This is the Freedom we bring to Iraq

There are many none violent oppositions to the Iraq 'invasion' .. If i shared the belief that we are there to dominate and the foreign policys of our goverments had caused the things you highlight.. i would support the none violent elements.. These tend to be the groups that do not wish to 'take over the country' but come to a diplomatic solution to the many issues that none of are blind too [however we may interprete those issues].

 

i do believe this though, we may just have to agree to disagree,
i disagree strongly with the recent wars of the US administration and its allies, of course some good will come of the invasion of Iraw, but we must never assume that is the reason for going in the first place, most states o only do things because they will benefit personally from it, and I believe that is the reason for the Iraq war but I also believe that the war will backfire on them

 

It depends on your feelings about 'war' in general i guess. I think we will have to disagree.. When i finish my 3 inch second edition book on ''International relations: post cold war''.. i might have a few better answers to explain why i have the feeling of this situation i do.. i just can't put it into words..


I am jokeing about the book..just words fail me sometimes..

 

okay, i am pretty much a pacifist idealist kinda guy i guess, which i know can come across as been very naive, especially if you do not agree. BUt you live you learn, i am learning much everyday studying International Relations (i was suddenly interested when you mentioned that book title, I probably have it somewhere) about the subject and will be the first to admit if I was wrong but this is my current stance on the Iraq war.
peace and love

 

I live and learn also.. I did study a bit of IR..thats why i don't discount the notion we do it for ourselves..but on the other hand think it is not always such a selfish act.. You don't tend to negotiate 'climate change' with china if you just wish to take advantage of there growth.. same as you don't just oust a dictator ultimately for oil.. everything plays a part..before this post get way too long..

This is my current stance on the Iraq war...Peace and a bit of love ..

 

Maybe you label them terrorists and kill them?

 

saddam worked for the yanks in the original gulf war against iran
then after stock piling various chemical and biological weapons and also using them. they attacked kuwait when they started affecting the oil price by exceeding oil production quotas.

the iraqi's got america on the line before hand and asked the yanks what they thought about them attacking the kuwaitis - the reply being "we have no opinion". i remember an inch long article in the newspaper casually announcing that there were 100/150, 000 troops massed on kuwaits border.
iraq attacked and put thousands of saddams enemies in uniform as conscripts and marched them off into the sands of kuwait where they were wiped out by the massed aerial bombing (of b52's as i remember it, though i may be wrong) of the us and uk. not long before it was debated in their parliament that the us scale back its weapons spending - then the war spang up and this was all forgotten

for ten years iraq was more or less bombed everyday, in the end targets became lonely goat herders on the hills. the us didn't complete its first invasion because iraq had heaps of debts to pay off to uk/us banks, they realised that chaos would ensue so they pulled back and squeezed iraq slowly, milking the country for oil and bombing its citizens indiscriminately.

with the second invasion of iraq came a second round of rich contracts for weapons producers. chaos ensued. the first priority was getting to the ministry responsible for oil production hence museums housing priceless artefacts were left to the wrack and ruin of the mob that took over the cities. armies and their governors rarely have any respect for history this is why they destroy its artefacts and usually repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum. the banks were happy because they had at least got something back from saddam. of course down on the ground it was payback time for 10 years of bombing.

i would say the overall plan for the middle east is one of destabilisation

 

Weapon of Mass Destruction - Weapon with devastating effect and an inability to distinguish between civilian and military targets (does this sound like economic sanctions to anyone else).

 

ina

White phosporus is not listed in the shedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for “Military purposes … not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare”(4). But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”(5).
White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org, “The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. ... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.”(6) As it oxidises, it produces a smoke composed of phosphorous pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke “releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces. ... Contact with substance can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.”(7)
Until last week, the US State Department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells “very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.”(8) Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. “We have learned that some of the information we were provided … is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to … Field Artillery magazine, ‘as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ….’ The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.”(9) The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
(my bold)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/15/war-without-rules/

 

I think the US is spending money on civilian construction projects it would be very stupid if it wasn’t.

But I think that when the dust clears the money spend on military projects will be seen to be were most of the budget went.

The neo-con’s main reason for invading and occupying Iraq was what they saw as the strategic advantage it would give to the US. They planed a series of bases along the Iraq borders so they could threaten Iran and Syria and keep an eye on Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

I have heard that the planned number of ‘enduring bases’ has been reduced but I will bet the budget of just one will dwarfs the amount for everything Matthew lists. Although it is possible we will never know, as these bases seem to be under raps at the moment and possibly for the foreseeable future.

 

I am a conservative, not a Republican, but a Libertarian. I did not vote for Bush, I voted for Badnarik as well.

A conservative is one who supports limited small government and building up the military...

Bush may be in support of building up the military, but, in NO WAY is he in support of limited small government.

Skip, maybe you should look up the definition of a conservative.

Oh, fuck it, I did it for you:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

The U.S. traditional views and values was small government and protecting our country from outsiders.

 

Conservatives believe in more economic reuglation. Libertarians are comparable to anarcho-capitalist. Libertarians are socially quite libreal, but on economics are not very progressive.

 

Republicans ARE in favor of small governments, that is correct, da420. Small governements that say "Do this and that, or live in a box."

Unfortunately for you, libertarians are in favor of LARGE governments; they are in favor of governments that regulate a LARGE number of issues in SMALL increments...

Labeling libertarians as Repbulicans is as about as redundant as saying the sky is green! The two are opposing parties, no matter what "bi-partisan, grey-market" campaigning you're trying to push on middle-wing followers.

Simply-put, your circular logic will no longer prod your anti-Republican sheep into a nice, neat herd for an Illuminatous culling. We will no longer stand idly by while your ideals of democracy-enforced fascism blatantly spit in the face of true bipartisan-ship, or even miniscule, political, treacherous free-thinking.

Let me ask you; what is your solid politcal platform for Bush's current actions, how do you define it, and why are you so resistant to the discussion of neutral acitivism?

 

Libertarianism is a right wing philosophy but I’m not sure it can be called conservative at this time. Conservatism is about keeping the status quo which in societies based on wealth usually means the wealthy are conservatives, as they want to remain wealthy.

However Libertarians do think that government, not money, is the root of all evil and so would take power away from government and give it to those with the most amount of money.

This wealthy conservative elite would then be de facto conservative but claim to be libertarian.

 

I couldn't do that, I have a survival instinct But one thing I like to say when people comment on the evil of the US is the US, despite what you feel, gives us the rights to say and do what we feel (within limit) including hating our leaders as well as being a pacifist. Of course, what people don't think about is - what has given us the right to be pacifists if we want? That's right, the military... its a vicious circle, but that's how it is. The military gives us the ability to not have to fight and protect our rights to those beliefs.