouths. Your response was an imagined fabrication. When did I say invading Cuba was patriotic?

Do you know who this is?
  • 0

#13 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:47 AM

Why do some Americans use so much that 'patriotic' word so often ?. Are they nuts ?. Do they really know what the word 'patriotic' means or they just twist that word to accomodate any wrong and unpopular action taken ??
  • 0

#14 pulse

pulse

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 05:50 AM

I believe the word is more of a state of mind where Patriotism means you will do anything in your power to supress another so as our ego will not be hurt!

Is that to discriminating towards america?
  • 0

#15 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 06:02 AM

To Uncle Shmuel : What does it mean to you being patriotic ??. You overuse that word. It's a mockery !!!
  • 0

#16 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 06:41 AM

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:

God Bless America.
Land that I love
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies ,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America
My home sweet home.

God Bless America,
Land that I love
Stand beside her,
And guide her,
Through the night
With the light from above,
From the mountains,
To the prairies,
To the ocean,
White with foam,
God bless America,
My home sweet home.
God bless America,
My home sweet home.

STEP DOWN DICTATOR! EXILE YOURSELF INTO OBLIVION!
  • 0

#17 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 06:53 AM

N.U.T.S
  • 0

#18 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8412 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 10:50 PM

Originally posted by uglybastard
Is it worth risking British lives to bring freedom to Iraq, and to help instal rational government in the most dangerous area of the world? That is the question that the Left needs to answer.




This is From telegraph.co.uk

=================

Answer this: do the people of Iraq deserve freedom?
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 29/01/2003)

I wonder what the Blix report would have to have contained for the anti-war lobby to have thrown up its hands and said: "Well, that's that then. No more argument. We've obviously got to get rid of this regime."

Photographs of a smiling Saddam, standing in his favourite pose with a rifle pointed at the sky, beside a thermo-nuclear device labelled "primed and ready for use"? VAT receipts for the purchase of weaponised anthrax found behind the clock on the palace mantelpiece?

Given this regime's past form, and the handsome amount of time it was given to hide any incriminating evidence, did anyone actually believe that this was conceivable? That it was profoundly unlikely was perfectly clear to the United Nations Security Council, which is why its unanimous resolution 1441 did not require that the inspectors locate what is being described as a "smoking gun".

Although the anti-war party has now (unilaterally, as it were) decided that such a smoking gun is the sine qua non of justification for war, it is never absolutely clear what would count as being one. An oven-ready, fully armed nuclear missile? A cache of loaded chemical weapons warheads (rather than the unloaded ones that were found)?

No, what 1441 demanded - quite realistically - was that Saddam account for the weapons of mass destruction that he was known to have had when he threw out the weapons inspectors last time round. He says he has disposed of his stores of anthrax, as well as the chemical agents that were left over when he had finished gassing the Kurds.

If so, it is really rather important that we know how, when and where they were discarded. We cannot be expected simply to take Saddam's word for it. Surely such a major disarmament operation was documented and monitored, if only for internal security reasons (and Saddam is no slouch on internal security).

The UN needed to see the proof - or at least some vestige of Iraq's own record-keeping on this project. As Hans Blix made devastatingly clear in his report, Iraq has produced no evidence whatever of this kind.

This is not a case, as some in the anti-war party maintain, of Saddam being forced to prove a negative (that he has no weapons of mass destruction), which would be logically impossible. It is a demand that he explain how and where he destroyed or dismantled the hideous armoury that he once demonstrably possessed.

This is a straightforward proposition that should have been credible and easily understood by everyone from the outset. Unfortunately, Tony Blair failed to make any use of it at all during the long period of phoney war between himself and his own party.

As a result, the anti-war lobby was allowed to run amok, making ever wilder anti-American claims, stating its opinions as if they were facts and generally establishing an absurd set of evidential requirements (a smoking gun) that the UN itself had never requested.

Only now is the Government bothering to explain why the Blix report is so supportive of the Anglo-American case. As Jack Straw made clear - more or less - on yesterday's Today programme, Saddam's failure to co-operate in offering evidence of disarmament is in itself a breach of the UN resolution.

The "smoking gun" was always a chimera - invented and promoted with quite spectacular success by the Left-liberal axis whose opposition to this war has been framed in the most visceral anti-American terms.

In the vacuum left by Mr Blair's refusal to engage in proper argument about the need to remove Saddam, systematic falsehoods have gone unchallenged. The most damaging is the Left-liberal credo that America is going to war only because it is determined to "get its hands on" Iraqi oil supplies.

America does not need Iraqi oil. The country that has the most immediate vested interest in that oil is Russia, which has $43 billion worth of oil contracts with Saddam. (That sum, by the way, is about half the annual GDP of a small southern state in America, but it is a major coup for the emerging Russian capitalist economy.)

There is, however, a legitimate sense in which the Bush Administration is concerned about Saddam's oil supplies. The American economy - and hence the economy of the world, and particularly the fate of the poorer nations - is dependent on stable oil prices. For one of the major oil-producing countries to be controlled by a volatile, homicidal tyrant, who sets oil fields alight when he is provoked, is probably not a good idea.

So yes, to that extent, this is a war "about oil". But is also about removing a regime that is guilty of genocide, that has made use of chemical weapons banned for generations by international conventions and that has, through its sponsorship of Palestinian suicide bombing, made any peaceful settlement in the Middle East virtually impossible.

This is where I find the case of the more rabid anti-war (which is to say, anti-American) party not only dishonest, but also deeply hypocritical. There are those who argue not only against going to war to remove Saddam, but also that economic sanctions against his regime should be lifted.

Shall we try to imagine what these voices of the liberal conscience would have said if the white South African authorities had used chemical weapons against the black population in Soweto? Would they have been arguing for British inaction and a lifting of economic sanctions against Pretoria?

There is always a lot to be said for not going to war, even against an evil dictator, when your own country does not appear to be under immediate threat. But if the main argument against the war is primarily self-interest, then the anti-war lobby should drop its claim to the moral high ground.

Is it worth risking British lives to bring freedom to Iraq, and to help instal rational government in the most dangerous area of the world? That is the question that the Left needs to answer.


The Right Wingers were, as usual, 100% wrong.

''Surely such a major disarmament operation was documented and monitored, if only for internal security reasons (and Saddam is no slouch on internal security).''

No, it wasn't and there was no evidence before the war that this should have happened and after the war no evidence of the existence of such documents has been obtained.


Saddam didn't have any WMD and Iraqis are now far worse of than before the war.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru