• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

An Open Letter to Dubyah from Michael Moore

Magnolia Fan

TRIBE Member
the UN backed out with the urging of the US. but yes, the whole world fucked that one up.

I'm not going to say I've really studied it, but from what I have read, there were UN peacekeepers and dutch soldiers who were there during the masacre, who just stood by and watched. They weren't allowed to engage because it was "tribal warfare" or something. I don't know either way if the US had anything to do with that, but I really don't think they had negative effects, they just didn't try to do anything positive, because there was no interest there.


actually the starvation and death is being caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with a UN resolution and extending the sanctions placed on it by the UN. when medicine and food are offered by international entities, they are either refused or taken and not distributed (in other words used by and for the people in power).

i've yet to see any actual proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Again, I'm not claiming to be fully informed on this, but the US made it illegal to take food into the country, they also target power stations (so fridge's wouldn't work to keep food). Alot of the starvation was because of UN sanctions, yes, but if you do something, and notice that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dying, you have to change your policy. Right?



when a small child kills 300,000 people then we'll talk.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about 9-11, I was talking about this war on Iraq now. Its not a war. A war is a fight, its two sided, this is not. Despite what the media tells us about the great force Iraq has.


so........ we should allow a leader that acts in this manner to stay in power because he hasn't dropped a nuke yet? (and it's nuclear, not nucular.)
I know how to spell... I was trying to be funny. As for the other point, I guess thats really the issue isn't it. What justifies a war? for me, nothing.


he's a hero? :confused:
thats how the press made him out to be. Thats what his popularity ratings seemed to show. He was such a great leader after that incident.


we love war. all of us. because we're not really human, you see, we're American. and that means we're born with an innate sense to kill. we have an undying bloodlust. all of us.
just today i kicked an old homeless lady as i was walking down the street to my high paying job exploiting underage factory workers.
this weekend i plan on clubbing baby seals.
haha... I'm laughing


yes, i suppose all the families of the people Saddam has killed don't mind at all.
that doesn't mean they're going to come after the US does it? My point was that if the US doesn't cause harm, they won't be targeted by angry people. Your point didn't counter mine.


not a bad idea. what would the solutions to proposed world problems be?
hello? it was in the quote you had! redirected military spending. its actually pretty simple. Military spending effects employment, causes inflation, creates deficits, affects positive productivity, and most of doesn't help any of the unmet social needs.

an example of the latter, one half of 1% of one year's world military budget would purchase enough farm equipment to permit the world's low income countries to reach food sufficiency within a decade (according to the Brandt Commission on North/South Issues).

in 1987, a UN conference on the relationship between military spending and economic development was attended by 128 countries, but wonder of wonders, was boycotted by the US who claimed that disarmament and development are separate issues.


no, they just executed the guys responsible. see, we knew who they were and we knew where to find them. i'm all for a sniper putting a bulet to the back of Saddam's head (and his son's too).
yes


since when has the US had acheivement in solving any world issues? when we get involved we're told we're trying to spread capitalism and westernize the world. when we stay out we're isolationist and self serving greedy bastards.
I hope you don't feel that way... it'd be pretty sad.
 

simple10

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Magnolia Fan
I'm not going to say I've really studied it, but from what I have read, there were UN peacekeepers and dutch soldiers who were there during the masacre, who just stood by and watched. They weren't allowed to engage because it was "tribal warfare" or something. I don't know either way if the US had anything to do with that, but I really don't think they had negative effects, they just didn't try to do anything positive, because there was no interest there.


In candid, on-the-record interviews U.S. officials detail how the U.S. held many inter-agency meetings and struggled with a response to the slaughter. In the end, the Clinton administration hesitated to act because of the so-called Somalia Syndrome; a few months earlier a U.N./U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia ended with the deaths of 18 U.S. Rangers. The Clinton administration didn't want to be dragged into another African quagmire.
from this site: PBS on Rwandaa


i've yet to see any actual proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Again, I'm not claiming to be fully informed on this, but the US made it illegal to take food into the country, they also target power stations (so fridge's wouldn't work to keep food). Alot of the starvation was because of UN sanctions, yes, but if you do something, and notice that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dying, you have to change your policy. Right?

that is completely and utterly wrong. (i'm not addressing WMD as that had nothing to do with what i was talking about.) resolution 661 was upheld by the UN and many nations of the world because Iraq was not in compliance with the UN's demands.

UN Resolutions on Iraq


I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about 9-11, I was talking about this war on Iraq now. Its not a war. A war is a fight, its two sided, this is not. Despite what the media tells us about the great force Iraq has.

9/11 had nothing to do with what i was talking about. i was talking about the genocide of Kurds and Shiites by the Iraqi regime, hence why he shouldn't be in power.



I know how to spell... I was trying to be funny. As for the other point, I guess thats really the issue isn't it. What justifies a war? for me, nothing.

nothing justifies a war for you? nothing? Hilter exterminating the Jews wasn't reason enough to go to war, for example? i'm not a big fan of war, but i do think there are some times it is justified. however, i don't think this should be acheived by bombing. ground war, hand to hand (so to speak) combat. many more troops will die, but i'd rather the volunteers in a war die than civilians.

thats how the press made him out to be. Thats what his popularity ratings seemed to show. He was such a great leader after that incident.

you may want to take another look at the statistics. people are supportive of a quick war because they realize he was going in regardless and they want their men and women back home quickly. there aren't many Americans that supported a unilateral invasion.


hello? it was in the quote you had! redirected military spending. its actually pretty simple. Military spending effects employment, causes inflation, creates deficits, affects positive productivity, and most of doesn't help any of the unmet social needs.

i completely agree that the US should spend less on military and more on humnitarian aid. military spending does not cause such a horrible economic crisis as you think. factories, steel mills, weapons factories, are now in business again and hiring. but this still will not solve the "world's issues" as you call them because there are diplomatic issues that money will never resolve.

I hope you don't feel that way... it'd be pretty sad.
feel what way? the US has done a lot of good in the world. we just need to know when to step back. but it also seems that as soon as someone has an issue they call on the US to help out. the US gov't has been trying to keep peace in some regions while causing severe instablilty in others (South America for example). it seems a no-win situation in so many ways.
 
Top