Political Crossfire Forums

[Nanaka1679]

YE! Gam sah hap nee da :tu:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEOUL: South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon reaffirmed Seoul's commitment to dispatching thousands of troops to Iraq despite growing dissent from a newly elected parliament.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/82193/1/.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Janis]

Since your last post, I hear now S. Korea will not be sending troops, and we have decided to pull our units from there to go to Iraq. Have you heard anything about this. I hear all kinds of stuff on Cable, but never seems to get any coverage. Like the finding of Sarin. Regarding the UN, didn't they just appoint Sudan to the Human Rights Commission and our US rep walked out in the middle of the meeting? Has anyone else heard any of this stuff? Why is there no coverage regarding what's going on around the world? We keep hearing about the same thing, over and over.

It's crazy!

[Demothenes]

Bad idea, bad idea bad idea badideabadidea!

What's this pull troops out of S. Korea!? :shock:

Surely someone remembers that N. Korea has been proven to have WMD! Why would we stop defending their mortal enemy? Bush has made good war decisions and bad war decision, but this is definitely a BAD IDEA! I was surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, yet said almost nothing about its infinitely more powerful neighbor, but now I see why. He didn't want to leak too much about our decreasing involvement in S. Korea, and our reassignment to N. Korea. Of course talking of it here is the same thing as leaking it, but that is moot. I'm sure it's plenty of other places.

[Janis]

Demothenese wrote: Bad idea, bad idea bad idea badideabadidea!

What's this pull troops out of S. Korea!? :shock:

Surely someone remembers that N. Korea has been proven to have WMD! Why would we stop defending their mortal enemy? Bush has made good war decisions and bad war decision, but this is definitely a BAD IDEA! I was surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, yet said almost nothing about its infinitely more powerful neighbor, but now I see why. He didn't want to leak too much about our decreasing involvement in S. Korea, and our reassignment to N. Korea. Of course talking of it here is the same thing as leaking it, but that is moot. I'm sure it's plenty of other places.

Surprised by Bush taking Iraq? As a person who actually voted for Gore, I would have been surprised if he didn't!

The policy for regime change came in the Clinton Admin. The warnings about Saddam were nothing new. The fact he used WMDs and continued to deceive the world community as to what he did with them was reason enough. The question is not whether he had WMD's, it's where are they now. This debate should be about what actually happened to them, not if he had them!

After Afghanistan, not going after Saddam would have been irresponsible. The one thing everyone is forgetting is that Libya is now cooperating and is being very open. Saddam not only had 12 years of resolutions, but a last chance with 1441, and we gave him another LAST chance when we offered him exile. He choose his own fate. All this debate about a known mass murderer, who used WMD's on people is almost beyond comprehension.

About N Korea, that is being taken very seriously. It is a totally different situation which is being handled with as much diplomacy as possible. Bush can't even get credit for that! China is critical. I said I wasn't sure about the pulling out of troops. Even if they are it's not like having a big number of troops there is going to help if N Korea opens up with nukes! I'm sure we won't abandon S Korea. You just can't make sweeping judgements sitting here in your living room.

[Demothenes]

No, no, no. I said I was suprised that he attacked Iraq without covering certain bases regarding N. Korea.

True, about your last statement. I just read it and was shocked. Anyway, I meant we shouldn't pull troops out of Iraq, not that I was expecting it. I don't think our government is that stupid. Sorry for the misunderstanding and my quick assumptions.

[Janis]

Demothenese wrote: No, no, no. I said I was suprised that he attacked Iraq without covering certain bases regarding N. Korea.

True, about your last statement. I just read it and was shocked. Anyway, I meant we shouldn't pull troops out of Iraq, not that I was expecting it. I don't think our government is that stupid. Sorry for the misunderstanding and my quick assumptions.

OK! I did go off didn't I. Anyway, the Korean problem is so big! We know Bush is working hard to convince China (who supports the tyrannt) how important it is to stablize N Korea. Then you look at Taiwan crisis and wonder, is China ever going to get it. Too bad after the Cold War was won, God bless Ronald Reagan, China wasn't transformed.

It's a tough situation. All these foreign leaders are saying all these wonderful things about Reagan. He believed people should be free to practice democracy. They applaud him for his fight to make all Europe free from tyranny, yet they can't apply the same thing to the Mideast? Like the Mideast doesn't deserve the chance at living in a fee society. Terrorism is the enemy today. More terrorists are being born everyday. What else is the free world to do? Seems to me the crisis we're in today affects everyone in the free world. What will it take for them to understand this? How many more attacks will there be? It is amazing

[Brit123]

Demothenese wrote: All these foreign leaders are saying all these wonderful things about Reagan. He believed people should be free to practice democracy. They applaud him for his fight to make all Europe free from tyranny, yet they can't apply the same thing to the Mideast? Like the Mideast doesn't deserve the chance at living in a fee society. Terrorism is the enemy today. More terrorists are being born everyday. What else is the free world to do? Seems to me the crisis we're in today affects everyone in the free world. What will it take for them to understand this? How many more attacks will there be? It is amazing


"Freeing" the mid-east via direct military action which may have been illegal is very different to the cold war....Perhaps we will create more terrorists by actions such as these. 10,000+ dead civillians in Iraq- we dont see that on our TVs but u bet the Arabs do on Al-Jazeera. The prison scandal may have been bad, but the war reporing + current reporting in the arab media isnt much better.

We all want to join together to stop terrorism, we just have different perceptions of how to deal with it. Perhaps actions such as invading Iraq play into people like Bin Laden's hands, breeding hate and setting up the "clash of civilisations" he wants to engineer.

The speed at which we rushed to war was worrying, and the post war planning could well have done with the extra time spent on it! Perhaps in 8 years or so Iraq will be a shining example of tolerance and democracy- i hope so.

I'm undecided on the war, but i jus thought id bounce some ideas off you...

[Janis]

Subject: Support for Iraq

The war was a result of more than one thing. Yes, he used WMD's and didn't cooperate in disarming, or PROVING he got rid of them. We went to the world community and got 1441, then the French wanted even more time. At this point, any delay would have given Saddam more time to either hide them or move them. When France asked for even more time, you had to have known they weren't serious at all about disarming Saddam. At this point we even offered him exile! He still was defiant. After Afghanistan was taken down, how much sense would it have made to continue the "no-fly" zone? Even if our intelligence didn't show the precise location of the weapons, we had more than enough evidence from the world community.

With all you know now about the Oil for food program, how could you be at all surprised by certain countries opposition? We know about the terrorist training camp in northern Iraq, (which had ties to Al-Queda). It was allowed to operate. We know this because the head guy, Al-Zaqawi, (the guy in the Nick Berg beheading);
was given medical attention in Baghdad) thanks to Saddam. This is fact. I suppose the assassination plot against an American President by Saddam doesn't mean anything, the fact the Saddam financed homicide bombers, all do not matter? We can't have it both ways, we can't say if you aid or harbor terrorists, nothing will happen to you. Iraq was a thorn in the side of the entire Mideast for too long.

It is hypocritical of anyone to think that Europe should be free and democratic, and the Mideast can't. It is elitist to think Europes freedoms were more important, that "that" part of the world. Do you really think that given a choice they would choose a sadistic dictator? Please!

After WWII, and the end of the Cold War. You all are thankful for being free, but this logic can't be applied to Muslims in the Mideast? I think that is the most critical part of the world that needs to be given a chance. The only way to stem the tide of new terrorists being born everyday, is to give them hope for opportunity for their children. A chance to add to the good of the world community, not be enslaved by the doctrines of other countries. Containment was the worlds biggest failures. Those people were trapped because the "world community" felt they could "live" with it. Oh, Saddam's in his box, as we flew overhead to contain him (being shot at all the time, by the way);
the Iraqi people were made to endure his tortures.. How is that right? If you think about it, giving freedom to the Mideast is our only option. Give them a reason to step up and join the rest of the world. We all should be supporting that! Iraqis want and need it!

Also, my cousin in Iraq watches Al Jazeera, and I've heard from him that they do report the pain that the terrorists inflict on their own people. The bombing in Kirkuk market were civilians were killed was not blamed on the Americans. Don't believe every thing you hear from what ever sources you have. It's not all bad, and they are happy we liberated them.

[Brit123]

1441 did not have the trigger phrase "all necessary means" as a euphemism for military action....The legality is really very questionable....and the initial occupation illegal until the new UN resolution came through.

Saddam's WMD capacity was tolerated and aided by US finaincial backing during the Iran-Iraq war....Ill admit the "oil for palaces" scheme made french and russian motives questionable but have a look at this newsweek article:

Http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/16/How_Saddam_Happened.htm

Quote: After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC);
and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. .. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds....
The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.


The precarious situation in Afghanistan was created by the CIA funding of the warlords against the soviets - who were there to fight the Islamic fundamentalism the USA went on to fight.

The USA's past ham-fisted meddling caught up with them and now they're having to sort these problems out....What makes us think their current actions will be regarded as any better 20 years down the line?

I find any link between saddam and terrorists very suspect. The Ba'ath party is secular, and ideologically oppposed to fanatacism. Hence he oppressed religion to maintain his rule. Saddam had minimal control over his people in the far North and south of Iraq (the Kurdish north virtually automonous). Saddam never financed suicide bombers as far as i am aware. I would be very interested if you could give me a reputable source for these claims. In the EU we find it amazing that the administration draws links between saddam and terrorism -that havent been proven, and gets away with it. indeed the US administration never cites specific links, but merely mentions terrorism and Iraq in the same sentence to perpetuate this myth. (next time u hear a statement on the war on terror listn...its very subtle, but they will never say directly there are links)

In 1991 the CIA actively encouraged the Shia population in the south to mount an uprising after the first gulf war. The USA said that if the Shia started an uprising, the USA would intervene and help them topple Saddam. Quite possibly 50,000 were killed, according to Human Rights Watch. We stood back, having spurred them on and then allowed them to be slaughtered. We werent interested in democracy for them.

The Sanctions imposed upon Iraq killed hundreds of thousands by conservative estimates.

The USA probably has more links to terrorism than Saddam! Look to the instances we know about from the cold war - the Contra scandal, and the illegal mining of Nicaragua's Ports. The USA's "School of the Americas" trains people how to torture and kill political opponents and miaintain a repressive rule (LOOK THEM UP- I PROMISE YOU'LL BE SHOCKED, i only read about them a month or so back after a teacher of mine mentioned them...a hangover from the support of right-wing totalitarian regimes in S America during the cold war to supress communism.)

The USA has a long and bloody history of meddling in foreign politics, and that includes sponsoring terrorism.

Our freedoms were won via revolutions, and thus by our desire and popular support for democracy....the Iraqis are glad to be free of Saddam but whether democracy will work is another matter.

Also, i'm sure that Al-Jazeera cover the situation in Iraq very thoroughly..including the current terrorist outrages. I'm not saying Al-Jazeera is slanted and blames the Americans for all atrocities, merely that their war coverage (including civillian deaths) is much more graphic, and less sanatised than our own western media...which can be very bad PR for us in the west.

Anyway my point really is the US have a long history of not being the crusaders for justice, liberty and democracy they like to think they are. And such a turnaround in the US attitute to Iraq in the space of 20-odd years comes across as hipocritical and insincere.

I'm genuinely not anti-american, but its vital in a democracy to be informed - its your duty as a citizen to have counter-arguments in front of you and to weigh them up against what you are told by the govt.

(i know its abit of a long post btw - soz)

[Brit123]

hi, i know this is turning into a rant but theres 1 more thing...its a post i made somewhere else i thought was relevant. Links to terror and all that....this just goes to show that you can make links anywhere...and can show you why the brits got so upset about the IRA. they targeted civillians in northern ireland, and the UK mainland...

Quote: Er, the UK had about 3000 deaths from 1968 onward till the end of troubles with Northern Ireland.....no single event like 9/11 though, granted....

-And wasn't it nice of the USA to fund them via "Charities" and allow the proceeds to be sent across the atlantic? The administration refused to freeze funds...
-Wasnt it nice to invite the IRA for tea and biscuits at the white house to grab irish-american votes?
-Wasn't it good of the USA to HARBOUR TERRORISTS by not to allowing terrorists convicted in British courts of terrorism and the killing of british civillians to be extradited back to the UK? - "the court system in the UK wouldnt be fair" - apparently said the creators of Guantanamo bay


Nice to see the British Govt bending over backwards to do everything demanded of them by the USA - including extradition without a requirement for evidence.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

and now maybe you understand what the british aren;t as pro-american as people end to think.

I have 3 cousins in the pacific NW (seattle) and go there like evey year. I like america, i like the people. ive bin to LA, San francisco, florida, & portland.....but the current administration is scary, and there is a lack of understanding of the european point of view in the US - thats all. I dont want people to agree, just to see where we're comming from

[Janis]

Brit123 wrote: hi, i know this is turning into a rant but theres 1 more thing...its a post i made somewhere else i thought was relevant. Links to terror and all that....this just goes to show that you can make links anywhere...and can show you why the brits got so upset about the IRA. they targeted civillians in northern ireland, and the UK mainland...

Quote: Er, the UK had about 3000 deaths from 1968 onward till the end of troubles with Northern Ireland.....no single event like 9/11 though, granted....

-And wasn't it nice of the USA to fund them via "Charities" and allow the proceeds to be sent across the atlantic? The administration refused to freeze funds...
-Wasnt it nice to invite the IRA for tea and biscuits at the white house to grab irish-american votes?
-Wasn't it good of the USA to HARBOUR TERRORISTS by not to allowing terrorists convicted in British courts of terrorism and the killing of british civillians to be extradited back to the UK? - "the court system in the UK wouldnt be fair" - apparently said the creators of Guantanamo bay


Nice to see the British Govt bending over backwards to do everything demanded of them by the USA - including extradition without a requirement for evidence.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

and now maybe you understand what the british aren;t as pro-american as people end to think.

I have 3 cousins in the pacific NW (seattle) and go there like evey year. I like america, i like the people. ive bin to LA, San francisco, florida, & portland.....but the current administration is scary, and there is a lack of understanding of the european point of view in the US - thats all. I dont want people to agree, just to see where we're comming from

You may have disagreed with policies of the past. In the world we lived, the lines were thin between the "lesser" of two evils policy. This was not how the US acted, it was the way the entire world acted. To say America is the only country that lived like that is wrong. It was not always successful and sometimes questionable. The silence on the part of Europe is deafening regarding thier dealings.

But the rules you love to say your countries abide by is the laughable part. You over there, seem to do a whole lot of condemning. When will you all begin to condemn the actions of terrorists as much. The idea that America is the great evil is extremely ignorant for you holier than thou critics. You really should look at the real evil that is embedded inside your own societies.

If you look at Bushs' policy, no more supporting terror states which support terrorism, it is plainly clear. The sanctions were imposed because of the great leader. It is Saddam that is responsible for any atrocities caused to Iraqis. Saddam was highly praised by Palestinians for his support to the martyrs families. This is not a secret!

Bush scary? Your not really paying attention. Giving Saddam a pass, and condemning America liberating a country, is very scarry!