• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Iraq Updates

expat

TRIBE Member
gimmee a break! I'm tired of people exonerating tyrants and murderers with the lame excuse: "but America supplied me with weapons". The US does a ton of fucked up shit to a ton of countries, but if there was some causation, then there would be a lot more Saddam Husseins around the world. Saddam fucked up his own country, looted the state of billions, killed his own people. So some foreign powers like the US and France once propped him up --get over it! Bottom line: if you're Iraqi then you should be happy that Saddam is gone. That's it that's all.
For us here in comfortable Canada we can talk about WMDs and various bullshit American justifications, but if we lose sight of the fact that the lives of the Iraqi PEOPLE have potentially improved exponentially in the past 3 months then we're looking at the trees not the forest.
I think that 2003 should be remembered as the year left-wing liberal humanitarians let their hatred of the US stand in the way of their principles, i.e. not supporting action to remove a murderous dictator.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
hahaa you're STILL an idiot!

This isn't even about right or left. It's about not falling for what a lying administration has told you.

So the Iraqi people should just be totally happy huh? Thousands of them are dead, their country is polluted with radioactive depleted uranium, they're living under American occupation who don't care about anything but the oil there, their buildings are destroyed, their treasures are looted because of the chaos the Americans caused, AND they still have no idea who's going to run their country and if it will be a democratically elected leader or a US-installed puppet. And you say they should be grateful.

Maybe if they're lucky the US will install someone like Batista, hmmm?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by beatnik
gimmee a break! I'm tired of people exonerating tyrants and murderers with the lame excuse: "but America supplied me with weapons".
Exonerate:

2. To relieve, in a moral sense, as of a charge, obligation,
or load of blame resting on one; to clear of something
that lies upon oppresses one, as an accusation or
imputation; as, to exonerate one's self from blame, or
from the charge of avarice.

How did anyone exonerate Saddam? Myself and others are simply pointing out that the only positive outcome for the Iraqi people is the ousting of Saddam's regime, which it appears, you essentially agree with. I cannot think of any other positive effects this invasion has caused; we should not feel grateful to the United States for doing this, though, given their true intentions, which can hardly be debated at this point.

So perhaps you and I don't really disagree...the fact that some Iraqis are "happy" that Saddam is gone (perhaps a majority of them, especially the Shiite groups) does not imply that they should feel grateful to the Americans. Besides, in the context of the past 100 years, I wouldn't put Saddam at the top of my "evil" list...

The real problem is, why are we so afraid to look in the mirror?

Violence begets violence. To point out the obvious hypocrisy of our actions is the necessary first step.


if you're Iraqi then you should be happy that Saddam is gone. That's it that's all.


Agreed. :)


For us here in comfortable Canada we can talk about WMDs and various bullshit American justifications, but if we lose sight of the fact that the lives of the Iraqi PEOPLE have potentially improved exponentially in the past 3 months then we're looking at the trees not the forest.


Wrong. This is essentially saying the ends justify the means. The "ends" in this case being a "potentially improved standard of living for the Iraqi people" and the means being the "mass bombing, occupation and regime installment" by the United States. What's funny is that the ends in this case aren't necessarily guaranteed!

My personal opinion is that we need to "talk about WMDs and various bullshit" as you put it to improve/change American foreign policy.


I think that 2003 should be remembered as the year left-wing liberal humanitarians let their hatred of the US stand in the way of their principles, i.e. not supporting action to remove a murderous dictator.
My principles don't include "not supporting action to remove a murderous dictator" if either a) it is not apparent that the dictator is currently committing crimes that require intervention according to international law or b) it is not apparent that the dictator is posing a clear and present (immediate) military threat to another country such that appropriate self-defense is required.

And I would NEVER choose conflict/war as my first choice, which the U.S. clearly did. The U.S. solution to controlling Iraq was to impose murderous sanctions on the people and drop bombs on a daily basis.

...I mean, really, the White House is still trying to figure out why their own president decided to go to "war", after the war actually happened. *lol*
 

expat

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
hahaa you're STILL an idiot!

This isn't even about right or left. It's about not falling for what a lying administration has told you.

So the Iraqi people should just be totally happy huh? Thousands of them are dead, their country is polluted with radioactive depleted uranium, they're living under American occupation who don't care about anything but the oil there, their buildings are destroyed, their treasures are looted because of the chaos the Americans caused, AND they still have no idea who's going to run their country and if it will be a democratically elected leader or a US-installed puppet. And you say they should be grateful.

Maybe if they're lucky the US will install someone like Batista, hmmm?

Hilarious. You just don't get it.
So the Iraqis, who now do not have to live under the repressive, tyrannical and murderous Husseins, should be angry because Bush misled the American people regarding the existence of WMDs? whatever man!

And yeah, Iraq is currently fucked up --gasp! shock! First of all, as fucked as it is I bet it isn't a fraction as crappy as one day under Saddam (or at the very least the Saddam of the 1980s and 90s) and second of all, there is now realistic hope for the future, more than could have been asked for under Saddam, who would have pillaged his country until one of his brilliant sons took over.
~atp~ seems to have understood my point so I know I wasn't unclear. Again, put as simply as possible without using finger puppets: Saddam is gone. this is good. life in iraq is better than it was. America is responsible for this.
For me, that's where the discussion begins. If you can't admit this much then your hatred for America is clouding your judgment.
But yeah, I'm still and idiot. :rolleyes:
 

JAR

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by beatnik
life in iraq is better than it was. America is responsible for this.
how do you know this? have you recently visited Iraq? have you recently spoken to someone living in Baghdad? just curious.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by beatnik
So the Iraqis, who now do not have to live under the repressive, tyrannical and murderous Husseins, should be angry because Bush misled the American people regarding the existence of WMDs?
Yes, they should be angry, but not because Bush misled the American people...but because Bush went to war on his own, without international approval, killed thousands of civilians, has only just recently lifted murderous sanctions, completely lacks any sort of plan to reconstruct Iraq, has prioritized the protection of oil resources over the basic human needs of the people, has installed an American-led regime to oversee operations in post-war Iraq with no serious efforts to address the public voice and refuses, still, to accept any responsibility for the harm that the U.S. has caused over the past 10 or so years.


And yeah, Iraq is currently fucked up --gasp! shock! First of all, as fucked as it is I bet it isn't a fraction as crappy as one day under Saddam
Not according to recent reports I've been hearing...but that's debatable, and really irrelevant. ;)


there is now realistic hope for the future, more than could have been asked for under Saddam, who would have pillaged his country until one of his brilliant sons took over.
Ok, so if we ignore all the past fuckups and consider from "this point forward", I would say that, at best, the future is "uncertain"; we have seen, time and again, U.S.-led installments of regimes in other countries that have been nothing but brutal and murderous.


life in iraq is better than it was. America is responsible for this.
No, it isn't better yet. It might be, nevertheless it's "uncertain". America is responsible for this, yes, but nothing good has come of "this" except that Saddam is gone. That is it. It means nothing as to the future of the Iraqi people. They shouldn't be grateful to the U.S. Infrastructure is in tatters, it's unlikely the Iraqi people will see any benefits from the commercial and industrial activity that American corporations already have a strangle-hold on and there is, as of yet, no existing democratic government in power.
 

expat

TRIBE Member
Yeah, so life in Iraq didn't become perfect overnight, and yeah, there is an uncertain period of transition. And yeah, Cheney and Rumsfeld have oil money to gain by this invasion.
Like I said, I think that most Iraqis prefer July 2003 over February 2003. In this case, some good came out of American foreign policy (however unintentional). And btw, from a utilitarian point of view, this war probably saved lives in terms of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who will not be tortured, raped and killed by Saddam in the future.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
1. speculation.

2. you still haven't revealed your sources of the Iraqis you've spoken to that are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy happier.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

expat

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
1. speculation.

2. you still haven't revealed your sources of the Iraqis you've spoken to that are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy happier.

1. I said I was making an educated guess, based on what I perceive life under a brutal, Stalin-inspired dictator to be like. Since when is it off-side to speculate? :rolleyes:

2. Maybe I should go troll some geocities and angelfire sites to give me some message-board cred.
 

JAR

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by beatnik
And btw, from a utilitarian point of view, this war probably saved lives in terms of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who will not be tortured, raped and killed by Saddam in the future.
Rights group urges help for rape victims in Iraq



CAIRO, Egypt—U.S. troops must do more for rape victims who are being turned away by Iraqi police and hospitals, a human rights group said yesterday.

And Iraq's reconstruction should include reform of sex crime laws, Human Rights Watch said in a report.

Until Iraqi police can do the job themselves, U.S.-led coalition forces should establish a unit of men and women trained to investigate sex crimes and sex trafficking, the New York-based group said.

Human Rights Watch said crimes against women have increased along with other crime since Saddam Hussein was ousted in early April, adding the problem could in part be traced to a regime whose laws fostered attitudes that women could invite sexual assault.

Those involved in reconstruction should counter any "trends toward treating women and girls unequally before the law and discouraging women and girls from reporting sexual violence, or punishing women and girls for being the victims of crimes of sexual violence," the report said.

The report was based on interviews in May and June in Baghdad with four victims of sexual violence and abduction, as well as with dozens of Iraqi police officers, U.S. military police officers and hospital and other officials.

Human Rights Watch noted that rape and abduction were serious crimes in Iraq. But it said the penal code under Saddam allowed a man to escape punishment for abduction by marrying the victim and set light or reduced sentences for so-called honour killings — the murder of women accused by relatives of besmirching family honour by being raped.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
It's worth mentionning that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had arguably the best infrastructure (ie: plumbing, electricity, education, etc...) out of any Arab nation - and now it's all destroyed, to be rebuilt (conveniently) by American companies led by Bush's close pals.

I'd say that the Iraqi's are only marginally better off now than they were before the invasion, if at all. They still don't have a country to call their own, even if that was one of the reasons for the invasion, and they could have accomplished the same thing through less bloody means.

Pete
 

wyrm

TRIBE Member
It's just that easy to dismantle a repressive state security apparatus? No blood, no war? Golly.

Too bad about them gasses and nukular weapons though.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
It's worth mentionning that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had arguably the best infrastructure (ie: plumbing, electricity, education, etc...) out of any Arab nation - and now it's all destroyed, to be rebuilt (conveniently) by American companies led by Bush's close pals.
Actually, it was really only pre-1990/91 that Iraq was a desirable place to live--Iraq actually saw a large influx of workers and immigrants from some of the poorer Arab countries for about 10 years, but the growth slowed down to a halt in 1990 due to the expense of the Iran/Iraq war in which Hussein prioritized weapons research and military funding over infrastructure, education, etc. Check out some of the history on Iraq. :)


I'd say that the Iraqi's are only marginally better off now than they were before the invasion, if at all. They still don't have a country to call their own, even if that was one of the reasons for the invasion, and they could have accomplished the same thing through less bloody means.

Pete
Yep precisely, and who knows if they really are better off? Kurds were being discriminated against even before Hussein become V.P. and the Shia population has always been poor, even though they are the majority. A U.S.-led reconstruction will only serve U.S. interests and with Saddam gone, perhaps Iraq will move toward fundamentalism, thus driving a deeper rift between American and Arab culture which would only help prove Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations".

Saddam has been labelled as "evil" by the media, and rightfully so, but he is no more glaringly monsterous than someone like Suharto. Suharto murdered hundreds of thousands and nearly ethnically cleansed an entire (albeit small) country of Timor. OK, so Saddam used CW and Suharto didn't; maybe if we hadn't supported Hussein in the first place, he wouldn't have gotten his hands on all those weapons. Reagan personally called the Italian PM in the 80's in order to channel helicopters and other weapons into Iraq to support Saddam while he committed these attrocities. We supported Suharto during his terrible killings, too.

We only denounce Saddam now because he stopped behaving. Atrocities aren't "recognized" when the government committing the attrocities is still behaving properly--in fact, they're often rewarded if it means the furtherance of American "interest".
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
It's worth mentionning that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had arguably the best infrastructure (ie: plumbing, electricity, education, etc...) out of any Arab nation - and now it's all destroyed, to be rebuilt (conveniently) by American companies led by Bush's close pals.

I'd say that the Iraqi's are only marginally better off now than they were before the invasion, if at all. They still don't have a country to call their own, even if that was one of the reasons for the invasion, and they could have accomplished the same thing through less bloody means.

Pete
Less bloody!!! This has been the least bloody occupation in history!!! the first war cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the actual war and ten years of stupidity afterwards. So far we're still under 10,000 and there is an actual effect this time!!

Saying that Iraq was the best of its neighbors forgoes the fact that it was built on massively borrowed money and thus the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the first place. This country has been at war since the 70's under Saddam, the most peaceful period in there recent history was under the decade long embargo. Compared to the stupidity of the embargo this is about a mile better. And saying there best then there neighbors requires a little context, beatings are common, stone throwing is a state sanction punishment!!!!

Is there a chance that Iraq will rebuilt in bushes vision - HELL NO!!!!!

Is there a chance that there will be a decade long occupation like what Russia was stuck in Afghanistan - HELL YES!!!!

Is it possible to actually win a war against gorilla forces without having to resort to slaughter - NOPE NOT REALLY


The beauty of this war is that the USA has done exactly what Bush Senior was trying to do, they have put themselves in a situation that has no possible end game. They may be able to secure oil and a pipeline but only for a short period of time but only until the next band blows it up again. They have the eyes of the world on them embedded media that hates them and they have no possible way to look good. If there has been anything that will screw the USA as bad as Vietnam this is it. The best thing the USA could do is run away and let the chaos occur and they can't go for that option without it costing them huge.

This is great news, if your against imperialism and the USA cheer on this occupation!!!
 

wyrm

TRIBE Member
Not that we shouldn't criticize, but the 'Evil Empire' has afforded us security and prosperity for quite some time now.

Human life is cheap outside of the first world. I'm glad there are young men and women who are willing to die to support my quality of life.
Someone has to be on top. Given the options....

Or we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by wyrm
Not that we shouldn't criticize, but the 'Evil Empire' has afforded us security and prosperity for quite some time now.
Sure, and the mafia affords great protection too - from themselves.

Most of the threats that we are "secure" from are threats that were created by U.S. foreign policy in the first place. Look at the last few enemies that the U.S. has fought and it's no surprise that they were once allies of the U.S., given full support to commit heinous acts because they were on "our" side.

* Taliban - the U.S. helped get them into power.

* Al Queda - Trained and supplied by the U.S./CIA during the battles against Communist Russia.

* Saddam Hussein - received full U.S. support during the Iran/Iraq war (in which he used chemical & biological weapons) and was fully supported again when he was gassing the Kurds.

* The Shah in Iran - once again... the CIA deposed a democratically elected leader to install a puppet dictator


Infact, I can't think of any serious threats to world security that weren't at one time supported by the U.S.
Let's face it, they act in their own interest and that's as far as it goes. It doesn't matter if you're a murderous dictator, as long as you fall into line with U.S. policy then they don't give a damn. But as soon as you start acting contrary to their policy, then you become the villain.

Pete
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic

Infact, I can't think of any serious threats to world security that weren't at one time supported by the U.S.
Let's face it, they act in their own interest and that's as far as it goes. It doesn't matter if you're a murderous dictator, as long as you fall into line with U.S. policy then they don't give a damn. But as soon as you start acting contrary to their policy, then you become the villain.

Pete
Many of them collapsed after the Soviet Union went down and were no longer supported. Truth be known there is barely a government on the face of the planet that doesn't recieve something from the USA. There is hardly a place on earth where the USA isn't asked for money or for military equipment.

There is hardly a conflict on the face of the planet that doesn't relate back to France, England or the USA by simple default. To suggest that there is or ever was a crystal ball in any of these countries that would spell out all the consuequences of an action is ridiculous. Often your forced to work with what you have and what you know and regularly this isn't perfect.

For all the support of the USA in Iraq, why no american tanks? why no american planes? why no american side arms? why no american rifles? why no american radar installations? why no american tankers? Patrol Boats? ships of any kind in the Iraqi army. Why because Russia and France in there infinate wisdom armed a despot to the teeth.

There are no American Weapons in China and they're guilty of tibet. There are no american weapons in Uganda, The Congo, Zimbabwee yet there is strfie in each of these places. Its easy to blame the USA but when Nigeria is the source of the money and the troupes are domestic with russian made guns one has to point the finger elsewhere.

You can't blame the British government of today for the acts of an empire that died 50 years ago. You can't very well place the blame of Russia today for the actions of the communist era government and political system. France is not the same country government or empire it was in 1930, but the USA is still there so its far easier to fault them even though they have no ability to undo the past either.

So lets look at a few other problem spots


Chenya = Russia
Algeria = Russia
ANGOLA
BURUNDI
CONGO-Brazzaville
ERITREA
ETHIOPIA
NAMIBIA - NIGER
NIGERIA
RWANDA - (okay this one is a little tough but they're still invovled in the congo and they're still under a UN banner right now)
SENEGAL
SIERRA LEONE - (I don't believe the truce for one second)
SOMALIA - (Mainly russian arms and equipment but the Italians deserve some creidt here as well!!)
UGANDA

INDONESIA : ACEH
INDONESIA: EAST TIMOR
INDONESIA: IRIAN JAYA
INDONESIA: MOLUCCAS

LEBANON - Holding by a thread!!
ISRAEL
CYPRUS



And I haven't even touched the former russian states or the fact that we still have 2000 soldier in Bosnia trying to keep peace. We blame the USA because they're guilty of many of the worst acts, but everything they touched in South America is still brighter than what the Russians have left for us. And everything they touched in Asia is still a shining star compared to the actions of the Dutch and the French.

I don't like the evil empire much either, but compared to the stupidy caused over tribal bullshit in Africa they're still a bunch of angels and the vast majority of them are still fighting using russian weapons.



So lets look at the death counts how about

COUNTRY !Start! 1999-2000 ! Cumulative

Congo, DR !1998-!200,000!100,100
EthiopiaEritrea !1991-!50,000 !100,000
Angola !1991-!20,000 !500,00
Serbia !1998-!18,000 !18,000
Russian Fed !1999-!13,000 !40,000
Sudan !1983-!10,000 !2,000,000
Afghanistan !1978-!10,000 !1,500,000
Colombia !1964-!8,000 !50,000-250,000
Siera Leone !1991-!7,000 !50,000-600,000
Sri Lanka !1983-!5,000 !61,000-75,000
India-Pakistan !1989-!3,000 !30,000-70,000
Algeria !1990-!2,000 !100,000-200,000
Indonesia !1975-!2,000 !2,000
Congo-B !1993-!2,000 !15,000
Guinea-Bissau !1998-!2,000 !2,000
Indonesia !1999-!2,000 !4,000
Daghestan !1999-!1,500 !1,500
Congo, DR !1999-!1,200 !1,200
Bunundi !1993-!1,000 !201,000-250,000
Turkey !1983-!1,000 !40,000
Pakistan !1986-!1,000 !5,000
Iraq !1987-!1,000 !100,000-250,000
Iraq !1989-!1,000 !1,000-2,000
Iraq !1991-!1,000 !30,000-100,000
Pakistan !1985-!1,000 !1,000
Nigeria !1997-!1,000 !1,000




Its time we hold the assholes repsonsible for killing one another. But they're just about all Africans living in Africa.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Many of them collapsed after the Soviet Union went down and were no longer supported. Truth be known there is barely a government on the face of the planet that doesn't recieve something from the USA. There is hardly a place on earth where the USA isn't asked for money or for military equipment.

There is hardly a conflict on the face of the planet that doesn't relate back to France, England or the USA by simple default.
I agree with this Ditto, a lot of the controversy over foreign policy developed from the Cold War and the ideological wars that battled over "democracy" and "communism". Unfortunately, those wars were really based on irrational fears (both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had such fears) and unfortunately, both sides used violence to conquer the countries between them.

The problem, though, is that violence begets violence, and I firmly believe that the United States is only proliferating hatred, violence and fear because it is still too afraid to look at its own policy, and come to grips with the hypocrisy of its own actions. This is not unique to the U.S., but it is predominant because they are THE global superpower.

I disagree with your asinine comparison of death counts in Africa -- first, Africa is super-densely populated and the ethnic divisions are also very high so inevitably there will be war and high death tolls. Second, Europe and the United States are the cause of the majority of the warring countries in Africa; besides, if the U.S. had "humanity" at the top of their foreign policy priority list, they'd have intervened (peacefully) years ago.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~

I disagree with your asinine comparison of death counts in Africa -- first, Africa is super-densely populated and the ethnic divisions are also very high so inevitably there will be war and high death tolls. Second, Europe and the United States are the cause of the majority of the warring countries in Africa; besides, if the U.S. had "humanity" at the top of their foreign policy priority list, they'd have intervened (peacefully) years ago.
No the USA is not the cause of the conflict in Africa nor are the Europeans. They are conflicts born out of history and faught by sorrupt generals over power struggles. The USA is not to blame for Sao Tome, its a conflict over oil revenues and investment with Nigeria. The only portion of Ethopia and Eritrea that is american is the food aid that was sent there more than a decade ago.

The Congo has nothing to do with the USA and really its pretty limited in its direct involvement with Europe regardless of history. Its been caused by 6 neighboring countires fighting over diamonds and greed. The USA didn't cause the current circumstance in the Sudan, the USA isn't guilty of whats happening in Liberia.

Sick fucks who realize that killing 30,000 people that are starving anyway in a war in hopes of winning something rather than them just dying in the desert are to blame.

The VAST majority of these wars are being faught with russian made weapons on both sides. Many of them supplied from China, Pakistan and North Korea and a good number from Russia.
 

Sporty Dan

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
It's worth mentionning that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had arguably the best infrastructure (ie: plumbing, electricity, education, etc...) out of any Arab nation - and now it's all destroyed, to be rebuilt (conveniently) by American companies led by Bush's close pals.

Well, education aside.....if Iraq had the best electricity & plumbing in the Arab world, then I feel sorry for the rest of them.

first, their water system is tied in with their electricity system. no power = no water.

with regards to their power system: Electricity to Baghdad comes from a hydroelectric station north of the city. THAT station can;t operate without power from a natural gas plant in Mosul. And THAT station can;t operate without power from another station in Kirkuk. Evidentally the concept of a power grid has eluded them.



dan.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top